Reason To Believe In Mere's Existence

1.Probable cause is a set of facts surrounding a specific circumstances that leads a “reasonable person” to believe an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause is required in the instances of an arrest, search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant. To ESTABILISH reasonable cause the officer can use any trustworthy information. For example the office could use his/her experience, informant information, first hand observations or knowledge, victim reports, anonymous tips, or hearsay.

If there was no warrant for John's arrest this hearing will also determine if there is probable cause (Gerstein v. Pugh). Probable cause means that a reasonable ground exists for belief in the facts.

Preventative Detention Orders serve as a viable alternatives to judicial trials, by allowing Police to ‘detain or restrict the movement of individuals without charge or conviction’. External reviews of PDO’s by the Law Council of Australia has deemed these measures ‘justifiably balance security and civil liberties’ by prioritizing community safety over the presumed innocence of terror

Fourth, the facts that are alleged to establish probable cause must “supported by Oath or affirmation” (Hall, 2016.) In a

It is true that reasonable suspicion is not probable cause to elicit some sort of a reaction for something or for someone but

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

The latter case of DPP v Carr (2002) shows many similarities, providing that arrest should and can only be used as a method of last resort, and must not be used for minor offences where the defendant can be identified . In this particular matter, a highly intoxicated Mr Carr was of the belief that police were accusing him of throwing a number of rocks, when this was not the case. This confusion led Mr Carr’s to use offensive language, which provoked the police officer to caution the accused. Mr Carr was then soon after arrested for offensive language because of the continuation of this offence, and also for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duties. The main issue in this matter was whether or not the arrest was lawful, and if so, was it improper. It is important to note that this case was decided before the provisions of LEPRA was passed by the parliament and became valid law meaning the Court had to rely on common law principles to determine its outcome. The arrest for vulgar language in this case was held to be proper because the officer had reasonable suspicion (having witnessed him swearing and

Reasonable Suspicion: is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes and frisk the outside of their clothing for weapons, but not drugs. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, the reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.

Serious drug related offences can also disprove the presumption for bail and (likewise towards aggressive offences) the accused must reason why bail should be permitted.

Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, that evidence is at the place being sear5ched or on the person being searched, or that a specific person is believed to have committed, is committing, or will commit a certain crime. Law enforcement cannot just go to a judge and say they have probable cause for a warrant. To obtain a warrant law enforcement needs something to substantiate their belief. The standard for probable cause to be met is for any reasonable person to believe based on the evidence or observations presented that indeed either a suspect has or is engaging in criminal activity, or that evidence exists at a certain location. Not all searches require probable cause to be established. The exception to the probable cause is reasonable suspicion. An example of this is a customs search. A custom search requires no warrant or probable cause be presented. But if a custom agent is going to detain a traveler for an extended

Reasonable suspicion is a reasonable likelihood that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. It is a reasonable belief based on facts or circumstances and is informed by a police officer’s training and experience. Reasonable suspicion is seen as more than a guess or hunch but is less than probable cause. Probable cause is the logical belief, supported by facts and circumstances, which a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. The difference between the two are the fact that probable cause has evidence or is fact based whereas reasonable suspicion is a hunch.

The role of the custody officer was created by the Police and Criminal evidence act 1984 (PACE act). Throughout this essay I will be discussing the role of the custody officer and exploring the stages that must be undertaken when a person is detained and processed through custody post arrest. I will also discuss the various sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 that are affected when a person is detained, the limits of a persons detention, and the processes that must be undertaken if the custody officer wishes to extend the time that a person is kept in custody. I will be exploring the duties of the custody officer and what the job role entails on a day to day basis. Whatever is done by the custody officer is to be undertaken in a certain

Thus, this leaves this determination up to the courts to decide case by case. Probable cause quantitates specific levels of suspicion and is based on facts and prudent belief of guilt, thus allowing a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search. Probable cause is more substantial than reasonable suspicion pertaining to the justification for an investigative detention. (Devallis Rutledge, 2010).

Probable cause is a requirement which can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment that must usually be met before an arrest can be made, before being allowed to conduct a search, seize property, and to receive a warrant which is related to the alleged crime. Probable cause is considered a level of reasonable belief, probable cause must be based on facts and not an assumption. In civil court, a person can be sued if they have probable cause, and in criminal court, the defendant can be prosecuted or arrested if they also have probable cause. If the officer cannot prove probable cause, unfortunately, the evidence then becomes inadmissible, and the evidence will be thrown out.

The Court has also stated that in dealing with cases under Section 482 of Code, the High Court should be extremely slow to interfere with the investigation and trial of criminal cases and should not stall or stifle the prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law. It has been further held that in the case of a proceeding instituted on an FIR or complaint, any exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only where the FIR or complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or