false arrest

What is the name of your state? arizona;

on june 13 i was arrested for trespassing 3rd degree real property. note - in az a person is guilty of trespassing 3rd degree only if a business has posted no trespassing signs on the property or if a co employee has requested that the person leave and the person refuses

my arrest was made after i had stopped in the parking lot of a local business to use my cell phone at around 5:20 pm. . the arresting officer (who appeared to be relatively new to the job)stated that he was responding to a an audible alarm when he observed my vehicle traveling through the parking lot and exiting onto the main road. he asked me why i had been at the business I explained to the officer that i had stopped briefly to use my cell phone and that was all.

the officers searched my vehicle - nothing was found. the officers then allegedly contacted the owner of the business who said i had no right to be there and therefore the officer should arrest me?? so i was then arrested but allowed to leave on my own recognizance.

The city prosecutors office later moved to dismiss the trepassing charge - the reason listed was "factually insufficient" .....

my question - do i have any kind of basis for suing the police for false arrest? for violating my civil rights in some way? they knew up front that no violation of the statute had occurred yet they arrested my anyway -

rlynchco said:

What is the name of your state? arizona;

on june 13 i was arrested for trespassing 3rd degree real property. note - in az a person is guilty of trespassing 3rd degree only if a business has posted no trespassing signs on the property or if a co employee has requested that the person leave and the person refuses

my arrest was made after i had stopped in the parking lot of a local business to use my cell phone at around 5:20 pm. . the arresting officer (who appeared to be relatively new to the job)stated that he was responding to a an audible alarm when he observed my vehicle traveling through the parking lot and exiting onto the main road. he asked me why i had been at the business I explained to the officer that i had stopped briefly to use my cell phone and that was all.

the officers searched my vehicle - nothing was found. the officers then allegedly contacted the owner of the business who said i had no right to be there and therefore the officer should arrest me?? so i was then arrested but allowed to leave on my own recognizance.

The city prosecutors office later moved to dismiss the trepassing charge - the reason listed was "factually insufficient" .....

my question - do i have any kind of basis for suing the police for false arrest? for violating my civil rights in some way? they knew up front that no violation of the statute had occurred yet they arrested my anyway -

Click to expand...

**A: you were trespassing so you have no claim.

- hg- thanx for your reply. myself as well as 2 others i know reviewed az state law regarding trespass and what is considered a violation of the law, defines it simply as 1- the property must have signs posted that advise " no trespassing, etc. " 2- the owner of the property or an authority figure makes a request that you leave the property and that request is refused. neither of the two conditions were met - i was simply temporarily stopped to use my cell phone and avoid the unsafe practice of driving and using celll phone at same time. is this still considered trespassing regardless of my intention on the property??

rlynchco said:

- hg- thanx for your reply. myself as well as 2 others i know reviewed az state law regarding trespass and what is considered a violation of the law, defines it simply as 1- the property must have signs posted that advise " no trespassing, etc. " 2- the owner of the property or an authority figure makes a request that you leave the property and that request is refused. neither of the two conditions were met - i was simply temporarily stopped to use my cell phone and avoid the unsafe practice of driving and using celll phone at same time. is this still considered trespassing regardless of my intention on the property??

Click to expand...

**A: Let's say I live in Scotsdale. My property has a nice turn around driveway and you drive onto the imported European flagstone right up to the end of my green manicured front yard. I have no signs and my driver never asked you to leave the property. You were still trespassing.

WOW- that really stinks. And for once I was really not doing anything to deserve such a heap of bs. Well Guru- thnax angain. anyone care to add ahything eldse that will just make my day????

hello, kinfolk. i call you kin because i have experienced the same type of unjust act by "liberty suppressors" as yourself, here in Yuma, Arizona. I hope you find the following info helpful in your cause to seek redress of your grievance(s) with those whom we pay to protect our constitutionally protected rights, as opposed to trampling upon them...

curtilage
\Cur"ti*lage\ (k?r"t?-l?j), n. [OF. cortillage, curtillage, fr. cortil court, courtyard, LL. cortis court. See Court.] (Law) A yard, courtyard, or piece of ground, included within the fence surrounding a dwelling house. --Burrill.

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING CASE INFO MAY BE FOUND @: http://www.oregonlawenforcement.com/legal_updates.htm

State v. Hayes
(Or. Ct. App. January 29, 2003)

This case does not create new law. Rather it reviews the general rule about when officers may go to the back (or side) door of a residence with- out committing a trespass.
The court stated that a homeowner is presumed to have implicitly consented to entry into the front yard to approach the front door. Conversely, such a presumption of implied consent to enter is not ascribed to other areas of the curtilage. Rather, entry onto those areas is presumptively a trespass. Nevertheless, that presumptive treatment is not necessarily conclusive: A homeowner can abrogate the presumption of implied consent to approach the front door by undertaking sufficient steps to exclude casual visitors from the front yard. Conversely, the presumption that other invasions of the curtilage are trespasses can be overcome by evidence that the homeowner has implicitly or explicitly invited entry.
Put another way, in Oregon an officer may generally approach the front door of a residence without committing a trespass. A homeowner may overcome this general rule by taking sufficient steps to exclude casual visitors from the front yard/front door.
Conversely, an officer generally may not approach the back door of a residence without committing a trespass. [Obviously, consent, a warrant, or PC + exigency may authorize such an approach.] Approaching the back (or side) door of a residence may not be deemed a trespass if there is evidence that the homeowner has implicitly or explicitly invited entry. Typically, courts examine the following factors: Whether the door is visible from the public street; whether there is a doorbell on the door; whether the door is directly accessible from a driveway; and whether strangers typically use this door when visiting the residence.

So I surmise that you may apply this above info to your own situation and draw your own conclusion as to whether it sheds light upon your redress of grievance(s).

I hope the above is helpful and wish you the best in your pursuit of justice. Dont give up, stand up and belligerently fight for your unalienable rights! Even though it is not always common, common sense rules; and if the facts as you have stated are correct, any reasonable person would not fault you for what you did. Godspeed!

That's a nice case, but our poster lives in AZ, not OR. OR has the most restrictive view of curtilage I've seen. In Washington (where privacy is king), curtilage includes the driveway & all walkways around the house/garage unless the owner takes steps to indicate otherwise, such as gating the driveway, blocking the walkway, etc. Posting No Trespassing signs is insufficient.

Some times I wonder if you people live in America. I can't wait until the next group of Jehovah's witnesses walk up to my door so I can detain them against their will while I wait for the Gestapo to come haul them off and do what they will with them.

Unfortunately cops are trained to step all over the rights of normal citizens. There are people that have been found innocent of crimes after being in jail for years and simply kicked out the door without any compensation. So just be glad that there wasn’t a little girl later found dead behind a near by bush with trace fibers on her similar to the one ones in your shirt. In comparison you could consider yourself lucky.

Unlike Home Guru, I understand your dilemma. When you hear of such abuses of authority by the police it’s never as bad as when it actually happens to you. Common sense and law doesn't mix, we have to live with what we tolerate.

You should remember that you have a constitutional right against unreasonable searches. You definitely should exercise that right in the future.

Blink, what do suggest the original poster should have said or done when the officer approached to investigate the business alarm going off and the poster leaving the premises (after hours)?

What abuse do you think the officer did to the poster after the business owner confirmed the poster had no business being on the property after hours? The poster was given a ticket, he wasnt taken to jail. The prosecutor dropped the case.

The officer had probable cause to investigate the poster leaving the premises because of the alarm going off.

He never said he received a ticket; in fact the only post with the word “ticket” in it is yours. He said he was arrested and released on his own recognizance. I have to assume he went through the booking process (which isn't always quick and pleasant depending on where you live) and then released without bail.

He also never said that the audible alarm was coming from the business itself or it's property.

In all fairness he simply stopped in a safe place so that he could use his phone. Then when this person was stopped and questioned by am officer, he willingly complied with a search of his vehicle. When this officer could not find any evidence that he was party to any crime, the officer actively sought out a reason to arrest him. And even then his reason for arrest was insufficient as it was thrown out.

He should have been given a pat on the back for thoughtfully getting out of traffic to use his cell phone.

dood be happy ok....
what state are you in ? peed offf
Hey anny body want to bear through a crappy typed post and then ponder something funny?
Ok i was hangin down at my garage , When my stalking neighbor apeared, walked over the property line , my property line .
started to threaten me . He said if you had something to do with my cat dissapearing i will kill you! fyi thiers a 6 foot no tresspassing sighn on the side of my garage , 1 in front , 2 in back , you cant miss them , yet he threatens my life more and more ,wont leave the property .So after warning him to leave or pepper spray. he threatens some more . i unload a can of peper spray on him .
I get fined 300 bucks cops wont hit him witha tresspass charge..
Cop admits to him knowing he was on my property...
its actually defiant criminal tresspass at this point , hes been ordered off by the owner and the property is posted . plus hes harassing me and making terroristic threats.. i eaven wasted my time to file with the internal affairs , what a joke , i didnt file a complaint with his "ex lawyer" the magistrait for tresspass like it would do anny good.

FYI The cat returned from its vacation of three days fine..
btw i did post the remains of this under should i sue this judge post.