Background Information | Legal Research
False Arrest
-- a false arrest is an arrest made without legal authority
New Jersey
Unlawful Arrest or Detention |
Official Deprivation of Civil Rights
Bruce Oliver Case |
Plaintiff Bruce Oliver, a criminal defense attorney, delivered his MG to Dave's Import Auto Shop ("Dave's") for servicing at approximately 6:45 a.m. on September 25, 1995, as prearranged with Dave's. Mr. Oliver's seventeen-year-old son, Michael, followed Mr. Oliver in the family's Chrysler. Before reaching Dave's, Mr. Oliver pulled over near an intersection to wait for his son to catch up with him. As Michael arrived, both father and son saw Centerville Police Officer James Woods follow them to Dave's, where Mr. Oliver parked his MG in the parking lot in front of the shop and got into the driver's seat of the waiting Chrysler....
False Arrest:
false arrest n. physically detaining someone without the legal right to do so. Quite often this involves private security people or other owners or employees of retail establishments who hold someone without having seen a crime committed in their presence or pretend that they are police officers. While they may be entitled to make a "citizen's arrest" they had better be sure that they have a person who has committed a crime, and they must call law enforcement officers to take over at the first opportunity.A Police Officer
Other common false arrest situations include an arrest by a police officer of the wrong person or without probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and/or without a warrant.Only when the arresting party knowingly holds someone who has not committed a crime, is the false arrest itself a crime.
Probable False Arrest
However, probable false arrest can be the basis of a lawsuit for damages, including mental distress and embarrassment.
False Imprisonment
false imprisonment n. depriving someone of freedom of movement by
-- holding a person in a confined space or
-- by physical restraint including being locked in a car,
-- driven about without opportunity to get out,
-- being tied to a chair or locked in a closet.It may be the follow-up to a false arrest (holding someone in the office of a department store, for example), but more often it resembles a kidnapping with no belief or claim of a legal right to hold the person. Therefore, false imprisonment is often a crime and if proved is almost always the basis of a lawsuit for damages.
CAN I SUE THE COP FOR FALSE ARREST?Sometimes. A false arrest consists of unlawful restraint of a person's liberty without proper legal authority. The key words here are “without proper legal authority." The burden is on you, the person complaining they have been falsely arrested, to persuade a court or jury that the officer acted without legal authority.
This can be difficult to prove.
The good news is that if you can show the officer was malicious you may be entitled to more money or what is referred to as “punitive” damages.
A common example of a false arrest situation is where an officer may arrest a black kid suspected of shoplifting, with no real suspicion that the kid did anything wrong, just because he may have been the only black kid in the store.
The frustration for people who want to sue for false arrest is that the lawsuit is in another court (civil), a different judge, usually a different lawyer, there are different rules for what is happening in the criminal case, and the case can take longer to resolve.
WHEN IS A GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEE
ACTING "UNDER COLOR OF LAW" ?Officials act under "color of law" when they are either actually carrying out their official duties or they act in a manner which makes it seem as if they are.
For instance, a police officer arresting someone while on duty is clearly acting "under color of law."
In addition, an off-duty police officer showing his or her badge is most likely acting under color of law. Some actions taken by private institutions that are doing work for the government (such as a university performing a government contract) may also be considered to be "under color of law."
False ArrestThe law protects citizens who are wrongfully deprived of their liberty by another.
If you have been the subject of an arrest by the police or other state or federal official
which took place
-- without probable cause,
-- in bad faith or
-- if someone deprived you of your liberty,you may be able to make a claim and recover damages, including attorney's fees and costs.
Your rights are safeguarded
by both the United States Constitution and state common law.False imprisonment
is frequently alleged by a person who feels that he or she was unlawfully arrested.If the police did not have "probable cause" to arrest you, you can sue for false imprisonment.
"False arrest"
is really just a type of false imprisonment.The police have probable cause when there are enough facts to lead a reasonable person to conclude that you are committing or have committed a crime.
This is a considerably higher standard than the mere "suspicion" an officer needs in order to stop you briefly to investigate possible criminal activity.
In some circumstances mere flight may be sufficient reasonable suspicion.
See - Illinois v. Wardlow decided by The United States Supreme Court on January 12, 2000.If you feel that you have been the victim of a false imprisonment or false arrest you may wish to contact an attorney.
Time is of the essence in many of these cases.
In some instances, claims may be barred if they are not brought within a short time after the date of the occurrence. For more information, talk with an attorney.
Civil RightsThese are the rights and privileges granted to every person, both citizens and aliens in this country, by the Constitution of the United States!
The United States Constitution limits the powers of the government over its citizens and protects the citizens from governmental intrusion.
A Civil Rights violation |
occurs whenever any person, acting under color of law subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.
FALSE ARREST -- EXCESSIVE FORCE, TIGHT HANDCUFFING |Herzog v. Village of Winnetka, (7th Cir. 2002).
The defendants stipulated that the factual allegations made by plaintiff were true and complete for the purpose of the appeal, after having obtained summary judgment in the district court. Plaintiff had stopped her car late at night to check a problem with lights on her dashboard. A police officer investigated whether she was driving under the influence, during which she pushed plaintiff to the ground, into some bushes where she hurt her hand. Despite the fact that plaintiff passed all field sobriety tests, the officer forced a plastic device (a “personal breath screening device”) into plaintiff's mouth, cracking a tooth. The test revealed a blood-alcohol level of 0.00. Nonetheless, plaintiff was handcuffed and taken to the station. She complained that the handcuffs were too tight, but a second officer refused to loosen them for an hour and laughed at plaintiff's discomfort. A breathalyzer confirmed the 0.00 blood alcohol level, but the officer nonetheless transported plaintiff to a hospital where blood was drawn and she was forced to give a urine sample in the presence of the female officer. These tests were negative, but plaintiff was charged with speeding and driving under the influence of drugs, which charges were dismissed at her first court appearance. The Seventh Circuit found that shoving the plaintiff to the ground and applying handcuffs too tightly were “both instances of excessive force, which, contrary to the defendants’ argument, does not require either ‘a severe element of violence’ or a threat of violence.” The court held, “The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures, not seizures that ‘shock the conscience’ or cause ‘severe injuries.’” The court relied upon “a long line of tight-handcuff cases.” Further, the court held that forcible extraction of blood when there is no reason to think it will yield evidence of crime is an unlawful search, and that gratuitously forcing a person to urinate in the presence of another is “an invasion of privacy in the most elementary sense,” and either an illegal search or a deprivation without due process of law of a form of liberty protected by the Constitution's due process clauses.
