Improbable Cause

Although a policeman may arrest any one whom he has "reasonable grounds to believe" committed a specific crime, a prosecutor is not supposed to bring charges unless he has "probable cause" to believe that the suspect is guilty. In short, is the evidence gathered by the police probably strong enough to try and convict the defendant?

The question came up with a vengeance in Darien, Conn., last November, after police raided the apartment of Michael Smith, 20, the troubled youth who brought the town a fame of sorts a year ago when he got drunk at a debutante party and accidentally drove his date to her death. That time, Smith was convicted of negligent homicide and reckless driving. This time, using a search warrant, the cops nabbed Smith and his roommate for possession of marijuana, which they said was stashed in his attic, a suitcase and a bureau drawer.

Having dug out the marijuana, which was otherwise invisible, the police also arrested six of Smith's guests--two girls and four boys ranging in age from 16 to 20. All faced the same charges and the same possible rap: one year in prison and a $1,000 fine.

Perhaps the police had reasonable grounds to believe that Smith's guests were equally suspect--but what about the prosecutor? In court last week, after Smith and his roommate pleaded guilty, his guests finally heard Prosecutor Arthur Morin announce, 45 days after their arrest, that he was dropping the case against them. "There were reasonable grounds for arrest," Morin said, "but not sufficient evidence for a primafacie case. None of the stuff was exposed so you could impute knowledge to the defendants."

Defense Lawyer Richard Weinstein exploded: "These people have been exposed to extraordinary destruction of their lives." It was "unconscionable," he said, "to leave them to the tender mercies of the Darien police department and now come into court and say we have no evidence against them."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.