Probable Cause

Criminal Procedure video introduction to the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of the probable cause standard in Brinegar v. United States.

[allistairtrent]

Justice Jackson's dissent in Brinegar is some of the best dicta I have ever read and was my motivation to take up law as a profession. "Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government."

[dragonf]

Your car is your effects, the things in your pockets are your effects your body is your person, your ID, driver's license, insurance, registration are your papers, all protected under the 4th amendment warrant clause there is no probable cause to search anyone or anything without a legal lawful search warrant.

[supremecourt]

I just spent the past few hours going through your videos, which has really helped me in making my decision to attend Wake Law. I love your teaching style, hope I have you as professor. Loud, clear, and charismatic.

[rameshnyberg]

Very well done. My high school juniors are viewing this as we do class practicums and learn to write arrest and search warrants.

[dragonf]

The courts and law enforcement are also in violation of the 14th amendment section 1 if they illegally search any American citizen, their house, papers or effects (personal property) without a legal lawful search warrant signed by a judge under oath and affirmation.
14th amendment section 1
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states

[danstewart]

What do they say about police lying about the reasons for a stop?

[bornfree]

If all jury members do not know what probable cause is, they should be dismissed, the police, judges and prosecutors all get paid for violating the people, public servants are criminals working for a criminal enterprise.

[wisandjesus]

As an online student I love this video, perfect explanation

[jeromegarcia]

So I have a question for anyone here to answer please...
So if a state executive branch actor using state laws bringing a citizen to a quasi jurisdiction court of the executive branch, tho probable cause of a state crime without a victim of damages can be used against the citizens, would subject matter jurisdiction come into play to nullify the state law that conflicts with PREVIOUSLY PROTECTED RIGHTS?
Because the 7th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial, the state violates this right of due process the moment the cop acts outside of law and jurisdiction...
I ask because let's use medical cannabis card holder from a legal state visiting a non legal state, should have the right to interstate travel within their own state laws in the new state, if cops claim it's against the law, where's the damaged party? Because it's one thing to not use or understand medical cannabis, but it's another to understand rights yet willingness to violate that Right without authority to do so...
So this is a confusing topic JURISDICTION, state laws vs rights, rights being superior to the state article 6 clause 2, but education, attorneys and status quo will laugh at my very question claiming I'm a sovereign citizen, yet without a clear answer of the clear valid question at hand...
I don't claim to be right, I'm claiming I'm trying to understand the law, how does cannabis damage anyone, when cigarettes and alcohol are legal yet kill everyday???
Tho most people look down on cannabis, I'm a person who is of native Aboriginal black Spanish race, the trifecta of what no one wants to be, at two yrs old I've witnessed my mother murdered, I was kidnapped and abused until I was physically able to stop it myself,
As an adult today suffering from PTSD I'm 44 a long jagged road, I use cannabis because it actually helps me, counselor's have never been able to help me, it's a crazy thing to tell a professional about your life, and they can only sit there mouth open like oh my God... Umm, well, the good thing is that you are alive, that's good right? Do you want medication???
That never helped me... Cannabis seriously helps me not completely loose my mind on a trigger, like George Floyd, it's been weeks and I have fell off the wagon from not drinking because in this state I don't have medical cannabis, after 5 months of sobriety of anything, that 8:46 of a knee to a human has affected me immensely, I cry randomly as a grown man, and dealing with all my pain, I'm a criminal because I don't want to feel pain?
Poor, people of color, don't have a right to pursue happiness? I'm lost for a lawful answer, everyone who does basically says I'm wrong... But without the why...
Any answers I greatly appreciate it, thank you for your time and help...

[Harlem]

The question with Brinegar v. United States, is that the PC would seem moot, given that the states at that point lacked the constitutional authority to prohibit alcohol outright under the 21st amendment to the United States Constitution which was ratified in 1933. Thus, it would have seemed that the PC issue in Brinegar should have been ruled as moot.

[richardgreen]

The common law method was said to be the standard yet it appears that the method you initially suggested is used. But the standard is the common law method. So it is viable and reference to that superior standard was left unaddressed, as to understanding or requirements required to meet understanding. So what are the reasons and methods of an important due process facit of the law that must be satisfied to obtain jurisdiction?
Am I missing something or is this unaddressed? Just though i missed the meaning of probable cause according to the maxims or principles of the law. So if a student wants to abide in law correctly and it's written down and precedent to us how is it found to be enough proof to meet this (unwritten?) standard ? It must be repeatable and the same everywhere because it is governing the Land. It was used for centuries so it cannot be something that changes with the vote. And the thought that a change to understanding is expanded does not negate the original requirement but the change or additional understanding is acceptable as falling within that original meaning of that requirement. So what is the baseline minimum requirement of probable cause? What maxim/principles apply? What reports are made and who decides a violation exists before an arrest? Is there a check on the executive and legislative power by the judge before incarceration or arrest? Is incarceration before a warrant is issued allowed? Does the court have a duty to protect the citizen from unlawful incarceration? Our system was made to protect the people from government I would think that the right must first exist before the execution restraining ones liberty is allowed. Duties and responsibilities are governments rights. Do sheriff's have the duty to obtain a warrant upon incarceration?

[danstewart]

Are you going to discuss the leading arbiters of probable cause under the 4th Amendment — drug detection dogs?

[RIP_Otis]

did taft take a role in an office with a title of nobility? or was that after...food for thought

[notebene]

To the interested public:
I went to law school in California, took the MPRE (Multistate Professional Ethics Examination; need to pass prior to Bar Exam), I had to go through the Character and Fitnees review which requires a lengthy questionnaire which is sent in to the FBI and California state criminal database with fingerprints to find out if you had any bankruptcies, wrote bad checks, or any other crime of moral turpitude which then would bar you from being an attorney. I passed the three day bar examination (now two day) and then took my oath to become and attorney at law. what I see here resembles nothing like a real law school. You do not go to class and take notes and listen to a lecture. You are taught by the Socratic method. This entails that you have to read all the assigned cases prior to class and then the professor picks a student to brief the case and then is grilled by the professor as to what is the courts reasoning why did it differ in this case versus another case, of course you have to know the other case, and if you falter in your reasoning the professors would usually have you stand and brief the next case and then the next case after that and ask questions to humiliate you if you weren’t prepared. Fortunately, I was prepared. What I’m seeing here is a total joke. My professors never explained anything about a case never gave a lecture on a subject regarding a case or the subject matter in fact if you asked the professor a question you would be rebuffed and told “you want to be a lawyer go look it up”. To my knowledge my experience was not unique when speaking with other lawyers in California.

[SuddenExistentialDismissal]

Isn't a home more protected than anything else under the fourth amendment?

[fishermanfinder]

Second troubles all authority is defined by constitution
The constitution give the people full authority completely
The color of law is not law but acts of force

[BrainFood]

This means law enforcement can do whatever they want

[dragonf]

The fourth amendment text explicitly states unreasonable searches and seizures "SHALL NOT BE violated " therefore the only reasonable search and seizure is only with a legal lawful search warrant.

[fishermanfinder]

For sale is the key for federal laws enforcement agencies not cops

[hafsalinda]

Anonymous informant, would that be Florida vs JL?