Gerstein V. Pugh Brief

Module 1 Gerstein v. Pugh Brief

Kimberly Long CRJ 551

TITLE AND CITATION:  Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975)

TYPE OF ACTION:  The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear an appeal from the ruling of The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and The Court of Appeals determining the constitutional right of judicial hearings to determine probable cause for pretrial detention.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff Pugh and another individual were arrested in Dade County, Florida and charged with numerous offenses that came from prosecutor’s information. Pugh was denied bail die to the seriousness of his crimes.  Pugh, Henderson, and other individuals arrested filed a class action suit against Dade County officials, including Gerstein indicating they have a constitutional right to a judicial hearing to determine if probable cause existed to arrest them.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

Plaintiff Draper: Plaintiff Draper contends that Agent Marsh did not have probable cause regarding the Fourth Amendment, nor did he have reasonable suspicion to feel that Draper was committing or about to commit a crime.  Therefore, he did not have the legal right to detain him, search him, and made an unlawful arrest.  Draper also contends that the information obtained from the informant, Hereford, was hearsay and since hearsay cannot be used in court, nor can it be used to establish probable cause or reasonable suspicion,  Agent Marsh could not use that information as a bases for a warrantless arrest.

Agent Marsh:  Agent Marsh contends he had 29 years of experience, used informants to obtain information, and that Hereford was a “special employee” that was paid for information.  Hereford had a proven track record of providing reliable and trustworthy information in the past.  Since Hereford gave specific information regarding the Plaintiff’s clothing, bag, and physical attributes (fast walker), in addition to his credibility, he had probable cause and reasonable suspicion to detain, search, and arrest him.

ISSUE: Did the surrounding facts and circumstances give Agent Marsh probable cause in regards to Fourth Amendment to believe that the plaintiff Draper had committed or was committing a crime and can hearsay be used for probable cause?

DECISION: Yes, the courts contend that informant Herefords past reliability of information, his specific description of the plaintiff’s clothing, bag, and date and place of travel gave Agent Marsh probable cause to make a warrantless arrest and not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Yes, hearsay can be used to establish probable cause provided the information is obtained from a reliable source.

REASONING:  As for the probable cause issue the courts looked at Brinegar v. United States and felt that probable cause is not a technical consideration, but one that is based on facts and practical considerations that a “prudent man” would determine in everyday life.  For this case, these facts or practical information was obtained from a reliable and trustworthy informant that had a track record for giving credible information on past cases and a reasonable person would believe that a crime is or has been committed Carroll v. United States. The court ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to achieve what a reasonable officer would do under the given facts. The court stated that the informant was reliable, his description of the defendant and the crime was detailed, and the officers verified the facts before arresting the defendant. The court ruled that this gave the officers the probable cause and the reasonable grounds to arrest the defendant and the evidence was admissible because it was collected incident to a lawful arrest.