Is there a minimum standard for the work that a detective needs to do?

[GCHAM]

Atlanta, Georgia

Arrested in January for "computer trespass". Former employer (actually freelance contract) accused me of hacking their system because it was not working.

Employer wanted the project for free. (This is evident in testimony, texts, and emails even the ones given to the investigator)

A sheriff in a next-door-neighbor city is a primary investor with the company.

Detective got an arrest warrant telling the judge that I had hacked into the company system. No evidence was give at all that could even remotely indicate hacking.

After case was dismissed, the judge was angry when he heard what had actually happened and even wanted to sit down with the detective to see why he brought the case to him and
exaggerated it.

The case was dismissed as a civil matter.

The detective showed a great deal of ignorance in the case as well as not as not researching the evidence or contacting named witnesses to verify.

Is there a minimum standard for the work that a detective needs to do to bring a charge?

Can a detective or any court authority have probable cause when they do not understand the evidence/legal standards/meaning of the laws themselves?

I know lying to a judge will nullify police protections against probable casuse, does this sound like an instance of such?

Judicial ignorance in general leaves even judges open to lawsuit. Would this be a strong case as such if the detective did not lie to the judge?

 

[davew128]

Presumably everything the detective did should have been provided or at least available to you via discovery, especially whatever evidence he provided to the judge who issued the original warrant. Your criminal attorney should have explained that to you.

 

[dave33]

Atlanta, Georgia

Arrested in January for "computer trespass". Former employer (actually freelance contract) accused me of hacking their system because it was not working.

Employer wanted the project for free. (This is evident in testimony, texts, and emails even the ones given to the investigator)

A sheriff in a next-door-neighbor city is a primary investor with the company.

Detective got an arrest warrant telling the judge that I had hacked into the company system. No evidence was give at all that could even remotely indicate hacking.

After case was dismissed, the judge was angry when he heard what had actually happened and even wanted to sit down with the detective to see why he brought the case to him and
exaggerated it.

The case was dismissed as a civil matter.

The detective showed a great deal of ignorance in the case as well as not as not researching the evidence or contacting named witnesses to verify.

Is there a minimum standard for the work that a detective needs to do to bring a charge?

Can a detective or any court authority have probable cause when they do not understand the evidence/legal standards/meaning of the laws themselves?

I know lying to a judge will nullify police protections against probable casuse, does this sound like an instance of such?

Judicial ignorance in general leaves even judges open to lawsuit. Would this be a strong case as such if the detective did not lie to the judge?

The "evidence" needed for arrest can be just about nothing. A statement from a sworn "honorable" officer of the court will suffice. Many may consider the standard needed to make an arrest is ridiculous. In some cases charges are brought without the intent to convict, just the intent ti inconvenience, annoy and sometimes to destroy a persons life.
If you are so inclined, you may want to research similar cases and see 1st hand how blatant abuses of all involved are considered reasonable, taking into account the "totality of circumstances". goodluck.