Statute of Limitation issue in California

California State:

What is the operative statue of limitation to sue a police officer in federal court for a 4th amendment violation in the State of California?

Is the statue of limitations for suing an officer the same as suing the county and board of directors for the creation of unconstitutional police department policy procedures which caused the violation?

The details of the arrest and search are as follows if needed:

I was pulled over while driver a dirt bike on private property. The cop turned on his flashing lights behind my bike. He then told me to take my helmet off and ordered me to empty my pockets... he said he got reports of burglaries in area. The cop said he thought I was high on drugs, and he arrested me. He then towed my my truck and my bike off of the private property. He took me down to the Eureka police station and tied me down to a chair against my will and took a blood test. This arrest occurred on the date 2/23/2009. The Judge threw the case out because there were no exigent circumstances for the officer to force me to do a blood draw and ordered that there was a 4th amendment violation under the circumstances. I filed an administrative tort claim against the officer and the county and the Director of policy etc. and the Board of Supervisors rejected the claim. I did this within the 6 month time period for filing torts in the State. But now I need to know the above questions about the current California Statute of limitations for filing a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against the officer and the county & directors... because the research I have done have produced several conflicting results. Thank You

What were you arrested for?

he arrested me for public intoxication under the influence of a controlled substance

cunundrum69 said:

he arrested me for public intoxication under the influence of a controlled substance

Click to expand...

If he had probable cause to believe that you were under the influence of a controlled substance, the officer can compel a chemical test.

I don't know what the judge was smoking if he actually stated there as no exigent circumstances to compel the test because it is clearly established law in California and under the federal standard that police CAN compel blood when drugs or alcohol are suspected ... except when the act of taking the blood shocks the conscience of the court.

The key will be whether the officer had any cause to detain you initially, and probable cause to make the arrest.

As for the judge, what was the EXACT wording of his dismissal? I seriously doubt he said, "there were no exigent circumstances for the officer to force me to do a blood draw and ordered that there was a 4th amendment violation under the circumstances." That just does not sound like a judge's ruling. He might have granted the defense motion to suppress the evidence, but it would be a rare thing indeed for a judge to actually proclaim that there was a "4th Amendment violation."

If you think you have a claim for wrongful arrest or some sort of abuse, then you really should consult an attorney. This is not a "do it yourself" project.

CdwJava said:

I don't know what the judge was smoking if he actually stated there as no exigent circumstances to compel the test ...

Click to expand...

Oh...the irony!