What is the burden of proof in a non-criminal traffic case?

In non-criminal traffic cases, the burden of proof is established as "preponderance of evidence." This standard requires that the evidence presented by one side outweighs or is more convincing than the evidence presented by the other side. It does not necessitate absolute certainty, but rather indicates that it is more likely than not that the claim being made is true.

This standard is appropriate for non-criminal matters, such as traffic violations, where the consequences typically do not involve imprisonment or severe penalties. Instead, civil penalties, fines, or points on a driving record may result.

The other standards of proof mentioned do not apply to non-criminal traffic cases. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is reserved for criminal cases where a high level of certainty is required before a guilty verdict can be rendered. "Clear and convincing evidence" is a higher standard than preponderance of evidence but is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt, typically used in certain civil cases where a more substantial burden is necessary. "Reasonable suspicion" is not a standard of proof but rather a level of belief that is necessary for law enforcement to initiate an investigation or stop, and it does not determine the outcome of a case.