Can you point me to that?Harless' partner admitted on the stand that the criminal complaint wasn't truthful
But instead, the judge ruled that the search was illiegal, and Bartlett couldn't be charged with failure to notify arising from an illegal search. So charges were dismissed.
That finding, in and of itself, isn't enough to strip them of QI. They only need "arguable probable cause," as opposed to "actual probable cause," in order to retain their QI. Here's the QI rule laid out in Anderson v. Creighton, which is one of the primary QI cases.zxcvbob said:. . . .IANAL, but I'd say that ruling the search to be illegal strips the cops of their "qualified immunity" in the upcoming civil suit. This may have a happy ending after all.
SCOTUS said:Our cases have accommodated these conflicting concerns by generally providing government officials performing discretionary functions with a qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages liability as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated. See, e.g., Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”); id., at 344–345, 106 S.Ct., at 1097–1098 (police officers applying for warrants are immune if a reasonable officer could have believed that there was probable cause to support the application); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (officials are immune unless “the law clearly proscribed the actions” they took); Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 191, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3017, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984); id., at 198, 104 S.Ct., at 3021 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra, 457 U.S., at 819, 102 S.Ct., at 2738. Cf., e.g., Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 562, 98 S.Ct. 855, 859, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). Somewhat more concretely, whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the action. Harlow, 457 U.S., at 819, 102 S.Ct., at 2739, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken, id., at 818, 102 S.Ct., at 2738.
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638-39, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987)
1. The officer admitted that his written sta[te]ment of the charges was incorrect. Is he chargable for filling a false offical statement? Arkansas had statutes which could result in criminal charges for such an action.
Thank you. In fact, I do have a legal background. I'm an assistant city attorney.ltc444 said:spats I enjoyed your comments on Immunity. You seem to have a legal background so I will ask two questions.
Most likely, yes. I haven't reviewed Ohio law, but filing a false report is a crime in Arkansas, so I suspect the same is true in Ohio. OTOH, if the document in question was the actual charging instrument (like a ticket or felony information), the crime could be considerably more serious. What we don't know is whether the statement of the charges was "incorrect," or "untruthful." There's a world of difference.ltc444 said:1. The officer admitted that his written stament of the charges was incorrect. Is he chargable for filling a false offical statement? Arkansas had statutes which could result in criminal charges for such an action.
I'm going to have to work backwards through those questions. Without reviewing the transcript, or actually seeing what went on, it's very hard to say whether an ethical violation occurred. In theory, a prosecutor's job is to seek justice, not convictions.ltc444 said:2. does The prosecutors antics during the showing of the video and the use of false statements by the Cops violate the Cannons of the legal profession?
Could the Prosecutor be brought before the ethics board of the state bar?
Implied in my 2nd question is did her conduct rise to the level of an ethics violation?
Thank you
As an interesting aside, police reports cannot be used as evidence under Arkansas law. My officers can refer to them on the stand, refresh their memories, and can testify as to what went on . . . but the report will never go into evidence.
Good to know. Thanks.Scimmia said:According to the blog, the incorrect information was in the actual criminal complaint, not in the police report.
Spats McGee said:The prosecutor may also have been looking down the road, knowing that these two officers may well get sued. In that case, a conviction on the failure to affirm charge would have foreclosed any suit under 42 USC 1983 based on a claim of unlawful arrest, or illegal search and seizure.
Does the PA have this authority? Yeah, probably. How would the judge look at it? The judge probably won't look at it. Most likely, the judge's only concern is whether the matter is going to trial. In terms of ethics, even if the judge disapproves, his likely action would be to simply refer it to the state ethics commission.shortwave said:No doubt the PA had revue'd the tape of the arrest and new Harless and his partner had screwed up...Does the PA have the authority to make this kind of deal or should I say bribe? Too, how do you think a judge would look at this ethically?