This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Got it!

probable cause

Probable cause is a requirement under the Fourth Amendment that must generally be satisfied before police may make an arrest , conduct a search , or obtain a warrant . Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed (for an arrest ) or that evidence of a crime is present in a specific location (for a search ).

Probable cause requires more than reasonable suspicion , which permits only brief, limited investigative stops and pat-downs when an officer can point to specific, articulable facts suggesting that criminal activity may be occurring. Probable cause, by contrast, demands a higher degree of certainty and a fair probability that evidence or criminal conduct will be found. Under exigent circumstances , probable cause can justify a warrantless search or seizure . A person arrested without a warrant must be promptly brought before a judge or magistrate for a determination of probable cause .

Constitutional Basis

The Fourth Amendment provides that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,” yet does not define the term. The Supreme Court has described probable cause as a flexible, context-dependent concept. In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) , the Court characterized it as a “practical, non-technical” standard based on “factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men act.” Courts often apply a broader interpretation when the alleged offenses are serious.

Application to Arrests

An arrest must be supported by probable cause, whether or not it is made pursuant to a warrant. The determination depends on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the arrest. See United States v. Humphries, 372 F.3d 653 (4th Cir. 2004) . A warrantless arrest lacking probable cause is invalid, and evidence derived from it must be suppressed . See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) . A narrow exception to this exclusionary rule applies when an officer acts in good faith reliance on an erroneous court record indicating that a warrant exists. In such a case, evidence obtained need not be excluded. See Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) . This good-faith exception does not extend to prosecutors , who are considered part of law enforcement rather than court personnel. See People v. Boyer, 305 Ill. App. 3d 374 (1999) .

Application to Search Warrants

Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that a search will uncover evidence of a crime. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 . For warrantless searches, probable cause may be demonstrated through later testimony ; for warrant-based searches, it must be supported by an affidavit or recorded testimony describing the basis for the belief. See Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (1971) . A judge may issue a search warrant when the supporting affidavit contains credible facts establishing probable cause. Affidavits frequently rely on police observations, and officers’ training and experience are relevant in assessing credibility . See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) ; United States v. Mick, 263 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 2001) . Information from victims or witnesses may also be used. See United States v. Schaefer, 87 F.3d 562 (1st Cir. 1996) .

The good-faith exception that applies to arrests also applies to defective warrants – evidence obtained under an invalid warrant may be admissible if officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on it. See United States v. White, 356 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2004) ; United States v. Clark, 638 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2011) .

Probable Cause in the Digital Age

While the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause standard was developed in the context of physical searches and seizures , courts have extended it to digital evidence. In Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) , the Supreme Court held that police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized during an arrest. The Court recognized the heightened privacy interests associated with modern electronic devices. In Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) , the Court held that accessing historical cell-site location information constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant supported by probable cause. The decision limited the government’s ability to obtain digital data based only on “specific and articulable facts” under the Stored Communications Act . Carpenter significantly expanded Fourth Amendment protection to digital records held by third parties .

[Last reviewed in October of 2025 by the Wex Definitions Team
]

Keywords

• Fourth Amendment

• U.S. CONSTITUTION

• constitution

• PRIVACY RIGHTS

• data privacy

Wex

• CIVICS

• the Constitution

• THE LEGAL PROCESS

• criminal procedure

• wex articles

• constitutional law

• criminal law and procedure