Not every arrest requires a blood (or urine) test to be tested at the state's lab. Most probably result in breath tests.
Printable View
well any way, except a couple people being rude I want to thank everyone for helping me, giving me the objections that I need to overcome to address the State Legislator, and begin the lawsuit process now that the traffic charge has been cleared. (I won that pretty easy, if it had just been that i wouldn't care anymore)
False arrest and illegal suspension of license
False arrest doesn't mean you were just found innocent of the charge. It means that the officer failed to have the proper probable cause to make such. Being mistaken doesn't equate to not having probable cause.
If I believe you beat the traffic charge, then the suspension of license is an administrative action from the DMV, given the dearth of information I suspect you've got no case here either (and it would be have to be directed at a different entity than the one who arrested you). If you want to challenge the suspension, there is almost certainly due process afforded you by the agency. Again, given the absolute lack of information (such as where in the US this was alleged to have occured), we can't really say.
In either case, your chances of prevailing or even being able to bring the suit is going to be slim.
Then Number 1: then you haven't been reading. I have mentioned at least once which state.Ohio.
Number 2: US Code Section 1983 prohibits any person or entity under the colors of the State from denying anyone a right OR PRIVILEGE without due process The officer filing the form directly against the forms legal authority as printed on the form AND the HWP when contacted telling me I cannot Drive because my salience was under suspension suspension for the 2 weeks while the appeal went through(which was granted based on --Improper/illegal suspension by arresting officer successfully appealed, defendant tested negative for BAC limit or any controlled substances O.R.C blah conditions not metfor suspension )" meets that criteria hands down, and unless the suite is denied outright , no jury in the would deny that fits.
Number 3 . A yes or no traffic charge found not guilty quite probably indicates "fishing" which means likely no probable cause. that's no sure thing, but again if I get it past the judge, its probably gonna be a slam dunk with the jury, failing that the multiple errors in judgement the officer made(which I will not get into here) may still win the case.
In short myself and every lawyer I've contacted are far more confident. Now that the traffic issued is handled lets see if they'll put their money where their mouth is and do s contingency
If they decline to take the case on contingency, then it is far from a slam dunk.
There is no such legal reference as USC 1983. The United States Code is divided first into CHAPTERS and then into SECTIONS. I suspect you're talking about 42 USC 1983 but it doesn't say anyting of the sort. It just says that if they took your rights under color of statute, then you can sue. The problem is that holding a drivers license is NOT considered to be a "right." And again, we can't even guess as to what you are talking about because you are incapable apparently of explaining yourself but you'd rather rant throwing out misused legal terms than explain what it is that's going on. You still haven't bothered to indicate (which is REQUIRED on this forum) what state we're talking about. It took me a bit to understand that HWP in your rant means highway patrol. I know of no state in the union that calls their patrol HWP nor any that misspells highway as two words.
You're not getting anywhere by just merely asserting that you were found not guilty of the charge that it implies the original arrest was improper. Understand that when you bring a civil suit there's no preumption of innoncence (and certainly none would be applied to the plaintiff which is you). You will need to make a compelling case with evidence that some actual impropriety happened. It's a harder road than just getting off on the citation or even getting your license administrative suspension lifted. The burden is on you and mind you FEDERAL judges and even state superior court judges are less tolerant at people who don't understand the legal procedure than the cakewalk your traffic court likely was.
truth, that's why I said time to see if they take it.
but taking it AWAY with out due process IS a rights violation under due process, not the DL itsslef. I;m throwing legal terms out truncated and what not because this is NOT a courtoom, its a message board. Nor am a lawyer, and given that kinda of attitude i doubt I want to be. Also if the traffic charge is yes or No, then by possibly losing probable cause for the stop, that invalidates and false the arrest REGURADLESS of what happens after words, so it is relevant, but again no sure thing. the finding of not guilty ont he traffic stop of which again most traffic stops are yes or no, makes room for this argument. it the case gets admitted on that pretense then it becomes a very likely outcome. And I actually didn't expect a response to that first message today.
A lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (often just called a “§ 1983 claim”) is a challenging one to make because the statute and the federal court opinions interpreting are complex. The statute itself says:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
In order for you win under this statute you must prove two things: (1) that the action taken was done under “color of law” and (2) that the action taken violated some U.S. constitutional or federal statutory right. You cannot argue violations of state law rights under a § 1983 claim. If state law mandated the officer use certain forms and he screwed up and used different ones, that is a state law matter and any recourse you have for that is under state law. Federal law does not mandate the forms states must use in traffic and DUI cases. As for due process, you have been given due process for the license suspension issue: you had an appeals process available to you, which you apparently used quite successfully. Similarly, you have due process in the DUI case: you have the right to challenge the DUI charges in court, which again you appear to have done.
Depending on the facts, which are far from clear here, there might be a viable claim of constitutional violations if the officer lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to make the stop or lacked the probable cause to make the arrest for DUI. Note that winning the DUI and the traffic violation cases does not itself prove the officer lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Those are fairly low standards to meet whereas at trial the state has a much higher burden to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The officer could very well have probable cause to think you were driving DUI and then when the tests came back it proved you hadn’t been DUI and the case got dismissed. If that was the situation then there is no good § 1983 claim for that because, while the officer turned out to be wrong, he had the probable cause needed to push the case forward.
Note, too, that all you can win in the lawsuit are your compensatory damages that you suffered as a result of the violation of your rights. If you have no compensatory damages, the court may award you $1 in nominal damages. Legal fees you paid to deal with the state law matters are not typically part of the legally recognized damages. However, if you win the § 1983 lawsuit the court does have the discretion to award you the legal fees you pay to pursue the § 1983 claim itself. It’s not guaranteed a court will give you those attorney’s fees though, so bear that in mind. Apart from legal fees in the state cases that you had from this, what damages did you suffer as a result of it?
There is a lot more to these claims that I have not discussed here because there is not enough room to cover that topic in detail. I suggest that if you want to pursue this you get a lawyer familiar with §1983 lawsuits to represent you. These are not easy cases to win even with a lawyer; without one it would be particularly daunting. Ask some pointed questions about how much it will cost you, how likely it is that the court would award enough legal fees to pay for all of it, what compensatory damages you might reasonably expect to be awarded, and of course what your chances are of winning.
No. As I explained above, a not guilty finding does not logically mean that the officer did not have probable cause because the standard for probable cause is much lower than the standard that applies at trial. It is not as simple as you are making it out to be.