Note the discrepancy between the burden of proof in a criminal trial (beyond a reasonable doubt) and the burden of proof to obtain a search warrant (probable cause). What is the rationale for allowing a lesser burden in the investigatory phase of prosecution? Do you agree with this rationale? Why or
why not?
When it comes to probable cause, a person cannot be convicted of a felony crime unless a judge or jury is convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, this requires that a trier of fact is fully satisfied and entirely convinced to a moral certainty that the evidence presented proves the guilt of the defendant. The burden of proof to obtain a search warrant is less because allows law enforcement to effectively investigate and prevent crime.
Is the more likely than not burden of proof appropriate for approval of an application for a search warrant, or should the use of beyond a reasonable doubt burden be required instead?
If there is a clear and considerable amount of evidence then the "more likely than not" is appropriate for approval of an application for a search.
