motivo fundado
Explanation:
according to the diccionario de términos jurídicos
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-05-31 19:59:00 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
As Rick made a very good point, here\'s some things I\'ve found:
Probable Cause (causa razonable, motivo fundado o causa presunta): los datos y las circunstancias que ocasionan una persona sensata y razonable en creer que alguien haya cometido un delito, o que alguna propiedad que el gobierno pueda confiscar se encuentre en un sitio determinado. Según las circunstancias, un policía, el gran jurado o un juez puede decidir que se manifiesta una causa razonable.
http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/reports/cjguideSPmain6.htm
ARREST AND DETENTION A§1
A§1.1 REASONABLE GROUNDS
1. THE GENERAL DEFINITION
This subsection and the next (A§1.2) -- insofar as determining what reasonable grounds means -- should be read in conjunction with A§2.1 which establishes the standards for probable cause for search warrants.
\"Reasonable grounds\", \"probable cause\" and sometimes \"reasonable cause\" are the terminologies used to guide officers in making arrests, searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment refers to \"unreasonable searches and seizures\" and that warrant should be used only upon \"probable cause.\" These terms were also used at common law. The term \"reasonable cause\" is an obvious combination of words which has been used in some state statutes and courts. While there have been attempts to distinguish these terms by some courts, the Court has noted no difference -- they are interchangeable, although the term \"reasonable grounds\" is more often associated with arrests and \"probable cause\" with searches.
There is only one \"reasonable grounds/probable cause\" -- as was noted in Ker v. California -- and that is what the Court says it is. Obviously each set of facts differs, and the task of the law enforcement officer is to take the general standard and apply it to the set of facts with which the officer is faced. Thus, the decisions of the Supreme Court in applying the general standard to a set of facts, give examples for the officer to follow.
The general definition which is frequently quoted comes from Brinegar v. United States, which in turn was adapted from the definition used in Carroll v. United States, both of which involved warrantless searches of automobiles, but is applicable to making arrests, with or without a warrant: The quote is as follows:
\"Probable cause exists where \'the facts and circumstances within their [the officers\'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that\' an offense has been or is being committed.\"
Analyzing this general definition, it will be noted that the Court uses both \"probable\" and \"reasonable.\" These terms, particularly \"reasonable,\" are used frequently in the law for purposes of flexibility
http://www.nedrud.com/rbA11.html
PROBABLE CAUSE
Probable cause is another term that never applies in our CSUDH moot court problems but always comes up anyway. That is because \"probable cause\" is what police must have to justify an arrest. No police in our problems. No probable cause. Nonetheless, legal professionals are used to the term, and it does indicate the reasonable foundation that is required to justify an action, even by private citizens. Terms like reasonable justification, reasonable grounds, articulable facts, etc. are more appropriately applied to private citizens, but probable cause will slip into the discussion occasionally.
There is no \"bright line\" rule for what establishes probable cause. That means there is no single determining factor; the existence of probable cause must be determined by the trier of fact from the facts in the record. You establish the existence or non-existence of probable cause by showing that the facts in your case are similar to, or can be distinguished from, those of other cases where probable cause has been found or not found.
Mere suspicion is not sufficient to establish probable cause. There must be some corroborating facts that the person detaining or arresting can articulate to illustrate that he/she had probable cause.
Reasonable cause is simply a less rigorous standard than that for probable cause. If a reasonable person would believe from the facts laid before the trier of fact that there was cause to detain, then you have reasonable cause.
http://www.uwp.edu/academic/criminal.justice/prblcaus.htm
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-05-31 20:09:00 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, Rick, in this context it looks as if you\'re right about there being a difference.
8. Utilizing the Fourth Amendment, discuss \"reasonable cause\" and \"probable cause.\" Lead the students to understand that \"probable cause\" means that the circumstances leading to the search made it highly probable that the person being searched might have committed a crime. It does not require absolute certainty. However, when a search is conducted by a school official, all he/she needs is \"reasonable cause,\" which is a less stringent standard. A search at school may be conducted as a result of suspicion or rumor, a lesser degree of certainty than probable cause.\" (A guest lawyer or law enforcement officer is strongly suggested to reinforce this concept and answer questions that will arise.)
http://www.window.state.tx.us/tpr/tspr/pta/chpt13d.htm
Reference: http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF...
| Nikki Graham
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:04
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in pair: 147
|
|
peer agreement (net): +6