Rancho cucamonga dating Real adult dating games
For that reason, Manuel stated a Fourth Amendment claim when he sought relief not merely for his arrest, but also for his pre-trial detention.” (Kagan, J., slip opinion at p.2).
Because of the Supreme Court case law that resulted in the Manuel decision, a judicial scholar would opine whether the Supreme Court has either permitted a straight-up malicious criminal prosecution when there was no pre-trial confinement (i.e.
And where legal process has gone forward, but has done nothing to satisfy the probable-cause requirement, it cannot extinguish a detainee’s Fourth Amendment claim.
That was the case here: Because the judge’s determination of probable cause was based solely on fabricated evidence, it did not expunge Manuel’s Fourth Amendment claim.
In the State of California, if a police officer arrests you and procures your criminal prosecution based on know material lies contained in the officer’s police report, and you remain in jail for years awaiting trial because you can’t make bail, even if you are totally innocent and even if you prove that at trial so well that the trial Judge makes a “Finding Of Factual Innocence” (stating that you were not just found not guilty, but that in the Judge’s view you are totally innocent), the police officer cannot be sued for one penny under California law. That has been the law of California since it’s inception; first by “common law” doctrine, and in 1963, by statute.
Frankly Ladies and Gentlemen, this is outrageous, and downright un-American. “Thou shalt not bear false witness”), it’s ethically wrong (what could be worse than framing your victim), and it simply should not be tolerated.
And if necessary, we will champion your case all the way to trial.
Malicious criminal prosecutions of the victims of police abuse are rampant; especially for patently ambiguous and constantly abused “resistance offenses” like “resisting / obstructing / delaying a peace officer in performance of duties“ or “preventing / deterring public officer from performing duties“. Under California state law, a police officer is absolutely immune for attempting to frame you for a crime that you didn’t commit, and even if you receive a finding of factual innocence from the judge who presided over your bogus criminal action.
In 1963 the California Law Review Commission studied the then existing common law immunities for public employees, including judges, prosecutors and police officers (i.e. Almada, 640 F.3d 931 (2011), his was a clear misstatement of well established law regarding prosecutorial immunity; that of a public prosecutor. The employing public entity should, therefore, be liable for the damages caused by such abuse of public authority; and, in those cases where the responsible public employee acted with actual malice, the public entity should have the right to indemnity from the employee.” Contrary to that recommendation of the California Law Review Commission, that a person who is the victim of an attempted frame-up should have some legal remedy, the California legislature enacted Cal.More importantly, the check on abuse of innocents by the Executive (the police and the District Attorney) is the jury. It’s what they accept as “reasonable” police conduct.Thirty years ago, juries would find police officers liable for shooting unarmed civilians.Do you think that you can place your hands up and ask “Why”, prior to proning yourself?How about if a peace officer orders you to turn around and place your hands behind your back, when you know that you haven’t done anything at all; do you think that you have the right to first ask him “Why” or ask the Officer “What’s going on” prior to doing so?
Gov’t Code § 821.6, that provides for absolute malicious prosecution immunity for any public employee, acting in the course and scope of their employment. It may be the great injustice in our criminal justice system in California.’ Cal. A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause.” This is simply malicious prosecution immunity under California state law for any public employee, including peace officers, acting in the course and scope of their employment.