My wife had to sell my ASM collection off to bail me out of jail!

[Badger]

27 days! Wow. That's more time in jail than I've spent all added up! I was found "innocent" all but once.

 

Closest I've gotten to a jail was when my adult basketball league team played the inmates. I don't know who set up that schedule but it was not a good feeling to hear the door slam shut.

 

I've also had only one incident that was a far lesser extend to as what you experienced - Ex-wife and I were fighting and she started having a panic attack in the kitchen. She pretty much falls down and starts hyperventilating. She wont respond when I tried to help so I called 911. She yells that I she is ok right after I hit the last 1 so I hang up. Cop shows up a few minutes later and puts me in the back seat of the car while he talks to me ex. I kept thinking "she is pissed and I'm going to jail". Thankfully she told the truth and the cop let me go but even then he kept telling me about domestic abuse penalties. Very scary when you are basically considered guilty until proven innocent when it comes to spouse abuse.

A friend of mine was arrested for spousal abuse and I got to bail him out of jail, using his own money, because he was not allowed to bail himself out and his wife was not allowed to go to the jail and bail him out. If she had tried, she would have been tossed in jail. I understand that the spouse is not allowed to bail out the other spouse so that the cycle of violence might be broken. Of course, that assumes that there is a cycle to break in the first place and that it is not one big misunderstanding. The cop that arrested him knew, told him, that he was not guilty but she had to arrest him or face arrest herself. That is nuts! The police in NM have no leeway when it comes to spousal abuse, zero. If one spouse makes a complaint, even if it is obviously false, the police must arrest the other spouse.

 

Really sorry the OP had to go through this!

[comicalgems]

Google says

 

 

Under both federal and state law, a person who is falsely arrested is entitled to compensation for (1) loss of liberty, and (2) physical and/or emotional pain and suffering caused by the false arrest. (Injuries caused by excessive force and malicious prosecution are compensated separately.)

 

Importantly, a person who is falsely arrested is legally entitled to compensation for loss of liberty (to redress denial of free movement and harm to personal dignity), even if he or she does not experience any additional physical or emotional pain and suffering. See Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93,123-126 (2d Cir. 2004); Gardner v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 907 F.2d 1348, 1353 (2d Cir. 1990).

 

Obviously, a person who suffers more harm, including physical and/or emotional injuries, would be entitled to more compensation than a person who suffers less harm, including only loss of liberty. Nevertheless, “even absent such other injuries, an award of several thousand dollars may be appropriate simply for several hours loss of liberty.” Kerman, supra, at 125-126.

- See more at: http://warshawskylawfirm.com/lawyer/2014/02/01/Civil-Rights-Law/How-Much-Is-My-False-Arrest-Case-Worth_bl11513.htm#sthash.UFDchu0j.dpuf

 

 

But again contact a lawyer.

 

Are you referring to false arrest against the lady or the Police? She made a violent felony accusation so it will not be a false arrest for the Police. Imagine if they didnt arrest a suspect in a similiar situation and he killed her the next day. Then people would be clammering for failure to do job.

 

This is why I said consult a lawyer. But the whole thing seems like revocation of liberty without justified cause. Especially if he was notifying them of the security cameras at the time of his arrest and no investigation into that footage that ultimately cleared him was attempted. I don't know that he has to state "I believe this arrest to be unlawful" in order for them to have to provide him with proof of why he's being arrested. Some states have provisions that allow for resisting an unlawful arrest legally and some states do not and of course even some of those that do allow for legally resisting an unlawful arrest provide exemptions if the officer can prove that they were acting in good faith. Some faked bruises and stab wounds might likely be enough good faith for the officers to act upon...but again does it make it right to revoke someone's liberty when there's not indisputable evidence.

[seanfingh]

Google says

 

 

Under both federal and state law, a person who is falsely arrested is entitled to compensation for (1) loss of liberty, and (2) physical and/or emotional pain and suffering caused by the false arrest. (Injuries caused by excessive force and malicious prosecution are compensated separately.)

 

Importantly, a person who is falsely arrested is legally entitled to compensation for loss of liberty (to redress denial of free movement and harm to personal dignity), even if he or she does not experience any additional physical or emotional pain and suffering. See Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93,123-126 (2d Cir. 2004); Gardner v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 907 F.2d 1348, 1353 (2d Cir. 1990).

 

Obviously, a person who suffers more harm, including physical and/or emotional injuries, would be entitled to more compensation than a person who suffers less harm, including only loss of liberty. Nevertheless, “even absent such other injuries, an award of several thousand dollars may be appropriate simply for several hours loss of liberty.” Kerman, supra, at 125-126.

- See more at: http://warshawskylawfirm.com/lawyer/2014/02/01/Civil-Rights-Law/How-Much-Is-My-False-Arrest-Case-Worth_bl11513.htm#sthash.UFDchu0j.dpuf

 

 

But again contact a lawyer.

 

Are you referring to false arrest against the lady or the Police? She made a violent felony accusation so it will not be a false arrest for the Police. Imagine if they didnt arrest a suspect in a similiar situation and he killed her the next day. Then people would be clammering for failure to do job.

 

This is why I said consult a lawyer. But the whole thing seems like revocation of liberty without justified cause. Especially if he was notifying them of the security cameras at the time of his arrest and no investigation into that footage that ultimately cleared him was attempted. I don't know that he has to state "I believe this arrest to be unlawful" in order for them to have to provide him with proof of why he's being arrested. Some states have provisions that allow for resisting an unlawful arrest legally and some states do not and of course even some of those that do allow for legally resisting an unlawful arrest provide exemptions if the officer can prove that they were acting in good faith. Some faked bruises and stab wounds might likely be enough good faith for the officers to act upon...but again does it make it right to revoke someone's liberty when there's not indisputable evidence.

 

You are conflating the standards for acquittal in a criminal matter with the standards for effectuating a legal arrest. They are not the same.

[revat]

Google says

 

 

Under both federal and state law, a person who is falsely arrested is entitled to compensation for (1) loss of liberty, and (2) physical and/or emotional pain and suffering caused by the false arrest. (Injuries caused by excessive force and malicious prosecution are compensated separately.)

 

Importantly, a person who is falsely arrested is legally entitled to compensation for loss of liberty (to redress denial of free movement and harm to personal dignity), even if he or she does not experience any additional physical or emotional pain and suffering. See Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93,123-126 (2d Cir. 2004); Gardner v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 907 F.2d 1348, 1353 (2d Cir. 1990).

 

Obviously, a person who suffers more harm, including physical and/or emotional injuries, would be entitled to more compensation than a person who suffers less harm, including only loss of liberty. Nevertheless, even absent such other injuries, an award of several thousand dollars may be appropriate simply for several hours loss of liberty. Kerman, supra, at 125-126.

- See more at: http://warshawskylawfirm.com/lawyer/2014/02/01/Civil-Rights-Law/How-Much-Is-My-False-Arrest-Case-Worth_bl11513.htm#sthash.UFDchu0j.dpuf

 

 

But again contact a lawyer.

 

Are you referring to false arrest against the lady or the Police? She made a violent felony accusation so it will not be a false arrest for the Police. Imagine if they didnt arrest a suspect in a similiar situation and he killed her the next day. Then people would be clammering for failure to do job.

 

This is why I said consult a lawyer. But the whole thing seems like revocation of liberty without justified cause. Especially if he was notifying them of the security cameras at the time of his arrest and no investigation into that footage that ultimately cleared him was attempted. I don't know that he has to state "I believe this arrest to be unlawful" in order for them to have to provide him with proof of why he's being arrested. Some states have provisions that allow for resisting an unlawful arrest legally and some states do not and of course even some of those that do allow for legally resisting an unlawful arrest provide exemptions if the officer can prove that they were acting in good faith. Some faked bruises and stab wounds might likely be enough good faith for the officers to act upon...but again does it make it right to revoke someone's liberty when there's not indisputable evidence.

 

You are conflating the standards for acquittal in a criminal matter with the standards for effectuating a legal arrest. They are not the same.

 

seriously.

 

and a lot of times the cops doing the arresting have very little knowledge of the 'evidence' involved in the case. They know the charge, they have a signed arrest warrant, they have a list of other stuff to look for. That's it. They may or may not ask you for a statement or ask you anything at all beyond whether or not you understand your Miranda rights and if you have any weapons in the house or on your person.

[SkunkApe]

27 days is a long time to spend in jail, especially when you didn't do anything. I spent about a day (14 hours of it in the drunk tank ) for something I did do, and that seemed like forever! Sucks that this happened. I hope that something good comes out of it for you.

[CAHokie]

Google says

 

 

Under both federal and state law, a person who is falsely arrested is entitled to compensation for (1) loss of liberty, and (2) physical and/or emotional pain and suffering caused by the false arrest. (Injuries caused by excessive force and malicious prosecution are compensated separately.)

 

Importantly, a person who is falsely arrested is legally entitled to compensation for loss of liberty (to redress denial of free movement and harm to personal dignity), even if he or she does not experience any additional physical or emotional pain and suffering. See Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93,123-126 (2d Cir. 2004); Gardner v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 907 F.2d 1348, 1353 (2d Cir. 1990).

 

Obviously, a person who suffers more harm, including physical and/or emotional injuries, would be entitled to more compensation than a person who suffers less harm, including only loss of liberty. Nevertheless, “even absent such other injuries, an award of several thousand dollars may be appropriate simply for several hours loss of liberty.” Kerman, supra, at 125-126.

- See more at: http://warshawskylawfirm.com/lawyer/2014/02/01/Civil-Rights-Law/How-Much-Is-My-False-Arrest-Case-Worth_bl11513.htm#sthash.UFDchu0j.dpuf

 

 

But again contact a lawyer.

 

Are you referring to false arrest against the lady or the Police? She made a violent felony accusation so it will not be a false arrest for the Police. Imagine if they didnt arrest a suspect in a similiar situation and he killed her the next day. Then people would be clammering for failure to do job.

 

This is why I said consult a lawyer. But the whole thing seems like revocation of liberty without justified cause. Especially if he was notifying them of the security cameras at the time of his arrest and no investigation into that footage that ultimately cleared him was attempted. I don't know that he has to state "I believe this arrest to be unlawful" in order for them to have to provide him with proof of why he's being arrested. Some states have provisions that allow for resisting an unlawful arrest legally and some states do not and of course even some of those that do allow for legally resisting an unlawful arrest provide exemptions if the officer can prove that they were acting in good faith. Some faked bruises and stab wounds might likely be enough good faith for the officers to act upon...but again does it make it right to revoke someone's liberty when there's not indisputable evidence.

 

You are conflating the standards for acquittal in a criminal matter with the standards for effectuating a legal arrest. They are not the same.

 

Exactly and this is why wikipedia is not the best place to interpret law. This reminds me legal advice from Kav. Good luck on resisting what you percieve to be an unlawful arrest!

[comicalgems]

27 days is a long time to spend in jail, especially when you didn't do anything. I spent about a day (14 hours of it in the drunk tank ) for something I did do, and that seemed like forever! Sucks that this happened. I hope that something good comes out of it for you.

 

I know somebody that was in a drunk tank charged with public intox after his designated driver was stopped in a parking lot (private property), and the DD was let go. Apparently there was an investigation of a broken window which prompted the stop in the first place. The DA dropped the charge.

[Jeffro.]

Google says

 

 

Under both federal and state law, a person who is falsely arrested is entitled to compensation for (1) loss of liberty, and (2) physical and/or emotional pain and suffering caused by the false arrest. (Injuries caused by excessive force and malicious prosecution are compensated separately.)

 

Importantly, a person who is falsely arrested is legally entitled to compensation for loss of liberty (to redress denial of free movement and harm to personal dignity), even if he or she does not experience any additional physical or emotional pain and suffering. See Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93,123-126 (2d Cir. 2004); Gardner v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 907 F.2d 1348, 1353 (2d Cir. 1990).

 

Obviously, a person who suffers more harm, including physical and/or emotional injuries, would be entitled to more compensation than a person who suffers less harm, including only loss of liberty. Nevertheless, “even absent such other injuries, an award of several thousand dollars may be appropriate simply for several hours loss of liberty.” Kerman, supra, at 125-126.

- See more at: http://warshawskylawfirm.com/lawyer/2014/02/01/Civil-Rights-Law/How-Much-Is-My-False-Arrest-Case-Worth_bl11513.htm#sthash.UFDchu0j.dpuf

 

 

But again contact a lawyer.

 

Are you referring to false arrest against the lady or the Police? She made a violent felony accusation so it will not be a false arrest for the Police. Imagine if they didnt arrest a suspect in a similiar situation and he killed her the next day. Then people would be clammering for failure to do job.

 

This is why I said consult a lawyer. But the whole thing seems like revocation of liberty without justified cause. Especially if he was notifying them of the security cameras at the time of his arrest and no investigation into that footage that ultimately cleared him was attempted. I don't know that he has to state "I believe this arrest to be unlawful" in order for them to have to provide him with proof of why he's being arrested. Some states have provisions that allow for resisting an unlawful arrest legally and some states do not and of course even some of those that do allow for legally resisting an unlawful arrest provide exemptions if the officer can prove that they were acting in good faith. Some faked bruises and stab wounds might likely be enough good faith for the officers to act upon...but again does it make it right to revoke someone's liberty when there's not indisputable evidence.

 

You are conflating the standards for acquittal in a criminal matter with the standards for effectuating a legal arrest. They are not the same.

 

Exactly and this is why wikipedia is not the best place to interpret law. This reminds me legal advice from Kav. Good luck on resisting what you percieve to be an unlawful arrest!

 

I love how some people accept and believe, without any questioning whatsoever, what they read on wikipedia.

[MustEatBrains]

As bad as this situation was, it could have been much, much worse. Not sure if anyone remembers Kalief Browder.

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law

[comicalgems]

Google says

 

 

Under both federal and state law, a person who is falsely arrested is entitled to compensation for (1) loss of liberty, and (2) physical and/or emotional pain and suffering caused by the false arrest. (Injuries caused by excessive force and malicious prosecution are compensated separately.)

 

Importantly, a person who is falsely arrested is legally entitled to compensation for loss of liberty (to redress denial of free movement and harm to personal dignity), even if he or she does not experience any additional physical or emotional pain and suffering. See Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93,123-126 (2d Cir. 2004); Gardner v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 907 F.2d 1348, 1353 (2d Cir. 1990).

 

Obviously, a person who suffers more harm, including physical and/or emotional injuries, would be entitled to more compensation than a person who suffers less harm, including only loss of liberty. Nevertheless, “even absent such other injuries, an award of several thousand dollars may be appropriate simply for several hours loss of liberty.” Kerman, supra, at 125-126.

- See more at: http://warshawskylawfirm.com/lawyer/2014/02/01/Civil-Rights-Law/How-Much-Is-My-False-Arrest-Case-Worth_bl11513.htm#sthash.UFDchu0j.dpuf

 

 

But again contact a lawyer.

 

Are you referring to false arrest against the lady or the Police? She made a violent felony accusation so it will not be a false arrest for the Police. Imagine if they didnt arrest a suspect in a similiar situation and he killed her the next day. Then people would be clammering for failure to do job.

 

This is why I said consult a lawyer. But the whole thing seems like revocation of liberty without justified cause. Especially if he was notifying them of the security cameras at the time of his arrest and no investigation into that footage that ultimately cleared him was attempted. I don't know that he has to state "I believe this arrest to be unlawful" in order for them to have to provide him with proof of why he's being arrested. Some states have provisions that allow for resisting an unlawful arrest legally and some states do not and of course even some of those that do allow for legally resisting an unlawful arrest provide exemptions if the officer can prove that they were acting in good faith. Some faked bruises and stab wounds might likely be enough good faith for the officers to act upon...but again does it make it right to revoke someone's liberty when there's not indisputable evidence.

 

You are conflating the standards for acquittal in a criminal matter with the standards for effectuating a legal arrest. They are not the same.

 

Exactly and this is why wikipedia is not the best place to interpret law. This reminds me legal advice from Kav. Good luck on resisting what you percieve to be an unlawful arrest!

 

I love how some people accept and believe, without any questioning whatsoever, what they read on wikipedia.

 

I love how some people accept and believe, without any questioning, whatsoever, what they're told by people in a uniform.

[Jeffro.]

Google says

 

 

Under both federal and state law, a person who is falsely arrested is entitled to compensation for (1) loss of liberty, and (2) physical and/or emotional pain and suffering caused by the false arrest. (Injuries caused by excessive force and malicious prosecution are compensated separately.)

 

Importantly, a person who is falsely arrested is legally entitled to compensation for loss of liberty (to redress denial of free movement and harm to personal dignity), even if he or she does not experience any additional physical or emotional pain and suffering. See Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93,123-126 (2d Cir. 2004); Gardner v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 907 F.2d 1348, 1353 (2d Cir. 1990).

 

Obviously, a person who suffers more harm, including physical and/or emotional injuries, would be entitled to more compensation than a person who suffers less harm, including only loss of liberty. Nevertheless, “even absent such other injuries, an award of several thousand dollars may be appropriate simply for several hours loss of liberty.” Kerman, supra, at 125-126.

- See more at: http://warshawskylawfirm.com/lawyer/2014/02/01/Civil-Rights-Law/How-Much-Is-My-False-Arrest-Case-Worth_bl11513.htm#sthash.UFDchu0j.dpuf

 

 

But again contact a lawyer.

 

Are you referring to false arrest against the lady or the Police? She made a violent felony accusation so it will not be a false arrest for the Police. Imagine if they didnt arrest a suspect in a similiar situation and he killed her the next day. Then people would be clammering for failure to do job.

 

This is why I said consult a lawyer. But the whole thing seems like revocation of liberty without justified cause. Especially if he was notifying them of the security cameras at the time of his arrest and no investigation into that footage that ultimately cleared him was attempted. I don't know that he has to state "I believe this arrest to be unlawful" in order for them to have to provide him with proof of why he's being arrested. Some states have provisions that allow for resisting an unlawful arrest legally and some states do not and of course even some of those that do allow for legally resisting an unlawful arrest provide exemptions if the officer can prove that they were acting in good faith. Some faked bruises and stab wounds might likely be enough good faith for the officers to act upon...but again does it make it right to revoke someone's liberty when there's not indisputable evidence.

 

You are conflating the standards for acquittal in a criminal matter with the standards for effectuating a legal arrest. They are not the same.

 

Exactly and this is why wikipedia is not the best place to interpret law. This reminds me legal advice from Kav. Good luck on resisting what you percieve to be an unlawful arrest!

 

I love how some people accept and believe, without any questioning whatsoever, what they read on wikipedia.

 

I love how some people accept and believe, without any questioning, whatsoever, what they're told by people in a uniform.

 

I'm not saying you should. However, if thou doth protest too much, you will likely end up in handcuffs in the back of a cruiser on your way down to county lockup to meet your new holding cell buddies, Cletus and Rocco. They are very eager to meet you.

[Lethal_Collector]

Horrible story, but I've heard good things about the Nelson and Murdock attorney team.

 

 

Jerome

[BlowUpTheMoon]

I love how some people accept and believe, without any questioning whatsoever, what they read on wikipedia.

 

I'm more of a Yahoo Answers kid of guy.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

 

I'm not saying you should. However, if thou doth protest too much, you will likely end up in handcuffs in the back of a cruiser on your way down to county lockup to meet your new holding cell buddies, Cletus and Rocco. They are very eager to meet you.

 

 

...and you can all throw coins in the wishing well in the corner

 

 

[MustEatBrains]

I love how some people accept and believe, without any questioning whatsoever, what they read on wikipedia.

 

I'm more of a Yahoo Answers kid of guy.

 

Me too.

 

https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160405164850AAVeT7u

[BlowUpTheMoon]

I love how some people accept and believe, without any questioning whatsoever, what they read on wikipedia.

 

I'm more of a Yahoo Answers kid of guy.

 

Me too.

 

https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160405164850AAVeT7u

 

Exactly!

[micmack]

I love how some people accept and believe, without any questioning whatsoever, what they read on wikipedia.

 

I'm more of a Yahoo Answers kid of guy.

 

Me too.

 

https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160405164850AAVeT7u

 

Exactly!

 

Maybe not for long?

Yahoo for Sale

[Jeffro.]

I love how some people accept and believe, without any questioning whatsoever, what they read on wikipedia.

 

I'm more of a Yahoo Answers kid of guy.

 

Ask Jeeves is my go-to

[kav]

I learned long ago the more help someone asks you for, the more they'll screw you. Need help moving a couch? You're ok. Need a place to stay? You're screwed.

[bane]

I love how some people accept and believe, without any questioning whatsoever, what they read on wikipedia.

 

I'm more of a Yahoo Answers kid of guy.

 

Ask Jeeves is my go-to

 

Beat me to it