Criminal Standards of Proof

While speaking with an OUI client this week, I found myself again explaining to him the different standards of proof.  This is a conversation that I generally have with clients in an initial consultation, but the nuances between the different standards can be confusing to some people.  Most clients come into the office and tell me that the police officer didn’t have “probable cause” to pull him over.  This may be true.  But an officer doesn’t need probable cause to pull you over.  He only needs “articulable suspicion.”

When it comes to criminal law, there are generally three standards of proof that you are dealing with.  The first is articulable suspicion.  To put it as simply as possible, what this means is that the officer must be able to articulate that he believed a crime (or motor vehicle violation) occurred, or was in the process of occurring, and why.  This is an extremely low standard.  I mentioned in a previous blog that, while working as a police officer in my former life, I used to read the motor vehicle code on the midnight shift to give myself something to do.  The average driver has no idea of all the different reasons that could get him/her pulled over by the police.  Your fuzzy dice, CDs, and graduation tassels hanging from your rear view mirror can get you pulled over.  If you cut through a parking lot to avoid getting stuck at a traffic light, you can get pulled over.  If you are weaving in the lane, even if you haven’t crossed over either the yellow or white line, but you have been weaving for a considerable distance, a trained police officer can articulate that he believed there was something wrong and he needed to pull your car over to check on you.  So the long story short of it is that articulable suspicion is a very low standard.  It allows the police to investigate the situation.

The second standard of proof is “probable cause.”  Probable cause means that more probably than not a crime was committed, and you probably committed that crime.  With search warrants, it’s more probable than not that a crime was committed and the thing (the item, person, etc) the police are looking for is probably in the place to be searched at the time the police are searching.  This is a little higher standard than articulable suspicion, and the police are required to meet this standard before making an arrest or even asking a judge for a search warrant (keep in mind there are many exceptions that allow the police to search without a warrant, but that’s an explanation for another day).

The last standard of proof to deal with in criminal matters is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  This is the standard for conviction of a crime.  A jury (or a judge as the case may be) must find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  This does not mean that they must find you innocent beyond ALL doubt.  There are no absolutes in life, and anyone can stretch an explanation to such an improbable degree that doubt can be found.  Rather they must find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is an extremely high standard.

The standards of proof can be difficult to grasp at first.  At our office, we believe the only person who has rights is the person who knows what their legal rights are.  If you are under investigation by the police, have been arrested for a crime, or you are currently waiting trial, make sure your attorney explains to you the different standards of proof until you completely understand them.