<P> The standards of probable cause differ for an arrest and a search . The government has probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime . Probable cause to arrest must exist before the arrest is made . Evidence obtained after the arrest may not apply retroactively to justify the arrest . </P> <P> When police conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant establish probable cause to believe that the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband . They must have legally sufficient reasons to believe a search is necessary . In Carroll v. United States (1925), the Supreme Court stated that probable cause to search is a flexible, common - sense standard . To that end, the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States (1925) that the term probable cause means "less than evidence that would justify condemnation", reiterating Carroll's assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would "warrant a man of reasonable caution" in the belief that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime . It does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false . A "practical, non-technical" probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required . In Illinois v. Gates (1983), the Court ruled that the reliability of an informant is to be determined based on the "totality of the circumstances". </P> <P> If a party gives consent to a search, a warrant is not required . There are exceptions and complications to the rule, including the scope of the consent given, whether the consent is voluntarily given, and whether an individual has the right to consent to a search of another's property . In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), the Court ruled that a consent search is still valid even if the police do not inform a suspect of his right to refuse the search . This contrasts with Fifth Amendment rights, which cannot be relinquished without an explicit Miranda warning from police . </P> <P> The Court stated in United States v. Matlock (1974) that a third party co-occupant could give consent for a search without violating a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights . However, in Georgia v. Randolph (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that when two co-occupants are both present, one consenting and the other rejecting the search of a shared residence, the police may not make a search of that residence within the consent exception to the warrant requirement . Per the Court's ruling in Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990), a consent search is still considered valid if police accept in good faith the consent of an "apparent authority", even if that party is later discovered to not have authority over the property in question . A telling case on this subject is Stoner v. California, in which the Court held that police officers could not rely in good faith upon the apparent authority of a hotel clerk to consent to the search of a guest's room . </P>

Which of the following statements is true of a search within the meaning of the fourth​ amendment