Mere Suspicion

Example

While a police officer is having lunch, he notices that one of the restaurant’s regular customers is wearing an expensive suit. Normally, the customer dresses in baggy clothes. Because a bank robbery recently occurred in the area, the officer suspects that the customer committed it, thinking the customer may have used the money from the robbery to buy the suit. The officer approaches the customer and asks where he was on the night of the robbery. The customer says that he doesn’t remember. The officer asks where he got the suit, and the customer says that he has a new job as a paralegal at a law firm. The officer asks follow-up questions about the robbery, but the customer says that he never heard of it. Although the officer can’t rule out the possibility that the customer committed the crime, he only has mere suspicion of the customer’s guilt, as there isn’t enough evidence to support reasonable suspicion or probable cause. (The courts have held that the clothing one wears is not sufficient by itself to establish reasonable suspicion.) Accordingly, the officer can’t arrest, seize, or search the customer.

Case Examples

• Grand jury subpoenas: The government must have at least mere suspicion to obtain a grand jury subpoena. In United States v. Kafka, No. 06-80148-CR, 2007 WL 2781023, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2007), aff'd, 312 F. App'x 215 (11th Cir. 2009), Kafka, the Defendant, was on probation for bank fraud. One of the conditions for his probation was that he could not take out any new loans or open any new accounts. Id. Kafka argued that the Government did not have mere suspicion and therefore could not get the grand jury subpoena. Id. However, the Court found that the government had more than met its burden to prove mere suspicion, as the Government had already obtained public records of Kafka’s new loans. Id.
• Prisoners: When dealing with prisoner-on-prisoner violence, a guard must have more than a mere suspicion that an inmate will attack another before the guard may take action. See Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986).
• Government seizure: The Government can and will seize assets it believes were the fruits of illegal activity. To seize assets, government officials must show more than mere suspicion. Courts have ruled that “to pass the point of mere suspicion and to reach probable cause, it is necessary to demonstrate by some credible evidence the probability that the money was in fact connected to drugs.” See United States v. $215,300 U.S. Currency, 882 F.2d 417, 419 (9th Cir. 1989). In that case, police officers seized money from an individual at an airport and claimed that the money was profits from transporting drugs from one city to another via air travel. Id. The District Court found that the government officials met their burden to prove that the monies were more likely than not to be the fruits of illegal drug trafficking. Id.