Legal term for "minimum detail required to arrest someone with a crime"

I know there’s a term for this because I’ve seen it mentioned before, but it totally slips my mind now.

Basically, there is a certain amount of specific detail in order to arrest someone for a crime. For instance, if a sheriff is in a restaurant and he overhears a man talking to another patron, “I once killed someone many years ago and buried the body in the woods” he can’t arrest the man on the spot because the 5 Was and an H are missing - who, what, when, why, which and how.

Unless I misunderstood, and he can arrest the guy, but the DA can’t charge him with murder? Or a jury can’t convict?

Title has a typo: “arrest someone FOR a crime”
Anyway, I am searching for the particular legal term/principle.

Probable cause?

probable cause

It was some name other than “probable cause.”

But that helps too.

You might be thinking of reasonable suspicion, although that’s the standard for detention (not arrest).

If this is what OP is looking for, then the phrase might be “reasonable articulable suspicion” or RAS. ETA: This is the standard for making detentions but not arrest nor searches. It is the standard for making “Terry Stops”.

Fair probability? Reasonable grounds? Substantial chance? Totality of the circumstances? These are legal terms that are used but their purpose is to determine whether the standard of probably cause has been met.

I’m not sure that there is one particular legal term. If I am understanding the OP correctly, he’s not referring to a standard such as “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion”. He seems to be referring to either (or some combination of ) the requirement that charges must give the defendant adequate notice of what he is being accused of and the particular facts alleged , or the fact that someone cannot be convicted based solely on their uncorroborated admission - a principle that does have a name, corpus delicti which does not refer to a literal body, just proof that a crime has been committed.

These issues may not specifically apply to an arrest- but there’s no point in making an arrest if the prosecutor will decline prosecution.

Ah, yes, this! Corpus delicti.

Corpus delicti exists but I don’t think it means what you think. It basically means that there is evidence that a crime has occurred. By itself, it is obviously not sufficient grounds for arresting somebody.

It’s sometimes called “founded suspicion”, too.

It’s not enough by itself - but it’s necessary. If all you have is evidence that a crime occurred, you don’t know who to arrest , but if someone admits they killed someone and buried them in the woods/a field/their front yard or dissolved their body with lye years ago , you don’t even know that a crime was committed without something more than the admission.

I understand that. But the fact that it’s not enough by itself means it is not the minimum detail required to arrest someone for a crime. Which is what the OP asked for.