Final answer:
An officer's knowledge of a suspect's criminal history alone does not constitute probable cause. Probable cause requires a reasonable basis for believing that a person is linked to a crime, and it is a standard for search warrants, arrests, and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.
Step-by-step explanation:
An officer's knowledge that a suspect has a criminal record is not probable cause in itself to justify an arrest or a search. Probable cause requires a reasonable basis for believing that a person is linked to a crime. An arrest warrant is typically required for taking a person into custody unless the crime is a felony and the arresting is based on probable cause, or if the police witness a misdemeanor. The standard of reasonable suspicion applies to scenarios where temporary detention for investigation is warranted, as per Terry v. Ohio.
Regarding searches, the police do not need a warrant to search a vehicle if they believe evidence is inside, nor do they need one for searches at international borders. Probable cause is also the standard needed to issue a search warrant, though it is a lower threshold than what's required for a conviction. Critical to this concept are cases like Illinois v. Gates, which established the totality of circumstances test for probable cause, and situations where the exclusionary rule or its exceptions—such as the good faith exception—come into play.
The presumption of innocence remains the central right of the accused, stressing that evidence, not merely a suspect's history or the circumstances of their apprehension, must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in court.