Editing Burden of proof (law) (section)

==== Probable cause ====
{{main|Probable cause}}
Probable cause is a higher standard of proof than reasonable suspicion, which is used in the United States to determine whether a search, or an arrest, is unreasonable. It is also used by [[grand jury|grand juries]] to determine whether to issue an [[indictment]]. In the civil context, this standard is often used where plaintiffs are seeking a prejudgement [[remedy (law)|remedy]].

In the criminal context, the U.S. Supreme Court in ''United States v. Sokolow'', {{ussc|490|1|1989}}, determined that probable cause requires "a fair [[probability]] that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found". The primary issue was whether [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] agents had a reason to execute a search. Courts have traditionally interpreted the idea of "a fair probability" as meaning whether a fair-minded evaluator would have reason to find it more likely than not that a fact (or ultimate fact) is true, which is quantified as a 51% certainty standard (using whole numbers as the increment of measurement). Some courts and scholars have suggested probable cause could, in some circumstances, allow for a fact to be established as true to a standard of less than 51%,<ref>{{Cite web |title=United States v. Melvin, 596 F.2d 492 {{!}} Casetext Search + Citator |url=https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-melvin-4 |access-date=2024-09-01 |website=casetext.com}}</ref> but as of August 2019, the United States Supreme Court has never ruled that the quantification of probable cause is anything less than 51%. Probable cause can be contrasted with "reasonable articulable suspicion" which requires a police officer to have an unquantified amount of certainty the courts say is well below 51% before briefly detaining a suspect (without consent) to pat them down and attempt to question them.<ref name=Terry/> The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, used by criminal juries in the United States to determine guilt for a crime, also contrasts with probable cause which courts hold requires an unquantified level of proof well above that of probable cause's 51%.{{citation needed|date=January 2020}} Though it is beyond the scope of this topic, when courts review whether 51% probable cause certainty was a reasonable judgment, the legal inquiry is different for police officers in the field than it would be for grand jurors. In ''[[Franks v. Delaware]]'' (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court held that probable cause requires that there not be "reckless disregard for the truth" of the facts asserted.<ref>Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154,155-156; 438 U.S. 164-172 (1978). "Where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request. The trial court here therefore erred in refusing to examine the adequacy of petitioner's proffer of misrepresentation in the warrant affidavit."</ref>

Examples of a police officer's truth-certainty standards in the field and their practical consequences are offered below:
* {{em|no level of evidence required}}: a knowing and voluntary consent-based encounter between police officer and another person
* {{em|reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity required}}: an involuntary stop initiated by the officer to briefly detain, attempt to question, and pat down outer clothing of a person of interest to police.
* {{em|probable cause of 51% truth or higher required that a crime was committed by a specific person}}: arrest and/or grand jury indictment of that person.{{citation needed|date=January 2020}}