General Law Knowledge
- Thread starter Abdulaziz
- Start date
Bill of Rights
The first ten amendments from the United States' Constitution all composed together make up what is known as the bill of rights.
First Amendment:
The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the right to exercise religion and the right to a peaceful assembly.
Second Amendment:
The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms (weapons).
Third Amendment:
—
Fourth Amendment::
The Fourth Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
Fifth Amendment:
—
Sixth Amendment:
The Sixth Amendment addresses rights related to criminal prosecutions.
Seventh Amendment:
—
Eighth Amendment:
The Eighth Amendment protects the people from cruel/unusual punishments and excessive fines.
Ninth Amendment:
—
Tenth Amendment:
—
The first ten amendments from the United States' Constitution all composed together make up what is known as the bill of rights.
First Amendment:
The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the right to exercise religion and the right to a peaceful assembly.
Second Amendment:
The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms (weapons).
Third Amendment:
—
Fourth Amendment::
The Fourth Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
Fifth Amendment:
—
Sixth Amendment:
The Sixth Amendment addresses rights related to criminal prosecutions.
Seventh Amendment:
—
Eighth Amendment:
The Eighth Amendment protects the people from cruel/unusual punishments and excessive fines.
Ninth Amendment:
—
Tenth Amendment:
—
Last edited:
Burden of proof
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party.
Criminal vs. Civil
Criminal trials
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for criminals trials. This means the evidence has to eliminate every reasonable doubt. The state prosecutes a person in a criminal trial. The state typically appoints a district attorney who hires prosecutors known as deputy district attorneys (the name might differ from state to state) to carry out prosecutions. Prosecutors have the ability to deny the prosecution of individuals for multiple reasons. Plea deals are also an important part of criminal trials. Most criminal cases in the United States end with plea deals. A plea deal is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. An example of a plea deal is a a defendant agreeing to plead guilty to a murder charge, in return the prosecutor won't pursue a death penalty against the defendant (in states which apply the death penalty). Judges must approve plea deals and they may deny them if they wish.
Civil cases
Civil cases require less standard of proof than a criminal case. The usual evidence needed is preponderance evidence to secure a win in a civil case. Preponderance is a less standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why in a lot of cases a for instance, a driver might not be found guilty of any criminal charges, however, they might still lose a civil suit and be required to pay a set of amount cash despite not facing any criminal charges. This is because the standard of proof for civil cases is weaker than those for a criminal one..
Legal standards for burden of proof
(From lowest standard to the highest)
Reasonable suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of proof to determine whether a brief investigative stop or search by a police officer or any government agent is warranted. It is important to note that this stop or search must be brief; its thoroughness is proportional to, and limited by, the low standard of evidence. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable, and individualized suspicion that crime is afoot. A mere guess or "hunch" is not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion.
Probable Cause
Probable cause is a relatively low standard of proof, which is used in the United States to determine whether a search, or an arrest, is warranted. In the criminal context, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989), determined that probable cause requires "a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found" in deciding whether Drug Enforcement Administration agents had a reason to execute a search.
Preponderance
Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities, is the standard required in most civil cases and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act, and in child custody determinations between parties having equal legal rights respecting a child (typically the parents of a child who are divorced, separated, or otherwise living apart, assuming that neither has been found unfit).
Clear and convincing evidence
Clear and convincing evidence is a higher level of burden of persuasion than "preponderance of the evidence". It is employed intra-adjudicatively in administrative court determinations, as well as in civil and certain criminal procedure in the United States. For example, a prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief from capital punishment must prove his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. This standard is used in many types of equity cases, including paternity, persons in need of supervision, juvenile delinquency, child custody, the probate of both wills and living wills, petitions to remove a person from life support ("right to die" cases), and many similar cases.
Beyond a reasonable doubt
This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and is the standard for convictions in criminal proceedings. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that one would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of one's own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that every reasonable doubt needs to be eliminated for a conviction.
Consider the following three interactions:
no level of suspicion required: a consensual encounter between an officer and citizen
reasonable suspicion required: a stop initiated by the officer that would cause a reasonable person feel not free to leave , subject him to a terry frisk, and might require him to ID.
probable cause required: arrest/search warrants.
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party.
Criminal vs. Civil
Criminal trials
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for criminals trials. This means the evidence has to eliminate every reasonable doubt. The state prosecutes a person in a criminal trial. The state typically appoints a district attorney who hires prosecutors known as deputy district attorneys (the name might differ from state to state) to carry out prosecutions. Prosecutors have the ability to deny the prosecution of individuals for multiple reasons. Plea deals are also an important part of criminal trials. Most criminal cases in the United States end with plea deals. A plea deal is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. An example of a plea deal is a a defendant agreeing to plead guilty to a murder charge, in return the prosecutor won't pursue a death penalty against the defendant (in states which apply the death penalty). Judges must approve plea deals and they may deny them if they wish.
Civil cases
Civil cases require less standard of proof than a criminal case. The usual evidence needed is preponderance evidence to secure a win in a civil case. Preponderance is a less standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why in a lot of cases a for instance, a driver might not be found guilty of any criminal charges, however, they might still lose a civil suit and be required to pay a set of amount cash despite not facing any criminal charges. This is because the standard of proof for civil cases is weaker than those for a criminal one..
Legal standards for burden of proof
(From lowest standard to the highest)
Reasonable suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of proof to determine whether a brief investigative stop or search by a police officer or any government agent is warranted. It is important to note that this stop or search must be brief; its thoroughness is proportional to, and limited by, the low standard of evidence. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable, and individualized suspicion that crime is afoot. A mere guess or "hunch" is not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion.
Probable Cause
Probable cause is a relatively low standard of proof, which is used in the United States to determine whether a search, or an arrest, is warranted. In the criminal context, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989), determined that probable cause requires "a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found" in deciding whether Drug Enforcement Administration agents had a reason to execute a search.
Preponderance
Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities, is the standard required in most civil cases and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act, and in child custody determinations between parties having equal legal rights respecting a child (typically the parents of a child who are divorced, separated, or otherwise living apart, assuming that neither has been found unfit).
Clear and convincing evidence
Clear and convincing evidence is a higher level of burden of persuasion than "preponderance of the evidence". It is employed intra-adjudicatively in administrative court determinations, as well as in civil and certain criminal procedure in the United States. For example, a prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief from capital punishment must prove his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. This standard is used in many types of equity cases, including paternity, persons in need of supervision, juvenile delinquency, child custody, the probate of both wills and living wills, petitions to remove a person from life support ("right to die" cases), and many similar cases.
Beyond a reasonable doubt
This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and is the standard for convictions in criminal proceedings. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that one would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of one's own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that every reasonable doubt needs to be eliminated for a conviction.
Consider the following three interactions:
no level of suspicion required: a consensual encounter between an officer and citizen
reasonable suspicion required: a stop initiated by the officer that would cause a reasonable person feel not free to leave , subject him to a terry frisk, and might require him to ID.
probable cause required: arrest/search warrants.
Notable Supreme Court Rulings
Case law is the collected body of decisions written by courts in previous court cases. Case law (also known as common law) essentially allow past decisions from previous court cases to be used in cases that are similar to the case being discussed.
Kentucky v. King 563 U.S. 452 (2011):
The Supreme Court ruled that warrantless searches are permitted in exigent circumstances as so long as the police do not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.
Exigent circumstances are circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to:
(1) prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, or
(2) the destruction of relevant evidence, or
(3) the escape of the suspect, or
(4) to investigate a 911 telephone call, or
(5) they have reasonable grounds to believe there is evidence in your home, for example, drugs or weapons, and they need to act immediately so that the evidence will not be lost or destroyed or
(6) some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms 434 U.S. 106 (1977):
The Supreme Court ruled that a police officer ordering an individual out of their vehicle following a traffic stop was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, conducting a pat-down to check for weapons in a traffic stop when there is reasonable articulation that the individual may be armed and presently dangerous was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The case essentially extended terry-frisks to cover traffic stops.
Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968):
The Supreme Court ruled that a police officer performing a quick search of a person's outer clothing for the purpose of checking for weapons when there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime after being stopped and the officer has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous" was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Navarette v. California 572 U.S. 393 (2014): The Supreme Court ruled that police officers do not have to personally observe or verify the legitimacy of information when provided information from an anonymous tips.
Whren v. United States 517 U.S. 806 (1996): The Supreme Court ruled that any traffic violation or offense committed by a driver was a legitimate reason for detention.
Brendlin v. California 551 U.S. 249 (2007): The Supreme Court ruled that all occupants of a vehicle are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop.
Glik v. Cunniffe 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011): The United States of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of public officials in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.
Weeks v. United States (1914), this rule holds that evidence obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials.
Case law is the collected body of decisions written by courts in previous court cases. Case law (also known as common law) essentially allow past decisions from previous court cases to be used in cases that are similar to the case being discussed.
Kentucky v. King 563 U.S. 452 (2011):
The Supreme Court ruled that warrantless searches are permitted in exigent circumstances as so long as the police do not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.
Exigent circumstances are circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to:
(1) prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, or
(2) the destruction of relevant evidence, or
(3) the escape of the suspect, or
(4) to investigate a 911 telephone call, or
(5) they have reasonable grounds to believe there is evidence in your home, for example, drugs or weapons, and they need to act immediately so that the evidence will not be lost or destroyed or
(6) some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.
Wikipedia: Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, set up a drug buy outside of an apartment complex using an undercover informant. After the suspect sold the informant crack cocaine, Officer Gibson, who was undercover watching the transaction from a nearby unmarked vehicle, called in uniformed officers to pursue the suspect. The officers pursued the suspect into a breezeway and lost sight of him. They heard a door close but, when they got to the end of the breezeway, they encountered two doors and did not know whether the suspect entered the apartment on the right or the left. Officer Gibson did see the suspect enter the door on the right, but the other officers did not hear his radio transmission because it went to their vehicle.
While the officers did not know which apartment the suspect was in, they could smell burning marijuana coming from inside the apartment on the left. Per one of the officer's testimony, the officers began banging on the left door “as loud as [they] could” and announced, “‘This is the police’” or “‘Police, police, police,’”[8] after which they heard movements which they believed indicated evidence was going to be destroyed. They announced they were going to enter and kicked down the door. They found Hollis King, the defendant, his girlfriend, and a guest who was smoking marijuana. Upon a further search of the home, they found cash, drugs, and paraphernalia.
While the officers did not know which apartment the suspect was in, they could smell burning marijuana coming from inside the apartment on the left. Per one of the officer's testimony, the officers began banging on the left door “as loud as [they] could” and announced, “‘This is the police’” or “‘Police, police, police,’”[8] after which they heard movements which they believed indicated evidence was going to be destroyed. They announced they were going to enter and kicked down the door. They found Hollis King, the defendant, his girlfriend, and a guest who was smoking marijuana. Upon a further search of the home, they found cash, drugs, and paraphernalia.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms 434 U.S. 106 (1977):
The Supreme Court ruled that a police officer ordering an individual out of their vehicle following a traffic stop was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, conducting a pat-down to check for weapons in a traffic stop when there is reasonable articulation that the individual may be armed and presently dangerous was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The case essentially extended terry-frisks to cover traffic stops.
Wikipedia: In 1977, two police officers from the Philadelphia Police Department pulled over a vehicle driven by Harry Mimms for an expired license plate. The officers instructed Mimms to exit the vehicle; when Mimms complied, an officer noticed a bulge in his pants under his jacket, conducted a pat-down, and discovered a weapon. The officer proceeded to arrest Mimms for carrying a concealed deadly weapon and unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license, charges for which Mimms was later convicted. The conviction was reversed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on December 5, 1977, which ruled that the evidence should have been suppressed as the police violated Mimms' Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure. The United States Supreme Court in turn reversed the PSC's reversal, upholding the original conviction on the grounds that no violation of the Fourth Amendment had occurred.
Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968):
The Supreme Court ruled that a police officer performing a quick search of a person's outer clothing for the purpose of checking for weapons when there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime after being stopped and the officer has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous" was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
None.
Navarette v. California 572 U.S. 393 (2014): The Supreme Court ruled that police officers do not have to personally observe or verify the legitimacy of information when provided information from an anonymous tips.
Wikipedia: In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless, officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered 30 pounds (14 kg) of marijuana in the truck. At trial, the occupants of the car argued that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because the tip was unreliable, and officers did not personally observe criminal activity. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the 911 call was reliable, and that officers need not personally observe criminal activity when acting upon information provided by an anonymous 911 call.
Whren v. United States 517 U.S. 806 (1996): The Supreme Court ruled that any traffic violation or offense committed by a driver was a legitimate reason for detention.
None
Brendlin v. California 551 U.S. 249 (2007): The Supreme Court ruled that all occupants of a vehicle are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop.
In the early morning hours of November 27, 2001, a Sutter County deputy sheriff and his partner, who was a cadet at the time, stopped a car in which Bruce Brendlin was riding. The car's registration had expired, but the owner had applied for a renewal, and a valid temporary registration permit was properly affixed to the car. Nevertheless, the deputy decided to investigate further. He asked the driver of the car, Karen Simeroth, for her license, and noticed that Bruce Brendlin, "one of the Brendlin brothers," was sitting in the passenger seat. The deputy determined that there was a warrant out for Brendlin's arrest, and so he called for backup. Once backup arrived, Brendlin and Simeroth were arrested. The police found an orange syringe cap on Brendlin's person, more syringes and a "green leafy substance" on Simeroth's person, and equipment used to manufacture methamphetamine in the car.
Glik v. Cunniffe 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011): The United States of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of public officials in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.
None.
Weeks v. United States (1914), this rule holds that evidence obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials.
woah abdul
Thekillergreece
Donator
This is actually useful without having to read long essays.
Moneko
Diamond Member
tbh this is so useful for those who have 0 knowledge on how law works
Wallachia
Donator
Fucking fire man, would be nice if everyone checked this out.
Danzig
Platinum Member
Epicness.