Probable cause, by definition, is sufficient for an arrest. It IS NOT sufficient for a conviction. That said, if there is NO evidence, there isn't probable cause.
And what is this "probable cause" ? Please tell us. In North Korea, the police don't need evidence or eye witnesses to hold you responsible. In just about all other civilized places, there has to be _some_ evidence. Note that the term "evidence" includes eye witness statements. The police don't just randomly pick the 11th person who they meet on the street.
Yes, police don't need evidence to arrest. Evidence only really needs to be involved when it goes before a judiciary. Cops often avoid arresting without evidence so as not to look foolish in open courts, however this isn't an issue in closed/secret courts in which the state acts in secrecy and can provide secret "evidence", of course there's also fabricated evidence which I'm willing to bet is more common than we know about due to institutionalised cover ups.
Police don't hold you responsible. If they have probable cause, they can detain you for questioning for a limited period and then must either charge you with a crime or release you. They may continue to investigate and can repeat the questioning process. If you are charged with a crime, the only party that can hold you responsible is a jury of your peers after a trial, by finding you guilty.
Anyone can be suspect. If or when they file charges against a person that person has the right to plea and they can submit their plea however they want. If a person pleads innocent they have to prove that persons guilt.
Answers & Comments
Probable cause, by definition, is sufficient for an arrest. It IS NOT sufficient for a conviction. That said, if there is NO evidence, there isn't probable cause.
Probable cause it snot how you hold someone responsible for a crime. You are confused.
And what is this "probable cause" ? Please tell us. In North Korea, the police don't need evidence or eye witnesses to hold you responsible. In just about all other civilized places, there has to be _some_ evidence. Note that the term "evidence" includes eye witness statements. The police don't just randomly pick the 11th person who they meet on the street.
The Police have nothing to do with holding you "responbile."
Are you asking about the District Attorney? Yes, he or she can.
Yes, police don't need evidence to arrest. Evidence only really needs to be involved when it goes before a judiciary. Cops often avoid arresting without evidence so as not to look foolish in open courts, however this isn't an issue in closed/secret courts in which the state acts in secrecy and can provide secret "evidence", of course there's also fabricated evidence which I'm willing to bet is more common than we know about due to institutionalised cover ups.
What information is the "probable cause" based on? Generally that information = evidence even if it is circumstantial.
Police don't hold you responsible. If they have probable cause, they can detain you for questioning for a limited period and then must either charge you with a crime or release you. They may continue to investigate and can repeat the questioning process. If you are charged with a crime, the only party that can hold you responsible is a jury of your peers after a trial, by finding you guilty.
Anyone can be suspect. If or when they file charges against a person that person has the right to plea and they can submit their plea however they want. If a person pleads innocent they have to prove that persons guilt.
Picking your name at random out of the phone book is not enough for pc.
They can arrest you if there's probable cause. There aren't always witnesses to crimes.
However, "probable cause" means they have SOME sort of evidence.