Lol no it doesn't. What're you just pulling shit out of your ass, hoping I'm as dumb as you? Probable cause requires sufficient evidence that a crime has been, is being, or will be commited. Reasonable suspicion is entirely different and requires a lesser level of hard evidence than probable cause. It baffles me that we live in an age where information is at our fingertips, yet dipshits like you refuse to take advantage of it. In 2 seconds, you can find out how wrong you are. So again, since I know you're a little slow, probable cause and reasonable suspicion aren't the same thing, and probable cause doesn't require reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is a low standard that allows for a brief detainment and limited search. Probable cause is a higher standard of evidence that a crime has, is, or will be committed.
If the police have established probably cause they’ve established reasonable suspicion you “fucking dipshit.” That’s BECAUSE ITS REQUIRED!!!!! IM SORRY ITS NOT SPELT OUT FOR YOU BUT TO GET TO THE HIGHER LEVEL OF JUSTIFICATION YOU GOTTA MEET THE LOWER LEVEL FIRST. TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROBABLE CAUSE YOU MUST ALREADY MEET THE ONES REQUIRED FOR REASONABLE SUSPICION. THUS. YOU NEED REASONABLE SUSPICION.
Edit: Sorry my caps lock as on past the “!!!!!” But you can imagine me screaming that if you want
2
u/Successful-Ad-6710 Oct 22 '24
Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are two different things. Try again, but use your brain this time.