Opinion ID: 900344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Definition of Probable Cause

Text: [¶ 22.] The term probable cause as used in SDCL 20-13-28.1 denotes a standard of proof  a threshold that a claimant must meet in supporting the allegations of a charge. The circuit court defined that standard as of the time of Erdahl's claim as an apparent state of facts found to exist upon reasonable inquiry which would induce a reasonable, intelligent, and prudent person to believe, in civil cases, that a cause of action existed. Black's Law Dictionary 1365 (4th ed. 1968). We have defined the term in other contexts. In Zachodni, we defined it in a criminal context: Although the evidence supporting a probable cause determination must be `more than a bare suspicion,' it need not establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt or even proof by preponderance. Furthermore, each element of evidence need not be individually assessed for veracity and basis of knowledge. Rather the probable cause determination is a function of the totality of relevant circumstances.' 466 N.W.2d at 629 (citations omitted). [¶ 23.] We have also defined the term in the context of the advice of counsel defense to a malicious prosecution action, wherein absence of probable cause is an element the plaintiff must prove: When the proceedings are civil, the advice of counsel is a protection even though it consists merely of an opinion that the facts so known or believed afford a chance, whether great or small, that the claim asserted in civil proceedings may be upheld. Kaarup v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 485 N.W.2d 802, 805 (S.D.1992) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). See also Northern Tankers (Cyprus) Ltd. v. Backstrom, 901 F.Supp. 72, 75 (D.Conn.1995) (plaintiff does not have to establish he will prevail but only that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of a claim); Anderson v. Public Employes Retirement Bd., 134 Or.App. 422, 895 P.2d 1377, 1381 (1995) (`probable cause' means that `facts and circumstances provide an objectively reasonable basis for [an] agency to proceed'); State v. Seventy-Seven Thousand Fourteen and No/100 Dollars, 607 So.2d 576, 582 (La.Ct.App.1992) (probable cause in a civil case for a drug related forfeiture is less than a preponderance of evidence, but more than a suspicion); Young Oil Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Durbin, 412 So.2d 620, 626 (La.Ct.App.1982) (for purposes of civil recovery, [p]robable cause is not synonymous with `preponderance', being somewhere between `preponderance' and `suspicion'). [¶ 24.] We conclude that the term probable cause in SDCL 20-13-28.1, at the time Erdahl's claim was filed, denoted a lesser standard than preponderance of the evidence. The circuit court's definition fits such a standard. It requires only that a reasonable, intelligent, and prudent person would have more than a suspicion, upon reasonable inquiry, that a cause of action exists, whether the chances of success on the merits is great or small. We hold the circuit court did not err in its definition of probable cause.