Avoiding false arrest?

I have been probing around this question for a while. I do understand arrest and warrant procedure. What I question is the amount of evidence needed to obtain this. Probable cause is such a low standard, how do you avoid getting the wrong person. I have used a burglary scenario before, and finding prints inside of the structure, whether it be a car, house, or business. Just because the prints belong to a strange person does not mean that that person committed the crime. Yet, the prints are enough for an arrest, and some feel the mere presence is enough for a conviction. I can think of many different reason in why a strangers prints maybe inside my house, car, or business that do not include the crime at hand. I am sure it would be very easy to pin the crime on the stranger, but it still likely that, that person may not have committed the crime. So my question is how do you make the determination that you have the right person. Simply placing a person at a scene should not be enough to charge a person, even if they are a stranger to the victim. It would be way to easy, to say ';well the victim did not know this person, so lets just charge him'; Ending, how is it that you avoid arresting and potentially charging the wrong person?Avoiding false arrest?
Prints within a crime scene are a portion of a larger puzzle. If the prints are inside a car, or home of a victim, the District attorney can very well shown reasonable cause for conviction IF the defendant fails to show why the prints were ligitimately there.





Example: A vagrant commits murder and leaves a latent (unidentified)print inside a Residence on a mirror, or a weapon, or a drawer, or a glass. The print is identified weeks later by the FBI and is traced back to the vagrant.





The vagrant is found 6 months later and interviewed by police. He can say nothing at all or claim he knows nothing, never been there. He is arrested on Probable cause due to the print inside the home.





The D.A. simply argues the vagrant did not know the victim, never been inside the house and supports it all by calling witnessess to this effect. The family states they don't know him, never saw him.





This single print is good evidence, very convincing, yet, not so strong a case when you consider OJ Simpsons weak Jury let him go because one cop told ethnic jokes and lied about it; the Jury will do anything they wish at anytime they wish.





Same case as above but the print is that of a relative whom came to the house five times that year alone, stayed the night, used the kitchen ect. Very weak case as the defense will show buttbreath was definatley in the house but did nothing wrong. I would not arrest on the print alone as it makes no case for murder as I can view it.Avoiding false arrest?
Give me one circumstance where the fingerprints of an uninvited stranger would be found in my house, where that would not prove at least criminal trespass and breaking and entering?
you should probably just avoid criminal activities
Probable cause, meaning that a crime has been, is about to be committed and that the person in question/arrested is, by reasonable standards, probably the one who has/was going to commit the crime. Yes, because someone does not know who the hell you are and your fingerprints are on their property that was damaged in someway, common sense tells you that you should be a person of suspicion. If you are questioned about it by an officer and your story stinks like **** (in other words you cannot explain why your prints are in their house in, say a tv your weak, dumb *** couldn't carry), then lets cuff ya up, through you in jail and away we go with the justice system! Cops are human just like you or I (yes, that means prone to making mistakes) and I thank god that they make the hard decision of throwing sometimes innocent people in jail instead making no decision at all. Crime rate is ridiculous in the U.S and I would rather have the security we all take for granted than to let a bunch of cops standing around wondering whether they should act or not. We pay them, shitty wages mind you, to make these tough decision so that 90% of American candy a$$es don't have too!
That's not how it works. The evidence is enough to be locked up and charged. The actual determination of guilt comes with a trial in which the case is laid out to 12 ';unbiased'; jurors. The only way to come to a guilty verdict is if ALL 12 declare guilt on the part of the defendant.





I think your question jumps from the scene right to the prison -- doesn't work that way.





However, you do bring a valid argument concerning probable cause -- seems like a subjective determination to be made by the officer. The lines are messy there.

layered hair