Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof

Law and Human Behavior - Three laboratory experiments were conducted to compare legal (unquantified) definitions of three standards of proof (“preponderance of the evidence,”...     

Hindsight bias and third-party consentors to warrantless police searches

Research on hindsight bias indicates that awareness of event outcome influences how individuals interpret information and form judgments. We extend this earlier work to suggest that the effect of this bias on lay perceptions of third-party consent to warrantless searchers of residences may be contingent upon the presence verus absence of the search target(the suspect). A study using random assignment to experimental conditions in a between-subjects design explored this possibility. The experiment indicated that hindsight bias in perceived rights of the third-party consentor is influenced, not only by search outcome, but also by a web of overlapping and potentially competing social obligations and personal prerogatives, the salience of which is influenced by situational dynamics.Portions of this research were reported in a panel session at the 1989 meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Reno.     

Reasonable expectation of privacy and third-party consent searches

Reasonable expectation of privacy is discussed in the context of searches conducted without the warrants usually required by the Fourth Amendment but with the consent of a third party, who is not the target of the search. Case law on this issue is neither consistent nor clear-cut. Psychological theory and research clarify this issue by establishing closer correspondence between legal concepts and assumptions and individuals' actual behaviors and social expectations. The key legal components of reasonable expectation of privacy are delineated, with regard to third-party consent: “common authority” areas versus “exclusive use” areas and theassumption of risk doctrine. Next, the psychological theory and research on interpersonal relations and human territorial functioning are reviewed as they relate to the legal components of privacy regulation. Taken together, the legal criticisms of this warrant exception category, and possible discrepancies between the legal assumptions concerning interpersonal and territorial functioning among co-residents and the actual behaviors and expectations suggested by psychological theory and research, raise questions about its validity.