Talk:Probable cause
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've found a lot of the article to be fuzzy and unclear. What's more annoying is that a lot of it is advocacy of certain theses regarding law enforcement in the US. David.Monniaux 10:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Reasonable vs Probable cause
How come reasonable cause redirects to this article? From all my read of debate surrounding Title II of the PATRIOT Act, there is a significant difference. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Because it's not neccesarily based on the Patriot Act but more on the more commonly / international Westminster system is my guess? Further to that, it's interesting that the article doesn't touch on the fact that in many countries it's a case of Police over-using alleged 'probable cause' under the grounds that they've picked someone up, have nothing to charge them with and then want to search their home, something we in Australia call 'fishing'. :) 211.30.80.121 23:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Critique
None of these points make any sense and sound like someone just made them up. I copied it here in case anyone can find a reason it should be included. --L. Pistachio 05:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The first definition above "a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed", has been criticised for several reasons, highlighted here. The alternative definition "reason to believe that an injury had criminal cause" corrects these deficiencies.
Circular reasoning: Which came first, law or crime? If crime is "things which the law prohibits", and law defines "that which is crime", we have self-reference. And since the phrase probable cause first occurs in the United States Bill of Rights, which was defining the law, it has been suggested that probable cause must be defined, not in terms of law, but in terms of connection between the accused and an injured victim.
Semantic Error: The most common usage of "probable cause" is usually something like "the officer had probable cause to believe that a crime occurred". However, this definition also includes belief. A simple substitution of the definition into the most common usage results in the bizarre "the officer had a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed to believe that a crime occurred". Either our definition or this usage is incorrect.
Individual Discretion: The system of government defined by the US Constitution, with separation of powers, checks and balances, and juries, suggests that the decision to arrest should not be made on-the-spot by an individual, such as a police officer. The language of the Constitution suggests that arrests, searches and seizures should be a deliberative process, starting with the "oath or affirmation" of a civilian complaint, and that indictments should be made by (Grand) juries.
Failure to make connection to victim's injury: The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect the rights of citizens against the abuses of government. The Declaration of Independence states that the Colonists were being "transported beyond the seas to be tried for pretended offenses".
- This critique comes from the Lawful Arrest FAQ. What about it does not make sense? The phrase "probable cause" comes from the US Constitution, and it is intended to assert and protect the rights of citizens from government tyrrany. However, the common definition of probable cause does not make any sense, and the intended protections are being eroded. This section addresses the problems with the current "accepted" definition. I'm adding it back. Please discuss your problems with this section before deleting again. -- Bhuston 17:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the replaced section. Is it more clear now? -- Bhuston 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed the NPOV tag, since there is no NPOV requirement in a Critique section. Indeed, its inclusion is required to establish a NPOV. --Bhuston 10:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Minor clarifications on Critique
I have made a few edits that hopefully improve clarity.
Also, regarding the following language:
-
- The language of the Constitution suggests that arrests, searches and seizures should be a deliberative process, starting with the "oath or affirmation" of a civilian complaint, and that all indictments of wrongdoing should be made by a Grand jury (a body of the people) and not with a government agent (the police officer).
I'm not sure what the author intended by this. First, the Fourth Amendment deals with searches and seizures, but not arrests (at least not explicitly). I believe the courts have extended its application to some arrests.
Second, all "indictments of wrongdoing," under the U.S. legal system are indeed brought by a grand jury, not by a police officer. (There is a process where the prosecution can bring something called a criminal information that might be used instead of an indictment, but I'm thinking a criminal information is generally brought by a district attorney or deputy district attorney, not by a police officer -- but I'm a bit rusty on that point.) Search, seizure, arrest, and indictment are all separate legal concepts.
Third, regarding arrests, searches, and seizures: yes, a police officer can in certain cases arrest an individual without a warrant and, in certain cases, can also search and seize without a warrant and without an oath or affirmation or a "civilian complaint" (whatever the author meant by that -- maybe "search warrant"??). That was also the case at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It's unclear (at least to me) what the critique actually is intended to say.
The "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" has always varied depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, the right to be secure in your person and your papers and effects can vary depending on whether you (and your papers and effects) are at home or, alternatively, are trying to get on an airplane. The right to be secure in your house, papers and effects does not apply with the same force when you are in your car driving down the road as it does at home. Yes, you still have some legal rights under the Fourth Amendment in your car -- but you are not as protected as when you are at home. In short, the critique as currently written just seems to me to be a bit vague and maybe too general. Anyway, I hope my clarifying edits are actually clarifying, and are not changing the intended meaning of the critique. Yours, Famspear 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Critique: Not NPOV
The problem I have with the critique section is that it is stated as fact rather than a debatable opinion. It definately reads like someone's opinion, particularly the last statement about so-called "abuses" (including "victemless crimes", which the author is clearly against). Something should be done that either establishes a neutral point-of-view for these criticisms, or explicitly states where the encyclopedia ends and the opinion begins. For now, I'm just marking the section NPOV. Korval 00:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed the NPOV tag, as there is no requirement for NPOV of a Critique section. Indeed, its inclusion is required to establish a NPOV --Bhuston 10:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
