Help With a Situation in Houston, Texas - I Was Arrested for Something I Did Not Do

God you beat me to it, SJ...lol

I concur. Better remedy is complaining, writing letters, maybe getting a news person interested (Houston Press?)...

I'm sure there are many many stories like this one as I stated above. It's crazy.

It's one thing to call for a change in the law, but it's quite another to claim that arresting a person because there's a warrant for their arrest means "[t]heir due process rights are being violated." That's just a false statement. If a person sued a city because a cop arrested the person because they had a warrant, they'd lose. they may even be subject to monetary sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Like I said, your knowledge of the law is far superior to mine, but still, there has to be some legal way to make the system pay for falsely arresting a person and detaining them for 2 days without cause. I'm not saying go after them for millions of dollars. More like 1) $1000 for being inconvenienced; 2) a complete expunging of any and all arrests/convictions based on the false information; 3) an apology. Those in the judicial system treat citizens like scum. They are jaded (and probably rightfully so), BUT this country was built on the presumption of innocence AND civil servants work for us-- not the other away around.

1. There's a reason for sovereign immunity.

2. We never got a clear answer as to whether there were ever warrants or not.

Like I said, your knowledge of the law is far superior to mine, but still, there has to be some legal way to make the system pay for falsely arresting a person and detaining them for 2 days without cause. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

You're talking about at least three completely different situations:

1. "People who don't know there may be warrants in their name should not be subjected to summary arrest. Their due process rights are being violated." Here, let's assume the person was legally stopped, there was one or more arrest warrants in their name, and they were arrested. Nothing in this situation indicates a civil rights violation.

2. "...falsely arresting a person and detaining them ... without cause." Let's assume
the person was legally stopped, there was NOT an arrest warrant in their name, and the cop arrested them anyway by mistake. That's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situation from the first situation. If the cop made a mistake and arrested the 'wrong' person (that is, not the person named in the warrant), that COULD be a civil rights violation. But proof of mere negligence on the part of the officer is not enough to prove a civil rights violation. In a federal civil rights violation case, the plaintiff must prove "the defendant acted willfully, that is, that the defendant committed such act or acts with a bad purpose or evil motive, intending to deprive the victim of that right." That's very difficult to prove. People are, unfortunately, stopped, detained, and arrested by mistake all the time. Cops are human and make mistakes. Dumb cops make more mistakes. An example is the lady stopped and detained in Forney, Texas in August 2014, Kametra Barbour. Someone reported a person on U.S. Highway 80 firing a gun from their car. Ms. Barbour, who had her four young children in her car, was stopped by the police although her car didn't match the description of the car the alleged shooter was in.

Forney case:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro...d-her-kids.ece

Mens rea requirement for federal civil rights prosecutions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...rown-shooting/

3. "...falsely arresting a person and detaining them ... without cause." Let's assume
the person was legally stopped, there was NOT an arrest warrant in their name, and the cop arrested them anyway on purpose. That COULD be a civil rights violation, if the plaintiff proved "the defendant acted willfully, that is, that the defendant committed such act or acts with a bad purpose or evil motive, intending to deprive the victim of that right."

I'm not saying go after them for millions of dollars. More like 1) $1000 for being inconvenienced; 2) a complete expunging of any and all arrests/convictions based on the false information; 3) an apology. Those in the judicial system treat citizens like scum. They are jaded (and probably rightfully so), BUT this country was built on the presumption of innocence AND civil servants work for us-- not the other away around. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

If a civil rights plaintiff proved all the elements of a civil rights violation, including the strict mental state requirement, then the judge or jury may award damages. Records can be made when a person is stopped, even if they're never charged. Those records usually can't be expunged. "Convictions based on the false information"? I'm not sure what you mean. "False" information according to whom? Records regarding convictions usually can't be expunged, either. An apology? Well, that and $5 can get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Like I said, your knowledge of the law is far superior to mine, but still, there has to be some legal way to make the system pay for falsely arresting a person and detaining them for 2 days without cause. I'm not saying go after them for millions of dollars. More like 1) $1000 for being inconvenienced; 2) a complete expunging of any and all arrests/convictions based on the false information; 3) an apology. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

That is not happening here. Cop was doing his job. Warrant was out for her arrest, and he arrested her.

You can sue (it is called a 1983 case) state officials who violate civil rights or a Bivens case for Federal officials. Things are so stacked against the plaintiff in these cases lawyers rarely take them. Usually, if they do, it is more on principal than making a buck.

I don't know if city cops have immunity. State and federal officials sure do.

Those in the judicial system treat citizens like scum. They are jaded (and probably rightfully so), BUT this country was built on the presumption of innocence AND civil servants work for us-- not the other away around. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

I don't even think it is healthy to talk about presumption of innocence and civil servants working for us anymore. Civil servants are around to legally steal our money and take as much power as possible, and the reality is that we are in a guilty until proven innocent world.

1. There's a reason for sovereign immunity. Originally Posted by Your Naughty Muse

Right, it is so prosecutors can put people to death without retribution. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3529891.html

Again, this is Radley Balko, only journalist consistently talking about civil rights, telling the story of a guy on death row whom prosecutors knew was innocent but they kept him there anyway.

"He spent 18 years at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, 14 of them on death row. His death warrant was signed eight times. When his attorneys finally found the evidence that cleared him -- evidence his prosecutors had known about for years -- he was weeks away from execution."

So prosecutors and their witnesses don't have to prove anything. One DEA informant was given $2 million by the DEA over time just for getting on the stand telling whatever lie law enforcement told him to say. When prosecutors can suppress evidence and witnesses can lie under oath about about anything in exchange for money or a more lenient sentence, who cares about having to prove anything?

There is a non-economic damage cap on medical malpractice cases. There could be one put in place for state and federal officials. I just don't get why these people who fuck up so regularly get a complete pass. That douchebag D.A. Nifong in North Carolina tried the Duke lacrosse students to win an election, and it worked. How many D.A.s would do the exact same fucking thing to advance their career? What Nifong did was typical; the Duke students just had rich parents who could afford the attorneys that held Nifong accountable.

I know what you are saying, CP. I get it, but innocent until proven guilty, civil servants working for us, and the land of the free just don't exist right now. We are in a police state. Period. And we had all just best forget about what we learned about the judicial branch of government in grade school bc what we were taught no longer exists.