False Arrest Suit

[CdwJava]

Carl, sometimes I get the impression that you're biased but then the feeling fades.

Could be my schizophrenia.

I merely tried to point out what COULD be the perspective of the parties involved, and the limitations of the legal system in a situation where there are two competing interests making what are likely completely opposite claims. The civil angle would seem to provide a greater opportunity at relief than a civil one as you would each seem to have equally valid (or invalid claims) of battery against the other.

Thanks for your responses and your perspective. At a minimum, this forum provides a useful exercise.

Thanks. And, you're welcome.

Carl, 2 attorneys will give their opinion next week. If they'll sue on contingency, they can have at it.

I'm going to guess that they won't as the money (damages) are minimal to non existent. But, a free consultation is a free consultation.

I will submit a complaint because the neighbor/cop's dept. was informed on day one that their cop was involved again - same thing last year - same address only then it was my daughter's friend while I was out of town. Three complaints were sustained against this neighbor cop 45 days before he did this spraying and set up job. The DA knows all this.

The personnel complaint cannot be used against the officer unless the sustained complaint(s) are obtained pursuant to a Pitchess motion while engaged in a current court action where his personnel record would be relevant. And I am somewhat surprised you would know that a complaint has been sustained or not ... most agencies are not in the habit of telling people this. In fact, the agency could be held liable by the employee for releasing this information in certain instances.

I just don't see why some authority won't stop this, in his own words, "sworn police officer."

Because, legally, your respective words each should have equal weight in this matter. And, as I have said, I suspect his version of events paints you as the nut job just as yours paints him in the same light.

When I was in the military, this kind of conduct, moral turpitude or, another example, sexual transgressions, once brought to the attention of superior officers would have immediately gone to reduction of rank and possibly loss of an officer's commission.

In the military, you belong to the military 24/7. In law enforcement you only belong to them in a limited capacity, and only when a nexus between off duty conduct ties the employee to his or her agency.

I do these investigations for my agency and it is a constant balancing act. However, I live and work in a small town where most the officers live in the city. So, it is easy to tie an officer's off-duty conduct to the agency as everyone knows the officer is a cop with this agency, and his activity off duty DOES reflect negatively upon this department. But, if my officer lived outside the jurisdiction I might have a much harder time tying the act to a legitimate policy violation unless he injects his position as a police officer with this department into the mix while he is acting like an idiot.

The law is not always as simple as common sense might dictate it should be.

- Carl

 

[Johnmelissa]

Post Script

. Final Points:

1. It is a non-position to say that each party has a legitimate version of events. There must be a catalyst and a compelling volume of evidence. In this case, there is a long and documented history. 7 years ago this nutjob neighbor/cop from hell, arbitrarily tore down part of a mutual fence without permission from the co-owners or permit from the city. The city didn't say, oh you each have a legitimate position. The city immediately and without equivocation compelled him to reconstruct the fence the way it was. Period. Each subsequent event has had a catalyst that was an action of the neighbor/cop. The volume of historical evidence is overwhelming. In the event of water spraying, I have a God given duty to attempt to preserve my safety, especially, while retreating to a position where I might terminate the event. The neighbor/cop clearly took aggressive and illegal action; not defensive action.

2. "Sworn police officers," while serving honorably, are not above the law, are not privileged and, definitively, MUST be held to a higher standard. The behavior I've delineated is unacceptable from moral, ethical and even legal perspectives. This may be a citizen that is not guilty of a crime, but he should not be a "sworn police officer."

3. FYI - I have in my possession SIX letters from the primary Sheriff's Dept. and the contracted Municipal Police Dept. that employ the neighbor/cop. In those letters, there are THREE SUSTAINED complaints. These letters indicate that the complaints were sustained because of the actions committed by the neighbor/cop. They are signed by the Chief and the IA Officer. These letters are available for your perusal. Additionally, in earlier posts, I stated that the irate neighbor/cop battered me with "garden hose water" FOURTY-FIVE days after the complaints were sustained. That is retaliation!

Once again, thanks.

 

[CdwJava]

1. It is a non-position to say that each party has a legitimate version of events.

I don't recall saying that both had "legitimate" versions, only competing versions that should be given roughly equal weight on their face.

There must be a catalyst and a compelling volume of evidence.

Not necessarily. Some cases are made with little or no evidence, and others cannot be made even with a ton of evidence (i.e. O.J.).

In this case, there is a long and documented history.

History does not prove the current event. And if the history is solely your version of events, then it is simply opinion and not "fact" in the eyes of a court or prosecutor. I can't recall all the past details, but unless he was cited for similar acts in the past, your complaints simply show a record of complaints.

And, again, past history cannot be taken into account for current crimes ... punishment, yes ... at trial to demonstrate a propensity to commit an act, perhaps ... but as "proof", no.

7 years ago this nutjob neighbor/cop from hell, arbitrarily tore down part of a mutual fence without permission from the co-owners or permit from the city. The city didn't say, oh you each have a legitimate position. The city immediately and without equivocation compelled him to reconstruct the fence the way it was.

That's because they had statements and evidence - a broken fence. That makes it easy. It's not an instance of claim and counterclaim.

Each subsequent event has had a catalyst that was an action of the neighbor/cop. The volume of historical evidence is overwhelming.

In your opinion. It may not be so compelling in a court of law.

In the event of water spraying, I have a God given duty to attempt to preserve my safety, especially, while retreating to a position where I might terminate the event. The neighbor/cop clearly took aggressive and illegal action; not defensive action.

Perhaps it is true. But, it is still your version of events versus his version of events. One or both of you could be lying. The question then becomes who can prove what. The usual response in these cases is to issue everyone a citation for battery based upon dueling citizen's arrests and then let the DA and the court sort it out. I suspect that if this goes on, this is what will happen. Frankly, it should have happened long ago.

2. "Sworn police officers," while serving honorably, are not above the law, are not privileged and, definitively, MUST be held to a higher standard.

Certainly.

The behavior I've delineated is unacceptable from moral, ethical and even legal perspectives. This may be a citizen that is not guilty of a crime, but he should not be a "sworn police officer."

Again, we have to deal with the law as it stands - no with the law as it should be. As it stands now the employing agency has to articulate a nexus between the activity and his employment before they can take action to discipline or even terminate the employee. They might be able to establish that nexus given the right articulated fact set, but it is not a given that this can be done absent come finding by a civil or criminal court against him. Even then, the action must still have a nexus to his employer. Unless he has gone out there waving his badge around saying he was an officer with the XYZ police department as he committed a criminal or immoral act, there may well be no legal nexus.

3. FYI - I have in my possession SIX letters from the primary Sheriff's Dept. and the contracted Municipal Police Dept. that employ the neighbor/cop. In those letters, there are THREE SUSTAINED complaints. These letters indicate that the complaints were sustained because of the actions committed by the neighbor/cop. They are signed by the Chief and the IA Officer. These letters are available for your perusal.

I'm flabbergasted that you have managed to obtain copies of these ... unless they are general letters from the Chief and the IA officer stating in general terms that elements of YOUR complaint against the officer had been sustained. The letters should NOT contain the specific punishment, though they may contain general allegations under which the officer had a sustained complaint. If these letters were not directed to you, then the officer in question may well have good cause to sue his employer for releasing those documents without a court order.

Additionally, in earlier posts, I stated that the irate neighbor/cop battered me with "garden hose water" FOURTY-FIVE days after the complaints were sustained. That is retaliation!

No one said it wasn't. It is also battery, technically. Regardless of why, it's criminal. But who did what to whom first is what appears to be in question here. The fact he has prior complaints is not legally proof of battery with water on that particular date and time.

I think the DA saw that the offense was not worth the time and effort to prosecute so he attempted to mediate it. So, you and your neighbor can either move on or you can both try to get back at each other some more. Sadly, the end result there is likely that one or both of you will end up in jail. I would probably settle this with mutual arrests for C/A's each time it happened.

You might consider video surveillance to the front of your house facing towards the neighbor's yard. That way anything can be recorded and then you would have evidence beyond statements.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

At least once every day I am naked and wet--sometimes twice a day! It's true, I admit it. Now it is a fact it is in the morning or the evening when I am taking a shower, however I do seem to have a habit of being naked and wet.

If I were to be accused of being at a neighbor's house, indecently exposing myself naked and wet, could the evidence of my habit of being naked and wet be used against me?

Even though I have done it before?

No. One cannot use such character evidence against a person to show he acted in a certain way on a certain day.

(I hope to never test out such an evidentiary theory.)

 

[outonbail]

You might consider video surveillance to the front of your house facing towards the neighbor's yard. That way anything can be recorded and then you would have evidence beyond statements.

I can't understand why the OP hadn't thought of this simple way to protect himself a long time ago? Security camera's and in fact entire turn key video/audio monitoring and recording systems in general, have come way down in price over the years. I've seen four camera color systems w/time lapse recorders sell for under three hundred bucks on ebay. The ebay site is loaded with these systems and for a few hundred bucks I have to believe that the OP could have saw an end to all this drama a long time ago. At the very least, he would have had the undeniable recorded evidence to support his claim of being the innocent victim in all these neighborhood spats.

Personally, I don't believe the OP wants to see this unfruitful relationship with his neighbor fade away, unless it happens by way of his own predetermined plan of victory He has become so consumed by the whole mess, that this mission has become his calling. He eats, sleeps, shops, works and takes every breath with nothing else on his mind but this sour grapes soap opera, starring him as the super hero and his neighbor from hell as the villain.

He continues to look for support and advice in this matter, in spite of the fact that his previous post claimed that subsequent to the hearing, everyone shook hands and all were in agreement that this pissing party had finally come to an end.

It's obvious however, that this meeting hasn't brought any relief to the OP or encouraged him to back off and see if it actually has come to an end. Instead, it has apparently motivated his insanity to the point of him racking his brain and working overtime trying to develope a strategy that will see him prevail in all future criminal and/or civil disputes. But what's more important than having this all come to an end, is who gets the bragging rights so they can spew, "I told you so" in endless circles like all the other nonsense that's been posted and gone over again and again.

So, I believe there is nothing anyone in the world, let alone on this site, is going to be able to say or do, that will encourage the OP to end this madness and get on with life.

 

[Johnmelissa]

Post Script Response

This is the definition of daunting. You guys are ganging up on me but, more significantly, you don't digest anything I say. I'll proceed as best I can. Don't get me wrong, this has been inordinately edifying and I can't remember having this much fun. Alas, I am frustrated and demoralized by your collective lack of comprehension and, ultimately, acceptance of the facts and truth of this case.

I was set to buy a new house and move 3 months after he moved in. I ended up, the day of signing, in the hospital with subsequent surgery. Fate fouled us up. After that the markets. We're moving in three months.

I have petitioned this city to enforce codes against the storage and nuisances of the neighbor/cop's RV's. All code considerations were ENDED in September 2006. He won on all counts and the city allows him to place any and RV's on his property. He won, get it? I know that I have a right to petition my government. You'd think a cop would know, understand and defend that right. In any case that is ALL OVER, COMPLETED, DONE WITH, TERMINATED. That is the source of his adversity. I DO NOTHING TO HIM. PLEASE HEAR ME PEOPLE. He got mad, he stayed mad because he is mad and he can't stop being mad! And he's a "sworn police officer."

What he has done includes the petty - throwing a handful of Crayons at me - and the serious - hit my wife's parked car while attempting to scare her by coming dangerously close. He has trespassed against a court ordered agreement, pounded open my door, yelled, "I'm a cop" and unlawfully detained my daughter's friend whom the responding police would cite much less arrest. He has jumped from his car up into my garage and put his face directly into my wife's face (assault). He tore down my fence, replaced it by city order and caused $1000. of damage. Most recently, he sprayed me with water, disappeared into his house and had his wife call the cops and say I did it (conspiracy to falsely and maliciously indict another for any crime). Hello! This is a "sworn police officer."

I have 17 points of major offenses (with exhibits) thoroughly documented. He can't stop himself. And, by the way, this goes to his potential irrationality on duty.

As I said long ago, this whole event is on the neighbor/cop's security surveillance video. He did not provide and the keystone cops did not obtain this damning (to him) evidence. What's that tell ya? I don't have a video system, though I have very much on hand held video, because I never expected to have to spray water in self defense as I retreated. I never have had any INTENTION of committing an aggressive or illegal act. I let him do it all. And he does. I would dearly love to see the neighbor/cop stop his petty attacks, such as he just now did, washing a ton of mud and debris into my driveway apron since his wife told the DA 3 days ago that she would "rein him (her husband/cop) in on washing the gutter down to them" and with his recently mounted klieg lights on the side of his house and up high, he lights my bedroom windows and the entire side of my house ALL NIGHT LONG. We're lit up like a Christmas here.

Alas, I'm not going to win in a court and I can't possibly win with you guys. What can I say? They let OJ off. You'd let OJ off. OK. Touche! It's challenging and exhilarating. Thanks.

Also, call me stupid, what are C/A's and OP?

These proceedings are closed.

 

[CdwJava]

This is the definition of daunting. You guys are ganging up on me but, more significantly, you don't digest anything I say.

Of course we do. Unfortunately, the system is what it is and we are not in a position to change it tomorrow.

Alas, I am frustrated and demoralized by your collective lack of comprehension and, ultimately, acceptance of the facts and truth of this case.

I don't doubt what you had to say. However, you seem to fail to grasp the concept that the state (the DA, the court, the employing agency) is not going to have just your account to go by - they are also having to deal with a competing account from your neighbor from Hell. The system is not designed to believe you just because you exist.

I have petitioned this city to enforce codes against the storage and nuisances of the neighbor/cop's RV's. All code considerations were ENDED in September 2006. He won on all counts and the city allows him to place any and RV's on his property. He won, get it?

The question then becomes, WHY did he win? A great number of local ordinances are poorly written and have existed since the 50s and are no longer in step with case law. In every city and county I have worked in, the local governments have had to update their codes as a result of failed court cases. Most often they just shrug and go on hoping that the one winner doesn't publicize his victory.

Most recently, he sprayed me with water, disappeared into his house and had his wife call the cops and say I did it (conspiracy to falsely and maliciously indict another for any crime). Hello! This is a "sworn police officer."

Sounds horrible. But, once again, HE is telling the authorities another version of events entirely, I imagine. He may be an ass, and he may be undeserving of the badge, but without proof it comes across as your word against his, and LEGALLY his past acts cannot be used to prove a current one. Civil court might allow it (as the burden of proof is PREPONDERANCE of the evidence), but criminal courts have to have a higher level of proof to convict.

As I said long ago, this whole event is on the neighbor/cop's security surveillance video. He did not provide and the keystone cops did not obtain this damning (to him) evidence.

We went over this ... they cannot just walk in and seize it! And the neighbor has no legal obligation to turn it over to the police. IF the police have reason to believe there is something on the surveillance video they can ask a judge to sign a search warrant. Absent that, they can NOT just grab the tape because it MIGHT have been on and MIGHT have recorded the event.

This happens frequently. We have a couple drug houses and a couple gang homes with such systems. When they are "victims" the system is working and they give us what they have. When they are alleged to be the perpetrators, amazingly enough the system is down. Go figure.

What's that tell ya? I don't have a video system, though I have very much on hand held video, because I never expected to have to spray water in self defense as I retreated.

Perhaps it is well past the time to get such a surveillance system.

Alas, I'm not going to win in a court and I can't possibly win with you guys. What can I say? They let OJ off. You'd let OJ off. OK. Touche! It's challenging and exhilarating. Thanks.

We're not here to let you "win" or "lose". I'm here to explain the system and try to explain why some of the hurdles you have faced might be there. Obviously I have no idea whether this is an incident of "the brotherhood" standing behind one of their own, or just a bunch of weary cops and public servants getting tired of a never-ending series of "he started it" arguments between you and your neighbor.

Also, call me stupid, what are C/A's and OP?

A "C/A" is a "citizen's arrest", and "OP" is "original poster".

- Carl

 

[Eekamouse]

What exactly were you doing right before he sprayed you with his garden hose? How is it that you also happened to have your own garden hose in your hand at the same time? And why did you need to spray him back in self defense in order to walk into your garage? Why couldn't you just...well, walk into your garage?

 

[Johnmelissa]

Tedious and Repetitious

Shall I start all over from the beginning again? He endlessly fills my driveway apron with mud and debris. Once it was the hair he had cut off of his dog. You would sweep it up. He washes into my driveway apron. I was washing the gutter mess out of my driveway. I believe it is legal for me to wash the street because the code and the environmental services officer told me a resident may wash the street. OK? I have to drive through the mud and it comes up into my garage. That is the intent of the neighbor/cop. Get it?

I would conjecture that self defensive action is that taken to mitigate the battery that is occurring to one's person. I said that God and nature have compelled us to preserve our physical safety. Alternatively, I can just let anybody do anything they want to me. Are you NUTS?

His documented past shows a pattern and motive. His missing video is evidence in absentia or evidence by omission. We all know he has it and we all know why he won't give it. You know this is a fact but you won't allow it. Did OJ or Peterson take the stand? Why not? There's your answer. The keystone cops didn't obtain the video evidence. If I were on a jury, the case would end right there. The cops were told it's all on video and they didn't even ask for it. Explicitly, the cops wanted me to be guilty or blatantly ignored good solid evidence. What's it tell you if they didn't even ask for the tape because this was "only a misdemeanor?"

My self, my wife and my 21 year old daughter were direct witnesses compared to the neighbor/cop and his 15 year old son. The son will never be able to sustain testimony under cross that his father was not present. The police never saw the neighbor/cop anywhere around during their response. The police completely ignored our testimony and refused our C/A. I will take a lie detector test any time. I think you'll agree that it is difficult to be at a scene and not be at a scene. The adversaries will never be able to tell a story that's consistent. At that point, we know they are lying. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

Carl, isn't it the essence of the Chief and the Judge to make a determination? Aren't they capable, don't they have the facility to assess witnesses and find facts? I was on an attempted murder jury and the truth was EASY to sift out and differentiate.

He won with reference to the codes because after much discussion and debate the code was changed to reinforce the allowance of RV's in side yards. The point is that the code was not enforced and then it was changed in his favor and he could put all the nuisance RV's next to the fence by my house that he wanted. The point is that he won. He should have been happy but he's still mad and continues as many nuisances as he possibly can. I debated with the city council and he generates nuisances. And he's a "sworn police officer." Right.

That's hilarious. The druggies have video. If it shows them being violated, they produce it. If it shows them perpetrating, they don't. Go figure!

That reference was a patent admission that you know what the video would show. It demonstrates clearly that you know the facts but you tell yourself you don't. Is that intuition? I watched a judge be overwhelmed with evidence including a police traffic collision report (on an empty, quiet residential street with the whole road to himself, the neighbor/cop hit the door of my wife's parked car that she was sitting in) wherein the officer said that the neighbor/cop stated, himself, that he was at fault, and she denied a TRO simply because he's a cop. Had she order the TRO, this event would NEVER have happened. He's dangerous and getting worse and nobody will pay any attention because, like you, they can't see the facts. Everybody's running around saying they can't see the truth or there's outright corruption.

 

[outonbail]

What exactly were you doing right before he sprayed you with his garden hose? How is it that you also happened to have your own garden hose in your hand at the same time? And why did you need to spray him back in self defense in order to walk into your garage? Why couldn't you just...well, walk into your garage?

I don't know the answer to the first two questions, but he did post why he sprayed back in self defense and I thought his reason was absolutely brilliant! So now, for you're reading enjoyment, I present the reason::::::

If your neighbor DRENCHED you with water and was whooping it up with his son and laughing and enjoying himself, what would you do? Maybe some of you don't have the natural trigger of a set of balls.

So there you have it, the old natural trigger of a set of balls excuse. (I absolutely love it and can't wait for the first opportunity to arise where I can use it myself.

So remember, the key words here are "Natural", "Trigger and "Balls" so do not mistake this analogy for the more familiar verbage, which specifically,"is having an itchey trigger finger" Now I suppose having itchey balls would promote an unusually high number of contacts occurring between said itchey balls and your trigger finger.But who really knows which came first,,, the itchey finger,,, or the itchey balls?

I do know that when you go to bed with an itchey hiney, you wake up with smelly fingers.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

I don't know the answer to the first two questions, but he did post why he sprayed back in self defense and I thought his reason was absolutely brilliant! So now, for you're reading enjoyment, I present the reason::::::

So there you have it, the old natural trigger of a set of balls excuse. (I absolutely love it and can't wait for the first opportunity to arise where I can use it myself.

So remember, the key words here are "Natural", "Trigger and "Balls" so do not mistake this analogy for the more familiar verbage, which specifically,"is having an itchey trigger finger" Now I suppose having itchey balls would promote an unusually high number of contacts occurring between said itchey balls and your trigger finger.But who really knows which came first,,, the itchey finger,,, or the itchey balls?

I do know that when you go to bed with an itchey hiney, you wake up with smelly fingers.

OMG you should be a comedian! My hubby never looks at this site, but I just logged on and had to show him this thread.

He is laughing his hiney off.

 

[outonbail]

Carl, isn't it the essence of the Chief and the Judge to make a determination? Aren't they capable, don't they have the facility to assess witnesses and find facts?

PleaseSTOP! This can't go on for ever.

Carl has been over all of this territory with you time and time again. I thought he was very clearand had no trouble understanding what he was saying, which was of course, what can be done legally! Not what anyone believes should be done whether legal or not.

and you're claiming that we don't digest anything that you say>>>

enough already,,,,,

 

[outonbail]

I don't know the answer to the first two questions, but he did post why he sprayed back in self defense and I thought his reason was absolutely brilliant! So now, for you're reading enjoyment, I present the reason::::::

So there you have it, the old natural trigger of a set of balls excuse. (I absolutely love it and can't wait for the first opportunity to arise where I can use it myself.

So remember, the key words here are "Natural", "Trigger and "Balls" so do not mistake this analogy for the more familiar verbage, which specifically,"is having an itchey trigger finger" Now I suppose having itchey balls would promote an unusually high number of contacts occurring between said itchey balls and your trigger finger.But who really knows which came first,,, the itchey finger,,, or the itchey balls?

I do know that when you go to bed with an itchey hiney, you wake up with smelly fingers.

OMG you should be a comedian! My hubby never looks at this site, but I just logged on and had to show him this thread.

He is laughing his hiney off.

I'm glad someone is. I'm beginning to think this neighbor from hell cop is very patient and understanding to have only sprayed water on him. I think I would have opted for spraying him with something that would have a longer lasting effect,,,, and I'm not talking about crayons either!

 

[CdwJava]

OK? I have to drive through the mud and it comes up into my garage. That is the intent of the neighbor/cop. Get it?

Sounds civil - unless a muni code covers it. Photos and a small claims action might be the way to go. Again, preponderance of evidence in civil court as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court.

His documented past shows a pattern and motive.

Legally irrelevant when proving the current event. A rapist cannot have his past brought in to prove a rape alleged today. This is the state of the law and has been for my entire life. It's not likely to change any time soon.

His missing video is evidence in absentia or evidence by omission.

It is neither - and those terms are gobbly-gook. Evidence is what it is. In a jury or court trial, a jury or judge is free to infer what they will by a lack of a video from the other party's home. It is doubtful that the defense could even raise the issue in a criminal trial. But, there are circumstances that might allow this to be admitted. If the other party got on the stand, your attorney MIGHT be permitted to ask him about his surveillance system. His answers will be what they are and a jury or judge may weigh them as they see fit.

You know this is a fact but you won't allow it.

I am not allowing anything. I have to adhere to the law. The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution - as well as the CA Constitution - does NOT allow me to make entry and nab a tape that may or may not exist.

Did OJ or Peterson take the stand? Why not? There's your answer.

The 5th Amendment of the Constitution - they don't have to testify on their behalf. Look where it got Peterson (of course, he's got a good shot at an appeal right now).

The keystone cops didn't obtain the video evidence.

They did not have a lawful way to do so. Had they tried, then it would have been suppressed anyway. Either way, it would not be into evidence. And, frankly, in a matter like this the police are not going to waste hours even writing a search warrant and going before the DA and a judge. 8 to 12 hours or more of footwork and warrant writing for a low-level misdemeanor that in most counties is a little more serious than a traffic ticket is not an efficient use of time.

The cops were told it's all on video and they didn't even ask for it.

Told by who? By you? You never did tell me how you KNOW he had it on tape. You suspect he has it, but you no more KNOW he has it than I do.

What's it tell you if they didn't even ask for the tape because this was "only a misdemeanor?"

Maybe they should have asked. This might be good in civil court. But, the fact that they did not ask does nothing to prove battery on the neighbor's part.

My self, my wife and my 21 year old daughter were direct witnesses compared to the neighbor/cop and his 15 year old son.

Your family will make statements supporting you, and his family will make statements supporting him. It's expected. Thus the weight of these statements is cast in doubt.

The police completely ignored our testimony and refused our C/A.

You'll have to ask them why. By law they have to accept it even if they don't make the custodial arrest or citation.

I will take a lie detector test any time.

Not admissible in court.

Carl, isn't it the essence of the Chief and the Judge to make a determination? Aren't they capable, don't they have the facility to assess witnesses and find facts? I was on an attempted murder jury and the truth was EASY to sift out and differentiate.

First, the CHIEF is not an issue here. Personnel rules are governed by some much stricter laws. Whether the Chief can find a nexus to the agency by his behavior or not really depends on what he knows or can find out.

Before a judge can make a decision, a case needs to be before him. A lot of what you want to bring up could never be brought up for a host of reasons - some could. But, first, you need to either commence a civil court action against this man or you need to see that he gets successfully prosecuted.

Once again, set up your own camera system.

He won with reference to the codes because after much discussion and debate the code was changed to reinforce the allowance of RV's in side yards.

Active citizens often CAN get a code changed. It happens all the time in cities all over the country. We recently had it changed here in order to permit big rigs to park in a half block section of a residential street. If you become a squeaky wheel, you might be able to change a local ordinance as well - especially if it is 40 years old.

That's hilarious. The druggies have video. If it shows them being violated, they produce it. If it shows them perpetrating, they don't. Go figure!

Unfortunately, that's how it goes. Because they have the cameras outside is not generally sufficient - by itself - to allow us to obtain a search warrant. So, even if we did go inside to secure the VCR or computer system, we probable could not get a warrant absent some indication that the system was operational.

That reference was a patent admission that you know what the video would show.

Actually, it's an indication of what I SUSPECT the video might show. But I could never bring it up in court that they said their video was down. It might come up, but it's not going to be able to be presented as evidence of guilt.

He's dangerous and getting worse and nobody will pay any attention because, like you, they can't see the facts. Everybody's running around saying they can't see the truth or there's outright corruption.

You may be right. But, it's not because *I* don't see "the facts", it's because there are two sides to every story and I am hearing only YOUR version of events.

Dollars to donuts if I were listening to him, he'd be coloring you as a psychotic much the same way as you are coloring him. Since I am not present to witness any of it, all I would be left with would be two competing accounts of events.

Like I said before, my solution would be to haul everyone to jail whenever a citizen's arrest is made. Then it goes to court, and (hopefully) my officers wouldn't have to respond anymore.

My suggestions remain - get your own camera system, and consult a civil attorney to see if you have a case against the neighbor for something.

- Carl

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Sounds civil - unless a muni code covers it. Photos and a small claims action might be the way to go. Again, preponderance of evidence in civil court as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court.


Legally irrelevant when proving the current event. A rapist cannot have his past brought in to prove a rape alleged today. This is the state of the law and has been for my entire life. It's not likely to change any time soon.


It is neither - and those terms are gobbly-gook. Evidence is what it is. In a jury or court trial, a jury or judge is free to infer what they will by a lack of a video from the other party's home. It is doubtful that the defense could even raise the issue in a criminal trial. But, there are circumstances that might allow this to be admitted. If the other party got on the stand, your attorney MIGHT be permitted to ask him about his surveillance system. His answers will be what they are and a jury or judge may weigh them as they see fit.


I am not allowing anything. I have to adhere to the law. The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution - as well as the CA Constitution - does NOT allow me to make entry and nab a tape that may or may not exist.


The 5th Amendment of the Constitution - they don't have to testify on their behalf. Look where it got Peterson (of course, he's got a good shot at an appeal right now).


They did not have a lawful way to do so. Had they tried, then it would have been suppressed anyway. Either way, it would not be into evidence. And, frankly, in a matter like this the police are not going to waste hours even writing a search warrant and going before the DA and a judge. 8 to 12 hours or more of footwork and warrant writing for a low-level misdemeanor that in most counties is a little more serious than a traffic ticket is not an efficient use of time.


Told by who? By you? You never did tell me how you KNOW he had it on tape. You suspect he has it, but you no more KNOW he has it than I do.


Maybe they should have asked. This might be good in civil court. But, the fact that they did not ask does nothing to prove battery on the neighbor's part.


Your family will make statements supporting you, and his family will make statements supporting him. It's expected. Thus the weight of these statements is cast in doubt.


You'll have to ask them why. By law they have to accept it even if they don't make the custodial arrest or citation.


Not admissible in court.


First, the CHIEF is not an issue here. Personnel rules are governed by some much stricter laws. Whether the Chief can find a nexus to the agency by his behavior or not really depends on what he knows or can find out.

Before a judge can make a decision, a case needs to be before him. A lot of what you want to bring up could never be brought up for a host of reasons - some could. But, first, you need to either commence a civil court action against this man or you need to see that he gets successfully prosecuted.

Once again, set up your own camera system.


Active citizens often CAN get a code changed. It happens all the time in cities all over the country. We recently had it changed here in order to permit big rigs to park in a half block section of a residential street. If you become a squeaky wheel, you might be able to change a local ordinance as well - especially if it is 40 years old.


Unfortunately, that's how it goes. Because they have the cameras outside is not generally sufficient - by itself - to allow us to obtain a search warrant. So, even if we did go inside to secure the VCR or computer system, we probable could not get a warrant absent some indication that the system was operational.


Actually, it's an indication of what I SUSPECT the video might show. But I could never bring it up in court that they said their video was down. It might come up, but it's not going to be able to be presented as evidence of guilt.


You may be right. But, it's not because *I* don't see "the facts", it's because there are two sides to every story and I am hearing only YOUR version of events.

Dollars to donuts if I were listening to him, he'd be coloring you as a psychotic much the same way as you are coloring him. Since I am not present to witness any of it, all I would be left with would be two competing accounts of events.

Like I said before, my solution would be to haul everyone to jail whenever a citizen's arrest is made. Then it goes to court, and (hopefully) my officers wouldn't have to respond anymore.

My suggestions remain - get your own camera system, and consult a civil attorney to see if you have a case against the neighbor for something.

- Carl

I say we just all go over and spray him with a pressure washer.