Final answer:
In Gerstein v. Pugh (1975), the Supreme Court did not redefine probable cause but emphasized that a judicial determination of probable cause is required for extended detention after an arrest. This decision upholds the principles of the Fourth Amendment, which mandates that no warrants shall issue except on probable cause, ensuring protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the landmark case of Gerstein v. Pugh (1975), probable cause was not explicitly redefined; instead, the case affirmed the need for a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite for extended restraint of liberty following an arrest. This decision reinforced the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and mandates that no warrants shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. In Gerstein v. Pugh, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires a timely judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to detention after an arrest by a warrantless search.
The definition of probable cause itself originates from the text of the Fourth Amendment, indicating a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place, or that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime. This has been further elaborated in cases such as Terry v. Ohio and Illinois v. Gates, with the latter establishing the "totality of circumstances" test for determining probable cause. The Gerstein case does not create a new definition but emphasizes the need for a neutral judicial officer to make this determination before any extended detention.