Course: Introduction / Policing / Procedural Law
A mere hunch is an intuitive feeling that a suspect is engaging in criminal activity, but no specific evidence can be articulated.
In the Fourth Amendment context, a mere hunch refers to a situation where law enforcement officers have an intuitive feeling that a suspect is engaging in criminal activity, but they do not have any specific evidence to support that feeling. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that searches and seizures be based on probable cause, which means that there must be specific and articulable facts to support the belief that criminal activity is taking place. With a mere hunch, those articulable facts are absent, making a mere hunch the lowest level in the standards of proof hierarchy.
The use of a mere hunch by law enforcement officers has been the subject of controversy and debate, with some arguing that it can lead to unreasonable searches and seizures and others arguing that it can be a useful tool for law enforcement in certain situations. Many times, what would be considered a search in everyday language is not a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.
The Supreme Court has established certain criteria for the use of a mere hunch by law enforcement officers. In Terry v. Ohio, for example, the Court held that law enforcement officers may conduct a limited search for weapons when they have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is taking place, even if they do not have probable cause. The Court reasoned that the officers needed more than a mere hunch in this situation, but a lesser degree of proof than probable cause was necessary given the need to protect officer safety and prevent dangerous situations from escalating.
However, the Supreme Court has also recognized the importance of specific and articulable facts to support a belief that criminal activity is taking place. In Illinois v. Gates, for example, the Court held that an informant’s tip could be used to establish probable cause for a search if the tip was reliable and corroborated by other facts. The Court emphasized that the use of a mere hunch was not enough to support a search and that there must be specific and articulable facts to support the belief that criminal activity is taking place.
Despite the limitations on the use of a mere hunch by law enforcement officers, there have been instances in which it has been used inappropriately. Critics argue that the use of a mere hunch can lead to racial profiling and other forms of discrimination and that it can infringe upon individual rights and liberties. Supporters of the use of a mere hunch argue that it can be a useful tool for law enforcement in certain situations and that it can help to prevent crime and protect public safety. It is important to remember that officers aren’t different than average citizens when it comes to what they may or may not do. Merely walking around in public, making observations that anyone can see, and talking to people are all acceptable activities for Fourth Amendment purposes.
On This Site
[ Glossary ]
Last Modified: 04/13/2023