• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Probable Cause

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

chevy372

Member
What is the name of your state? California.

Senior Judge, you said an Officer developes PC, builds PC, everything BUT that an officer of the executive branch (did you get that yet SJ) determines what is and is not PC. All you have to do to feel better is first admit your wrong and the rest will come naturally. :cool:
 


CdwJava

Senior Member
chevy372 said:
What is the name of your state? California.

Senior Judge, you said an Officer developes PC, builds PC, everything BUT that an officer of the executive branch (did you get that yet SJ) determines what is and is not PC. All you have to do to feel better is first admit your wrong and the rest will come naturally. :cool:
Probable cause is a byproduct of the officer's observations and information at the time of the determination.

As stated in CPOLS (published by the California Attorney General):

Whether "probable cause" exists depends upon the reasonable conclusions that can be "drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest." (Alford (2004) 125 S.Ct. 588, 593; Pringle (2003) 540 U.S. 366, 371.) "Probable cause" exists when the totality of the circumstances would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person to be arrested is guilty of a crime. (Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 410; Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1037; Charles C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 420, 423.)

Further, the standard is an objective one that does not concern itself with the officer's underlying motives:

As in other areas of Fourth Amendment law, when courts assess whether or not the information you had amounted to probable cause to arrest, they will use an objective standard "without regard to the underlying intent or motivation of the officers involved." (Gonzales (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1185, 1190; accord, Devenpeck v. Alford (2004) 125 S.Ct. 588, 593-594; Boissard (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 972, 980; Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 924-928; Valencia (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 906, 914-918.)

You can see that the court's role in evaluating probable cause is one of assessing the officer's observations and determination of probable cause. The courts, in essence, provide a "check and balance" for the officer's determination of probable cause.

And, more:

Probable cause does not require certain, positive information, or even enough to convict someone. Rather, "[t]he standard of probable cause to arrest is the probability of criminal activity, not a prima facie showing." (Charles C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 420, 423, quoting from Lewis (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 599, 608.) This means that it is something less than a preponderance (51%) of the evidence! (Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 235.)

There is much more case law, but this sampling should be sufficient to illustrate that the police DO develop probable cause, and the court's role is to assess and confirm - or, reject - that probable cause.

- Carl
 

chevy372

Member
CdwJava said:
Probable cause is a byproduct of the officer's observations
Again you don't admit your mistake.....by product of ..... Only a Judge or Grand Jury can determine probable cause. You can cite all the cases you want that talk about probable cause and as usual you are off point. All those case clearly show the judge determining PC. (Not even a good try SJ)

CdwJava said:
Whether "probable cause" exists depends upon the reasonable conclusions that can be "drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest." .... Whom are you citing here? Oh yeah an Appellet Judge or panel of Judges telling a Trial Court Judge looking at a set of facts (usually regarding what Cop was thinking or seeing) that the TRIAL COURT JUDGE REVIEW TO SEE IF 'TRIAL JUDGE' MADE VALID determination OF PC

I sure am glad your a cop and not a judge. No wonder so many of you guys get your butt in a sling, your really lame.
 

The Occultist

Senior Member
What is the point of even bringing this up Chevy? The judge and jury is never present at the scene of a crime, so it's up to the officer to originally determine whether or not there is PC. PC has nothing to do with whether or not the person is guilty, but rather serves to cover the cop's ass if he's wrong. Granted, judge and jury do have the final say in whether or not it was PC, but the cop gets to make the decision first. Senior Judge and CdwJava aren't really wrong, but you are stupid.
 

JETX

Senior Member
chevy372 said:
Again you don't admit your mistake.....by product of ..... Only a Judge or Grand Jury can determine probable cause.
Not true. You are confused about what an officer believes probable cause, sufficient to proceed with his/her investigation and process versus whether a court will agree with the officers assessment and belief and come to the same conclusion.

You can cite all the cases you want that talk about probable cause and as usual you are off point. All those case clearly show the judge determining PC.
Sorry, but you have clearly been on too many drug-induced 'vacations' to know what REAL 'probable cause' is...... and its application.

I sure am glad your a cop and not a judge. No wonder so many of you guys get your butt in a sling, your really lame.
And I am sorry that you are full of crap... and not smart enough to remove yourself from the gene pool before you spread more little idiots on the world. :D
 
S

seniorjudge

Guest
chevy372 said:
What is the name of your state? California.

Senior Judge, you said an Officer developes PC, builds PC, everything BUT that an officer of the executive branch (did you get that yet SJ) determines what is and is not PC. All you have to do to feel better is first admit your wrong and the rest will come naturally. :cool:
Cite your legal authority for these statements.
 

chevy372

Member
seniorjudge said:
Cite your legal authority for these statements.

Respondent McLaughlin brought a class action seeking injunctive and de- claratory relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that petitioner County of Riverside (County) violated the holding of Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, by failing to provide "prompt" JUDICIAL (you do understand what judicial means don't you?) DETERMINATIONS OF PROBABLE CAUSE to persons who, like himself, were arrested without a warrant. The County combines such determinations with arraignment procedures which, under County policy, must be conducted within two days of ar- rest, excluding weekends and holidays. The County moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that McLaughlin lacked standing to bring the suit because the time for providing him a "prompt" probable cause deter- mination had already passed and he had failed to show, as required by Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, that he would again be subject to the allegedly unconstitutional conduct. The District Court never explic- itly ruled on the motion to dismiss, but accepted for filing a second amended complaint -- the operative pleading here -- which named re- spondents James, Simon, and Hyde as additional individual plaintiffs and class representatives, and alleged that each of them had been arrested without a warrant, had not received a prompt probable cause hearing, and was still in custody.
You need more?
Aguilar v. Texas 378 US 108
Spinelli v. United States 393 US 410

Just let me know. Now where is your authority (if any you have) that a cop makes a determination of probable cause???????
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
chevy372 said:
Whether "probable cause" exists depends upon the reasonable conclusions that can be "drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest." Whom are you citing here?
I am citing: (Alford (2004) 125 S.Ct. 588, 593; Pringle (2003) 540 U.S. 366, 371.).

And, again, an officer's training and experience ARE relevant to the determination of probable cause (Guajardo (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1742; Gonzales (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1185; Rosales (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 759; Hayes (9th Cir. 2001) 236 F.3d 891, 894.)

The court's determination of probable cause within 48 hours is the arraignment. The facts outlining probable cause are presented to the court. The court determines whether the facts are sufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest of the subject. But while the court determines if the facts are sufficient, it is the officer that develops the probable cause - not the court. The court has final review - as it does with ALL parts of the Criminal Justice process. In fact there is EXTENSIVE case law in the area of probable cause being established on the basis of the officer's training and experience.

Do both the court and the officer play a part? Of course! The court must review the facts articulated by the police to justify the arrest. The court then signs off on - or rejects - the probable cause. One cannot exist without the other. The court cannot create the probable cause as their function is only to determine if the probable cause presented is sufficient. It is the officer that develops and presnts the cause to the court.

Does a court have final say? Sure they do. Nobody here has said they don't. But they (the courts) do not establish probable cause - they affirm or reject it.

- Carl
 

chevy372

Member
The Occultist said:
Granted, judge and jury do have the final say in whether or not it was PC,... Senior Judge and CdwJava aren't really wrong, but you are stupid.
This is the most assnine statement you could have made. You say that the Judge and a GRAND JURY are the only ones who determine PC. Then like a girl you say the opposite, with a twist that "aren't really wrong, but you are stupid." You look like a moron, you sound like a moron, guess you must be a moron. Thanks for the confirmation. Had you read the earlier posts, ("who really cares") you would have seen that the idiot SJ had stated that the Police are part of the Judicial Branch of government. Good thing you put disclaimers on these posts, cause you guys would have to plead guilty to stupidity with a prior.
 

chevy372

Member
CdwJava said:
I am citing: (Alford (2004) 125 S.Ct. 588, 593; Pringle (2003) 540 U.S. 366, 371.).

And, again, an officer's training and experience ARE relevant to the determination of probable cause
Well that sure made your point.....the officer's T& E are RELEVANT....doesn't say the officer makes that determination. Does it? I am sure glad you are just do nothing complainer's you have never been to a court of law or you would know better.

CdwJava said:
The COURT'S determination of probable cause The COURT DETERMINES whether the facts are sufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest of the subject.
How many times are you going to show how retarded you are. This is all I said from the beginning.....the court not a cop DETERMINES PC. Please don't come to a battle of wits UNARMED.

CdwJava said:
it is the officer that develops the probable cause
You know there is an old saying that says "you should keep your mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot, rather than open it and erase all doubt. Yes Officers can observe what they THINK is probable cause, they can act and what they THINK is probable.....but they CANNOT DETERMINE probable cause. I see why they say a little bit of knowledge is dangerous......you both are living proof of that.
 

chevy372

Member
stealth2 said:
You're an argumentative little git, aren't you?
Well since you used the word "git" I would have to say no. More along the lines of a Barrister on this site. But thank God we live in the USA, so foreigner's like you can express your opinion, no matter how misinformed they are or how many conundrums it causes.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
chevy372 said:
Well since you used the word "git" I would have to say no. More along the lines of a Barrister on this site. But thank God we live in the USA, so foreigner's like you can express your opinion, no matter how misinformed they are or how many conundrums it causes.
Sweetie pie - I'm true blue American and have been since the day of my birth. You're not as smart as you think you are.

(edit) Actually, I should change that - I'm true RED American.
 
Last edited:

chevy372

Member
stealth2 said:
Sweetie pie - I'm true blue American and have been since the day of my birth. You're not as smart as you think you are.

(edit) Actually, I should change that - I'm true RED American.
Did not know we had developed a relationship to allow you to use terms of endearment, but thanks honey.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top