united-states evidence
Preponderence of evidence, but not probable cause
<p>In a recent <a href="https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2022/09/09/new-port-richey-officer-fired-amid-allegations-of-fondling-girl-in-custody/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">incident</a> in Florida, a police officer was fired due to accusations of sexual assault. In an interview, the chief of police said that the officer would not be charged, because there was &quot;a preponderence of evidence, but not probable cause.&quot;</p>
<p>I see that preponderence of evidence is defined as &quot;greater than 50% chance that the claim is true&quot; (or &quot;more likely than not&quot;). It's frequently brought up as a less rigorous standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>However, just from the language, I would think that probable cause would be less rigorous than a preponderence of evidence. This intuition seems to be corroborated by <a href="https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/legal-standards-by-the-numbers/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> article from Duke:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Preponderance of the evidence requires a finding of more likely than not, whereas probable cause is a lower standard that requires reasonable grounds to believe.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How can one have a preponderence of evidence, but not probable cause?</p>

<p>The quote seems to come from <a href="https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/local/pascocounty/new-port-richey-officer-bobby-lubrido-allegations-fondling-teen-girl/67-5194e689-66e0-4f6a-b173-3c202a1abe50" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>. Immediately before the quote, the article states that &quot;Although New Port Richey Police found there to be enough evidence to terminate Lubrido, Bogart said there wasn't enough to criminally charge him&quot;. The <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/592926913/New-Port-Richey-police-officer-investigation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">attached documents</a> provide ample verbiage regarding the rules, regulations, investigation and findings by the police department.</p>
<p>It seems most likely that Chief Bogart was using words loosely. While police officers definitely have to understand what &quot;probable cause&quot; is (they arrest people if they have it), &quot;preponderance of evidence&quot; is a concept relevant to civil trials, thus not in the bailiwick of the police, so this could have just been informal talking. Nevertheless, a less abbreviated statement makes clear what the difference is – &quot;we found a preponderance of evidence to support termination of his employment contract, but not probable cause of a crime to support an arrest&quot;.</p>
