Editing Probable cause (section)

===In the United States===
*The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] decision ''[[Illinois v. Gates]]''<ref>''[[Illinois v. Gates]]'', {{ussc|462|213|1983}}.</ref> lowered the threshold of probable cause by ruling that a "substantial chance" or "fair probability" of criminal activity could establish probable cause. A better-than-even chance is not required.
*The decision in ''[[Terry v. Ohio]]''<ref>''[[Terry v. Ohio]]'', {{ussc|392|1|1968}}.</ref> established that "stop and frisks" (seizures) may be made under [[reasonable suspicion]] if the officer believes a crime has been committed, is, or soon will be committed with a weapon concealed on such person.
*In ''[[United States v. Matlock]]'',<ref>''[[United States v. Matlock]]'', {{ussc|415|164|1974}}.</ref> the Court announced the "co-occupant consent rule" which permitted one resident to consent in the co-occupant's absence. The case established that an officer who made a search with a reasonable belief that the search was consented to by a resident did not have to provide a probable cause for the search.
:However, in ''[[Georgia v. Randolph]]'',<ref>''[[Georgia v. Randolph]]'', {{ussc|547|103|2006}}.</ref> the Supreme Court ruled, thus replacing ''Matlock'', when officers are presented with a situation wherein two parties, each having authority to grant consent to search premises they share, but one objects over the other's consent, the officers must adhere to the wishes of the non-consenting party.

*''[[New Jersey v. T. L. O.]]''<ref>''[[New Jersey v. T. L. O.]]'', {{ussc|468|1214|1985}}.</ref> set a special precedent for searches of students at school. The Court ruled that school officials act as state officers when conducting searches, and do not require probable cause to search students' belongings, only reasonable suspicion. However, In [[Safford Unified School District v. Redding]]<ref>Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009)</ref> The court ruled that strip searches of students required probable cause or a search warrant.
*In ''[[O'Connor v. Ortega]]'',<ref>''[[O'Connor v. Ortega]]'', {{ussc|480|709|1987}}.</ref> the Court relied on ''T.L.O.'' to extend the reasonable suspicion standard to administrative searches of public employees' belongings or workplaces when conducted by supervisors seeking evidence of violations of workplace rules rather than criminal offenses.