Discuss the below:
1 Based on the fact pattern, I believe that the officer had probable cause to obtain an arrest warrant. The description from the cashier was very accurate with the person of interest. When shown a picture of the suspect, she verified that it was him. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion usually correlate with each other. "The term "reasonable suspicion" is not of constitutional derivation but was fashioned by the court to describe a level of suspicion lower than probable cause." (Rutledge, 2011). There was a reasonable suspicion to question the suspect when the police officer noticed the Liberty University sticker on the car. The probable cause comes to play when after the officer asked for identification, he matched the same description as the security footage as well as the cashiers statement. That gives the police enough information to arrest the suspect for the robbery of the convenience store. All of these events come from the "fact pattern". "A "chain of facts" or a "sequence of facts" tends to imply a component of time...patterns imply probability, but not certainty." (Bode, 2012). Though it was just a check when the officer approached the suspect, the officer used a fact pattern when he saw his liberty university sticker. That is what led to the reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
2 Based upon the scenario's evidence provided, the officer didn't produce sufficient probable cause. "Probable cause, refers to facts or apparent facts that are reliable and generate a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed." - (Hendrix, 2013, p. 149). As noted in the synopsis, "...displayed a Liberty University student parking sticker. The officer stopped the vehicle...", the referenced parking sticker is circumstantial evidence. "Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. To reach a conclusion, the tier-of-fact would have to reason through the circumstantial evidence and infer the existence of some fact in dispute." - (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 345). If the alleged offender's profile was referenced as the probable cause for making a traffic stop and not alluding to the circular reasoning of the parking pass, the stop may have been legitimate. As the parking pass is referent of most if not all Liberty University students, the parameters are too broad. If, however, a driver matching the description ("white male approximately 21 years old"), coupled with Liberty University attire ("baseball cap and t-shirt") is stopped solely with these described materials, the traffic stop is affirmed. Basing a stop on a parking pass alone, is tantamount to saying all Liberty University students and faculty holding a parking pass must be stopped for further inquiry.