So, minor rant. I had a local academy student riding with me the other day who's interested in applying at my agency. He informed me he was taught that probable cause meant that it was "more likely than not" that a crime was/is being committed by a given suspect. I proceeded to tell him that "more likely than not" was the definition of preponderance of the evidence, which is, obviously, a higher, quantified burden of proof. I further added that the vast majority of my arrests are really based on evidence MUCH closer to meeting the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think he believed me, which is frustrating. I know this is a common misconception, even among police officers, but stuff like this drives me nuts. Obviously, local courts and prosecutors might have more restrictive requirements, but why voluntarily give up investigative authority to misinformation?