49

It seems like the officer should have to present at least some kind of evidence that the alleged crime occurred. Testimony is evidence. Officers can and do abuse this, but courts tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, so they typically attribute greater weight and credibility to a police officer's testimony than to that of a defendant.


28

The Sixth Amendment states that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy... the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him". You are not being criminally prosecuted, so the Sixth Amendment simply does not apply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause


28

It depends on whether you were cited for the violation and the nature of the violation. Contrary to the other answers here, building-code violations in Maryland can, in fact, be criminal offenses, civil offenses, or both. See, e.g., Baltimore Building Code § 35-2-304(b): (1) A person may not erect, construct, repair, alter, remodel, remove, or demolish a ...


23

Identifying someone as a criminal without charging them and thereby giving them an opportunity to clear their names has due process implications, largely because of the associated reputational damage. DOJ policy therefore advises against naming unindicted co-conspirators: Ordinarily, there is no need to name a person as an unindicted co-conspirator in ...


22

No. This isn't possible. A judge can only sentence someone after they have pleaded guilty or been found to be guilty, following an indictment or criminal complaint, and multiple advisements of rights.


17

European viewpoint: "Innocent until proven guilty" relates only to the criminal process. There is also an "administrative process" where the traffic control pretty much belongs, as well as other matters where the government exerts control, e.g. food quality. In the administrative process, the inspector's findings are considered true ...


14

Is my accuser the person who petitioned the county to investigate a code violation? No. The Sixth Amendment provides the right to know the name of anyone who is asserting to have personal knowledge of your alleged offense, if the government relies on that assertion in evaluating your guilt. If the government independently verifies the facts involved, and ...


12

However, if it's his word against mine ... I don't know the US point of view, but I have read that in Germany the courts evaluate the "evidence" (which includes statements of witnesses) by importance. If your word is against the word of the police officer, the court will judge the two statements the following way: The police officer is trained to ...


11

Historical speaking, the British system of law dates back to the Magna Carta and is designed to prevent abuse of power by the King / State Government. Think of the Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland shouting "off with his head" against anybody who displeased her in the slightest. The social contract permits the King / State Government to retain their ...


10

I believe you are using rule of law when you mean due process. The former refers to equality before the law and the subjugation of executive government to the law while the latter refers accepted measures of justice and fairness in the administration of the law and, in the United States, to the supremacy of the judiciary over the legislature (the situation ...


8

Civil forfeiture typically pits the government against property, not the government against an individual, and in the US (also anywhere else), only people have rights: property has no rights. The first relevant instance to reach the Supreme Court was an early case, The Palmyra (25 US 1), where a ship was confiscated because it had been used in privateering ...


7

In the United States who has the authority and what is the procedure to determine if conduct by an individual is "illegal"? You are conflating several different ideas here, which is probably the source of your persistent confusion. 1) Actions are legal or not Illegal: Not authorized by law; Illicit ; unlawful; contrary to law The law sets out certain ...


7

The phrase "reasonable doubt" was formed hundreds of years ago, and does not hold any mathematical or probabilistic meaning. It is for each individual juror to decide for themselves what constitutes "reasonable doubt", and whether the evidence presented to them has crossed that threshold. EDIT for extra clarity: As stated above, the definition of "...


7

This can be effected without evidence or trial or a right to an appeal in front of an objective party. Not so. If a person is charged with a crime for violating such a code, (or refusing to leave when ordered under such a code) they could defend on the grounds that it is unreasonable, unauthorized, or violates that person's constitutional or statutory ...


6

Sovereign immunity is the wrong doctrine Sovereign immunity relates to the inability of a sovereign or state to commit a legal wrong and immunity from civil or criminal liability. However, it applies to immunity under domestic law - Nazis were tried before Allied military tribunals. Hitler, had he survived would have been tried at Nuremburg along with the ...


5

In most cases, the failure to use Robert's Rules of Order will not be a violation of due process. To be a violation, (1) due process must be required; and (2) the procedure must either (a) fail to satisfy the elements of due process (notice and a hearing); or (b) be inadequate. Was due process required? As a threshold matter, the Fifth Amendment provides due-...


5

The Sixth Amendment does not help you, but your state's Public Records law might. This is the law for Washington state. Under that state law, government records are public, with certain exceptions. So the first question is whether there is a government record of the alleged code violation. An actual letter (as opposed to an anonymous phone call) would be a ...


5

Both the Due Process Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause impose meaningful limits on states' ability to tax income on residents. The Due Process Clause requires "minimum contacts" between the state and the taxpayer. Under the Due Process Clause, states may only tax a nonresident's income when there is a "some definite link, some minimum ...


5

You are not presumed guilty. You are accused by an eyewitness (the police officer). In my experience, if the eyewitness does not appear, the case is dismissed. Even then, his word is not beyond doubt, if you can show evidence, you can sometimes win the case. (in my case I was new to the area and a construction sign partially obscured the speed limit sign - I ...


4

The first method of dispute resolution is called negotiation. This is a technique where the parties involved follow a process known as talking to each other to see if they can agree on a resolution. What makes this enforceable is a thing called goodwill. If they cannot agree or if there is insufficient goodwill people can (in some circumstances) ask a court ...


4

There are two primary parts to the question. The first is, is it a violation of the due process clauses to deprive you of property or liberty without following the law: the answer is, it is. If you did not violate any law, you cannot legally be punished. That does not mean that you understand the law correctly, e.g. you may not be aware that non-payment of ...


3

This an instance of the general rule ignorantia legis neminem excusat: ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the municipal ordinances state that a particular place does not allow parking at certain times, then if you park there you have violated the law and will get ticketed. There is no requirement that there be signs prominently posted saying that you must ...


3

They never legally existed According to True West magazine, no government ever issued a wanted poster containing the phrase “dead or alive”. The iconic posters were promulgated by private organisations railroads, Wells Fargo, Pinkerton etc. No doubt, if challenged, those organisations would argue that they were simply stating the terms under which the ...


3

Yes, there is legal precedent against this that would only apply to a government employee. First, let's discuss the private sector. In this case, you are a private employee that comes to your place of work and accuses you of "stealing the cookies from the cookie jar" which is a serious criminal offense. They wish to talk and your boss is in the room. You ...


3

In the US the jury is the fact-finder, while the judge is responsible for decisions purely related to the law. The defendant cannot be convicted unless the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Presumably the OP's probability P(A) is the probability the defendant is guilty given all information available to some ill-...


3

What factors might a court consider in these circumstances? Is it true that anyone can just walk up and file a document in any case, with no requirement to identify themselves? If nobody admits to filing a document, it is likely that the court would grant a motion to strike the document and disregard it (revising a past ruling if the issue was raised ...


3

Regarding the second part of your question: The 7th Amendment does not apply in state court, so any right to a jury trial there would depend upon the constitution of the State of Texas (specifically Article I, Section 15 of the Texas Constitution). This is the case because the Bill of Rights applies by its terms only to the federal government. Under the ...


3

No. A judge can not pass a verdict on someone who isn't on trial. And who gets put on trial is the decision of the prosecutor. So when a court comes to the conclusion that the crime was without doubt committed by a different person who also happens to be present, then: The prosecution would drop the charges, resulting in the current suspect to go free. The ...


2

In a common law jurisdiction in the circumstances you describe you cannot be charged with a crime; much less proved guilty of it. In Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission; Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Childs) [2010] HCA 1 (3 February 2010) the High Court said: The common law requires that a defendant ...


2

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 17.42, Personal Bond Office, is the Texas law that allows a "personal bond fee" to be collected. It defines the bond fee as the greater of $20 or 3% of the amount of the bail. The U.S. Supreme Court in Schilb v. Kuebel held that administrative fees charged to both innocent and guilty were constitutional and did not impose a ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible