Also known as: reasonably should have known · knew or should have known · constructive knowledge · imputed knowledge
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A legal standard imputing knowledge to a party based on facts that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have discovered or understood.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Roberto Reyes filed suit against a misnamed corporate defendant within the limitations period. The correct entity received service shortly afterward and realized from the complaint allegations that it was the intended target. The court permitted the amendment to relate back because the entity knew or should have known of the mistake in identity.
Ralph Richardson moved into a new jurisdiction and began operating a business subject to a registration ordinance. Local records and public notices were available at the courthouse and online, yet he never checked them. When prosecuted for failure to register, the court held that Richardson reasonably should have known of the duty from the readily accessible information.
Rajesh Rao, a government official, ordered a search based on information that a reasonable officer would have recognized as stale. The plaintiff sued under section 1983. The court denied immunity because Rao reasonably should have known that the warrant lacked probable cause under clearly established law.
Renee Rogers accepted several valuable items from a stranger at a suspiciously low price and without any bill of sale. When charged with receiving stolen property, the court instructed the jury that it could infer guilty knowledge if Rogers reasonably should have known the goods were stolen under the circumstances.
Rachel Ramirez, defense counsel, held a press conference revealing details about an ongoing prosecution. The state bar charged her with violating a rule against prejudicial statements. The court upheld discipline because Ramirez reasonably should have known that the disclosures would create a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to the proceeding.
Raymond Ramos, a city employee, sent personal text messages on a department-issued pager after receiving a policy memo warning that all messages were subject to review. When the city audited the pager, Ramos claimed a privacy violation. The court rejected the claim because Ramos reasonably should have known that the messages were not private.
The standard centers on what the party to be charged knew or should have known within the relevant time frame. The plaintiff's own knowledge or lack of diligence is not the controlling inquiry.
…Amendments require the exclusion from evidence of statements obtained as the fruit of an arrest which the arresting officers knew or should have known was without probable cause and unconstitutional, and (2) that the statements obtained in this case were in this category, I am in agreement and therefore concur in the judgment.…