reasonable cause standard in California

2013If the court finds that this showing of no reasonable cause has been made by the petitioner, then the burden of proof shall shift to the respondent to show that a reasonable cause exists to believe that the petitioner committed the offense for which the arrest was made.” “ ‘ “ ‘Reasonable cause’ ” ’ is a well-established legal standard, ‘ “defined as that state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime.” ’ ” (People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 904 (Adair).) Thus, to

2001Supp. 9, 234 Cal.Rptr. 590 .) In People v. Matthews, supra, 7 Cal. App.4th 1052 , 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 348 , the Court of Appeal did not set forth the standard of review that was applied, but it is clear that the court conducted an independent review of the facts of the case in order to ascertain whether or not the trial court had abused its discretion in granting a petition pursuant to section 851.8, by reference to the standard set forth in subsection (b).

2013He explained, “I have read [People v. Gregerson (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 306 (Gregerson)], and all along it was my impression that this was a reasonable cause standard, fairly low standard, to obtain outpatient treatment. [¶] [Appellant] must raise a strong suspicion in a person of ordinary prudence that outpatient treatment would be safe and effective.

2013(Gregerson, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 320 .) “Accordingly, if the court grants outpatient treatment, its order will be affirmed if substantial evidence shows reasonable cause existed to believe outpatient treatment would be safe and effective.

2016(See Sgro v. United States (1932) 287 U.S. 206 ; Alexander v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 387 ; People v. Hulland (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1646 ; Hemler v. Superior Court (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 430 .) The reasonable cause analysis requires a consideration of the particular facts known to the officer, and the holdings in those decisions are not applicable here.

2016(See Sgro v. United States (1932) 287 U.S. 206 ; Alexander v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 387 ; People v. Hulland (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1646 ; Hemler v. Superior Court (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 430 .) The reasonable cause analysis requires a consideration of the particular facts known to the officer, and the holdings in those decisions are not applicable here.

2016(See Sgro v. United States (1932) 287 U.S. 206 ; Alexander v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 387 ; People v. Hulland (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1646 ; Hemler v. Superior Court (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 430 .) The reasonable cause analysis requires a consideration of the particular facts known to the officer, and the holdings in those decisions are not applicable here.

2016(Kobzoff, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 857 .) And to be considered facts, assertions must be supported by evidence.

2016(See Sgro v. United States (1932) 287 U.S. 206 ; Alexander v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 387 ; People v. Hulland (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1646 ; Hemler v. Superior Court (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 430 .) The reasonable cause analysis requires a consideration of the particular facts known to the officer, and the holdings in those decisions are not applicable here.

2013He . . . must establish ‘ “that there was no reasonable cause to arrest him in the first place.” ’ ” (People v. Medlin (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1102 .) Petitioners must “ ‘show that the state should never have subjected them to the compulsion of the criminal law—because no objective factors justified official action . . . .’ ” (Adair, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 909 .) “In sum, the record must exonerate, not merely raise a substantial question as to guilt.” (Ibid.) Section 851.8 therefore “precludes a finding of factual innocence if any reasonable cause exists to believe the [petitioner] commi

2013He . . . must establish ‘ “that there was no reasonable cause to arrest him in the first place.” ’ ” (People v. Medlin (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1102 .) Petitioners must “ ‘show that the state should never have subjected them to the compulsion of the criminal law—because no objective factors justified official action . . . .’ ” (Adair, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 909 .) “In sum, the record must exonerate, not merely raise a substantial question as to guilt.” (Ibid.) Section 851.8 therefore “precludes a finding of factual innocence if any reasonable cause exists to believe the [petitioner] commi

2001Supp. 9, 234 Cal.Rptr. 590 .) In People v. Matthews, supra, 7 Cal. App.4th 1052 , 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 348 , the Court of Appeal did not set forth the standard of review that was applied, but it is clear that the court conducted an independent review of the facts of the case in order to ascertain whether or not the trial court had abused its discretion in granting a petition pursuant to section 851.8, by reference to the standard set forth in subsection (b).

1995(See, e.g., Diversified Realty Group v. Davis (1993) 257 Ill.App.3d 417 [ 195 Ill.Dec. 617 , 628 N.E.2d 1081 ].) The stipulated facts establish that Respondent is an agency that receives federal funding.

1995(See, e.g., Diversified Realty Group v. Davis (1993) 257 Ill.App.3d 417 [ 195 Ill.Dec. 617 , 628 N.E.2d 1081 ].) The stipulated facts establish that Respondent is an agency that receives federal funding.

1986As discussed above, an appellate court may reverse for instructional error only if it is reasonably probable that a different result would have occurred in the absence of the error. ( Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 770 .) Reviewing this record in light of the factors set forth above, it does not appear that the jury would have ruled in Oakland's favor had it been properly instructed.