Wrongful arrest

[amigo]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? California

Today local police wrongfully arrested a person with same first initial and last name as the name on the arrest warrant. The gender, age, and race of person they arrested were all different, and the person they really wanted is already in their jail. It was for bounced checks.

Question 1: is this kind of error common? The innocent person was bailed out quickly, but I'm sure that she will pursue something on this. She does not know the defendent or that he is already in jail.

Question 2: the person who is really at fault (and in jail) is scheduled for release in a few days. With a system this incompetent, what are the chances that someone will connect the dots and re-arrest this person as he is released?

 

[JETX]

"Question 1: is this kind of error common?"
*** Depends on your definition of 'common'. It clearly does happen occasionally.... but not often.

"The innocent person was bailed out quickly, but I'm sure that she will pursue something on this."
*** Sorry, but there is nothing for her to 'pursue'.... unless she can show that the arrest was done with malicious intent against her.

"Question 2: the person who is really at fault (and in jail) is scheduled for release in a few days. With a system this incompetent, what are the chances that someone will connect the dots and re-arrest this person as he is released?"
*** Probably somewhere between 0.014% and 0.99%..... maybe.

 

[Over30yrs]

"Question 1: is this kind of error common?"

"The innocent person was bailed out quickly, but I'm sure that she will pursue something on this."
*** Sorry, but there is nothing for her to 'pursue'.... unless she can show that the arrest was done with malicious intent against her.

I disagree. The arresting officer and communications/dispatch center have an obligation to properly identify the subject being arrested on the warrant. According to the poster, the person arrested and booked did not match something as obvious as gender and race entered on the arrest warrant.

The offended person will most likely get a big smile from an attorney should she seek damages through litigation against the department in question.

 

[JETX]

I disagree. The arresting officer and communications/dispatch center have an obligation to properly identify the subject being arrested on the warrant. According to the poster, the person arrested and booked did not match something as obvious as gender and race entered on the arrest warrant.

The offended person will most likely get a big smile from an attorney should she seek damages through litigation against the department in question.

Disagree all you want.... you're still wrong. The officer (and dispatcher) are immune from civil liability as long as they were performing the work within the scope of their authority unless unreasonable, willful, or unlawful conduct is demonstrated. And that even includes an erroneous arrest.

I suggest you read the information at the following:
http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00861/006738/title/Subject/topic/Civil Rights Law_Police Misconduct/filename/civilrightslaw_1_49

 

[Over30yrs]

Disagree all you want.... you're still wrong. The officer (and dispatcher) are immune from civil liability as long as they were performing the work within the scope of their authority unless unreasonable, willful, or unlawful conduct is demonstrated. And that even includes an erroneous arrest.

__________________________

Thanks for the site. It was informative.

I still stand my ground and suggest the offended person contact an attorney.

I believe that it can be successfully argued that the arresting officer was "unreasonable" in not checking to see that the gender and date of birth issued on the warrant was different from the person erroneously placed under arrest.

I would also suggest the offended party seek out the Standard Operating Procedures of the agency involved as I suspect there will be something in there addressing proper identification of a subject in a warrant arrest. God forbid a warrant goes out for John Smith, for example, and hundreds of John Smiths are wrongly booked into the local jail.

Taking someone into custody simply because their first initial and last name are the same as that listed on a warrant issued statewide, or NCIC, is considered unreasonable and negligent in the two agencies I have worked for.

On the other hand, I am basing my knowledge and experience on Arizona law. California may very well absolve an officer of failure to properly identify.

 

[CdwJava]

Yes, we can be held accountable (or the agency can) if we fail to make at least the basic identification. However, Amigo failed to state exactly what the deal was. It could be that the officers had reason to believe that the person they contacted was wanted on a warrant. The officers then, believing there was a warrant, took him in to custody (detention) and then when they obtained more details on the warrant they released him. In that case, the officers are almost certainly going to be covered, and the arrest not likely actionable.

Sometimes people tell us they have a warrant for this or that, so we hook them up pending the details of the warrant. After that, if they don't have a warrant, they are released.

Those are the usual situations for a bad arrest on a warrant.

However, if the officers tried to arrest John Smith (a white male adult of 40 years and standing 5'10" tall weighing in at 200 lbs.) and the warrant was for Julia Gomez (a Hispanic female adult of 20 years and standing 5'2" and weighing 110 lbs.) I would say that there was a BIG 'oops'! And negligence SHOULD attach ... provided the officers knew all the information at the time of the arrest.

Whether there is any case at all here will depend on the ottality of the circumstances. What did the officers know in the field, what kind of identification were they provided, etc. It should also be realized that we cannot READ the warrant in the field. We have to rely on what others tell us. if someone in Dispatch provides us with sufficient detail to justify the arrest or detention, we can do so. If it is later discovered that the information was erroneous, the subject is released with no further process pending and the arrest is seen as a 'detention'.

Carl

 

[JETX]

I still stand my ground and suggest the offended person contact an attorney.

*** WHY?? Clearly, there are NO grounds for a lawsuit. Maybe you are suggesting that the writer contact an attorney as he/she is looking for bridge partner.

I believe that it can be successfully argued that the arresting officer was "unreasonable" in not checking to see that the gender and date of birth issued on the warrant was different from the person erroneously placed under arrest.

*** And what makes you think that the officer had ANY idea of the gender and DOB on the warrant?? It is far more likely that the officer did a traffic stop and got a hit on a 'want and warrant' check. Then, placed the subject under arrest based on that hit. Only later when all the information 'got to one spot', the officer became aware of the discrepancy and released the subject. I have seen this happen numerous times.

I would also suggest the offended party seek out the Standard Operating Procedures of the agency involved as I suspect there will be something in there addressing proper identification of a subject in a warrant arrest. God forbid a warrant goes out for John Smith, for example, and hundreds of John Smiths are wrongly booked into the local jail.

*** What cave have you been living in?? The issue of erroneous arrests is NOT unheard of... or even terribly uncommon.

Taking someone into custody simply because their first initial and last name are the same as that listed on a warrant issued statewide, or NCIC, is considered unreasonable and negligent in the two agencies I have worked for.

*** Sorry, but Target and KMart don't count.

On the other hand, I am basing my knowledge and experience on Arizona law. California may very well absolve an officer of failure to properly identify.

*** And so does Arizona!!

 

[Over30yrs]

JETX,

Are you capable of mature debate, or are you sophomoric and pugnacious by nature?

 

[Over30yrs]

Carl, you are absolutely correct.

Dispatch, on occassion, will only look at the name on the warrant and let you know you have a hit. That, in itself, is still a liability issue.

I see you are a supervisor and know what you are talking about.

Keep up the good work.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Are you capable of mature debate, or are you sopohmoric and pugnacious by nature?

Oh Brother. Doesn't anyone else smell what I smell????

A homework assignment!

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, you are absolutely correct.

Dispatch, on occassion, will only look at the name on the warrant and let you know you have a hit. That, in itself, is still a liability issue.

Not necessarily. It might all depend on what is necessary to provide adequate identification in order to confirm the warrant. After obtaining a possible match on a name and a warrant, the Dispatcher would then call to confirm the warrant and will give the information to the issuing agency. The issuing agency then has the responsibility to determine the veracity of the identification and the match to their warrant. So the liability may not lie so much with the arresting agency as with the agency confirming the warrant if all they had was an initial and last name.

In fact, CDC used to be the worst agency in the state for confirming warrants with. They used to require a complete and total match on all of their information, the CDC number, etc. - all from officers in the field. The test was so high that many officers just kicked Parolees-at-large loose because they could not prove the suspect's identity to the satisfaction of the CDC warrants division. Even if we had personal knowledge of the guy, CDC would usually not confirm the warrant. So unless he was arrested and booked on another charge, we were rarely able to serve CDC warrants.

Fortunately that changed a number of years back.

And again, Amigo never said what actually happened. For all we know, this person was detained for the time necessary to read through more of the warrant, and then released. No harm, no foul, as they say.

For instance, let's say I run John Smith with a given birthdate. Dispatch runs the name and gets a "match" for a POSSIBLE "hit" (maybe on a "J. Smith" or one of several John Smiths and they have to scroll through each name to see if it matches what I gave them). They advise me that there is a possible "10-36" (which here means a possible warrant). I will likely tell the subject that I am detaining him until I can confirm the warrant and I will place him in handcuffs and in my car. It might take ten or twenty minutes to get further information on the warrant, and by that time (in my county) I could be at the Dispatch center and read the transcript for myself. At that time, if its not the guy, I can release him without any liability to me or the agencies involved.

But I DO have the option of detaining the subject as I would a suspect (in handcuffs and in a car). I am under no obligation to let a possible wanted subject stand unbound in front of me while I twiddle my thumbs waiting for a more detailed reply and giving the subject ample opportunity to plan his assault or flight.

So without further information, it would seem a little premature to state that liability does attach ... or that it does not. My guess is that no officer is going to be stupid enough to intentionally arrest someone who is nowhere near the description, gender and/or name on the warrant. I would think that this was a detention - perhaps a lengthy one - and the subject was released when the error was discovered.

Carl

 

[JETX]

JETX,

Are you capable of mature debate, or are you sopohmoric and pugnacious by nature?

Yes.... and yes!!
BTW, what is 'sopohmoric' supposed to be??
Are all your posts so juvenile, aggressive, antagonistic, argumentative, bellicose, brawling, cantankerous, choleric, combative, contentious, defiant, disputatious, dukes up, hot-tempered, irascible, irritable, militant, petulant, pushing, pushy, quarrelsome, rebellious, salty, scrappy, self-assertive, truculent and warlike???

 

[amigo]

Follow up from Amigo

And again, Amigo never said what actually happened. For all we know, this person was detained for the time necessary to read through more of the warrant, and then released. No harm, no foul, as they say.

The person was arrested at her home, escorted to a local hospital due to serious health condition (handcuffed the entire time), released from the emergency room with notice to the arresting officiers that she needed to be transported to a lockup with better medical facilities. She was then booked into the county jail pending transport to the larger jail. She was bailed out before they had a chance to transport her (just barely). It seems that there was sufficient time to verify more than first initial, last name match to a warrant. It was certainly more than detention.

 

[CdwJava]

Then she may want to contact an attorney. Either this was a huge comedy of errors, or it was negligence ... or, there is some piece that is really important missing.

An attorney who can access all the info should be able to make a decision. All we can do here at this point is tap our noggins and guess ... and hypothesize as to what may or may not have occurred. Heck, I could think of a perfectly logical and lawful reason to have done what is alleged! And I can also think of a whole bunch of things that would make it the worst thing since rap music!

This sort of thing is just to fact dependent to make much of a case here ... though it does sound a little bad.

Carl

 

[amigo]

Missing Details

As I dig more into this case it appears that the person the police were really looking for is a relative of the person wrongfully arrested: same first initial,last name. Apparently, he has substance abuse and mental issues and would use their address when it was convenient to do so even though he never lived there. So that explains some of it.

But police detained and arrested a person of different gender, race and age when the person they were looking for was already in their custody at the county jail!! The police asked the victim for confirming information such as DOB and SSN, but this did not reveal the mistaken identify. The arrested person did not even consider the possibility that they really wanted another person until well after the ordeal was over. She assumed the police would not make such an egregious error in an arrest.