recourse

[scuzman00]

What is the name of your state? Texas

If I was arrested, charged criminally, then case was dismissed prior to going to trial due to lack of evidence, do I have any recourse for recouping the funds I paid for legal defense, time missed for work, etc....

[angiesmom]

No, just consider yourself lucky that the case was dismissed and put it behind you.

[angiesmom]

OP, please close this thread, its a duplicate thread and your other thread explains your situation much better.

[BRN2005]

Unfortunetly, you do not have any recourse. Although you are supposedly innocent until proven guilty, it is, in reality, exactly the opposite. I am a Bail Bondsman. In addition to the legal expenses, loss of wages, time, etc., you can also incur expenses such as bond expenses and pretrial expenses (ie mandatory UAs or BAs, or supervision expenses, etc). In addition to that, the police can tear apart your car or your residence looking for evidence and, whether they find anything or not, the damage is just your tough luck and your expense to repair or replace. Ain't it just a wonderful deal?!?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by BRN2005

In addition to that, the police can tear apart your car or your residence looking for evidence and, whether they find anything or not, the damage is just your tough luck and your expense to repair or replace.

If only that were true!

As it is, people whose property is damaged can generally submit a claim to the local agency or government body for replacement or repair costs. The city or agency may deny the claim, but the owner of the property still has a right to pursue it through the civil courts if they wish.

The police cannot break stuff with impunity.

- Carl

[BRN2005]

!!!!bull!!!!

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by BRN2005

!!!!bull!!!!

That's a male bovine.

But if you are not opting to enter into a discussion of domesticated animals, then I suppose you are saying that we DO get to just rip, tear, break, and destroy things at will.

Sorry, my friend, but I have the financial entries in my department budget to show me that the DO occur. And unless Colorado is on some other planet or somehow exempts law enforcement and their governing jurisdiction from claims for property damage in the service of a warrant, then a person CAN make a claim against them and CAN try to pursue the damages in court if the claim is rejected.

These claims may not be effectively pursued (largely due to the low cost), or may be denied, but they can be pursued and agencies DO pay out money to settle them ... depending on the circumstances.


- Carl

[outonbail]

Carl, do you have instances where your department would be responsible for damage done for say serving a warrant, when the party who suffered the damage, was found guilty of the charges which generated the warrant in the first place?

In other words, if you kick the two thousand dollar front door in on some drug dealers home, wouldn't the court find that it was his illegal actions (dealing drugs) which led to the kicking in of his door and therefore, his burden to bare?

I can understand the police being held to pay for damages they caused in cases where they had the wrong home or tainted information led to the warrant or no evidence of illegal activity was discovered, but when the subject had a half a ton of rock cocaine in his basement, wouldn't he be the one found to be the ultimate reason damage was caused?

Just curious.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by outonbail

Carl, do you have instances where your department would be responsible for damage done for say serving a warrant, when the party who suffered the damage, was found guilty of the charges which generated the warrant in the first place?

When they were found guilty? No. I don't have those instances. However, we have CHOSEN to pay out on a few doors. And we tend to pay out long before the matter goes to trial ... the most recent was less than two weeks ago. We had the door paid for within 48 hours ... the case has not yet gone to court and the suspect has not yet been arrested.

The situations that generally require an agency to pay out is when the actions of the officers were beyond the scope of the warrant, and/or, not necessary. For instance the ageincgy might have to pay if officers shattered mirrors, destroyed dresser drawers even though they could open and was no indication of secret compartments, etc.

The courts tend to side with the police on this one, but no talways. Some agencies (like mine) tend to pay out on some obvious damage. We pay for a lot of doors.

In other words, if you kick the two thousand dollar front door in on some drug dealers home, wouldn't the court find that it was his illegal actions (dealing drugs) which led to the kicking in of his door and therefore, his burden to bare?

Sure they could.

The courts tend to side with the government on this issue - but not always. While these claims often fall on deaf ears, they do not always do so. And in those instances where officers have arguably overstepped the scope of their authority, jurisdictions will tend to pay the damage claims rather than risk ugly court fights.

But, it all depends on the details.


- Carl