0
What else can I help you with?
What are the burden of proof Probable Cause used?
Probable cause is a legal standard used primarily in criminal law to determine whether law enforcement has sufficient justification to make an arrest, conduct a search, or obtain a warrant. It requires that law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime can be found in a specific location. This standard is higher than mere suspicion but lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for a conviction. The purpose of probable cause is to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
What is the difference between probable clause and reasonable doubt?
In short, probable cause requires the belief of the affiant that more likely than not these are the facts of the situation, whereas, beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher standard of proof which would require a standard that there is no doubt (reasonably) that these are the facts of the situation. Probable cause is used for making an arrest, obtaining warrants, etc... where beyond a reasonable doubt is used during the criminal justice trial by the jury/judge for convictions of the crimes being charged.
The probable cause needed to detain and the probable cause needed to go to trial require the same amount of proof?
No, the amount of proof needed for detention and for going to trial is different. For detention, the probable cause standard is relatively low and requires enough evidence to establish a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. On the other hand, to go to trial, a higher standard of proof, such as beyond a reasonable doubt, is typically required to establish guilt.
Probable cause mean having more evidence against than for true or false?
True. Probable cause refers to a reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances, that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime can be found in a specific location. It implies that the evidence or information available suggests a higher likelihood of guilt than innocence, though it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why is the standard of proof at trial so much higher than the standard of proof necessary for the police to investigate crime?
If the police could only make an arrest with evidence that shows "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", then no one would ever be arrested. Society would be in harm's way because the suspects rights would be prioritised over society. However, if a court were to convict people based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause, there is a high probability that innocent people would be convicted and punished for crimes they did not commit. Their standards of proof are different because they are given different jobs. The same reason medical professionals do not give a band-aid to a gunshot victim, and open surgery to someone with a papercut. These two standards of proof protect, both, society and the defendant. Society does not have the tolerate criminal activity, and the defendant does not have to tolerate unjust punishment.
How are standard of living and GDP related?
Usually, the higher the GDP, the higher the standard of living.
What describes the movement of particles from higher concentration to lower concentration?
You think probable to diffusion.
Is the higher the standard deviation the greater the variation?
Yes. Since the standard deviation is defined as the square root of the variance, it can be said that the higher the standard deviation, the higher the variance.
How does literacy rate affect the standard of living?
The higher the literacy rate, the higher the standard of living
Why is the burden of proof higher in criminal cases?
The burden of proof is higher in criminal cases because the consequences for the accused are more severe, often resulting in loss of freedom or other significant penalties. The legal system requires a higher standard of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, to ensure that the accused is not wrongfully convicted.
What does raising the standard mean?
Higher level of standard
Does a police officer need probable cause to search persons?
NO!A police officer needs reasonable suspicion. That means that they must have articulable facts that when presented in the totality of the circumstances a person would reasonable believe that a crime was or will be committed.Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terrystandard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed atgathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
