DEALERSHIP ACCIDENTALLY SELLS VA. MAN AN SUV FOR $5K LESS THAN IT COSTS — THEN TELLS POLICE HE STOLE IT AND HAS HIM ARRESTED

Dreamsglore wrote:
Seaoat, you keep going on about the title. This was not the issue at all. If the guy didn't have a contract for the purchase of the car I would agree w/ you... but he did w/ a down payment on it. He brought them a certified check.You're full of poop to say the officer had no duty to investigate.That was bad faith. The officer's failure to investigate and/or negligence in arresting someone who had a legal right to the car is clearly a false arrest.The police dept. can be sued for that now whether he wins is a different story but the arrest was negligent and he has a right to damages under our laws.

Dreams the only issue is the title. The title is the only real proof that of ownership of a vehicle. I finance a car, I have a contract on that car, but I do not have the title, the title belongs to the lienholder until I pay off the terms of the contract. In the case we as discussing the dealer was still in possession of the title. A contract can be falsified.

So did the police issue the warrant for his arrest? I think not. They took their evidence to the SA who then made a decision there was probable cause for an arrest, got a judge or magistrate to sign the warrant then the police arrested him. So to blame just the police is ludicrous as there is more involved than just the police. Furthermore, this incident happened in May and he was not arrested until June. I'm sure that the police and SA were not sitting on it the whole time. They obviously at one time thought they had probable cause. I believe that since Sawyer sued the dealer for 2 mil and did not name the PD that he and his attorney do not feel that a false arrest had occurred.

Maybe Sawyer did not have an obligation to call the dealer back, but that was just plain stupidity on his part. If I buy a big ticket item for someone and a few days later they call and say a mistake was made, you can bet you bottom dollar I am going to get to the bottom of it.

2seaoat wrote:I could sue you for not knowing this issue. I could hire an investigator, find your name and address and have you served with a summons to court for ignorance on the issue. To say somebody can sue somebody does not go to the substantive issue. Again, title is per se evidence of ownership outside of a court of law, and an officer cannot as a matter of law be found liable for an arrest based on title being the dealer's name where a dealer has stated that the car was stolen and that they had repeatedly tried to get the car returned. The officer could choose not to bring charges....but the officer choosing that option after being presented with title evidence, faced real liability and a successful lawsuit had assumptions not been able to shift the burden of proof of ownership. The dealer was wrong. The officer was under no duty.....and I repeat.....no duty.....to go beyond title which shows ownership......the contract or testimony means nothing for an officer who is not a judge.....his call if he is uncertain is to not bring charges, ask the person with the car to take the car back to the dealership, and get a lawyer to file a civil suit, or arrest based upon title. Your opinion that the officer was liable shows an utter lack of knowledge of duty and proximate cause which are precursors of breach of a duty......but again this is just silly, because the police were never sued, nor will they ever be sued unless malice could be shown and the tort immunity could be eliminated.

Thanks Seaoat, you say it so much more eloquently that I could ever begin to. I am still stuck on the fact that something was going on between May and June from purchase to arrest.

And in absence of the title, how was the police supposed to determine that what they were looking at was a forged contract?

2seaoat wrote:I could sue you for not knowing this issue. I could hire an investigator, find your name and address and have you served with a summons to court for ignorance on the issue. To say somebody can sue somebody does not go to the substantive issue. Again, title is per se evidence of ownership outside of a court of law, and an officer cannot as a matter of law be found liable for an arrest based on title being the dealer's name where a dealer has stated that the car was stolen and that they had repeatedly tried to get the car returned. The officer could choose not to bring charges....but the officer choosing that option after being presented with title evidence, faced real liability and a successful lawsuit had assumptions not been able to shift the burden of proof of ownership. The dealer was wrong. The officer was under no duty.....and I repeat.....no duty.....to go beyond title which shows ownership......the contract or testimony means nothing for an officer who is not a judge.....his call if he is uncertain is to not bring charges, ask the person with the car to take the car back to the dealership, and get a lawyer to file a civil suit, or arrest based upon title. Your opinion that the officer was liable shows an utter lack of knowledge of duty and proximate cause which are precursors of breach of a duty......but again this is just silly, because the police were never sued, nor will they ever be sued unless malice could be shown and the tort immunity could be eliminated.

Your absolutely wrong,Seaoat.There was no evidence that a crime was committed.There was a contract and an exchange of money. You have it backwards as to who needed to file a civil suit.You're basing your opinion on the fact the police were never sued. Well, the guy who lied was never charged w/ filing a false police report either. You keep on going on about the malice and ignoring the fact police can be sued for negligence.It happens all the time.The swat team who breaks into a wrong house and arrests someone can't be sued because they believed it was the right guy? Are you kidding me? Where's the malice there? Negligence is negligence and failure to properly investigate a matter which results in an arrest is a cause of action. What is silly is that you think the police have no responsibility to charge people correctly.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I could sue you for not knowing this issue. I could hire an investigator, find your name and address and have you served with a summons to court for ignorance on the issue. To say somebody can sue somebody does not go to the substantive issue. Again, title is per se evidence of ownership outside of a court of law, and an officer cannot as a matter of law be found liable for an arrest based on title being the dealer's name where a dealer has stated that the car was stolen and that they had repeatedly tried to get the car returned. The officer could choose not to bring charges....but the officer choosing that option after being presented with title evidence, faced real liability and a successful lawsuit had assumptions not been able to shift the burden of proof of ownership. The dealer was wrong. The officer was under no duty.....and I repeat.....no duty.....to go beyond title which shows ownership......the contract or testimony means nothing for an officer who is not a judge.....his call if he is uncertain is to not bring charges, ask the person with the car to take the car back to the dealership, and get a lawyer to file a civil suit, or arrest based upon title. Your opinion that the officer was liable shows an utter lack of knowledge of duty and proximate cause which are precursors of breach of a duty......but again this is just silly, because the police were never sued, nor will they ever be sued unless malice could be shown and the tort immunity could be eliminated.

Thanks Seaoat, you say it so much more eloquently that I could ever begin to. I am still stuck on the fact that something was going on between May and June from purchase to arrest.

And in absence of the title, how was the police supposed to determine that what they were looking at was a forged contract?

Now your getting absurd. The guy did talk to the dealership and decided to not bring the car back.All the more reason the police are culpable as they had that much time to investigate.Who steals a car w/ their name and address on a contract? The police were utterly negligent in arresting the guy.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
Seaoat, you keep going on about the title. This was not the issue at all. If the guy didn't have a contract for the purchase of the car I would agree w/ you... but he did w/ a down payment on it. He brought them a certified check.You're full of poop to say the officer had no duty to investigate.That was bad faith. The officer's failure to investigate and/or negligence in arresting someone who had a legal right to the car is clearly a false arrest.The police dept. can be sued for that now whether he wins is a different story but the arrest was negligent and he has a right to damages under our laws.

Dreams the only issue is the title. The title is the only real proof that of ownership of a vehicle. I finance a car, I have a contract on that car, but I do not have the title, the title belongs to the lienholder until I pay off the terms of the contract. In the case we as discussing the dealer was still in possession of the title. A contract can be falsified.

So did the police issue the warrant for his arrest? I think not. They took their evidence to the SA who then made a decision there was probable cause for an arrest, got a judge or magistrate to sign the warrant then the police arrested him. So to blame just the police is ludicrous as there is more involved than just the police. Furthermore, this incident happened in May and he was not arrested until June. I'm sure that the police and SA were not sitting on it the whole time. They obviously at one time thought they had probable cause. I believe that since Sawyer sued the dealer for 2 mil and did not name the PD that he and his attorney do not feel that a false arrest had occurred.

Maybe Sawyer did not have an obligation to call the dealer back, but that was just plain stupidity on his part. If I buy a big ticket item for someone and a few days later they call and say a mistake was made, you can bet you bottom dollar I am going to get to the bottom of it.

Where do you get they took it to the DA? They went before a magistrate who arraigned him period. He did call the dealer back and decided not to return the car.That is not criminal-it's civil.Just because they didn't sue the police which they may later is no evidence of anything.

You are an intelligent person. With intelligence comes responsibility. You have a tendency to go beyond your ability, and then to simply get angry and attack when somebody calmly shows that your assumptions are flawed.

"What is silly is that you think the police have no responsibility to charge people correctly."

Police do have a responsibility to charge people correctly. Nothing I have written reaches your flawed conclusion. Under your standard, once a jury finds a person innocent of criminal charges, that the person was not charged correctly, and therefore the police are liable. Well, sometimes your conclusion is correct. Your example of the police, breaking into the wrong home is a good example. A judge does not issue an arrest warrant without sufficient evidence being presented to the judge to issue the warrant. However, if the police are careless and put the wrong address down, and bust into your home, the issue before a jury is was the standard of care breached by the officers. Even if this standard was breached, the laws in each state give immunity to judges and police officers who make good faith errors.....this is from the 2000 year old English legal concept of sovereign immunity....the king can do no wrong, and until the late 50s in America that was the law, but some kids on school bus got burned up (I am friends with the family who is named in the suit) and the Supreme Court said nope....the king can be sued....but only in a narrow range of incidents.

No, the issue is beyond your scope. You have proved you do not understand this issue, because your conclusion which I have copied above would make every person who is found innocent......having a cause of action. Like I said before, I could sue you for foolishness, sure it would be dismissed....and yes, I may even be correct that you are foolish at times, but I must be able to frame a cause of action. A certificate of title is per se proof of ownership. With the sovereign immunity being overturned, the tort immunity statues qualify the standard of care which allows a court to determine liability......the threshold is actual malice. The police officers are not going to be sued, absent actual malice. Can you even comprehend what I am trying to convey, in what I believe is a patient and respectful manner? Do you understand that you sound like a person who goes to buy a house and gives as earnest money a lottery ticket.......the broker asks.....what's this........well it is my down payment......but there is 1000 to 1 chance that this will actualize into money, well do not let the probable interfere with my fantasy of what may be.......An officer does not have to go beyond a certificate of title if he decides to make an arrest, and he always can choose to use discretion and not make the arrest, but the police have zero liability when relying on a OEM Title or secondary title.

Dreamsglore wrote:
Where do you get they took it to the DA? They went before a magistrate who arraigned him period. He did call the dealer back and decided not to return the car.That is not criminal-it's civil.Just because they didn't sue the police which they may later is no evidence of anything.

There is absolutely no proof that Sawyer ever returned any of the calls. As far as the DA, the AP article stated that the DA dropped all charges.

After signing the contract - which listed a sale price of about $34,000 - Sawyer immediately left the dealership and returned with a cashier's check covering what he owed after dealer incentives and his trade-in.

A week later, Sawyer came back from a vacation to find numerous voicemails and a letter from the dealership, the suit said. In a phone conversation, Davenport explained they had made a mistake on the contract and sold the car for too little. He asked Sawyer to return to the dealership and sign a new contract.

The lawsuit claims Sawyer refused. Cummings said Sawyer initially agreed but never followed through.

When Sawyer did not return to the dealership, Priority staff continued their attempts to contact him via phone, text message and hand-delivered letters. They eventually contacted police.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/09/dealership-apologizes-error-customer-arrest-0

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
Where do you get they took it to the DA? They went before a magistrate who arraigned him period. He did call the dealer back and decided not to return the car.That is not criminal-it's civil.Just because they didn't sue the police which they may later is no evidence of anything.

There is absolutely no proof that Sawyer ever returned any of the calls. As far as the DA, the AP article stated that the DA dropped all charges.

After signing the contract - which listed a sale price of about $34,000 - Sawyer immediately left the dealership and returned with a cashier's check covering what he owed after dealer incentives and his trade-in.

A week later, Sawyer came back from a vacation to find numerous voicemails and a letter from the dealership, the suit said. In a phone conversation, Davenport explained they had made a mistake on the contract and sold the car for too little. He asked Sawyer to return to the dealership and sign a new contract.

The lawsuit claims Sawyer refused. Cummings said Sawyer initially agreed but never followed through.

When Sawyer did not return to the dealership, Priority staff continued their attempts to contact him via phone, text message and hand-delivered letters. They eventually contacted police.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/09/dealership-apologizes-error-customer-arrest-0

"The lawsuit claims Sawyer refused. "

So you know who's telling the truth,huh? You've decided like the police Sawyer is lying. LOL!

2seaoat wrote:You are an intelligent person. With intelligence comes responsibility. You have a tendency to go beyond your ability, and then to simply get angry and attack when somebody calmly shows that your assumptions are flawed.

"What is silly is that you think the police have no responsibility to charge people correctly."

Police do have a responsibility to charge people correctly. Nothing I have written reaches your flawed conclusion. Under your standard, once a jury finds a person innocent of criminal charges, that the person was not charged correctly, and therefore the police are liable. Well, sometimes your conclusion is correct. Your example of the police, breaking into the wrong home is a good example. A judge does not issue an arrest warrant without sufficient evidence being presented to the judge to issue the warrant. However, if the police are careless and put the wrong address down, and bust into your home, the issue before a jury is was the standard of care breached by the officers. Even if this standard was breached, the laws in each state give immunity to judges and police officers who make good faith errors.....this is from the 2000 year old English legal concept of sovereign immunity....the king can do no wrong, and until the late 50s in America that was the law, but some kids on school bus got burned up (I am friends with the family who is named in the suit) and the Supreme Court said nope....the king can be sued....but only in a narrow range of incidents.

No, the issue is beyond your scope. You have proved you do not understand this issue, because your conclusion which I have copied above would make every person who is found innocent......having a cause of action. Like I said before, I could sue you for foolishness, sure it would be dismissed....and yes, I may even be correct that you are foolish at times, but I must be able to frame a cause of action. A certificate of title is per se proof of ownership. With the sovereign immunity being overturned, the tort immunity statues qualify the standard of care which allows a court to determine liability......the threshold is actual malice. The police officers are not going to be sued, absent actual malice. Can you even comprehend what I am trying to convey, in what I believe is a patient and respectful manner? Do you understand that you sound like a person who goes to buy a house and gives as earnest money a lottery ticket.......the broker asks.....what's this........well it is my down payment......but there is 1000 to 1 chance that this will actualize into money, well do not let the probable interfere with my fantasy of what may be.......An officer does not have to go beyond a certificate of title if he decides to make an arrest, and he always can choose to use discretion and not make the arrest, but the police have zero liability when relying on a OEM Title or secondary title.

Seaoat, you are simply FOS!It is beyond my scope? LOL!It does not make every person found innocent to have a cause of action. If there is probable cause then they can be arrested.This case simply had no probable cause and police are not immune to false arrest suits. You are totally wrong in relying on the title only. That's your OPINION it won't actualize into money and your opinions are not fact although you think they are.Yes, the police do have to go beyond the title if they are to charge for a theft.You don't know the elements of the law.

Dreamsglore wrote:

So you know who's telling the truth,huh? You've decided like the police Sawyer is lying. LOL!

So how do you know that he did return to the dealer as you so stated. I saw nothing in writing to prove your claim that Sawyer did go back except to return with the cashier's check, but nothing about him going back after all the phone calls.

But why don't we get back to the real issue here and that is if the police were negligent in arresting Sawyer. By what has been written so far about this article, there is absolutely no way that the police hold any liability in this arrest.

Dreams wrote: That's your OPINION it won't actualize into money and your opinions are not fact although you think they are.

So Dreams tell me what makes yours, mine or anyone else's OPINION mean more than anyone else's? I honestly believe that Seaoat knows more about the law than you give him credit for.

You amuse me. Tell me what are the elements of the crime for criminal conversion of property, which would give an officer probable cause to arrest someone? Now copy your definition from a source you deem reliable and tell me how an officer who arrested the person in possession of the vehicle did not have probable cause when he could see the title had not been transferred and had a complaint from the manager. I am more than willing to be schooled by you so I am not so full of S......I constantly learn things on this forum, and I remain open minded and await your guidance as to why this officer did not have probable cause, and can now be sued because he made this arrest.

2seaoat wrote:You amuse me. Tell me what are the elements of the crime for criminal conversion of property, which would give an officer probable cause to arrest someone? Now copy your definition from a source you deem reliable and tell me how an officer who arrested the person in possession of the vehicle did not have probable cause when he could see the title had not been transferred and had a complaint from the manager. I am more than willing to be schooled by you so I am not so full of S......I constantly learn things on this forum, and I remain open minded and await your guidance as to why this officer did not have probable cause, and can now be sued because he made this arrest.

We've already been over this.HE HAD A CONTRACT! He legally had the car he paid a down payment for.There was no theft! You would have to be an absolute idiot of a police officer to arrest someone who legally had the car.What don't you understand about this,Seaoat? He had a temporary tag or put his old one's on.I honestly don't get how you could say this would be a theft charge?

So Dreams tell me what makes yours, mine or anyone else's OPINION mean more than anyone else's? I honestly believe that Seaoat knows more about the law than you give him credit for.

No, she may actually have much more knowledge of the law than myself, but on this area I am very knowledgeable as having been a dealer of titled vehicles and having dealt with this issue repeatedly in the last 30 years. Just because I was going to teach constitutional law 30 years ago does not make me an expert today, and maybe she is aware of a change of the law, or recent supreme court which can justify her position which is simply wrong, and she can school me, and I will be the first to admit I am wrong...but she kind of fell into a subject which she is completely clueless, but nobody will argue that the prudent thing might have been for the officer to not arrest the person in possession....but that action would have in fact resulted in potential liability, and zero liability relying on a car title to determine ownership.

2seaoat wrote:You amuse me. Tell me what are the elements of the crime for criminal conversion of property, which would give an officer probable cause to arrest someone? Now copy your definition from a source you deem reliable and tell me how an officer who arrested the person in possession of the vehicle did not have probable cause when he could see the title had not been transferred and had a complaint from the manager. I am more than willing to be schooled by you so I am not so full of S......I constantly learn things on this forum, and I remain open minded and await your guidance as to why this officer did not have probable cause, and can now be sued because he made this arrest.

shes just stupid. how can you have even carried on this most stupidest debate ever. its nothing more than common sense. if police could be held accountable for every time they got called out on a wrongful call, we woudlnt have a police force at all. Its a police officers duty to go check for wrong doing. its also against the law to file a wrongful claim. everybody with one braincell knows this. I have never in my life seen so much typing over such a minscule topic ever.

Rogue wrote:

2seaoat wrote:You amuse me. Tell me what are the elements of the crime for criminal conversion of property, which would give an officer probable cause to arrest someone? Now copy your definition from a source you deem reliable and tell me how an officer who arrested the person in possession of the vehicle did not have probable cause when he could see the title had not been transferred and had a complaint from the manager. I am more than willing to be schooled by you so I am not so full of S......I constantly learn things on this forum, and I remain open minded and await your guidance as to why this officer did not have probable cause, and can now be sued because he made this arrest.

shes just stupid. how can you have even carried on this most stupidest debate ever. its nothing more than common sense. if police could be held accountable for every time they got called out on a wrongful call, we woudlnt have a police force at all. Its a police officers duty to go check for wrong doing. its also against the law to file a wrongful claim. everybody with one braincell knows this. I have never in my life seen so much typing over such a minscule topic ever.

"its also against the law to file a wrongful claim. everybody with one braincell knows this."


Nobody asked your opinion and considering what you just wrote nobody wants it.You're dumber than what I originally thought and that wasn't much.

No actually she is highly intelligent. Each of you have areas of aptitude which I consider exceptional and I have learned from both of you. However, both of you become very bullheaded and personal when trying to discuss an issue. Rarely, do I see either of you admit that you were wrong.

Intelligent people are not flawless. I think Dreams has some very good work experience which she has certainly made cogent arguments, and was 100% correct. She just get irritated with me like you do when I ask each of you to justify your conclusions. I sat here for six month convinced that the Republican convention was going to be a brokered convention....I was wrong....and when Neko makes sure to remind me of the same.....I agree with her.....I was wrong. I made a miscalculation that Ron Paul could be bought......she was correct. I get Neko made at me, but I have never personally attacked her because I respect her. I respect both of you and your opinions, but when the issue is argued incorrectly or conclusions are sloppy, I will simply ask for clarification and direction. I may be wrong on this issue....I am willing to learn if something has changed, but I think in the end, that Dreams simply went too far in saying this officer could be sued successfully. He is safe.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/chattahoochee-hills-pays-600k-to-settle-wrongful-a/nQXBR/

A false arrest that was made without any proper legal authority can be subject to a civil suit for unlawful restraint and a violation of your civil liberties. Depending on the rules of your state, you may want to file an action in federal or state court. In either court, you have the burden of proof to show that you were falsely arrested and that the officer acted without any legal authority. Often this is a hard burden to overcome since an officer can usually show probable cause with minimal evidence. The burden is not impossible though. If you can show that there was no basis for an arrest or that the officer was acting maliciously or discriminatorily, you will have a better chance at succeeding in your cause of action. A common example of a false arrest situation is where an officer may arrest a black kid suspected of shoplifting, with no real suspicion that the kid did anything wrong, just because he may have been the only black kid in the store.

When Wilkes-Barre police officers Ed Casella and Kenneth Jones arrived, Paul Stolarik told them he was unaware that a PFA was issued and “made it clear to (them) that no PFA was served upon him.”

But rather than verify that information, the officers arrested him, took him to police headquarters and turned him over to officer Paul Crawford while they filed a charge of indirect criminal contempt of a court order against him.

Read More http://timesleader.com/stories/W-B-made-false-arrest-suit-says,170895#ixzz28YHjsO4E

Here's couple of them Seaoat but I disagree w/ you on Chrissy.She might do well in science but that's about it.

"In either court, you have the burden of proof to show that you were falsely arrested and that the officer acted without any legal authority."

Thank you for taking the time to answer your question. "that the officer acted without legal authority", your quote is spot on and you must understand why at the turn of the century we went from bill of sales and contracts on vehicles to a title system similar to how we index real estate.

We needed an immediate method to determine ownership which was reliable and would not allow harm to owners who have a party trying to convert their property, and allowed law enforcement to make certain decisions, but it also more importantly brought certainty to the taxing process. When I use the concept of a vehicle being per se ownership, it means the burden shifts to any person not in title to prove their ownership interests. This can be done in a criminal court or a civil court. Either party could initiated a civil suit and it would be resolved, but a person who is on a vehicle title and wants possession of their vehicle....the only proof that matters is the title. Period. A law enforcement agent who relies on a title is absolutely immune from damages unless it can overcome the tort immunity protection government and their agents enjoy......there is no evidence of any wrong doing which this officer did which could meet the threshold of malice and therefore your entire argument is pure speculation without merit....again, read what you posted. The officer has zero chance of having the person arrested having a successful award in a civil court, and the reason that no case was filed is because lawyers understand the thresholds.

2seaoat wrote:No actually she is highly intelligent. Each of you have areas of aptitude which I consider exceptional and I have learned from both of you. However, both of you become very bullheaded and personal when trying to discuss an issue. Rarely, do I see either of you admit that you were wrong.

Intelligent people are not flawless. I think Dreams has some very good work experience which she has certainly made cogent arguments, and was 100% correct. She just get irritated with me like you do when I ask each of you to justify your conclusions. I sat here for six month convinced that the Republican convention was going to be a brokered convention....I was wrong....and when Neko makes sure to remind me of the same.....I agree with her.....I was wrong. I made a miscalculation that Ron Paul could be bought......she was correct. I get Neko made at me, but I have never personally attacked her because I respect her. I respect both of you and your opinions, but when the issue is argued incorrectly or conclusions are sloppy, I will simply ask for clarification and direction. I may be wrong on this issue....I am willing to learn if something has changed, but I think in the end, that Dreams simply went too far in saying this officer could be sued successfully. He is safe.

good luck with that then..... I'm sure the debates with her are much more easy going on the brain for you, and thats a good thing for you now in your condition. <<pats you on the back and walks away smirking>>

2seaoat wrote:"In either court, you have the burden of proof to show that you were falsely arrested and that the officer acted without any legal authority."

Thank you for taking the time to answer your question. "that the officer acted without legal authority", your quote is spot on and you must understand why at the turn of the century we went from bill of sales and contracts on vehicles to a title system similar to how we index real estate.

We needed an immediate method to determine ownership which was reliable and would not allow harm to owners who have a party trying to convert their property, and allowed law enforcement to make certain decisions, but it also more importantly brought certainty to the taxing process. When I use the concept of a vehicle being per se ownership, it means the burden shifts to any person not in title to prove their ownership interests. This can be done in a criminal court or a civil court. Either party could initiated a civil suit and it would be resolved, but a person who is on a vehicle title and wants possession of their vehicle....the only proof that matters is the title. Period. A law enforcement agent who relies on a title is absolutely immune from damages unless it can overcome the tort immunity protection government and their agents enjoy......there is no evidence of any wrong doing which this officer did which could meet the threshold of malice and therefore your entire argument is pure speculation without merit....again, read what you posted. The officer has zero chance of having the person arrested having a successful award in a civil court, and the reason that no case was filed is because lawyers understand the thresholds.

That's not true,Seaoat.You have ignored the case where the officer failed to verify whether the guy was served before arresting him. The other case the guy was awarded $600,000. There are many reasons why a suit may not be filed by an atty. but we will have to agree to disagree. I could post many cases to show you it would be the courts discretion as to whether the police followed proper procedure in an arrest but you still would disagree.

Rogue wrote:

2seaoat wrote:No actually she is highly intelligent. Each of you have areas of aptitude which I consider exceptional and I have learned from both of you. However, both of you become very bullheaded and personal when trying to discuss an issue. Rarely, do I see either of you admit that you were wrong.

Intelligent people are not flawless. I think Dreams has some very good work experience which she has certainly made cogent arguments, and was 100% correct. She just get irritated with me like you do when I ask each of you to justify your conclusions. I sat here for six month convinced that the Republican convention was going to be a brokered convention....I was wrong....and when Neko makes sure to remind me of the same.....I agree with her.....I was wrong. I made a miscalculation that Ron Paul could be bought......she was correct. I get Neko made at me, but I have never personally attacked her because I respect her. I respect both of you and your opinions, but when the issue is argued incorrectly or conclusions are sloppy, I will simply ask for clarification and direction. I may be wrong on this issue....I am willing to learn if something has changed, but I think in the end, that Dreams simply went too far in saying this officer could be sued successfully. He is safe.

good luck with that then..... I'm sure the debates with her are much more easy going on the brain for you, and thats a good thing for you now in your condition. <<pats you on the back and walks away smirking>>

At least Seaoat can write and spell well. It really makes a difference when debating someone who you know is a worthy opponent.

Again, thank you for the link which contains this quote:

The lawsuit alleged that police "misrepresented material facts,"

Why would the attorney representing the alleged falsely arrested person need to allege these facts? Because without actual intent and malice, they could not get around the general immunity of Public officials which I have repeatedly tried to explain to you which was called Sovereign Immunity until the late 50s in this country, but was overturned and the Supreme court allowed tort immunity statues in each of the fifty states which requires a complainant to show actual knowledge and malice in their actions. It is clear that the City counsel believed that their police officers met that standard, and wrongfully arrested the person who actually was providing evidence and doing his citizen's duty.

Where can there be actual malice and intent when a title is per se evidence of ownership.....it is impossible, and that is the concept you simply cannot grasp. Once the officer made the arrest based on a criminal complaint where the title showed ownership......the officer is home free......but I am beginning to realize you simply do not understand some of these concepts, and I may be beating a dead horse.

At least Seaoat can write and spell well. It really makes a difference when debating someone who you know is a worthy opponent.

Some of the most intelligent people I have met in my life cannot spell, and they are clumsy with writing. I have met brilliant people who if they had to go back and forth on issues in our format, we would all prejudge.

I think you are often too harsh with Chrissy. I think she is rude with you. However, you certainly do not like it when we are discussing issues for me to be patronizing or questioning your intelligence. I think you can listen to what she is trying to say, and try to ignore spelling errors. In my case, you have never been rude with me, and I respect your tenacity, but you often are like a dog on a good bone....it is difficult to separate you from that bone.......it does not make you wrong always.....but often too determined to make a self assessment. I wish both of you would be more civil, and take the time to focus on the issues and facts....not the personalities. Chrissy thinks I am a liar, you think I do not know what I am talking about......there are ways to say what both of you are saying, it requires facts and concepts....not conclusions.

Here is what I believe Seaoat to be saying:

False Arrest:

The claim that is most often asserted against police is false arrest. Persons bringing this claim assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. If the officer had probable cause to believe the individual had committed a crime, the arrest is reasonable and the Fourth Amendment has not been violated. Police can arrest without a warrant for a felony or misdemeanor committed in their presence. (Some states also allow warrantless arrests for misdemeanor domestic assaults not committed in the officer's presence.) Even if the information the officer relied upon later turns out to be false, the officer is not liable if he believed it was accurate at the time of the arrest. To prevail on a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/police-misconduct-and-civil-rights.html

2seaoat wrote:At least Seaoat can write and spell well. It really makes a difference when debating someone who you know is a worthy opponent.

Some of the most intelligent people I have met in my life cannot spell, and they are clumsy with writing. I have met brilliant people who if they had to go back and forth on issues in our format, we would all prejudge.

I think you are often too harsh with Chrissy. I think she is rude with you. However, you certainly do not like it when we are discussing issues for me to be patronizing or questioning your intelligence. I think you can listen to what she is trying to say, and try to ignore spelling errors. In my case, you have never been rude with me, and I respect your tenacity, but you often are like a dog on a good bone....it is difficult to separate you from that bone.......it does not make you wrong always.....but often too determined to make a self assessment. I wish both of you would be more civil, and take the time to focus on the issues and facts....not the personalities. Chrissy thinks I am a liar, you think I do not know what I am talking about......there are ways to say what both of you are saying, it requires facts and concepts....not conclusions.

I do not think you are a liar. I think you are emotionally driven due to life circumstances to which you are in a internal fight with yourself in order to set some self realization you obviously have had about your life. And in doing so, you are hasty and ready to toss the whole concept that made you who are are today out to the wind.

and i am rude to dreams. she has belittled me for years. I simply do not take shit from anyone. I have faults, Im not perfect. I dont know everything. I like you have learned a lot on these forums and have said so many occasions. I respect a lot of people here, you are one of them, she is not.