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.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?
You cannot force the state to take your matter to trial.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?
The kind trying to win the lawsuit lotto.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.
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?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?
By a Preponderance, or some states have '"clear and convincing" for Civil matters, regardless, it is not BRD.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?
True, as I am sure you know when suing an officer the Plaintiff needs to prove they violated "clearly established law".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.
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?
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.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?
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 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.
I'm more interested in heading off an arrest, persuading the prosecutor, if necessary, that the matter is civil, not criminal.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.
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.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.
The issue is trespass, which can be criminal or civil. Why is the prosecutor involving himself in this?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.