• 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 arrest options

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

T

theland

Junior Member
In Michigan

If a misdemeanor charge is "dismissed" does that mean a wrongful arrest option is gone because there is no acquittal at a trial? If so can someone decline a dismissal and request a trial?
 


C

cyjeff

Senior Member
What are you trying to accomplish?

If the case is dismissed prior to trial, it means there is no case.
 
A

Antigone*

Senior Member
theland said:
In Michigan

If a misdemeanor charge is "dismissed" does that mean a wrongful arrest option is gone because there is no acquittal at a trial? If so can someone decline a dismissal and request a trial?
Click to expand...
The dismissing of a case or the acquittal of a defendent does not mean the arrest was wrongful. You'll need a whole heck of a lot more than that.

What idiot would decline a dismissal and request a trial???:eek:
 
B

Banned_Princess

Senior Member
I have no idea what kind of moron would turn down a dismissal, but i think once a judge decides to dismiss it, there is no case to take to trial.
 
CdwJava

CdwJava

Senior Member
theland said:
If a misdemeanor charge is "dismissed" does that mean a wrongful arrest option is gone because there is no acquittal at a trial? If so can someone decline a dismissal and request a trial?
Click to expand...
You cannot force the state to take your matter to trial.

If the case is dismissed, you can still TRY to sue for wrongful arrest, but that is a high burden to meet. Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers arrested you KNOWING that they had no probable cause to do so? Or, that they reasonably should have known no probable cause to make the arrest existed?

The burden of proof needed to support an arrest is significantly less than that needed to garner a conviction at trial. So, before you tread down that path (which could also earn you a countersuit by the officers) you had best be sure you have some real evidence.
 
M

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
CdwJava said:
Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers arrested you KNOWING that they had no probable cause to do so? Or, that they reasonably should have known no probable cause to make the arrest existed?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the plaintiff need to prove those points by a preponderance of evidence? Or is the burden standard higher in a wrongful arrest suit?
 
B

BOR

Senior Member
Stevef said:
Wouldn't the plaintiff need to prove those points by a preponderance of evidence? Or is the burden standard higher in a wrongful arrest suit?
Click to expand...
By a Preponderance, or some states have '"clear and convincing" for Civil matters, regardless, it is not BRD.
 
CdwJava

CdwJava

Senior Member
It would still require showing that there was no probable cause to make the arrest and that the officers knew, or reasonably should have known, that there existed no probable cause. This can be - by itself - a relatively high burden to meet.
 
B

BOR

Senior Member
CdwJava said:
It would still require showing that there was no probable cause to make the arrest and that the officers knew, or reasonably should have known, that there existed no probable cause. This can be - by itself - a relatively high burden to meet.
Click to expand...
True, as I am sure you know when suing an officer the Plaintiff needs to prove they violated "clearly established law".

The burden is theoretically higher due to Qualified Immunity, but the burden/standard of proof is still a civil burden.
 
T

theland

Junior Member
CdwJava said:
You cannot force the state to take your matter to trial.
Thankyou and thanks to others who have answered.

Another question please,

Let's say an associate forwards an email he got this morning from a former employee of yours, which was also sent to a number of other people who know you. The former employee writes that he has made criminal complaints against you, unrelated to his former employment or duties. He writes that you are going to be arrested this coming Friday. He seems to have a lot of inside information about what the prosecutor is deciding. You are aware of the possible nature of the complaint and would respond, if asked, that the matter is civil, not criminal, but nobody is asking.

Can the former employee properly have this knowledge of the prosecutor's reasoning, etc.? Can he tell your friends and associates, with impunity, that you are going to be arrested on a particular day for particular charges? What's the appropriate response to this?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CdwJava

CdwJava

Senior Member
theland said:
Let's say an associate forwards an email he got this morning from a former employee of yours, which was also sent to a number of other people who know you. The employee writes that he has made criminal complaints against you, unrelated to his former employment or duties. He writes that you are going to be arrested this coming Friday. He seems to have a lot of inside information about what the prosecutor is deciding. You are aware of the possible nature of the complaint and would respond, if asked, that the matter is civil, not criminal, but nobody is asking.

Can the former employee properly have this knowledge of the prosecutor's reasoning, etc.? Can he tell your friends and associates, with impunity, that you are going to be arrested on a particular day for particular charges? What's the appropriate response to this?
Click to expand...
If the person is not committing libel, then he can generally say it. If he is blowing smoke, and you can prove that he made it all up, then you MIGHT have some sort of a civil case against him ... maybe ... depending on the details. The person may be making a lot of erroneous assumptions that are wrong, too.

If you feel you have been damaged and can articulate a dollar amount for damages, then you should consider consulting an attorney about filing suit for libel ... assuming, of course, that he made it up.
 
T

theland

Junior Member
CdwJava said:
If the person is not committing libel, then he can generally say it. If he is blowing smoke, and you can prove that he made it all up, then you MIGHT have some sort of a civil case against him ... maybe ... depending on the details. The person may be making a lot of erroneous assumptions that are wrong, too.
Click to expand...
I think he has made a complaint. I have no idea if he actually knows how the prosecutor is thinking. There is probably a lot of wishful thinking in these situations. If I call the prosecutor's office and inquire about this how migh they respond? Given the unserious nature of the matter the practical thing would be for an officer to come to ask me for my side. That's not happening and it's unnerving to put it mildly.
If you feel you have been damaged and can articulate a dollar amount for damages, then you should consider consulting an attorney about filing suit for libel ... assuming, of course, that he made it up.
Click to expand...
I'm more interested in heading off an arrest, persuading the prosecutor, if necessary, that the matter is civil, not criminal.
 
justalayman

justalayman

Senior Member
That's not happening and it's unnerving to put it mildly.I'm more interested in heading off an arrest, persuading the prosecutor, if necessary, that the matter is civil, not criminal.
Click to expand...
there are both civil and criminal aspects of many situations. Since you choose to keep any details hidden, nobody can do much to address your actual situation.

and although you would rather have a cop come and ask you your side of the story, the fact is; if a complaint was made and the DA has found enough support to bring criminal charges, your only opportunity to convince anybody of anything will be in court.
 
T

theland

Junior Member
justalayman said:
there are both civil and criminal aspects of many situations. Since you choose to keep any details hidden, nobody can do much to address your actual situation.
Click to expand...
The issue is trespass, which can be criminal or civil. Why is the prosecutor involving himself in this?

You are one of the owners of a C corp which owns land. You own a house on the property that comes with a license granting non exclusive use and enjoyment 'unless the company needs the land for another purpose.' The company's Articles of Incorporation require a super majority vote for significant actions including things like sales, leases, dividends, and "the disposition of any real property."

The Board majority creates a hunt club llc, wholy owned by the company, and declares 85% of the land is off limits for 3 months of the year. You say that is a disposition that didn't get the required supermajority approval of shareholders. They say that since they created a separate LLC , entirely owned by the company, there is no disposition. They promise to have you arrested for trespassing if you ignore them.

You consult an attorney. He advises it is a civil matter and the prosecutor would never get involved. So you ignore the trespass threat. Weeks later they claim to be communicating with the prosecutor and your arrest is imminent. So you insist your attorney call the prosecutor and it turns out you "might" be arrested for trespass after all, so you stop going on the disputed property even if you don't agree with the prosecutor's involvement or opinion.

Today you find one of the principles bragging that your arrest is imminent for a trespass incident that happened before the prosecutor informed you of his opinion.

A final note, the super majority requirement means a small minority of shareholders can veto many things. You are that minority.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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