THE APPLICATION OF THE PROBABLE CAUSE ARREST REQUIREMENT OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS EXAMINED IN RELATION TO CASE EXAMPLES WHERE THE LEGALITY OF CUSTODIAL QUESTIONING ON LESS THAN PROBABLE CAUSE COULD BE JUSTIFIABLE. IN 1971, THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE CASE OF WYMAN VS. JAMES, WHICH ESTABLISHED AN AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT THAT PROBABLE CAUSE IS NOT DEFINITIVE IN ALL INSTANCES OF STATE INTRUSION ON INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES. CRITERIA FOR REASONABLE INVESTIGATION WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE ARE DISCUSSED. ALTHOUGH THE SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATIVE ARREST HAS BEEN APPROACHED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, THERE IS A NECESSITY TO ESTABLISH NORMATIVE GUIDELINES. A STATUTORY PROPOSAL IS PRESENTED IN SONSE TO THIS NEED. THE STATUTE REQUIRES POLICE OFICERS TO PINPONT SPECIFIC AND ARTICULABLE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY INTRUSION ON PERSONAL LIBERTIES AND PROHIBITS OFFICERS FROM BRINGING A SUSPECT TO THE STATION FOR AN INVESTIGATION WHERE THIS COULD BE DONE AT THE STOP-AND-FRISK STAGE. THE MAGISTRATE'S HEARING WOULD BE THE CONTROL MECHANISM TO PREVENT POLICE HARASSMENT, AND IT SHOULD OCCUR UPON THE SUSPECT'S ARRIVAL AT THE STATION HOUSE AND PRIOR TO ANY INVESTIGATORY ACTIVITY THERE. THE STATUTE SHOULD HAVE A SANCTION TO ENCOURAGE COMPLIANCE, AND A STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MONEY DAMAGES IS RECOMMENDED. (DAG)