Thursday, September 08, 2011

Court of Appeals Says “Probable Cause” Means More for Courts than Cops

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently published an opinion in People v. Cohen, ruling that the definition of “probable cause” was different when applied at the preliminary examination, than when applied by police in the field.  Probable cause a legal term that generally means enough evidence for a person to reasonably suspect that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed it.  However, in People v. Cohen, the Michigan Court of Appeals explained that there is more to it than that.

When it comes to police acting in their official capacity, the court based the determination of probable cause on the “probability that the person committed the crime as apparent to the officer at the time of the arrest.”  However, once the case progresses to the point that it comes before a judge on a preliminary examination, the standard is raised.  Beyond the requirements already described, the prosecution also has to prove that it probably will be able to establish the defendant’s guilt at the time of trial.  The difference is based on the fact that due to the circumstances and variables present in the field, police have to act on practical, nontechnical principals based on all the facts and circumstances available to them at the time.  The court, on the other hand, has the advantage of distance from the actual arrest, and the prosecutor has the advantage of having more time to gather information about what actually happened.  The prosecutor is therefore appropriately held to a higher standard in proving there is enough evidence to justify spending the court’s time and resources prosecuting the defendant.

So what does this mean to you as the defendant?  Under the new ruling, there is a slightly better chance that your case will be dismissed at the District Court level, without going through the time and expense of a full trial or resulting in a conviction.  Bear in mind, even under this new case, a probable cause standard is still the lowest standard of proof in any court proceeding, so most cases will still be bound over to Circuit Court.  However, the clarification of the standard given by the Court of Appeals puts a new emphasis on the preliminary examination, and gives your attorney a stronger basis to argue that the prosecutor simply has not provided enough proof to show that he or she will probably be able to prove your guilt.

* Please note: Every case is different, and there may be some aspect of your particular case which may result in an outcome other than is described above.  This post is not intended as legal advice and may not apply to your particular case.  It is always best to contact our office for a consultation if you have been or believe you may be charged with a crime.