Posted by stevenhubertron 2 days ago
I shouldn't have to create documentary evidence of where I am at all times in order to fight spurious accusations regardless of how I do it.
Why is she supplying evidence to the police dept? If they haven't filed charges just ignore them? If they have, evidence goes to court.
Why is she talking to the police and not the prosecutor, who at that point is needed for a dismissal on the law enforcement side?
It just all seems weird and contrary to my understanding of the system
I certainly do not know how every state sets up their Judicial system but in my experience most states have a County Court System where jury trials take place. Appeals are taken to an intermediate court (usually referred to as Appellate) and above that is the final and highest court (usually referred to as the Supreme Court; but interestingly enough, NY refers to their trial court as Supreme Court).
There is usually a separate local system commonly referred to as Municipal Court. I spent my career in the trial courts at the County or Federal District Court level, so I don't have intimate knowledge of the ins and outs of Municipal Courts. But, to the extent I had any interactions at that level, the majority of the cases in Municipal Court are traffic offenses (some can be quite serious such as DWI or when someone died in a car crash). But it has been my experience that most Municipal Courts do not have a jury box and do not handle jury cases (although I have a vague memory of being in a municipal court in a large city that had a jury box).
Municipal Court often have different Rules of Court than do the County Courts. Often appeals of Municipal Court are handled at the County Trial Court level with a brand new trial, instead of by the County Appellate level.
And Municipal Courts work hand in hand with the local prosecutor and local police (this is a local town court remember). Cases often are seen by the prosecutor for the first time when he arrives in Court (usually open just one night a week in towns, but during the day and perhaps every day for larger cities). Usually the police are free to dismiss charges on their own depending upon the seriousness of the charge and whether or not the prosecutor has become involved in the case.
In this case we know the charges were dropped by the police department, not the prosecutor, so that suggests to me the prosecutor was likely never aware of the incident or the charges.
Also talking to the police is a great way to wind up in jail for a long time
Or it's a way to clear up a situation without incurring a life-altering debt and criminal record. We hear about the horrible stories, but people are generally people. If you're facing serious (felony) charges, actually guilty and they're building a case, don't know how to talk without spilling a bunch of possibly-incriminating details, think the cops have it personally out for you, etc, then of course shut the fuck up and assert the full extent of the process. But for many situations this can actually be terrible advice.
I was actually just on the other side of this with a juvenile first time offender (property crime). The kid was obviously guilty, open and shut evidence, and admitted it to the detective. The detective advocated for him (them), encouraging me to settle for a small informal cash restitution payment rather than insisting it go to trial. That kid has now been hopefully scared straight, without having a criminal record hanging over his head. I hope he can keep it that way.
add that to the list of when one should pull the ripcord on DIY and find/demand an attorney
> It seems far more likely to result in a better (or at least neutral) outcome with a lawyer.
So in my case the outcome was a restitution payment of a few hundred dollars. I don't know what the bottom of the market for attorneys looks like, but I would be highly surprised if you could find one to get involved for less than a two hour commitment (let's say $500). So right off the bat, that would have tripled the cost of the outcome. Never mind when the detective now sees mom, despite being ostensibly "poor", has enough money to afford that attorney (and make the detective's job harder!). So he stops telling me that I should be content with a few hundred dollars, and I instead claim a much higher amount of actual damages including the time I had to spend.
(Note that my comments on this matter are all modulo assuming the kid is guilty. There was pretty strong evidence left behind the scene, and yes, I am mostly just taking the detective's word for it. Obviously if the kid was innocent and being framed by some other kid, then the downside to not hiring an attorney becomes a bit harder to stomach, despite the same financial incentives remaining)
> they will work out a payment plan for your court appointed lawyer
Have you actually been there and done anything like this? From what I've seen, the reality is much much much different than the marketing.
Fortunately, it didn't go anywhere after that and the whole matter was dropped, but I didn't have to roll in with $10k just to get started.
I work with lawyers now and the highest paid lawyer I know charges $1,200/hr. The associates charge $350/hr.
$10k is still insane unless you're getting a named partner to run your case or if you're in for a serious crime.
This is clearly a police officer saying that she is a thief and felon. Isn't this slanderous/defamatory? The trial had not even occurred to prove guilt.
Does she have grounds to sue the police department for defamation?
No. Defamation is an injury to a person's reputation. For that injury to occur, a third party has to hear (and believe) the derogatory statement - if there's no one else to hear that statement, it's not defamatory.
- https://innocenceproject.org/news/police-deception-lying-int...
- https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-4974964/police-deceptio...
She could spend thousands of dollars to sue the department for defamation, but she would have to prove without a shadow of a doubt "the speaker had a reckless disregard for the truth" when making the harmful statement, and then prove damages resulting directly from the statement.
The police department would then use her and her neighbors tax dollars to argue the officer followed procedure and did not intentionally lie with an intent to harm her reputation.
A jury would then determine if the police department fabricated the investigation or piece of evidence just so they could intentionally slander and ruin this woman's reputation.
What a thing to say...
In a case where there was no supporting evidence - e.g. literally the only evidence is a camera image of person, I would imagine the image would have to be close to irrefutable in order to meet a probable cause standard.
Since we now know that the person depicted on the ring camera was not the defendant - and that the police voluntarily dismissed the charges when confronted with evidence showing they were wrong, makes it pretty clear the police filed charges without evidenced that could have passed the probable cause test.
This isn't necessarily the problem of using an image as evidence of a crime. It's a problem with the police filing charges in a manner they know is an abuse of their authority, but not giving a sh*t because it was only $25 and that it would be heard in Municipal Court - a place where the local Judge and Prosecutor have to get along with the Police and therefore the local police know they will never be punished for their abusive behavior.
So, what did she learn?
Imagine if she hadn't been able to afford a Rivian or a lawyer. The police could easily have handcuffed her and put her in jail on day 1. Without a good lawyer, what chance of release would she have had? Bail? Sure, but if you can't afford it or don't have someone to put up a bond, guess what? You're not going home.
Had the victim of this police overreach been less privileged, she could easily have been convicted.
Once the accounting is corrected, these issues mostly become cost-benefit tradeoffs. Should department policy allow officers to continue focusing solely on someone they believe is a perpetrator based on circumstantial evidence, but who insists innocence and immediately offers up their own evidence? Should a city adopt Flock even though it costs a bunch of money, both for the service and for the false positives it generates? Town/city government might decide they're willing to pay for these things. But at least it will be an honest decision, made by the people ultimately responsible for it.
I wonder if the cops just picked a car at random and said that was the thief.