Criminal Proceedings -- Probable Cause The Law information site provided by Cornell University defines probable cause as the requirement that is found in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that "…must usually be met before police make an arrest" or conduct a search or get a warrant from a judge (www.law.cornell.edu). Most courts find probably cause a justifiable reason to issue a warrant when there is "…a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed" (www.law.cornell.edu). Moreover, when shown evidence that there is probable cause to believe an arrest should be made -- or a search warrant should be issued -- a judge will in most cases accept the "probably cause" component that is used by law enforcement to fight crime and terrorism.

Probable Cause

The Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate in March, 2011, that if the U.S. Government had to show "probable cause" in order to intercept the digital communications of American citizens that would "severely inhibit" future investigations (Strohm, 2011). Writing in the National Journal Daily, Strohm explains that organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other privacy groups linked to the Internet are at odds with the government's policy of snooping on emails -- and asking companies like Verizon and AT&T to turn over phone records and other digital transmissions.

Several groups want to ensure that there is a good reason before the FBI and other government...

In other words, there should be "probable cause" that an individual has broken a law or is cooperating with terrorist organizations before the government seizes his or her phone records.
"Specifically," Strohm writes, the coalition (including Microsoft, Google, eBay, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others) that is protesting the government's policies wants the government to "…show there is probable cause that a crime is being committed" prior to taking action by surreptitiously seizing phone records (Strohm, p. 1). The way the government does this is by "compelling companies to turn over electronic records," but the group opposed to this behavior insists that the federal officials need to be certain that wrongdoing has occurred before arbitrarily demanding that communication companies to turn over private phone records.

The FBI's position is that in order to prevent "terrorist attacks" it needs access to phone records; it would be "tremendously problematic in our capability of undertaking and successfully undertaking investigations," he told the committee (Strohm, p. 1). But the coalition opposed to having personal phone records turned over to the FBI and other authorities assert that the law -- the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- is nothing but "…a patchwork of confusing standards and that requiring probably cause" prior to the collection of phone records would be basically equal to "…the protections…