• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Wrongful/False Arrest?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

CGRAY

Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? GA

Not sure if this is the right place so apologies in advance if not.

I was recently arrested for, what the officer stated, "Stalking With The Intent To Harass". I can find no such code titled as such so I am assuming GA Code 16-5-90 Stalking as it is the only code that reasonably makes since.

Code 16-5-90 states:

(a) 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.

It is a fairly long story but to summarize, my gf and I were attempting to locate her son who was never returned by the father after visitation. To note, at that time, there was no official court ordered visitation agreement so the child was not legally kidnapped. We stopped by the father's last known address and spotted his girlfriend there. We attempted to follow her so that we could find where the child was in order to have the police do a welfare check on the child (Police were willing to do this but stated they could not without knowing where the child was and father refused Sheriff's telephonic directive to reveal where child was).

After three unsucessful attempts to follow without being discovered, I had my gf drop me off close to the residence and I hid in the vacant wooded lot next to the house so that if the child was at the house, I could notify law enforcement. (As a side note, the local Sheriff was notified via e-mail as to what we were doing. He informed me that the gf had placed a complaint with his dept concerning us but had informed her that what we were doing was not considered harassment) I was discovered by the father's g/f and someone later determined to be her cousin. He grabbed a bat out of his truck and charged me. I managed to escape and dialed 911 on my cell when I entered a warehouse. I heard someone enter and thinking it was the man with the bat, placed my phone in back pocket to record the expected confrontation. It turned out to be an employee walking by and afterward, I called my gf who was close by and she picked me up.

Roughly an hour later, police showed up at a relative's house and asked my gf and I to give statements. We both did so, mine rather lengthy and detailed explaining all actions throughout the encounter. I was subsquently arrested for Stalking With The Intent To Harass. My g/f was not arrested because according to the officer, she "never left the vehicle" (which baffles me since the basis for my arrest would apply to her as well as well as the Code being cited makes no mention of inside/outside vehicle).


So, my question is: Do I have a potentially viable case for Wrongful/False Arrest? The code clearly states that my intent must be for the purpose of harassing or intimidating. Both of our statements reflect that we were searching for the unreturned child and additionally, the "victim's" statement according to report stated that we were doing what we were doing because we felt she possibly had the missing child. Clearly, after interviewing the "victim" and our statements, the officer should have had no cause to believe that my actions were not done with the intent to harass or intimidate nor was that claim made by the "victim". From what I see, all personal bias aside, the officer arrested me for an act that was not illegal. I have found little on this matter but Sorrell v. McGuigan seems relevant to me where a man was arrested for an act that the officer should have known at the time to be legal.


Additionally, I am mainly concerned with civil litigation. If anyone cares to weigh in with opinion concerning criminal aspect of this act, please feel free to do so. I have consulted with a couple of attorney's who just shook there head and suggested that "this isn't going anywhere" however criminal law is not their speciality.
 
Last edited:


CGRAY

Member
Supplemental info if needed:

Was arrested on Monday afternoon and did not receive bond hearing until Wednesday afternoon and finally released around 2130 that night

Arresting Officer was shown e-mails between myself and Sheriff

Arresting Officer did not pursue what I felt was "Simple Assault" by victim's cousin for charging me with a bat. To my knowledge, they did not return to victim to inquire.

At no time did I step foot on victim's property. It was actually public land. Trespassing was not alledged any way.

I have no prior record of "stalking" nor any criminal record for that matter.

The 7 Year Old child was returned by father at 2030 Tuesday night after missing two days of school. There is now court ordered custody as a result of emergency hearing requested the morning I was arrested.

I do have damages resulting from this act. I had plane tickets purchased to travel and visit my own children. Additionally, appx $100 phone charges while locked up and $260 for bail charge. Not to mention intangible damages.
 
Last edited:

antrc170

Member
You were not wrongfully arrested.

The officer has enough probable cause to arrest you for the violation. You were stalking the victim (you admit to such) and since you repeatedly stalked the victim it can be argued that you were attempting to harass or itimidate the person to returning a minor child to another person by use or threatened use of law enforcment. You knew that the child was legally in the care of the father.

You can argue your case and you may win. Regardless of the outcome you were not wrongfully arrested.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Supplemental info if needed:

Was arrested on Monday afternoon and did not receive bond hearing until Wednesday afternoon and finally released around 2130 that night

Arresting Officer was shown e-mails between myself and Sheriff

Arresting Officer did not pursue what I felt was "Simple Assault" by victim's cousin for charging me with a bat. To my knowledge, they did not return to victim to inquire.

At no time did I step foot on victim's property. It was actually public land. Trespassing was not alledged any way.

I have no prior record of "stalking" nor any criminal record for that matter.

The 7 Year Old child was returned by father at 2030 Tuesday night after missing two days of school. There is now court ordered custody as a result of emergency hearing requested the morning I was arrested.

I do have damages resulting from this act. I had plane tickets purchased to travel and visit my own children. Additionally, appx $100 phone charges while locked up and $260 for bail charge. Not to mention intangible damages.
That was not false arrest. You stalked this woman. You admit to stalking her in what you posted. You are a LEGAL stranger to this situation and had no right to do so. I have bolded where you stalked:
Wrongful/False Arrest?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? GA

Not sure if this is the right place so apologies in advance if not.

I was recently arrested for, what the officer stated, "Stalking With The Intent To Harass". I can find no such code titled as such so I am assuming GA Code 16-5-90 Stalking as it is the only code that reasonably makes since.

Code 16-5-90 states:

(a) 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.

It is a fairly long story but to summarize, my gf and I were attempting to locate her son who was never returned by the father after visitation. To note, at that time, there was no official court ordered visitation agreement so the child was not legally kidnapped. We stopped by the father's last known address and spotted his girlfriend there. We attempted to follow her so that we could find where the child was in order to have the police do a welfare check on the child (Police were willing to do this but stated they could not without knowing where the child was and father refused Sheriff's telephonic directive to reveal where child was).

After three unsucessful attempts to follow without being discovered, I had my gf drop me off close to the residence and I hid in the vacant wooded lot next to the house so that if the child was at the house, I could notify law enforcement. (As a side note, the local Sheriff was notified via e-mail as to what we were doing. He informed me that the gf had placed a complaint with his dept concerning us but had informed her that what we were doing was not considered harassment) I was discovered by the father's g/f and someone later determined to be her cousin. He grabbed a bat out of his truck and charged me. I managed to escape and dialed 911 on my cell when I entered a warehouse. I heard someone enter and thinking it was the man with the bat, placed my phone in back pocket to record the expected confrontation. It turned out to be an employee walking by and afterward, I called my gf who was close by and she picked me up.

Roughly an hour later, police showed up at a relative's house and asked my gf and I to give statements. We both did so, mine rather lengthy and detailed explaining all actions throughout the encounter. I was subsquently arrested for Stalking With The Intent To Harass. My g/f was not arrested because according to the officer, she "never left the vehicle" (which baffles me since the basis for my arrest would apply to her as well as well as the Code being cited makes no mention of inside/outside vehicle).


So, my question is: Do I have a potentially viable case for Wrongful/False Arrest? The code clearly states that my intent must be for the purpose of harassing or intimidating. Both of our statements reflect that we were searching for the unreturned child and additionally, the "victim's" statement according to report stated that we were doing what we were doing because we felt she possibly had the missing child. Clearly, after interviewing the "victim" and our statements, the officer should have had no cause to believe that my actions were not done with the intent to harass or intimidate nor was that claim made by the "victim". From what I see, all personal bias aside, the officer arrested me for an act that was not illegal. I have found little on this matter but Sorrell v. McGuigan seems relevant to me where a man was arrested for an act that the officer should have known at the time to be legal.


Additionally, I am mainly concerned with civil litigation. If anyone cares to weigh in with opinion concerning criminal aspect of this act, please feel free to do so. I have consulted with a couple of attorney's who just shook there head and suggested that "this isn't going anywhere" however criminal law is not their speciality.
It is not legal to follow someone who is not related. You could have called the police and asked them to check on the child at the girlfriend's house. Well your girlfriend could have. You were following her illegally without her consent.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
So, my question is: Do I have a potentially viable case for Wrongful/False Arrest?
No. There is no way there is not going to be probable cause to believe you committed the crime charged. Besides, you have to win your criminal case before even considering a civil one.

Wait until it's done. Then shop it around if you'd like, but I think it more likely you will be found guilty than the arrest found to be without probable cause.
 

CGRAY

Member
You were not wrongfully arrested.

The officer has enough probable cause to arrest you for the violation. You were stalking the victim (you admit to such)

Well, I suppose my confusion results from the Code clearly stating the importance of "intent". Whether or not the "victim" was harassed or felt threatened (which is not the case), should the officer not have reasonably suspected the realities of my intent? Especially in light of "victim's" statement as to her feelings of my intent?
 

antrc170

Member
Well, I suppose my confusion results from the Code clearly stating the importance of "intent". Whether or not the "victim" was harassed or felt threatened (which is not the case), should the officer not have reasonably suspected the realities of my intent? Especially in light of "victim's" statement as to her feelings of my intent?
The officer did reasonably suspect the reality of your intent and determined that you inteded to harass or intimidate the victim. Through the court procedure the district attorney will need to show to the court that you inteded to harass the victim.

The officer does not have to agree with, understand, or take into consideration your argument about your intent. The officer is charged with investigating and determining if a law has been violated. He obviously felt that that you were in violation of the law. He has more than enough probable cause to substantiate the arrest.

1 - You were stalking and you admit to it.
2 - You were hiding in a wooded area waiting to call the police.
3 - The minor child that is the subject of all of this was legally in the custody of the child's father.
4 - You were using the police or threatened use of police to force the father to release the child back to the mothers care.
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
Nice try but intent is a mens rea element and not something the officer at the scene would be expected (or should be expected) to consider. It could be a defense for you in court if it comes to that. The actus reus elements of the crime were present so you were lawfully arrested.
 

CGRAY

Member
For the record, there were no threats of law enforcement or any actions to coerce father to return the child. Please do not assume things not submitted. I will gladly submit any information not known if needed for a proper response. We were acting to establish location of child so that welfare check could be conducted.

And if the intent is not necessarily important, why is the intent clause even mentioned in the code. Sounds like this code should have been written without mention of intent if it is not going to be relevant. And I'd understand that under most circumstances, the arresting officer should act when intent is not known or able to be established. However in this case, the "victim's" statement clearly states her belief of intent which matches our statements demonstrating our intent. How can this officer assume an intent when the only evidence concerning intent is contrary to that which would violate the code?

And btw, I appreciate everyone's input thus far.
 
Last edited:

CGRAY

Member
It is not legal to follow someone who is not related. You could have called the police and asked them to check on the child at the girlfriend's house. Well your girlfriend could have. You were following her illegally without her consent.
Ohiogal, where did you get this from? I have found nothing that states it is a defense to "stalking" if you are related to the person. Can you clarify this please.
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
And if the intent is not necessarily important, why is the intent clause even mentioned in the code. .
Maybe you hit your head on a tree hiding in the woods. Intent is an element of the crime and would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution but it is not required to be evident in order to make an arrest. An officer on the scene is not required to conduct an investigation to determine intent. So long as the physical acts of the crime are present, there is probable cause for an arrest.
 

CGRAY

Member
Maybe you hit your head on a tree hiding in the woods. Intent is an element of the crime and would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution but it is not required to be evident in order to make an arrest. An officer on the scene is not required to conduct an investigation to determine intent. So long as the physical acts of the crime are present, there is probable cause for an arrest.
Regardless of the needless smartassness aside, thank you. That was what I was looking for. So you are stating that regardless of intent, the officer is still justified to make the arrest? If so, that is what I am seeking.

My only point of confusion is eventhough intent (which is clearly outlined in the code as being a relevant element of the crime) was reasonably established by the only known information at the time, the arrest was still legal as it was not relevant in regards to the arrest? Doesn't make sense to me but it is what it is if that is the case.
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
My smartass reply was entirely neccessary because I have already answered your question twice.

Probable cause that a crime has been comitted is what is required for arrest, not proving every element of the crime. For one thing police officers are not trained to interpret the nitty gritty of laws and secondly it would take far too much time. So to answer your question again, no, the police did not have to consider intent because there was probable cause that the actus reus elements were present.

You were hiding in the woods (almost certainly private property) spying on somebody's house. You're lucky you didn't get shot. It could have gotten much uglier.
 
I have a question. If the woman had not known that she was followed would the criteria for the stalking harassment charge have been met? If you hired a third party, i.e. a P.I., to follow and try to find the child could that person be charged with stalking/harassment? I was under the impression that the victim had to instruct you to cease and desist before the criteria were met.

Get a custody order. A welfare check doesnt necessarily mean the child will be returned. Repeated welfare checks always seemed like harassment to me. :)

Not to derail but I have primary custody of a child with a well defined custody order. My ex instructs me to pick up the child on her property but says if my wife is present that she will be guilty of trespassing. I always bring my wife or my brother as a witness to make sure the exchange goes smoothly. Or at least if it doesnt it wont be 2 peoples word against 1. My ex has tried to get my wife arrested to stalking/harassment/trespassing and has been unsuccessful. I guess the only difference between me and this gentleman is blood relationship to the child and a well defined order.
 

CGRAY

Member
Well, from what I read, PI's are immune to stalking laws since they clearly have legitimate reason for their surveillance which is without question to be not to harass or intimidate but to gather information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top