Closed Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 93
  1. #31
    CdwJava is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27,333
    Okay, bottom line is the probable cause for the arrest requires a relatively low burden of proof. A conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Depending on what was told to the police, it is very likely that the arrest is perfectly lawful. Also depending on what was told to the police, a conviction MIGHT be possible. I strongly suspect that case law might allow the state to infer by your actions that your intent was to annoy or harass the victim, or place him or her in fear for their safety. I don't know, but maybe.

    Your attorney will be able to tell you with greater certainty what the state must prove in court and how they might go about proving the elements of the offenses. If the state does not pursue the matter, lucky for you. As for a false arrest, I don't see it. But, as mentioned, you can go out and spend a few thousand on an attorney to try and give it a whirl.

    A better use of time and resources might be to spend the money on hiring your girlfriend an attorney so that she can pursue this matter in family court.
    A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant

    "Make mine a double mocha ...
    And a croissant!"

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM
  2. #32
    CdwJava is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27,333
    Here is the ull code section and not the snippet:

    O.C.G.A. 16-5-90 (2010)
    16-5-90. Stalking; psychological evaluation

    (a)(1) A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person. For the purpose of this article, the terms "computer" and "computer network" shall have the same meanings as set out in Code Section 16-9-92; the term "contact" shall mean any communication including without being limited to communication in person, by telephone, by mail, by broadcast, by computer, by computer network, or by any other electronic device; and the place or places that contact by telephone, mail, broadcast, computer, computer network, or any other electronic device is deemed to occur shall be the place or places where such communication is received. For the purpose of this article, the term "place or places" shall include any public or private property occupied by the victim other than the residence of the defendant. For the purposes of this article, the term "harassing and intimidating" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person's safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose. This Code section shall not be construed to require that an overt threat of death or bodily injury has been made.


    So, your course of conduct apparently placed one or both of them in reasonable fear for their safety. At least, that appears to be the premise the police were operating under with the arrest and is likely quite a reasonable assumption under the circumstances. And, as I said, since the police need only the minimal burden of probable cause, the arrest can be made without complete certainty as to the full details or without conclusively determining your intent.
    A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant

    "Make mine a double mocha ...
    And a croissant!"

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM
  3. #33
    CGRAY is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    126
    "The CHILD is LEGALLY not yours to find> The child was with a legal custodian of which this person WAS NOT the legal custodian. You could not have followed HER to get to the child because the child was with dad. As for tweeker and other slams? Watch yourself stalkerboy."

    Again, how is that relevant to the charge??? And yes, she is a tweeker. It's why she doesn't have custody of her own children. It's documented in her divorce. "Stalkerboy"? Instead of resorting to name calling, you could have just said "disregard my earlier comment. It was something I pulled out of my ass. It had no legal merit".

    Unless you can intelligently explain how it's is relevant in regards to the code I was charged under (which it isn't) please leave the thread.
  4. #34
    CGRAY is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    126
    Thank You CD. $ was already spent two weeks prior to hire her an atty.
  5. #35
    CGRAY is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    126
    Also, for the record, the victim made no such claim as to being in fear. The victim actually stayed in the driveway and taunted as we drove by. She was obviously NOT in fear.

    I appreciate your insight.
  6. #36
    CdwJava is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27,333
    Quote Originally Posted by CGRAY View Post
    Also, for the record, the victim made no such claim as to being in fear. The victim actually stayed in the driveway and taunted as we drove by. She was obviously NOT in fear.

    I appreciate your insight.
    Probably not what she or the other occupant(s) of the house claimed to the police. Unless you have the report, you have no idea WHAT they claimed.

    And, again, probable cause is a relatively low standard. An arrest can be made on a charge where the elements are only minimally supported. The best you might hope for is that the DA does not pursue the matter. However, I suspect the other parties might seek a restraining order against you and your girlfriend, and they would be very likely to get it given the circumstances.
    A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant

    "Make mine a double mocha ...
    And a croissant!"

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM
  7. #37
    CGRAY is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    126
    Actually, I do have the report. It is posted on County website. And they can lie if they want, my gf video recorded with her phone the "victim" waving and shouting "Hey!!!" in a tauntingly manner as we drove by.
  8. #38
    Zigner is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    53,212
    I don't know what else you want to hear
  9. #39
    CdwJava is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27,333
    Quote Originally Posted by CGRAY View Post
    Actually, I do have the report. It is posted on County website. And they can lie if they want, my gf video recorded with her phone the "victim" waving and shouting "Hey!!!" in a tauntingly manner as we drove by.
    Understand that taunting you and acknowledging your presence does not automatically mean they are NOT afraid.

    Clearly, you want to hear that you have a lawsuit against the police and refuse to acknowledge that this is not very likely at all. Okay, then, gather your pennies and consult an attorney who specializes in civil rights suits and see what he has to say. We have said all we can about the law. If you feel you have a case, then look into it.

    First, you might want to spend the money on that criminal defense attorney ... THEN spend money on the civil rights attorney.
    A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant

    "Make mine a double mocha ...
    And a croissant!"

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM
  10. #40
    tranquility is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    18,590
    There is no valid civil rights suit until the underlying criminal case is decided in the OP's favor. He must win or the charges must be dismissed before he can make a civil rights claim.
  11. #41
    CdwJava is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27,333
    Yep. But, even if the original charges are dropped, it is certainly no guarantee that he has a claim that can be successfully pursued anyway. The OP just seems bound and determined to head that way, so, he may have to consult a few attorneys until he can get his bearings.
    A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant

    "Make mine a double mocha ...
    And a croissant!"

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM
  12. #42
    tranquility is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    18,590
    Not only do I agree, but also I believe that under these facts there is not going to be a successful lawsuit for false arrest. (At least against the police.)

    It's just that as a matter of law, a 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit (Civil rights violation) cannot occur until the underlying case is decided in the plaintiff's favor.
  13. #43
    CGRAY is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    126
    [QUOTE=CdwJava;3037005]Understand that taunting you and acknowledging your presence does not automatically mean they are NOT afraid.QUOTE]

    Point taken. I'm optimistic that common sense will prevail on that. Additionally, no mention of that in the report should prove helpful. But I'll definetly be prepared for that.
  14. #44
    CGRAY is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by CdwJava View Post
    Clearly, you want to hear that you have a lawsuit against the police and refuse to acknowledge that this is not very likely at all. Okay, then, gather your pennies and consult an attorney who specializes in civil rights suits and see what he has to say. We have said all we can about the law. If you feel you have a case, then look into it.
    Actually, in post #22, I clearly stated "Well, since the civil side is resolved (assuming no one has something new to add that changes things)how do you see a guilty verdict coming out of this?". So, I do believe I have conceded, as far as this board goes, that I have a consensus that I do NOT have a valid case for false arrest. Which is fine. Its not what I wanted to hear, but what I need to hear if it is the truth. Hence I have discussed nothing but the criminal aspects of this case since.

    I appreciate your input. And for the record, I am fully aware that the criminal side of this case needs disposing first before a civil suit could be filed. The reality is that I have no intention of hiring legal counsel for this case if I do not have a viable civil lawsuit afterward. IF I did have a viable suit, I would indeed hire counsel to handle the criminal side as to not screw up anything on the civil side. That is why my major concern to begin with was the civil aspect.

    And if anyone else has anything to add, please use MY accounts of what happened. Apparently a couple people have chimed in and added things which did not occur and came to their own conclusions and a couple people have based their opinions using that erroneous information. If anyone cares to read the actual police report, I'll gladly forward it to them.
  15. #45
    Ladyback1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,617
    1) you conducted surveillance on and followed a person. You had no legal basis for your action(s)
    2) you skulked around in the dark to do these activities
    3) obviously they were afraid (from a law enforcement standpoint) if they felt the need to arm themselves (with a baseball bat)

    The arrest was valid. The needs of many (society/community as a whole) have to be considered. For all the officer knew you were some whack-a-doo intent on killing as many people as possible.

    The charges may very well stick. If the victim is convincing in her story of how she felt afraid/threatened or intimidated, that may be more than enough.

    Of course, I dearly love how you felt it necessary to provide as many details as possible, but yet when those details are used to explain things to you--you don't see how they matter.

    Finally, I have never seen complete police reports on-line. To do that, it would seem to me that it would violate privacy laws. *shrug*

Similar Threads

  1. Wrongful accusations leading to wrongful arrest
    By brandypinkston in forum Civil Litigation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-16-2011, 04:58 PM
  2. False Imprissonment, False Arrest, And Tort Laws
    By elguapo in forum Arrests, Searches, Warrants & Procedure
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-10-2005, 06:25 PM
  3. False Arrest? False Charges?
    By Putrid Poot in forum Arrests, Searches, Warrants & Procedure
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-18-2003, 12:40 PM
  4. false arrest? false imprisonment?
    By cessa19 in forum Arrests, Searches, Warrants & Procedure
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-02-2002, 11:25 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-22-2001, 08:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

© 1995-2012 Advice Company, All Rights Reserved

FreeAdvice® has been providing millions of consumers with outstanding advice, free, since 1995. While not a substitute for personal advice from a licensed professional, it is available AS IS, subject to our Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions Of Use.