Which statement correctly describes probable cause for an arrest versus probable cause for a search warrant, and what sources can support each?

• A. For arrest, probable cause must come from a single informant.
• B. For arrest, probable cause can be based on information from victims, witnesses, and officers' observations; for a search warrant, probable cause must show evidence of a crime is at the location, supported by affidavits.
• C. For arrest, probable cause is not required if the suspect is known to the officer.
• D. For a search warrant, probable cause can be based solely on rumor.

Answer: (B)

Probable cause for arrest comes from what a reasonable person would believe based on the facts available, and it can be built from multiple reliable sources, including what victims or witnesses tell you and what you personally observe. You don’t need a single informant; independent information or a combination of sources can establish enough cause to arrest without a warrant.

Probable cause for a search warrant is a bit more demanding in how it’s shown. You must present facts—typically in a sworn affidavit—that would lead a reasonable person to believe that evidence of a crime is at the specific location to be searched. The information can come from informants, victims, or officers’ observations, but there has to be a credible factual basis and a clear link between the place and the evidence sought. Rumor or mere suspicion isn’t enough.

That makes the described statement correct: arrest can be supported by information from victims, witnesses, and officers’ observations; a search warrant requires evidence at the location, backed by an affidavit.