I know that corpus delicti (‘the body of the case’) has to apply in an actual trial, in order for there to be a conviction. But is there a watered-down version of this at play in arrest or pre-arraignment? (‘probably cause’)
In other words, the police cannot simply arrest John Doe because someone told the police, “John Doe is a bank robber,” they have to actually have something more, like, a witness saying, “I saw John Doe rob the local bank at the street intersection last Friday night?”
There are literally textbooks on what evidence is sufficient to constitute probable cause. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution doesn’t define PC, so it’s an evolving standard. But generally speaking, PC still requires some evidence to justify an arrest (or the issuance of a warrant). It’s easier to think of this in terms of a scale of increasing burden of proof – in a criminal trial in the US, the government (i.e., the prosecution) must show enough evidence to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. At the lower end of the scale, the government (the police or other law enforcement body) must provide sufficient evidence to meet the “probable cause” standard to validly make an arrest. This standard is obviously less demanding than that required to convict.
In practice, police offers will submit to a judge an affidavit of probable cause listing the evidence that in his/her view shows supports the request for an arrest warrant or the arrest (if it has already occured). The affidavit will lay out the evidence, and it may include facts that the officer knew that would lead a reasonable person to conclude a crime occurred.
I’m pretty sure you can’t be arrested for an unspecified crime.
Maybe they could arrest John Doe so that they could await further evidence? i.e,. “We don’t know what banks you are accused of robbing, but we’ll hold you in detention for a few days while we start asking some questions and figuring it out.”
Or maybe a pre-trial/pre-arraignment court could do the same; “detain until further facts come in.”
As a general rule in the US, the judicial system can only hold you for 72 hours (48 hours in some states) without charging you with a crime. This is considered to be part of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial.
If PC is based on a known informant’s report, there are indicia of veracity, basis of knowledge, and reliability required. So, in general terms, no, a person can’t be arrested just by someone saying he is a bank robber. More would be needed about how the informant came by the information, corroborating information, and indicia that the person was telling the truth, like detais that show personal knowledge of the facts.
It is not the same as the corpus dilicti rule that applies to confessions, but it does similarly require more than just one person’s words.
Too slow to edit – this is a more correct version of the first sentence: If PC is to be based on an informant’s report, there must be indicia of veracity, basis of knowledge, and/or reliability that, under the totality of the circumstances, provide probable cause to believe that the person had committed a (real) crime.
My state is one that does not follow the federal test from Illinois v. Gates, so I didn’t have the terms exactly right. I’m rusty on the federal version.
Right, but in a certain sense, it would still be like corpus delicti in that even the suspect’s own (secondhand) words wouldn’t count, right? Say that John bragged to Mary that he had once robbed a bank (but giving no further details) and gotten away with it. Mary then reports him to police. But police still cannot arrest him unless they have some knowledge as to which bank, where, when and how this was done, right?
I’m sure that’s right. For one thing, they need to know if the crime was within the statute of limitations, and within their jurisdiction. But fundamentally, to charge someone with a crime, you need to be specific about what they did. “Being a bank robber” is not a crime, robbing a bank is.
But they could certainly start an investigation. Maybe they could get him for tax evasion.
I’m not sure this specific topic has been addressed, though it has been mentioned (“arrested for an unspecified crime”).
In the arrest (or warrant) affidavit, the law enforcement officer sets forth not only what the accused has done, but also how those actions correspond to the statutory elements of the crime. For example, it isn’t enough to say “the defendant pedaled away a bicycle from victim’s house”. The LEO must cover at least the minimum requirements of the charged statute (theft). Here’s a made-up theft statute:
Whosoever obtains or removes an item belonging to another for his own use without permission or agreement from the owner, and such item has a value of greater than $100, shall be guilty of theft of the first degree.
The arrest affidavit might read:
A witness (neighbor Johnson) observed the defendant removing the bicycle from the rear yard and pedaling away down Main Street. The victim states he does not know the defendant, and has not given permission to him or any other non-family member to use the bicycle. The stolen Yamaguchi BMX-1000 bicycle is two years old and has a new retail value of $950.
That would run into Sixth Amendment issues.
Is there also probable cause needed to launch an investigation, or do investigations require scant or no evidence for something?
Otherwise it would be a chicken-and-egg problem; you can’t investigate someone without evidence, but without evidence you can’t investigate.
No, you don’t need any quantum of evidence to investigate someone. E.g., police might investigate a pool of possible suspects in order to eliminate suspects.
How does that relate to the question / scandal about the FBI or the tax department investigating certain classes of people (‘democrats’ or ‘Blacks’) ?
It’s illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of race or political views. It’s a bit like at-will employment. You can fire someone for no reason at all, but you can’t fire them for an impermissible reason. You can investigate people for lots of reasons, but “they are on a list of Democratic party donors” is an impermissible reason, I would think.