A type of antisocial behavior is stalking. It generally involves the following behaviors except:

Must all elements of probable cause exist before a lawful arrest can be made?

kkurt [141]

householdThereWhichever,

Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before the police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant.

“Probable cause” is a legal standard applied to the police and prosecutors; individual citizens don’t “get” probable cause.

Police must demonstrate sufficient probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime to obtain a search warrant or an arrest warrant.

Prosecutors must demonstrate sufficient probable cause as to every element of a charged crime to proceed with filing charges and beginning the trial process.

There is no clear legal definition of what constitutes “probable cause” — it’s somewhere between suspicion and proof. The closest you’ll come is the 1949 case Brinegar v. the United States in which the Supreme Court described it thus:

“…where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed.”

Please imagine a situation when someone very healthy falls ill all of a sudden and the reason is not immediately known. You take that person to a doctor and the doctor will ask you to identify the root cause of the illness, generally as under:

type of food the person ate recently

what liquids he/she consumed

whether he/she traveled recently and had food from outside,

whether affected by climate change,

whether any drastic change in his/her daily routine etc.

any other likely change in his/her work schedule

The above list could be the probable causes from which the doctor can identify the root cause for the illness.

II. Similarly, when an inexplicable accident happens(the driver cannot find out the cause), several questions like the following may be asked:

was there break failure

did one of the tires burst

was the driver distracted by someone(suddenly crossing the road etc.)

did the driver doze off(sleep for a while)

The above can be considered as the probable causes, to arrive at the root cause of the accident.

This is cause and this is the effect is a highly scientific approach and it is hardly possible in less than 1% of our day-to-day life despite our 99% dependence on only science-originated things. It is a decision without measurements, proper logic errors, etc., we are forced to land in probability and possibility. Maximum experience is in medical decisions, especially in new upcoming nuisance topics like a corona. Only probable cause is guessed. There is nothing when a patient comes with corona. Whichever is the cause treat him with your best tools as a doctor? Those who work in huge projects of prevention, curtailing, “stop-the-spread” projects will break their heads.

A simple example from a household happening. The jewel kept on a chair just temporarily is missing. 1. Somebody should have kept it safely 2. Somebody should have pocketed it on a non-returnable basis 3. The servants should have taken full benefit of our negligence and we should start searching for what more is stolen 4. The jeweler whom we told that we have some repair work should have come and taken it for repair, we telephone and find out. 5. Government announced gold control when Morarji was P.M. Some excise officer should have read it now, noticed our careless and taken it.

Which out of these is most probable?

Nothing! The jewel was under the cushion of the chair.

Two servants were dismissed forever. There is no excise department connection with that jewel. Nobody can keep it more safely than what the jewel can keep its good self. That jeweler has left the city two years ago.

All guesswork done is included in only probable causes, many cause foolish. Some are probable. But the actual happening has not chosen that. It is the house that has chosen those causes. The scientific or guess ability of the house is clear to them at least.

Probable cause is a guesswork cause that may be or may not be tallying with the truth. The correct guess is 100% probable!

The jewel missing cause is 0% probable!

6 0

3 years ago

What are at least four laws or regulations professionals in this pathway must abide by or follow?

san4es73 [151]

Answer:

Privacy Act of 1974, Alcohol- and Drug-Abuse Patient Confidentiality, Conditions for Coverage of Specialized Services by Suppliers, Institutional Review Boards

Explanation:

4 0

4 years ago

Jesse james, a 20-year old, was arrested for killing a police officer. As a newly elected prosecutor, you are responsible for pr

Nana76 [90]

It is important to note that various states use various metrics. In general, states adhere to some form of the federal procedural norms. States do have the freedom to take risks in the sake of justice.

<h3>What are federal procedural norms?</h3>

Civil process in United States district courts is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Rules Enabling Act requires the United States Supreme Court to promulgate the FRCP, after which the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules or they become part of the FRCP.

<h3>Further overview on the above legal situation is as follows:</h3>

At the first stage of the "trial," the defendant must submit a plea. This is frequently followed by a first appearance or preliminary hearing, which may involve a plea if evidence is discovered.

If there are compelling reasons to proceed, a grand jury will be formed to conduct more investigations.

A grand jury must provide evidence that justifies a capital murder trial. The district attorney's office has the same authority. The defendant is then asked if he understands the charge at a pre-trial arraignment.

A plea can also be entered here at times. If the evidence merits it, a formal writ will be sent to the court, signaling the start of a trial.

Following that, pre-trial hearings are held, and witnesses may be questioned. If the defendant claims to have an alibi, he must normally produce documentation. He must describe in full where and when he was when he was exonerated from the crime.

A mental examination may be conducted in some circumstances, particularly in capital trials. There may be a demand that multiple-count trials be heard separately in order to avoid biasing the jury (guilty of the first, more likely that he is guilty of the second).

Deposits can then be made. These are largely out-of-court testimony from witnesses that will serve as the foundation for the defense or prosecution when the trial begins.

Depending on the stage, either of these processes can be considered part of the discovery process. The defendant's record is disclosed at this point, and specific objects of evidence are given over for the defendant's comprehension.

The "Pre-Trial Conference," a relatively new federal rule, is convened to agree on specific criteria throughout the trial. The goal is to speed up the trial and streamline the procedure in general.

The defendant might then request that the case be transferred to another jurisdiction.

Learn more about justice:
brainly.com/question/22967374
#SPJ4

7 0

2 years ago

WILL MARK BRAINLIEST!!! 100 POINTS!!! For this project, you have the opportunity to be the author and write brief newspaper arti

LUCKY_DIMON [66]

Answer:

Manufacturers are used to defending strict product liability actions when plaintiffs claim that their products are defective. But in the opioid litigation, plaintiffs have filed something else: more than 2,500 public nuisance cases so far.

Governmental entities across the country are filing suits alleging that opioid manufacturers deceptively marketed their legal, opioid-based pain medications to understate the medication’s addictive qualities and to overstate its effectiveness in treating pain. In addition, plaintiffs allege that opioid distributors failed to properly monitor how frequently the medication was prescribed and failed to stop filling prescription orders from known “pill mills.” The complaints claim that manufacturer defendants’ deceptive marketing schemes and distributor defendants’ failure to monitor led more people to become addicted to painkillers, which led to people turning to illegal opioids. The legal argument here is that the defendants’ actions in concert interfered with an alleged public right against unwarranted illness and addition. But is public nuisance law likely to be a successful avenue for prosecuting these types of mass tort claims? It has not been in the past.

This is the first of two posts that will address how plaintiffs have historically used public nuisance law to prosecute mass tort claims and how the plaintiffs in the current opioid litigation may fare.

Overview of Public Nuisance Law

In most states, a public nuisance is “an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.”[1] This definition is often broken down into four elements: (1) the defendant’s affirmative conduct caused (2) an unreasonable interference (3) with a right common to the general public (4) that is abatable.

Courts have interpreted these elements in different ways. For example, courts in Rhode Island and California have disagreed about when a public nuisance is abatable: the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that this element is satisfied only if the defendant had control over what caused the nuisance when the injury occurred, while the a California Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff need not prove this element at all.[2] And while the federal district court in Ohio handling the opioid multidistrict litigation (MDL) has held that the right to be free from unwarranted addiction is a public right,[3] the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the right to be “free from unreasonable jeopardy to health” is a private right and cannot be the basis of a public nuisance claim.[4]

Roots of Public Nuisance Law in Mass Tort Cases

Plaintiffs litigating mass tort cases have turned to public nuisance law over the past decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to use it to hold asbestos manufacturers liable.[5] In one case, plaintiffs alleged that defendants created a nuisance by producing an asbestos-laced product that caused major health repercussions for a portion of the population. Plaintiffs argued that North Dakota nuisance law did not require defendants to have the asbestos-laced products within their control when the injury to the consumer occurred. Explicitly rejecting this theory, the Eighth Circuit held that North Dakota nuisance law required the defendant to have control over the product and found that defendant in the case before it did not have control over the asbestos-laced products because when the injury occurred, the products had already been distributed to consumers. The Eighth Circuit warned that broadening nuisance law to encompass these claims “would in effect totally rewrite” tort law, morphing nuisance law into “a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort.”[6]

3 0

3 years ago

Only the Florida Highway Patrol has jurisdiction to patrol the roadways of our

horsena [70]

Answer would be Yea it is False

7 0

3 years ago