Warrant
Reasonable suspicion is a Fourth Amendment constitutional standard that can be based on multiple factors. Stemming from the 1961 landmark case in Terry v. Ohio, a police officer may only stop, seize or otherwise detain a person if that officer can point to specific and articulable facts that the person seized has, is, or will violate the law. Specific facts don't have to be legal violations themselves and are often only tenuously related to any potential legal violations. Courts often cite time of day, whether the person stopped is in a "high crime area," and whether a person appears nervous as factors supporting reasonable suspicion for a stop. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on a mere hunch of the officer. Generally, an officer's knowledge that someone has a criminal record would not in and of itself rise to reasonable suspicion for a stop. However, in combination with other factors, such as proximity to another crime, or other "suspicious" behavior, criminal record can be relevant in determining whether reasonable suspicion for a stop. Ultimately, any such question will be up to a judge who reviews whether a reasonable police officer under the totality of the circumstances had sufficient facts to believe the person stopped had or was violating the law.
A trooper under the Patriot act can search a car if they have reasonable suspicion something is wrong. They can also search a car for no reason if they have a warrant from a judge.
No judge will (or can) give you permission to perform an illegal act.
NO!
Probable cause requires a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime is present in a specific location. The evidence does not need to meet the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it must be more than mere suspicion or speculation. Typically, law enforcement officers must present facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that a crime is likely occurring or has occurred. The determination of probable cause is often made by a judge or magistrate based on the totality of the circumstances.
The judge applied the reasonable person standard to determine if the defendant's actions were justified in self-defense.
REASONABLE doubt.
When there is a reasonable suspicion that evidence will be destroyed if officers knock and announce their presence. When there is a threat of physical harm to the officers or others if they follow the knock and announce rule. When officers have obtained a "no-knock" warrant from a judge authorizing them to enter a property without announcing their presence.
Yes, if a judge of competent jurisdiction agrees.
Law enforcement officials typically need a search warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause to search someone's property. In some cases, they may conduct a search without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances or if the person consents to the search.
No you can not ask a judge to be with a minor sexually. Nor can the parents give permission. The minor have to have reached the age of consent, being emancipated or married in order to have sex legally. If this is regarding dating and not sex that is up to the parents. I seriously doubt any judge would go against that.
When you sign the ticket you are not saying that you are guilty or innocent, you are promising that you will either show up to court or pay the fine. If you refuse to sign the ticket just about any state will send you to jail. If they have reasonable suspicion that you won't be showing up, the police can send someone to jail until they speak to the judge.