It may be only natural for people in California to assume that when law enforcement authorities make an arrest, they only do so after collecting overwhelming evidence as to a suspect’s guilt. This assumption may prompt many to offer them the proverbial “benefit of the doubt,” thus assuming the suspect’s guilt before they even have the chance to plead their case.
Yet simply because authorities arrest an individual does not mean that individual is automatically guilty of what they stand accused of. Many forget that the burden of proof falls on prosecuting officials to show that one committed a crime as opposed to that person needing to prove their innocence (although an absence of convincing evidence indirectly does just that).
Authorities cite firearms violation as the reason for Laguna Beach man’s arrest
According to The Mercury News, a Laguna Beach man hopes that such vindication may come to him following his arrest stemming from charges regarding his alleged actions during the federal capital riot earlier this year. The man acknowledged traveling to Washington. D.C. to attend the political rally that preceded the riot, yet he claims to have played no part in the subsequent unlawful interruption of the Congress’ proceedings. Still, federal authorities arrested and charged him with possession of a firearm (a violation of his parole from a previous offense). They failed, however, to provide any details as to what gave them probable cause to suspect his involvement in any crimes related to the riot.
Successfully challenging criminal charges
A lack of disclosure of details does not mean law enforcement authorities do not have them. Yet still, they must have a valid reason for suspecting one of criminal activity (and executing any actions related to that suspicion). Not having evidence to support such action may provide one with the grounds needed to successfully challenge any charges filed against them.