Gross misdemeanor evidence and arrest question

I recently appeared in an unemployment hearing to discuss eligibility. during the hearing a separate criminal matter was brought up and discussed. at no point did I say anything to admit guilt. however, the hearing was ruled against me and the judge offered his opinion of my guilt in the criminal matter. can the police use his opinion to bring charges against me? is that enough evidence to bring an arrest? and would the police arrest me for a gross misdemeanor or would they send me a subpeona/citation in the mail. it was alleged theft of $500.00

His opinion of the criminal matter is meritless, period.

For a misdemeanor, they will probably issue a summons, but can apply for an arrest warrant, sure.

Either requires probable cause.

what would be considered probable cause in a gross misdemeanor theft case?

mrwhite said:

what would be considered probable cause in a gross misdemeanor theft case?

Click to expand...

PC for ANY charge, is that a reasonably prudent officer/agent of the court believes a crime was committed and the person named committed it. It is a looser standard then a burden of proof in court.

US Law Only!

it is an instance of the word of the party who filed the police report. no other evidence exists with my name attached. there is evidence that links an online bank account of my wife, but the account was deleted before any police involvement. is this enough to bring charges on me?

mrwhite said:

it is an instance of the word of the party who filed the police report. no other evidence exists with my name attached. there is evidence that links an online bank account of my wife, but the account was deleted before any police involvement. is this enough to bring charges on me?

Click to expand...

...because no banks ever keep records of closed accounts, right?

If they are going to base an arrest warrant on the word of another, the credibility of that person is also at hand. No one can say whether the charging authority sees it as PC?

If it is weak PC, or even not, you have a right to plead not guilty and receive a fair trial.

Unemployment hearings are in no way related to criminal court, or even to civil court. The unemployment hearing officer is NOT an officer of the court.

If the hearing officer, on hearing the evidence presented by the employer, commented that he/she believed there was enough evidence here for charges to be filed, they were, IMHO a bit out of their league. However, the only person in the world they would have been talking to would be the employer. If the employer had this much evidence, in other words, he should've pressed charges.

I have seen dandy evidence of people who should not only have been fired for the misconduct they had committed, they should have had charges filed against them by the employer. However, my seeing this or even saying this as an unemployment appeals officer was no more valid than any other bystander seeing this and hearing this and even giving an opinion.

To me this sounds like the judge you refer to is an "Administrative Judge" which are usually an employee of an agency of some kind. Their decisions are appealable to a District Court. One thing to remember, in administrative proceedings, you can have anyone you desire represent you. They do NOT need to be an attorney because it is "administrative law" but acts similar to a REAL court of law. In a real court of law, if you are sworn in under oath and give testimony the witness is immune as to what they testify to. It doesn't matter if the witness says something incriminating or not, they are immune. I will not get into a case study class on this but direct you to research some of this yourself. Forums such as this may serve at best as a sort of road map but it is up to the readers to study and follow that map. But for an Administrative Judge, if you feel agrieved then bump things up to the next level. I agree with others that it would be improper to discuss some sort of criminal activity that may be motivated to get you to drop your unemployment claim or deflate your baloon in pursuing it.

Lesson: If you attend any other administrative hearing and an agency employee (Administrative Judge) attempts to overstep his authority, which is very limited BTW, object to it as not relevant and request he stay on track. He may get "mad" because you prove to be smarter than anticipated and he may deny your claim. I'd thank him nicely for the denial and would have my appeal forms ready for filing in a federal district court. There you will find that you will in the least be dealing with a real judge and not an employee of an agency pretending to be impartial.

As you can see, I haven't much use or respect for Administrative Judges. Heck, figure skating in the Olympics have "judges". Television is chocked full of "judges".

Very much in line with what I was saying. An unemployment "judge" is that, an administrative judge, not connected with the court system. And I think I can see, from re-reading the OP's post, what may have happened.

He says, "...a separate criminal matter was brought up..." What may have happened is that after the person was terminated, another issue came up, in which maybe the employer found, or thought they found, evidence that the employee had stolen $500 or embezzled $500. And during the hearing, they tried to introduce this into evidence as showing they had a misconduct reason to terminate the person.

In this case, the appeals judge/referee/officer whatever it's called in your state system would advise the employer that while he might very well have grounds to prosecute this person in civil court, this would have no bearing on the unemployment hearing.

For example if the person was terminated for absenteeism, and then after they were gone, it became apparent that they had stolen $500 from the company. The only issue that would be dealt with in the unemployment hearing would be the absenteeism issue, and the employee very well could be denied unemployment. But it would have nothing to do with the information that was obtained later, after the person was already terminated. If the employer tried to say, "But we later found out that this person was stealing from us!" that would still make no difference in the unemployment decision.

If the hearing decision was appealed to the board of review, and then on to the circuit courts, there would still not be any mention of the issue that was not a factor in the original termination.