• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

McAllen Police Illegally Arrest Law Abiding Citizen

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
Not sure when this arrest actually took place, I think it is "one of the first" so to speak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKi_u_VzF68 I think that this video has not been released until now, though.

The citizen in the video is an idiot.

If he wanted to file a complaint against the cops he should have hired an attorney to represent him and he should have had his attorney file the complaint.

In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.

Notice that it took several months before the charges were dropped. The authorities are hoping that you violate one of the terms of your release during this period (which is usually much longer than just a few months) and once you do so you can be found guilty of that violation even if the original charge was bogus. This is how our criminal justice system works here in Amerika.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.
Just for clarification, are you saying that a civil suit against the officer and/or his department must be approved by the District Attorney before it can proceed in civil court?

That isn't my understanding of how it works.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Just for clarification, are you saying that a civil suit against the officer and/or his department must be approved by the District Attorney before it can proceed in civil court?

That isn't my understanding of how it works.

If one wishes to sue the dept/cop outside of a 42 usc 1983 or similar claim then there is a procedure for the state to be requested to allow the state to be sued (they drop immunity) ... but for a local municipal corp. they have no such iron-tight exception although they have some degree of immunity. I doubt a DA is the instrument that OKs a suit against a state nor that a DA's permission is needed.

Looking forward to any cite that supports such an idea...information such as this would be very helpful to folks who would want to sue.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
The citizen in the video is an idiot.

If he wanted to file a complaint against the cops he should have hired an attorney to represent him and he should have had his attorney file the complaint.

In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.

Notice that it took several months before the charges were dropped. The authorities are hoping that you violate one of the terms of your release during this period (which is usually much longer than just a few months) and once you do so you can be found guilty of that violation even if the original charge was bogus. This is how our criminal justice system works here in Amerika.

In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.
Wrong!
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
It seems like you are suggesting there is an venue outside of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with which to sue, which seems odd. Perhaps you would provide us with this information?
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
The citizen in the video is an idiot.

If he wanted to file a complaint against the cops he should have hired an attorney to represent him and he should have had his attorney file the complaint.

In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.

Notice that it took several months before the charges were dropped. The authorities are hoping that you violate one of the terms of your release during this period (which is usually much longer than just a few months) and once you do so you can be found guilty of that violation even if the original charge was bogus. This is how our criminal justice system works here in Amerika.

A person is not an idiot for filling a complaint with a police department without hiring a lawyer to act as their proxy or representative. There are idiots in the video, however; the police. The police, who are making false arrests and clearly have no idea what they're talking about... "File a complaint?!?! Against meeeee?????" "I'm going to arrest you for such and such" "... That's not illegal" "Oh yeah? Well then I'll arrest you for such and such other thing!" Well that's not illegal either, come to find out.

To me, the guy seems like an average joe trying to exercise his ******* rights. If that makes him an idiot in your book, then you must have the majority of the member base here in that same book.
 
Last edited:

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
Just for clarification, are you saying that a civil suit against the officer and/or his department must be approved by the District Attorney before it can proceed in civil court?

That isn't my understanding of how it works.

The system varies from state to state and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so a blanket statement (like I made) isn't very accurate or informative. And I'll be the first to say that I'm no expert and that I most certainly don't know about specific jurisdictions, other than that of where I live in Montana.

Most states require victims to first go through all appropriate ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES before they can sue the police.

Administrative remedies include (but are not necessarily limited to) the following: (1) reporting the incident to internal affairs division of the police department (what this gentleman was apparently trying to do), and/or (2) reporting the incident to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or a municipality's Attorney General.

Once you have made a report, most states also require the DOJ, AG, or the internal affairs division to give you a written notice of your right to sue the police.

Typically, if the incident is reported to the local DA pursuant to an administrative remedy rule, the DA will file the complaint in the "round file."

I called the man an idiot because I believe that anytime one has physical/in person contact with the cops they are putting themselves at unnecessary risk.

Most cities and local jurisdictions will provide you with a standard form for your complaint (called a tort claim). An attorney will surely already have a copy of this form or it may be available on-line, thus eliminating one's need to physically confront the cops or their administrative staff. I see no reason why you should go the cop shop to get the form. This case basically proves my contention.

Unless you are extremely knowledgeable in administrative law (very unlikely for the average Joe) you most definitely need an attorney to help you. How your complaint is worded is a major factor in how the complaint will proceed. In addition to helping with the verbage of the complaint an experienced attorney will be able to explain the law, guide you through the legal process, and help protect your rights.

Also, importantly, some states have "false charge" laws. False charge laws make it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false police misconduct allegation or lawsuit against a police officer, a municipality, or a supervisor. If you file a false charge, you can be punished with jail time, fines, and/or community service.

It is a common tactic for the cops to file a false charge as a way to get the complaint to go away.

In summary, it is my belief that before you go and mess with the cops you'd better have your act together, right from the get-go. Rushing in a rash manner like this man did is rather ignorant, and potentially dangerous, in my opinion. Only with a good attorney will you have you act together.

P.S., stealthyeliminator, I do agree with your comments about the cops but I refrained form commenting about their actions so I wouldn't be attacked YET AGAIN as being a cop basher.
 
Last edited:

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
The system varies from state to state and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so a blanket statement (like I made) isn't very accurate or informative. And I'll be the first to say that I'm no expert and that I most certainly don't know about specific jurisdictions, other than that of where I live in Montana.

Most states require victims to first go through all appropriate ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES before they can sue the police.

Administrative remedies include (but are not necessarily limited to) the following: (1) reporting the incident to internal affairs division of the police department (what this gentleman was apparently trying to do), and/or (2) reporting the incident to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or a municipality's Attorney General.

Once you have made a report, most states also require the DOJ, AG, or the internal affairs division to give you a written notice of your right to sue the police.

Typically, if the incident is reported to the local DA pursuant to an administrative remedy rule, the DA will file the complaint in the "round file."

I called the man an idiot because I believe that anytime one has physical/in person contact with the cops they are putting themselves at unnecessary risk.

Unless you are extremely knowledgeable in administrative law (very unlikely for the average Joe) you most definitely need an attorney to help you. How your complaint is worded is a major factor in how the complaint will proceed. In addition to helping with the verbage of the complaint an experienced attorney will be able to explain the law, guide you through the legal process, and help protect your rights.

Also, importantly, some states have "false charge" laws. False charge laws make it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false police misconduct allegation or lawsuit against a police officer, a municipality, or a supervisor. If you file a false charge, you can be punished with jail time, fines, and/or community service.

It is a common tactic for the cops to file a false charge as a way to get the complaint to go away.

In summary, it is my belief that before you go and mess with the cops you'd better have your act together, right from the get-go. Rushing in a rash manner like this man did is rather ignorant, and potentially dangerous, in my opinion. Only with a good attorney will you have you act together.

P.S., stealthyeliminator, I do agree with your comments about the cops but I refrained form commenting about their actions so I wouldn't be attacked YET AGAIN as being a cop basher.

Most states require victims to first go through all appropriate ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES before they can sue the police.
My spidey sense tells me you are mistaken.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
Perhaps, Again, I'm not an expert. But this is how it works in my neck of the woods.

In an effort to thwart further irrelevant opinions on the topic, I offer this for your consideration:

FORUM RULES
(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
 

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
In an effort to thwart further irrelevant opinions on the topic, I offer this for your consideration:

How is my opinions about why an attorney is best used to file a complaint off topic?

As for the forum rule, perhaps you should cite the law yourself rather than posting a one word reply like "Wrong!." A single word reply is basically a dumb tweet, not an intelligent reply. I explained how the system works where I live. If you are so certain that I'm "wrong" please cite me what is right, or explain it using full sentences.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
How is my opinions about why an attorney is best used to file a complaint off topic?

As for the forum rule, perhaps you should cite the law yourself rather than posting a one word reply like "Wrong!." A single word reply is basically a dumb tweet, not an intelligent reply. I explained how the system works where I live. If you are so certain that I'm "wrong" please cite me what is right, or explain it using full sentences.

How is my opinions about why an attorney is best used to file a complaint off topic?
I did not say off-topic, I said irrelevant opinion, and this statement was not what I was referring to.
BTW, I actually almost agree with it. Never file a complaint until you receive the results from a public information (FOIA) request. Then get an attorney, if needed, and decide the best course of action.

What is 'irrelevant opinion' is your statement that "Most states require..."

I explained how the system works where I live.
Hence my calling your attention to the forum rules.


If you are so certain that I'm "wrong" please cite me what is right
That's not how it works. You made the point, you need to back it up.


, or explain it using full sentences
I'm sorry, but I believe you are mistaken in that assertion. You would please provide us with a cite to authority that supports your claim (as required by Forum rules)? Thanks cupcake.

There, you feel better now?
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
My spidey sense tells me you are mistaken.
Your sense and mine as well.
I don't think I have to ask the defendant in a civil trial if I have their permission to sue them. At least the last time I filed a 1983 lawsuit I didn't.


Most states require victims to first go through all appropriate ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES before they can sue the police.
Name ten. As far as I know, if you're suing the state and/or it's agents in Federal Court, the state hasn't got jack to say about it other than, "what time is the deposition?"

Were it otherwise, the state could say, "Yeah, the officer did wrong when he broke your arm, tazed your wife and impregnated your dog. He was sentenced to having no beers over the weekend and had to make a $1.00 contribution to the Policeman's Benevolent Association. We consider this matter closed, thank you citizen for your cooperation."
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
P.S., stealthyeliminator, I do agree with your comments about the cops but I refrained form commenting about their actions so I wouldn't be attacked YET AGAIN as being a cop basher.

You'd rather be called a LAC or patriot basher? Perhaps you didn't mean it in the way it came across, but I took issue with you calling the man an idiot... Perhaps it was not the best choice to turn around and physically return to the police department, but I don't think that calling him an idiot is an appropriate response... Not to mention the fact that whether it was ill-advised or not, he was still completely within his rights and was breaking no law what-so-ever. I don't think that it would have been predictable that he'd be arrested. The arrest was not just unlawful, but in my opinion egregiously so. This wasn't a case of, well, he "technically" wasn't breaking the law but was doing something similar to something that would have been breaking the law. The fact of the matter is that he didn't even come close to breaking the law. If I were in the truck with him, knowing the laws that I currently do, I would not have advised him against going back to file a complaint. I would have seen no big reason to try and persuade him not to. Only a completely ignorant sorry excuse for a law enforcement officer would have made that arrest...
 
Last edited:

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
You'd rather be called a LAC or patriot basher? Perhaps you didn't mean it in the way it came across, but I took issue with you calling the man an idiot... Perhaps it was not the best choice to turn around and physically return to the police department, but I don't think that calling him an idiot is an appropriate response... Not to mention the fact that whether it was ill-advised or not, he was still completely within his rights and was breaking no law what-so-ever. I don't think that it would have been predictable that he'd be arrested. The arrest was not just unlawful, but in my opinion egregiously so. This wasn't a case of, well, he "technically" wasn't breaking the law but was doing something similar to something that would have been breaking the law. The fact of the matter is that he didn't even come close to breaking the law. If I were in the truck with him, knowing the laws that I currently do, I would not have advised him against going back to file a complaint. I would have seen no big reason to try and persuade him not to. Only a completely ignorant sorry excuse for a law enforcement officer would have made that arrest...

Sure, I could have chose my words differently but I still think that "idiot" describes the man's actions better than "ill-advised." Perhaps I should have used the word brainless, or irresponsible, or naïve, or shortsighted, or moronic, or out to lunch, or simpleminded, or unthinking, or the like. But I chose a word to describe my feelings about the man and I'll stick by it.

Sure he was within his rights and not violating any laws, but when you call up the cops after a previous conflict/altercation with them and inform that that you are returning WITH a firearm, that is outright idiocy.

What I'm saying is that it wasn't just his returning, but his returning with a gun, and especially his calling them up first and informing then that he was bringing a gun with him. I DO THINK IT WAS PREDICTABLE that things would go bad.

He should have kept his mouth shut about the gun on the phone and when the cops asked him about it. He should have replied something like, "I only have lawful private property" when asked if he had a gun. Better yet he should have secured it at a location other than in his truck BEFORE he returned, and then truthfully said "no guns."

Its very rare that I'll defend the cops, but consider how the call probably came down. The dispatcher probably said the man was returning with a gun. That rightfully put the cops on edge. THE COPS WERE PROBABLY DISPATCHED TO A DISGRUNTLED MAN WITH A GUN WANTING TO FILE A COMPLAINT. If that was the case (and of course I'm only speculating - but I've spent a considerable amount of time inside various dispatch centers for EMS/police - so I know firsthand how calls are dispatched) then the cops were justified in drawing down on the man - very predictable.

VERY TRUE, however, that the bust was TOTALLY inappropriate.
 
Top