Probable cause y la cuarta enmienda de la constitución estadounidenseUna garantía tan imprecisa como necesaria

  1. Lorena Bachmaier Winter
Revista:
Quaestio facti. Revista internacional sobre razonamiento probatorio

ISSN: 2604-6202

Any de publicació: 2023

Número: 4

Pàgines: 191-220

Tipus: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccés obert editor

Altres publicacions en: Quaestio facti. Revista internacional sobre razonamiento probatorio

Resum

The aim of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution is to protect the right to liberty and privacy of all citizens against illegitimate interferences by the executive. Only if the police proves that there are sufficient factual elements that show the probability that a crime has been committed or is being committed, or of finding evidence of a crime, such interference would be in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. The concept of probable cause in the United States is not only a standard of proof since it is a core element of the notion of the rule of law. However, the Fourth Amendment does not define what probable cause is, and the case law has only been able to affirm that it is a standard that exceeds what would be a mere suspicion, and that it is clearly below the degree of certainty that is required to convict a defendant. Within this wide range, the US Supreme Court has recognized that the determining factor will be a calculation of probabilities. In this paper I intend to reflect, in the first place, on the meaning of probable cause in the US Supreme Court case law, and to show the importance of this constitutional safeguard, beyond its consideration or not as a standard of proof, which has a growing relevance in the digital society

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Antkowiak, B. A. (2007). Saving Probable Cause. Suffolk University Law Review, 40(3).
  • Bacigal, R. J. (2004). Making the Right Gamble: The Odds on Probable Cause. Mississipi Law Journal, 74, p. 279-340.
  • Bellin, J. (2011). Crime-Severity Distinctions and the Fourth Amendment: Reassessing Reasonableness in a Changing World. Iowa Law Review, 97, p. 1-48.
  • Cuddihy, W. J. (2009). The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning. Oxford University Press.
  • Colb, S. F. (1998). The Qualitative Dimension of the Fourth Amendment “Reasonableness”. Columbia Law Review, 98(7), p. 1642-1725.
  • Dei Vecchi, D. (2020). Los confines pragmáticos del razonamiento probatorio. Zela-Ceji.
  • Ferguson, A. G. (2017). Big Data Surveillance: The Convergence of Big Data and Law Enforcement. En D. Grey y S.E. Henderson (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Surveillance Law. Cambridge University Press.
  • Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2021). Prueba sin convicción: Estándares de prueba y debido proceso. Marcial Pons.
  • Flach, P. (2012). Machine Learning: The Art and Science of Algorithms That Make Sense of Data. Cambridge University Press.
  • Gómez Colomer, J. L. (2021). El indicio de cargo y la presunción judicial de culpabilidad en el proceso penal. Tirant lo Blanch.
  • Haack, S. (2014). Legal Probabilism: An Epistemological Dissent. En Evidence Matters: Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law (p.47-77). Cambridge University Press.
  • Knauer, C., Kudlich, H. y Schneider, H. (2018). Münchener Kommentar StPO (vol 1). Beck.
  • LaFave W. R. (2004). Search and Seizure: A Treatise of the Fourth Amendment (4ª ed). West Publishing Co.
  • Lee, C. (2020). Probable Cause with Teeth. George Washington Law Review, 88(2), p. 269-326.
  • Martínez-Torrón, J. (1991). Derecho angloamericano y derecho canónico: las raíces canónicas de la “common law”. Revista española de derecho administrativo, 76, p. 689-693.
  • Nieva Fenoll, J. (2020). Carga de la prueba y estándares de prueba. InDret, 3.2020, p. 406-437.
  • Ortman, W. (2016). Probable cause revisited. Stanford Law Review, 68, p. 511-568.
  • Rich, M. L. (2016). Machine learning, automated suspicion algorithm, and the Fourth Amendment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164, p. 871-929.
  • Shapiro, B. (1991). Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probable Cause. University of California Press.
  • Slobogin, C. (1991). The World Without a Fourth Amendment. UCLA Law Review, 39(1), p. 1-107.
  • Stuntz, W. J. (2001). O.J. Simpson, Bill Clinton, and the Transsubstantive Fourth Amendment. Harvard Law Review, 114(3), p. 842-876.
  • Stuntz, W. J. (2002). Local Policing After the Terror. The Yale Law Journal, 111(8), p. 2137-2194.
  • Weber, J. K. (1982). The Birth of Probable Cause. Anglo-American Law Review, 11(2).
  • Legislación
  • Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).
  • Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 725 (1968).
  • Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964).
  • Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
  • Bordenkircher v. Hayes 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978).
  • Brinegar v. United Sates 388 U.S. 160, 174 (1949).
  • Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616, 624 (1886).
  • Byars v. United States 237 U.S. 28 (1927).
  • Carpenter v. United States 585 U.S.__ (2018).
  • Carroll v. United States 267 U.S. 132 (1929).
  • COM (2018). Propuesta de Reglamento sobre la orden europea de entrega y conservación de pruebas electrónicas a efectos de enjuiciamiento penal, de 17 abril 2018.
  • Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004).
  • Dumbra v. United States 268 U.S. 435 (1925).
  • Elci and Others v. Turkey, App no. 23145/93, 25091/94, de 13 de noviembre de 2003
  • Erdagöz v. Turkey, App no 21890, de 22 de octubre de 1997
  • Franks v. Delaware 438 U.S., 154, 171 (1978).
  • Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, App nos 12244/86; 12245/86; 12383/86, de 30 de agosto de 1990
  • Gerstein v. Pugh 420 U.S. 103, 125 (1975).
  • Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, App no 4158/05, de 12 de enero de 2010.
  • Giordenello v. United States 357 U.S. 480 (1950).
  • Henry v. United States 361 U.S. 98, 102 (1959).
  • Illinois v. Gates 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
  • Jones v. United States 362 U.S. 257 (1960).
  • Katz v. United States 389 US 347 (1967).
  • Kudla v. Poland, App no 30210/96, de 26 de octubre de 2000.
  • Labita v. Italy [GC], App no, 26772/95, de 6 de abril de 2000
  • Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal. «Gaceta de Madrid» núm. 260, de 17/09/1882
  • Maryland v. Pringle 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003).
  • McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], App no 543/03, de 3 de octubre de 2006
  • Morrisey v. Brewer 408 U.S. 471, 485 (1972).
  • Murray v. the United Kingdom, App no 14310/88, de 28 de octubre de 1994
  • O’hara v. the United Kingdom, App no 37555/97, de 16 de octubre de 2001
  • Oral and Atabay v. Turkey, App no 39686/02, de 23 de junio de 2009
  • Ornelas v. United States 517 U.S. 690, 695 (1996).
  • Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).
  • Samson v. California 547 U.S. 843 (2006).
  • Spinelli v. United States 393 U.S. 410 (1969).
  • STC 26/2010, de 27 de abril
  • Stepuleac v. Moldova, App no 20269/09, 24065/09, de 16 de marzo de 2010
  • Steel v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 504-505 (1925).
  • STS 32/1995, de 4 de diciembre
  • STS 2179/2002, de 26 de diciembre
  • STS 611/2008, de 19 de junio
  • STS 153/2015, de 18 de marzo
  • Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968).
  • Texas v. Brown 460 U.S. 730 (1983).
  • United States v. Grubbs 547 U.S. 90, 95 (2006).
  • United States v. Harris 403 U.S. 573 (1971).
  • United States v. Knight 534 U.S. 112, 118-121 (2001).
  • United States v. Sokolow 490 U.S. 1, 7(1989).
  • United States v. Ventresca 380, U.S. 102 (1965).
  • Vinks and Ribicka v. Latvia, App no 28926/10, de 30 de enero de 2020
  • Whitley v. Warden 401 U.S. 560, 564 (1971).
  • Winship 397 U.S. 358 (1970).
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet