This is where you still don't get it. It was not confirmed at the "initial identification response from the dispatch". How is that a confirmation? What are they confirming at that point? They are simply checking at that point. Once the check comes back as a warrant, they then confirm it. Even the two police officers ask the dispatcher to confirm it. This is normally done by the dispatcher calling the issuing department. I didn't hear them say, confirm the confirmation of that warrant.
AGAIN:
1) Warrant Check
2) Warrant Confirmation
How could they be confirming my warrant when they first ran my name? They didn't know I had a warrant. They were checking to see if I had a warrant.
I think you need to ask some police officers about this.
It wasn't reaffirmed in the car, it was affirmed (validated as is required by policy).
I never said there was. That is why they confirm it. I'm just saying as xc9subcompact was saying, I was arrested for something other than the warrant otherwise they would have waited for the confirmation to come back before taking me to jail. If the confirmation of the warrant had come back bad, do you think they just would have let me go on the street (somewhere between Wal-Mart and the jail)?
I don't think you're getting it. When dispatch shows in their records that there is an active warrant that is probable cause to arrest. The police officers have limited resources in the field and utilized dispatch. Dispatch says it shows active the cops take it as verified or validated. At this point even if you dont agree this wasnt enough verification the police has reasonable suspicion to detain you, until they verified, which they did, which turned out to be facially valid. So despite all of the above the point it moot because the result would have remained the same. You were arrested on a warrant that the officers had no way of knowing would later be dismissed. Where we disagree is on what verification is.
And you say the initial dispatch response was not verification enough, yet they pursued further verification which also listed as solid. You were arrested on an active warrant. Period. What came after with a different agency is a separate matter between you and that agency.
It wasn't reaffirmed in the car, it was affirmed (validated as is required by policy).
They believed in good faith that warrant was valid and they had cause to arrest. Further validation in the car simply reinforced or reaffirmed their initial action.
How could they be confirming my warrant when they first ran my name? They didn't know I had a warrant. They were checking to see if I had a warrant.
They ran your name and dispatch showed and active warrant, how is this not confirmation that you have a warrant.
They are simply checking at that point.
If they check, and their records show an active warrant, how is that not confirmation that you have a warrant? I'm not familiar with specific systems it just seems logical that a modern police database that showed you having an active warrant wasnt going to be wrong, and it wasnt.
I see what you are arguing but I think it is stupid, as the fundamental point is, the officers and chief stated they arrested you when your identification came back saying you had a warrant. This is what the records will show, you were arrested on an active warrant, a warrant that was shown to be legit and that the officers had no way of knowing wasnt legit. Your policy argument is simply pointless. This is how i see it,
"oh they arrested me on a warrant before taking more in depth steps to verify beyond a reasonable doubt that the warrant was valid at that exact point during an in-field on-the-job location stop! However, when they did take the more in depth steps moments later, they found the warrant to be valid and their arrest to be completely legitimate given the circumstances"
My question is what difference does it make? What point are you trying to make? If you arent going to pursue a civil case why even post such a moot point?
