Disorderly Conduct Charge for Giving Officers the Finger

Quote:

---

Quoting jkl1234

---

I live in a small town in the middle of Missouri with what many consider a corrupt police force. Last week to show my disapproval for the the P.D. I gave 2 officers the finger while in a drive thru line. They came over to the car, told my friend who was driving to pull over and get out of line. They told me to get out and give them my I.D., I complied. I was then arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct and taken to jail where I was held for a full 24 hours.

---

Do you have a copy of the incident report? It may contain a different version of events than the one you relate here, and it would be helpful to know their version.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

I do not see a DA dropping the charges. The police are well within their rights to issue a charge they feel sustainable. The DA is within the law to prosecute.

---

A prosecutor should not pursue a charge unless there's at least probable cause that a crime was committed, and that the person accused is the person who committed the crime. Here, it's not clear that a crime was committed. If the prosecutor finds nothing more to have been involved that "the bird", the prosecutor should dismiss the charge.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

And in my state the courts have ruled that flipping someone the bird can be a challenge to fight or an action likely to provoke a violent response. In theory doing this to the police is lawful, but this is not the standard everywhere.

---

I don't believe that there are any remaining jurisdictions in which offensive words or gestures, of themselves, as directed to the police would be deemed "fighting words". When it comes to provocation the police, quite correctly, are held to a higher standard of conduct than members of the public. See, e.g., Hammond v. Adkisson, 536 F.2d 237, 239 (8th Cir. 1976), addressing offensive language (Missouri is in the 8th Circuit). The language in that case seems considerably more provocative than the gesture described here, and the analysis should be similar. (The OP's effort to turn his actions into political speech seem, to me, to be a lost cause under the facts, but that's not necessary.)

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I'd never give my worst enemy the finger - much less someone who holds power over me! Such overt rudeness just grates on me ... it's entirely uncalled for, is a personal affront for a largely political matter, and is almost certainly going to result in some form of confrontation. No good can come from it at all.

---

Once, many years ago, my brother 'gave me the finger', and I thanked him and kept it for about a minute before giving it back (don't worry - it remained attached to his hand). He was subsequently considerably less "giving" with his digits, at least to me.

Quote:

---

Quoting Bubba Jimmy

---

If you have made a conscious decision to go through life intentionally offending people and imparting as much offense as possible then of course you should never apologize when you are successful. If, after creating a huge hassle for yourself (getting arrested, getting your ass kicked a few times) you realize that your course of action was in error and that you want to rethink your position, an apology would be a nice thing. The OP asked for advice. I gave it. I did not require the person to apologize. I told them that offering an apology to someone deserving of an apology might help. This seems so very straightforward to me, but I guess it's the nature of this forum to quibble over nonsensical things.

---

Did you mean to infer the cops will "kick my ass"? I surely hope not as that suggests their actions are based on retribution and punishment (at their hands as opposed to a courts hands). That would surely show a real problem with the cops.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Do you have a copy of the incident report? It may contain a different version of events than the one you relate here, and it would be helpful to know their version.

I plan on going back to the police station tomorrow to get the report ( I was there last week but it wasn't ready yet) hopefully it doesn't have any unexpected details on it

A prosecutor should not pursue a charge unless there's at least probable cause that a crime was committed, and that the person accused is the person who committed the crime. Here, it's not clear that a crime was committed. If the prosecutor finds nothing more to have been involved that "the bird", the prosecutor should dismiss the charge.

that's what I'm hoping for and if the charges aren't dropped that's what I'm going to argue in court

I don't believe that there are any remaining jurisdictions in which offensive words or gestures, of themselves, as directed to the police would be deemed "fighting words". When it comes to provocation the police, quite correctly, are held to a higher standard of conduct than members of the public. See, e.g., Hammond v. Adkisson, 536 F.2d 237, 239 (8th Cir. 1976), addressing offensive language (Missouri is in the 8th Circuit). The language in that case seems considerably more provocative than the gesture described here, and the analysis should be similar. (The OP's effort to turn his actions into political speech seem, to me, to be a lost cause under the facts, but that's not necessary.)

thanks for that link, I've been looking for cases in my state or circuit

Once, many years ago, my brother 'gave me the finger', and I thanked him and kept it for about a minute before giving it back (don't worry - it remained attached to his hand). He was subsequently considerably less "giving" with his digits, at least to me.

---

...

I've gotten the report and I'd like to get some opinions on it.

"While on a traffic stop I observed a car in the drive through to McDonald's. While conducting my traffic stop I observed 3 male subjects inside the vehicle. I continued to conduct my traffic stop and while doing so I observed the front seat passenger signing loudly while looking towards my location. I continued to watch the three subjects and while doing so I observed the back seat passenger lean towards the passenger side door extending his right arm out the window and extend his middle finger towards me. The subject continued with this action for several seconds.

While the vehicle was in the drive through there was serial other vehicles with customers in the drive through awaiting derbies. The position the vehicle was located in the drive through, customers awaiting service would have been able to witness the male subjects actions directed towards me.

I contacted officer and officer to respond to my location to assist.

I exited my marked patrol car a made contact with the drive advising him of the reason for the contact. I advised him to drive his vehicle to a parking spot. I then remade contact with the driver, front seat passenger and the back seat passenger advising all three the reason for contact.

While speaking with the driver the back seat passenger stated he didn't see what he had done wrong as it was freedom of speech. All three subjects where requested to exit the vehicle at which time they complied.

At that time the back seat passenger was advised he was being placed under arrest for disorderly conduct. While conduct was made i could smell a strong odor of intoxicants coming from his person as he spoke to myself. He was place into double locked handcuffs behind his back without incident. He was placed in the back a a marked patrol car to be transported to the police department for processing.

I made contact with the other 2 subjects who advised they were sorry for his actions as they was just trying to get some food and take him home as he had been drinking."


I think this report helps my case a great deal, the way he described it proves i did nothing illegal.

Opinions?

Also on the report the officer lists himself as the complainant.

Most of this will hinge on what whether your state courts have previously ruled on whether or not such derisive action towards an officer is considered disorderly conduct under state law. Arguably, it is. However, if the courts have not made a distinction, the arrest might very well be legal even if the state chooses not to prosecute.

Only time will tell.

It pays to behave in a civilized manner ... behaving crudely can result in the attention you seek.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

It pays to behave in a civilized manner ... behaving crudely can result in the attention you seek.

---

Wow, a new division for the police: the nanny cops. God save the soul that farts or belches in public.

if crude, rude, and uncivilized behaviors such as this were criminal, I'm afraid the majority of the population would be on the other side of they jailhouse door.

the cop was an idiot. It's obvious that he was having a God complex moment evidenced by the fact the cop made sure to note they apologized for the behavior, behavior that wasn't even theirs to appgize for. I wonder if they too would have been arrested if they had not apologized.

I surely hope those cops get their militaristict heads out of their respective butts and quit trying to turn anything and everything into a crime simply because they want to show the world how much power they have.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Wow, a new division for the police: the nanny cops. God save the soul that farts or belches in public.

---

Civil behavior is always best as it avoid problems with friends, strangers, and even the police.

Once again, all because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD.

And, if you choose to engage in behavior that gets you noticed, don't complain when you get the attention you seek. Flip off a cop, don't be surprised if he watches you and pulls you over for the first violation he sees. Yeah, it may be cheesy, but it's a predictable reaction in many instances - and would be perfectly lawful as the subjective reasoning for a stop and a cite is not important so long as the objective legal reason is met. I personally don't waste my time on people like that because I find they are usually at the low end of the gene pool and not worth my time and concern. But, late at night, this sort of behavior is also very often synonymous with inebriation and can be a good indicator of impairment, in my experience.

Quote:

---

the cop was an idiot. It's obvious that he was having a God complex moment evidenced by the fact the cop made sure to note they apologized for the behavior, behavior that wasn't even theirs to appgize for. I wonder if they too would have been arrested if they had not apologized.

---

Maybe ... but, if it is also a crime in his state to act in the way he did, then it was also proper.

I personally find rude and crude behavior distasteful. It's not usually criminal here (though it can be considered a challenge to fight, and certain gestures and words can also lead to a serious "hate crime" allegation ... something I have serious problems with, but a discussion for another day), but it says a lot about the person engaging in the behavior - and nothing it says is good.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Maybe ... but, if it is also a crime in his state to act in the way he did, then it was also proper.

---

Is not that "if" the question? Supreme court precedent would tend to say it is protected speech unless the law is written in such a way the only "speech" punished is one that could cause an imminent breach of the peace. Since the police officer was across the street giving a citation to another and the OP was in a drive through lane it seems to me that if a police officer was not properly trained to the level to not breach the peace if flipped the bird, then said potential breach is not "imminent".

Without knowing the status of such law in the state in question, I can't make that determination with certainty. I suspect it will probably not be filed due to such case law, but, there may be some other ruling in the OP's state that says otherwise. In the OP's state that might be considered an imminent breach of the peace such that it might be considered a challenge to fight or a threat. I know that some courts here have seen such a gesture to be a challenge to fight, though not against a peace officer. What the status is where the OP lives, I can't say.

The officer may well have been out of line. Or, he might be very knowledgeable of the laws in his state in this regard and acted accordingly. I don't know. I suspect we'll have the answer when/if the OP ever posts back as to whether the prosecutor filed charges or not.

I provided case law earlier in this thread, in OP's legal district, supporting his right to bird the police. However, if you were my son, I would smack you top side the head for exercising this right.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Most of this will hinge on what whether your state courts have previously ruled on whether or not such derisive action towards an officer is considered disorderly conduct under state law. Arguably, it is. However, if the courts have not made a distinction, the arrest might very well be legal even if the state chooses not to prosecute.

Only time will tell.

It pays to behave in a civilized manner ... behaving crudely can result in the attention you seek.

---

Would going to the court house directly to talk to the prosecutor about dropping the case before trial have any chance of working? And if it did would that effect any chance I have at a lawsuit? I don't think it would but my friends are saying it could.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I personally find rude and crude behavior distasteful. It's not usually criminal here (though it can be considered a challenge to fight, and certain gestures and words can also lead to a serious "hate crime" allegation ... something I have serious problems with, but a discussion for another day), but it says a lot about the person engaging in the behavior - and nothing it says is good.

---

I too find rude and crude behavior distasteful but as long as it is legal, it should not be used as a means of a headstrong cop to make a point of how miserable he can make a kids life. To me, that suggests the cop likely is either a problem or will be. Power can be extremely intoxicating. It's a lot like many drugs. Once you get hooked, you keep needing to up your dose to keep that same level of high going on.



While it may not say anything good about a person, that doesn't mean I or a cop have a right to impose my personal standards upon them.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

=cdwjava;757378]Without knowing the status of such law in the state in question,

---

I honestly don't care what the law in this issue holds. Criminalizing such activity is simply an abuse of personal rights. The kid did nothing that would have incited a negative response. In fact, given it was directed to the cop, that makes it even more so political speech which has been held as allowed by the SCOTUS.

It should also be noted, police only cite for what they view as violations of the law. They do not try the cases in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting jkl1234

---

Would going to the court house directly to talk to the prosecutor about dropping the case before trial have any chance of working? And if it did would that effect any chance I have at a lawsuit? I don't think it would but my friends are saying it could.

---

Having your ATTORNEY talk to the prosecutor may help a lot. You talking will only give risk. The crime has an intent portion as well and the prosecution would love to use anything you say against you.

I've talked to both of my friends separately about the report and they both said neither of them told the cop that I had been drinking like it says they did. I believe the cop is lying about that trying to make it look like I was really drunk that night. But who is the prosecutor or judge going to believe? A cop or some kids one of whom was arrested that night?

I'm going to talk to a few lawyers soon about my case and I'm sure to mention this but what kind if effect do you think this could have? And how in the world do we get anyone to believe us?

P.S. its not a crime to be drunk in public where I live so... but its still obvious what he's trying to do

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

And if these guys were actually "corrupt" to the extreme, they might have decided to drop contraband on him. Best not to poke the angry bear lest you get bit.

---

So cdwjava, are you actually acknowledging that cops are corrupt? I guess that comes from having to "Sargent" a few of them. (just poking fun).

OK so I'm back.

I had my court date a few days ago and my lawyer and the prosecuting attorney made a deal that if I stay clean for 6 months (when my next court date is) the charge will be dropped and the records cleared. Good news I guess

The thing is me and my lawyer never had a chance to really talk, I was never able to bring up the constitutionality of the law/my arrest. He was just going off of the fact that it was a very small and petty thing to arrest someone over.

Since the beginning of this whole thing I've wanted to file a lawsuit against the P.D. and the city for my kidnapping. But a few things are now making me fall back from that idea a little.

First since the charges aren't dropped yet would a lawsuit change the prosecutors mind? Even though I think I would easily win the case its still a concern.

Second I know a lawsuit would be a very long process, how much would I personally have to do (court appearances, ect)? Or would it be handled pretty much exclusively by my lawyer? And if I don't win the suit I would be stuck with the court cost correct?

And the last thing is after I was in custody I was acting and saying some really stupid things( IMO justifiably so, I was being kidnapped by men with guns). With the city I live in I don't even know if they have cameras in the back off the police cars or where I was booked and held. But If they do I really wouldn't want the recordings all over the news or to come up in court. If they do still have them (they may have already been deleted? It was a few months ago) could you see them coming out in any way?

Here are a few suits that people are winning for exactly the same thing.


http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2013...ment-from-city

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/aclu-hel...rst-amendment/



http://bigstory.ap.org/article/utah-...lipped-officer

Advise??

As you can see from your articles, pursuing the matter is long on time and the ACLU makes all the money in legal fees.

if there is validity to the charges, which if you have plead guilty and entered a diversion program you accept there is, you cannot be successful in a civil suit since the only way you could prevail in a civil suit would be if the police' actions were illegal.
In each of the cases you cite the charges dropped at some point so none of them were ultimately found guilty (the one was found guilty but upon appeal the prosecution dropped the charges)

Quote:

---

Quoting jkl1234

---

Since the beginning of this whole thing I've wanted to file a lawsuit against the P.D. and the city for my kidnapping. But a few things are now making me fall back from that idea a little.

First since the charges aren't dropped yet would a lawsuit change the prosecutors mind? Even though I think I would easily win the case its still a concern.

---

As I said before, you cannot bring a lawsuit until the underlying case is settled in your favor. Period. Dropping the charges would probably fulfill the element while making a deal may not. Speak with your attorney regarding exactly what happened in the "deal".

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

if there is validity to the charges, which if you have plead guilty and entered a diversion program you accept there is, you cannot be successful in a civil suit since the only way you could prevail in a civil suit would be if the police' actions were illegal.
In each of the cases you cite the charges dropped at some point so none of them were ultimately found guilty (the one was found guilty but upon appeal the prosecution dropped the charges)

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

As I said before, you cannot bring a lawsuit until the underlying case is settled in your favor. Period. Dropping the charges would probably fulfill the element while making a deal may not. Speak with your attorney regarding exactly what happened in the "deal".

---

I was there I know what happened. They asked the judge for 6 months, we all go back, if I stay clean they DROP the charge. There was no "legal" deal. It wasn't a guilty plea, it wasn't anything but a 6 month delay before they drop it.

I think they knew it was a loosing battle so he saved a little face by telling me I need to stay clean or else. Even if I do get arrested I'm willing to bet he wouldn't pursue this charge. He knows there is no case, he just wants a well behaved citizen for 6 months.

Apparently a noble endeavor on his part.

Quote:

---

Quoting jkl1234

---

I was there I know what happened. They asked the judge for 6 months, we all go back, if I stay clean they DROP the charge. There was no "legal" deal. It wasn't a guilty plea, it wasn't anything but a 6 month delay before they drop it.

I think they knew it was a loosing battle so he saved a little face by telling me I need to stay clean or else. Even if I do get arrested I'm willing to bet he wouldn't pursue this charge. He knows there is no case, he just wants a well behaved citizen for 6 months.

---

Quote:

---

jkl1234;770033]I was there I know what happened. They asked the judge for 6 months, we all go back, if I stay clean they DROP the charge. There was no "legal" deal. It wasn't a guilty plea, it wasn't anything but a 6 month delay before they drop it.

---

sorry but that is a "legal deal"

If you do not remain "clean", the charged will be prosecuted and you will end up with a record and whatever punishment they dole out.


and to not pleading guilty; sorry but unless something is very unusual in your state, that is what it takes to get where you are in every other place. They cannot punish you (which would include probation such as you received) unless you are guilty of crime. The US Constitution has issue with that.

Quote:

---

I think they knew it was a loosing battle so he saved a little face by telling me I need to stay clean or else. Even if I do get arrested I'm willing to bet he wouldn't pursue this charge. He knows there is no case, he just wants a well behaved citizen for 6 months.

---

what losing battle? The charges stand and if you do not fulfill the terms of the diversion program, you will be hauled back into court. There they will take that guilty plea you entered and enter that into the records and sentence you.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

As you can see from your articles, pursuing the matter is long on time and the ACLU makes all the money in legal fees.

---

The first link doesn't mention lawyer fees, the second one he still gets $10,000, and the third one he gets $2,500.

And there's more to it than money. I've always been passionate about the constitution and constitutional law especially the 1st and 4th amendments (that's probably part of what got me into this situation). I feel like they are what make this country great, you can say whatever you want to whoever you want and not be in fear of arrest or a bullshit search. Have those rights stripped away from me was one of the worst things to ever happen.

The local law, my arrest, and my 24 hours of solitary imprisonment are/were all unconstitutional. And something needs to be done about it.

Quote:

---

The local law, my arrest, and my 24 hours of solitary imprisonment are/were all unconstitutional. And something needs to be done about it.

---

then get out your wallet and get on it. I suspect your situation with the diversion will come up shortly after you slap down that $10k retainer.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

you can say whatever you want to whoever you want and not be in fear of arrest or a bullshit search.

---

apparently not that passionate since your understanding is incorrect.

Until the charges are actually dropped, there is no civil lawsuit.

If you look back, I was the one who dug up the fact your Federal Circuit has supported your position in their decisions. I just don't like lawyers making money.

Quote:

---

Quoting jkl1234

---

The first link doesn't mention lawyer fees, the second one he still gets $10,000, and the third one he gets $2,500.

And there's more to it than money. I've always been passionate about the constitution and constitutional law especially the 1st and 4th amendments (that's probably part of what got me into this situation). I feel like they are what make this country great, you can say whatever you want to whoever you want and not be in fear of arrest or a bullshit search. Have those rights stripped away from me was one of the worst things to ever happen.

The local law, my arrest, and my 24 hours of solitary imprisonment are/were all unconstitutional. And something needs to be done about it.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

If you look back, I was the one who dug up the fact your Federal Circuit has supported your position in their decisions. I just don't like lawyers making money.

---

so why is the OP even accepting of a diversion? If the fed has upheld the right to flip the bird, ultimately OP would be cleared of the charges. Something is amiss with the situation.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

sorry but that is a "legal deal"

If you do not remain "clean", the charged will be prosecuted and you will end up with a record and whatever punishment they dole out.


and to not pleading guilty; sorry but unless something is very unusual in your state, that is what it takes to get where you are in every other place. They cannot punish you (which would include probation such as you received) unless you are guilty of crime. The US Constitution has issue with that.

what losing battle? The charges stand and if you do not fulfill the terms of the diversion program, you will be hauled back into court. There they will take that guilty plea you entered and enter that into the records and sentence you.

---

I know its strange, had the same questions about it as you do.

5 minutes before court started my lawyer came out of the back room pulled me aside and told me the deal. I thought the same thing you are thinking so I asked him "so what am I going to plead?" (Because there was no way I was going to say anything but not guilty) his exact words were "you're not going to plead shit"

When my name was called I go stand between my lawyer and the prosecutor directly in front of the judge (and I am talking about they were using his table as there own). My lawyer tells the judge that he and the prosecutor have talked and they'd like 6 months, the judge has a weird look on his face but says OK and gives a date.

Also, as I was walking up I can hear the judge and my lawyer talking about the arraignment and that it was being waived. I then hear my lawyer say something that included the phrase "not guilty".

I've learned since moving here that everything in this town is ass backwards and not done like it is everywhere else. The whole court house was very unprofessional, the judge didn't have a robe, the seats were metal folding chairs, there was even someone there for his court appearance that (and I kid you not) had a 10 inch knife attached to his belt with his HOODY tucked behind it so you could see it, and he had his hood up. No one said a word to him.

But I guarantee that I did not plead guilty or anything like it.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

apparently not that passionate since your understanding is incorrect.

---

I didn't mean it like that, I thought that would come through. Guess not

Quote:

---

Also, as I was walking up I can hear the judge and my lawyer talking about the arraignment and that it was being waived. I then hear my lawyer say something that included the phrase "not guilty".

---

I know what they are doing:

they have simply deferred prosecution for the 6 month period. The charges are "pending" and there is an agreement they will not be prosecuted for 6 months. If you remain clean within that 6 months, the charges will be dropped.

You shall live under the threat of the charges being prosecuted for that time.


Still not seeing why your lawyer did not argue to have the charges dropped given the feds position on the matter. Seems like it would be pretty simple to argue they are not valid based on your description and the feds ruling.

It sounds like they have an empty threat to prosecute then, since we already know the charge is bogus.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I know what they are doing:

they have simply deferred prosecution for the 6 month period. The charges are "pending" and there is an agreement they will not be prosecuted for 6 months. If you remain clean within that 6 months, the charges will be dropped.

You shall live under the threat of the charges being prosecuted for that time.


Still not seeing why your lawyer did not argue to have the charges dropped given the feds position on the matter. Seems like it would be pretty simple to argue they are not valid based on your description and the feds ruling.

---

That's what I've been trying to tell y'all. Lol


And like I said earlier, me and my lawyer never got to talk for more that 2 minutes at a time, so I never got to tell him about other cases or even that this was a constitutional matter and not really about if I broke the local law or not.

I honestly could've done better repping myself but when I contacted the prosecutor he wouldn't talk to me so I thought it would be better to get a local lawyer who knew the judge and prosecutor personally instead of going into court blind.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

It sounds like they have an empty threat to prosecute then, since we already know the charge is bogus.

---

Exactly

Trying to get me to be a great citizen for 6 months

Quote:

---

Quoting jkl1234

---

Exactly

Trying to get me to be a great citizen for 6 months

---

But none the less, there is a threat of prosecution hanging over your head for the next 6 months. The charges will also show up on your record, at least until they are discharged. What shows up after that depend on exactly what they are doing with the charges upon completion of your "be a good boy" period.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

But none the less, there is a threat of prosecution hanging over your head for the next 6 months. The charges will also show up on your record, at least until they are discharged. What shows up after that depend on exactly what they are doing with the charges upon completion of your "be a good boy" period.

---

Yeah I get that

Now what about my questions about my possible lawsuit? And my new question. I can't file a lawsuit until the 6 months are up and the charges are dropped?

Quote:

---

Quoting jkl1234

---

Yeah I get that

Now what about my questions about my possible lawsuit? And my new question. I can't file a lawsuit until the 6 months are up and the charges are dropped?

---

You simply cannot fulfill the elements of a 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit until the charges are decided in your favor. Same for false arrest. You may have to file a claim within a fairly short time (often six months) to get the right to sue eventually under your state's tort claims act. Since you have zero chance to prosecute a civil rights claim on your own, you need to get an attorney now. If you cannot find one who will take your case on contingency, then you must accept that you will not be compensated.

Quote:

---

Quoting jkl1234

---

Yeah I get that

Now what about my questions about my possible lawsuit? And my new question. I can't file a lawsuit until the 6 months are up and the charges are dropped?

---

Since the clock starts running when all of the elements of the claim are present, given that the feds have already ruled the action underlying the charges are not a valid basis for the charge, the elements are now present, regardless of the disposition of your criminal prosecution. I do not know the time limitations for your state but generally, suits against government agencies are quite short. If it is no more than 6 months, waiting could very well preclude you from filing a suit should you wait until the charges are disposed of..

I disagree with welfarelover on the issue but am not going to get into a huge debate about it. If you are serious about doing this, get started now, at least speaking with a lawyer. If you find welfarlover is correct, you have lost nothing. If I am correct, and you wait, you may lose your right to sue.

the fact is, your charges are never going to be decided in your favor, at least with the process you are in now. Dropping them as a result of a "legal deal" is not the same as them simply dropping the charges or you being found not guilty.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

the fact is, your charges are never going to be decided in your favor, at least with the process you are in now. Dropping them as a result of a "legal deal" is not the same as them simply dropping the charges or you being found not guilty.

---

So are you saying what I'm going through (the 6 month wait) can affect my ability to file a suit? Like its an admission of guilt or something? Cause my lawyer did say not guilty to the judge and something about in 6 months they'll take the case out of the courts (something, I can't remember the word).

And when I was asking him about the deal I asked about records like fingerprints and mugshot if those would be erased and he said yeah.

How can this prevent me from having the right to file a lawsuit? I don't get it.

Quote:

---

Quoting jkl1234

---

I've always been passionate about the constitution and constitutional law especially the 1st and 4th amendments (that's probably part of what got me into this situation). I feel like they are what make this country great, you can say whatever you want to whoever you want and not be in fear of arrest or a bullshit search. .

---

Whatever gave you that impression?

Sure, you can say what you want. And you can deal with the consequences. There's a reason why yelling "Bomb!" at the airport will get you into legal trouble.

I'm simply saying that if you are serious, I would not wait the 6 months before you speak with a lawyer about this. Time is not your friend and if the SOL to file a suit of this sort is extremely short, it may be too late if you wait the 6 months. Once the time limit has passed, you are sol on filing suit.

I am not going to suggest I have a definitive answer. I am simply suggesting to err on the side of making sure you meet any time limitations.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I'm simply saying that if you are serious, I would not wait the 6 months before you speak with a lawyer about this. Time is not your friend and if the SOL to file a suit of this sort is extremely short, it may be too late if you wait the 6 months. Once the time limit has passed, you are sol on filing suit.

I am not going to suggest I have a definitive answer. I am simply suggesting to err on the side of making sure you meet any time limitations.

---

OK yeah I understand the time thing. I thought you were saying the deal I have would somehow effect it, the same way if I plead guilty would.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Whatever gave you that impression?

Sure, you can say what you want. And you can deal with the consequences. There's a reason why yelling "Bomb!" at the airport will get you into legal trouble.

---

I didn't mean it that literally, I don't get how y'all don't get that.

I can say f the president, I can be racist, or just down right rude and not be arrested legally.

Of course I can't make threats or yell fire