From Evidence to Justification: How Causal Attribution Shapes Public Judgments of Police Searches

Abstract

Probable cause, required by the Fourth Amendment, and reasonable suspicion, articulated by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio (1968), are distinct legal standards that authorize different levels of police intrusion. Although these standards differ in legal doctrine, both rely on subjective evaluations of evidentiary sufficiency. Drawing on attribution theory and research on heuristic judgment, this study investigates how evidence type (direct vs. indirect), crime-rate context (high vs. low), and competing legal standards influence public shape evaluations of police searches. A 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment was conducted with 299 U.S. participants. The data were analyzed using a serial mediation model (PROCESS Model 6). The study finds that evidence type was the strongest predictor of search justification, perception of guilt, and likelihood of finding relevant evidence. Crime-rate context also increased support for police searches, whereas legal standards had smaller effects on search justification and perception of guilt. Serial mediation analyses showed significant indirect effects through perception of guilt and the sequential pathway through perception of guilt and likelihood of relevant evidence from the search. These findings suggest that public evaluations of police conduct are shaped by evidentiary and contextual information as well as legal standards, highlighting the role of psychological processes in legal decision-making.