The key phrase is “when it comes to a trial”. We’re not talking about a trial here, we’re talking about an arrest. But some people act like the two are identical. They’re not.
At a trial, the prosecutor does have to establish what the intent was beyond a reasonable doubt and it is unacceptable for the prosecutor to say the intent is unknowable.
But an arrest, uncertainty is allowed. Probable cause is all that is required and probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires only a fair probability. And I didn’t make this up - it’s an actual legal standard.
Agreed. Where I think some of these arguments are going wrong is in the behavior (acts) chosen to infer intent. A fair number of folks here are implying that the fact that the first two elements of theft were satisfied (taking and not paying) is enough to infer the third element (intent). I don’t think that’s enough, and violates the spirit of requiring intent as a necessary element to a crime.
A police officer should be assessing all elements of the crime before concluding (with a reasonable level of uncertainty) that the suspect committed a crime. When assessing intent, he can’t just be saying “She took a sandwich, didn’t pay for it… intent!”
The point is that you are supposed to presume innocence, not guilt. And that presumption extends to all parts of the crime. So the presumption should be that she was innocent, i.e., that it was an acccident. Only if there is evidence to indicate intent should there be an arrest.
We’ve explained this several times now. You’re wrong.
You do not have to prove intent exists to arrest somebody. You have to prove intent to convict somebody. You only have to show that intent is possible to arrest somebody.
Christ if you’re going to be a dick about correcting someone, at least be right.
So no. You do not need to just show that intent is possible. The definition for probable cause is:
In order to arrest someone, you need probable cause that they committed a crime. In the case of the women, to have probable cause, you need to demonstrate all facets of the crime. In other words, there has to be enough evidence to conclude that it is probably true that she intended to take the sandwich without paying. The mere possibility isn’t nearly enough.
Are you a Supreme Court Justice, treis? Because if you aren’t, your opinion about what probable cause is really don’t matter.
I’m not posting what I think probable cause is. I’m posting what the Supreme Court thinks probable cause is. From John Marshall in 1813 “the term ‘probable cause,’ according to its usual acceptation, means less than evidence which would justify condemnation” to John Harlan in 1969 “only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause” to William Rehnquist in 1983 “probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity”.
Awesome. So why don’t you explain to us why, when you said “all you have to show is intent is possible to make an arrest”, you were wrong. You can use the quote you’ve already found. I won’t mark points off.
No, he can’t- but that’s not all the information he (or she) had. There’s plenty of information that we don’t have which was available to that police officer- what kind of wrapper was it , where was it found, what did the woman say and when, did she change her story , etc . Even if it was in the shopping cart there’s a difference between a plastic container the size of a Big Mac box and a piece of plastic wrapped rolled up 'till its the size of a gumball. Just like the cop can’t say "She took a sandwich, didn’t pay for it… intent! , we can’t say " She says she meant to pay for it- no intent and the cop was wrong ".
Maybe this a math issue, not a legal problem. What go you think the word probability means? Are you aware that something can have a probability of less than one hundred percent? Something can even have a probability of less than fifty percent.
The woman may have been telling the truth and she may have been lying. Let’s say there’s a fifty percent chance of each. How are you say that there can be a fifty percent possibility that she’s lying while saying there is no probability of it? There’s a fifty percent probability that she’s lying.
Let’s be trusting and say there’s only a ten percent probability that she’s lying. That’s still a probability. Like the Supreme Court said, “probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity”.
This, treis and Cheesesteak, is what I meant, substituting probable cause for reasonable suspicion. That is, an arresting officer has probable cause to infer that a suspect intended to do what s/he did. Whether the charge stands up to the later scrutiny of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a separate question.
To be clear, I’m not saying they were guilty. Only that the arrest was valid.
We should never assume that an element of a crime has been satisfied. You should have evidence that supports the conclusion that each element has been satisfied.
As doreen noted, the PO should review other available information such as what did the suspect do with the taken item, where were things placed, how did they act, what kind of item is it. Information that is independent from the satisfaction of elements 1 and 2.
Why independent from 1&2?
Because the law states clearly that doing elements 1&2 together, by themselves, is NOT theft. It is specifically NOT theft. There is something very wrong with identifying actions that are defined as not being theft by themselves, and arresting someone for theft, without any additional evidence being entered.
All I am saying is that the mere fact of taking doesn’t establish intent. The police officer has to be able to point to something and say, I think there was intent due to X.
I understand that. And do you understand that a statement like “there’s only a weak probability of snow tomorrow” is not the same as “it will not snow tomorrow”? And saying “there’s a strong probability she told the truth” is not the same as “she told the truth”? As I posted above, there is a difference between probability and certainty.
And what does the difference between probability and possibility have to do with certainty?
Seriously, you are wrong. You said that the mere possibility of intent is sufficient to arrest. That is 100%, absolutely, without a doubt, wrong. Just admit it and stop playing these ridiculous games.
I’m not playing a game but it does appear there is little point in discussing this issue any further with you. You believe you know the law and you don’t understand why it matters what the Supreme Court says on the subject. You’re like one of those guys who’s certain that income taxes are illegal and can’t understand why everyone else thinks they have to pay them just because the government says so.
Maybe I’m being dense here, but I don’t what Treis is saying as being in contradiction with the quotes from Supreme Court opinions posted above. That’s not to say that I think that Treis is right. I just don’t see in this thread (yet) that he’s been shown to be wrong.
He’s saying that you can only arrest somebody is you’ve proven intent - if the probability of intent is 100%. That’s the standard for a conviction. But the Supreme Court rulings I’ve quoted say that there is a lesser standard for arrest - a probability of less than 100% certainty. I don’t think they’ve ever tried to give a precise figure (and how would you determine the percentages?) but the terms that have been used include a “fair probability” and a “substantial chance”. The decision in Illinois v. Gates said that the probability could be less than fifty-fifty. So I don’t know where a theoretical line would be drawn - a ten percent chance? a one percent chance? one in a million? - the lower limit of what is considered reasonable hasn’t been defined. But the court has been clear that a one hundred percent chance is not required.
Do yourself a favor and google: “mere possibility” probable cause, and see how many cites specifically say that it isn’t enough. Because there are a lot of them.