Can You Sue the Police for Arresting You After a Suspect Uses Your Identity

[jk]

I don't know how long your license is good for in your state but in mine it's 4 years. There is one state that is 15 and I think there is a state that has basically a life time license. Do you think the holder looks the same during that entire time? The weight can change drastically. The height not so much but I am 6" taller now than when I first got a license.

[MCox]

I don't know how long your license is good for in your state but in mine it's 4 years. There is one state that is 15 and I think there is a state that has basically a life time license. Do you think the holder looks the same during that entire time? The weight can change drastically. The height not so much but I am 6" taller now than when I first got a license.

Yeah i agree but me being short, and the person that used my ssn is way over 7 inches taller, its kind of obvious.

I turn 28 next week, and our licenses last for 4 years. I think its impossible to grow that much in height at my age,lol. Maybe shrink a little. ha

[Welfarelvr]

I am not sure I agree with the others. The police must have probable cause to arrest a person and a store must be correct or each would be subject to sanctions. A lot more facts would be needed to know if the poster has any rights for compensation from either the police or the store. Who swore out the arrest warrant? Did it go through a prosecutor first? I understand the police have qualified immunity against civil rights issues. For state-level false arrest their protection is probable cause. Failing to identify the suspect before citing and releasing may fall below that standard. The officer who actually arrested on the warrant is safe. It is the one who supplied the facts to create the warrant that could have some liability.

[free9man]

store must be correct or each would be subject to sanctions.

How do you figure? If someone does not present physical ID, such as in this case, the store has no way to verify who they are. All they can do is go on what the perp tells them.

A lot more facts would be needed to know if the poster has any rights for compensation from either the police or the store.

He has no rights to compensation from the store as the store did not do anything wrong, except no showing at court.

Who swore out the arrest warrant? Did it go through a prosecutor first? I understand the police have qualified immunity against civil rights issues. For state-level false arrest their protection is probable cause. Failing to identify the suspect before citing and releasing may fall below that standard. The officer who actually arrested on the warrant is safe. It is the one who supplied the facts to create the warrant that could have some liability.

I would be willing to bet the warrant was from the court for FTA, since a citation was issued at the time of the stop.

[cdwjava]

I was unaware of a warrant for my arrest for shoplifting back in November of 12'. Once I found out about it, I called a lawyer, went to court several times costing me alot of money. Someone got caught shoplifting and gave my SSN# to the loss prevention and or police officer.

Your SSN is NOT good ID, so that could not have been used to identify you. Contrary to the impression provided on TV, it is no easy task to run someone for identification by SSN. Even if you do, there is no physical description available. This is why SSNs are not considered valid ID.

Chances are he also gave your name and birthdate (or something close enough not to raise any red flags with the police at the time of the contact. Since it appears to have been a family member, that explains how he knew so much about you.

Hence why it was pinned on me. Well after going to court several times for this it was dismissed a couple of weeks ago. Because obviously it wasnt me that done it. Anyhow, could i sue the department store/ police department, etc etc to try to regain the money i was out fighting to prove my innocence? I spent well over $3000, missed several days of work, and was stressed out the entire time,because I have NEVER had to go to court for anything. Any advice would be great.

Unless their actions were reckless or irresponsible in some way, probably not. So long as the police acted reasonably and within accepted practice and agency policy, they are likely immune from any claims.

PS: The loss prevention officer/police officer failed to come to court everytime, and I believed gave my lawyer a cursing for calling them.

If your attorney failed to subpoena these folks, then that's your attorney's bad.

- - - Updated - - -

Since my case was dismissed. There has to be something that can be done.

You can sue the person who identified himself as you. But, as you mention, he has nothing so it's not likely worth the effort.

I believe that the store people actually contacted and did verify that it wasnt me.

What you BELIEVE doesn't mean a hill of beans. It's what you can prove.

To me, the police didn't do their job correctly. When they were givin my ssn, the description on my DL (height,weight, etc) In no way matches said person that shoplifted.

Again, your SSN is not a good identifier, so that wouldn't mean much to the police unless they were matching the information to a criminal history record (aka Rap sheet).

When the police made contact with the suspect, what did they do? Issue a citation? Book him into jail with photos and prints? What? Issuing a citation without good identification can be sloppy, but it may not be reckless or unreasonable.

Do you have any idea what steps the police took to try and confirm the suspect's identity? Again, if these actions were reasonable and within policy, you likely have no cause of action.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not sure I agree with the others. The police must have probable cause to arrest a person and a store must be correct or each would be subject to sanctions.

Not quite. If the store personnel stated that they caught this guy stealing, that's usually sufficient PC for the police to act on and to make an arrest. Being correct isn't the issue so much as acting reasonably and lawfully. One can make a lawful arrest and not even have the right guy. The statndard for probable cause to make an arrest is significantly less than that necessary for a conviction.

A lot more facts would be needed to know if the poster has any rights for compensation from either the police or the store.

I can agree with that.

Who swore out the arrest warrant? Did it go through a prosecutor first?

I don't know the process in KY, but under the circumstances I would guess that the suspect was issued a citation and then failed to appear in court. This FTA likely caused the issuance of an arrest warrant with the OP's name and information on it and he was arrested or issued a summons to appear.

[Welfarelvr]

Not quite. If the store personnel stated that they caught this guy stealing, that's usually sufficient PC for the police to act on and to make an arrest. Being correct isn't the issue so much as acting reasonably and lawfully. One can make a lawful arrest and not even have the right guy. The statndard for probable cause to make an arrest is significantly less than that necessary for a conviction. I can agree with that. I don't know the process in KY, but under the circumstances I would guess that the suspect was issued a citation and then failed to appear in court. This FTA likely caused the issuance of an arrest warrant with the OP's name and information on it and he was arrested or issued a summons to appear.

I agree the police had probable cause to arrest the suspect with the word of a witness. It is the release and subsequent warrant where there could be a problem. Probable cause does not just cover if a crime was committed or not. One part of probable cause is if this particular person did the act. The potential police error is the causing of a warrant of the wrong person if they did not take proper care in identifying the suspect before releasing him. I agree there was probably more than a social security number given. If the poster is correct that is all that was given, then I believe the police may have fell below the standard of probable cause on identification of the poster as the suspect. If the store were the ones to make the arrest and turn the suspect over to the police is where they must be correct or be subject to false arrest as probable cause would not protect them. If the store did make the arrest and turned over the suspect's identifying information to the police, then they could be liable for errors as well.

[cdwjava]

I agree the police had probable cause to arrest the suspect with the word of a witness. It is the release and subsequent warrant where there could be a problem. Probable cause does not just cover if a crime was committed or not. One part of probable cause is if this particular person did the act. The potential police error is the causing of a warrant of the wrong person if they did not take proper care in identifying the suspect before releasing him.

No, not quite. It is whether or not there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the person arrested/cited committed the crime, That's all. They do not need to be correct. Besides, they had the body in front of them, so they acted based upon that probable cause. It is whether the laws or policy were adhered to with regards to the release subsequent to the arrest.

In my state (I don't know about KY) we MAY book a defendant who lacks good identification into the jail and release only after there is some verification of his identity. However, as the section says "may" it is not incumbent upon the officer to do so. I suspect a similar statute exists in KY where the officers MAY book, or, MAY release on a citation even without good, solid proof of identification.

I agree there was probably more than a social security number given. If the poster is correct that is all that was given, then I believe the police may have fell below the standard of probable cause on identification of the poster as the suspect.

Since we do not know what the police did or did not do, there's no way to make that call. I suspect that they ran the name and date of birth, came back with a match to a DL, and then issued the citation. THAT was likely sufficient to meet any legal requirement. Clearly it was insufficient, but that does not mean it is actionable.

If the store were the ones to make the arrest and turn the suspect over to the police is where they must be correct or be subject to false arrest as probable cause would not protect them. If the store did make the arrest and turned over the suspect's identifying information to the police, then they could be liable for errors as well.

The store is not likely to have any liability for the identification of the defendant at all. They have no resources by which they can identify the suspect and often can ONLY rely on verbal information provided to them.

The OP is probably out of luck if he is looking for someone who can compensate him for his troubles.

[Welfarelvr]

No, not quite. It is whether or not there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the person arrested/cited committed the crime, That's all. They do not need to be correct. Besides, they had the body in front of them, so they acted based upon that probable cause. It is whether the laws or policy were adhered to with regards to the release subsequent to the arrest.

Read what I wrote again and point out the error. I understand both parts need to be to the probable cause level for the police. The store would not have the same protections. I could not easily find the Kentucky statute on citing and releasing. The criminal procedure statue on making a warrant requires probable cause. Rcr 2.06 and 2.04 show the requirements.

In my state (I don't know about KY) we MAY book a defendant who lacks good identification into the jail and release only after there is some verification of his identity. However, as the section says "may" it is not incumbent upon the officer to do so. I suspect a similar statute exists in KY where the officers MAY book, or, MAY release on a citation even without good, solid proof of identification.

But the WARRANT cannot be issued unless there is probable cause to the identification of the party. If the discretion of the police officer was below the standard of probable cause of identification of the party and that failure caused the poster to be arrested, then he was arrested without probable cause.

Since we do not know what the police did or did not do, there's no way to make that call. I suspect that they ran the name and date of birth, came back with a match to a DL, and then issued the citation. THAT was likely sufficient to meet any legal requirement. Clearly it was insufficient, but that does not mean it is actionable.

That is not what the poster said happened. He said they went by social security number. That would be actionable.

- - - Updated - - -

I wrote:

That is not what the poster said happened. He said they went by social security number. That would be actionable.

I am almost sure I was wrong in writing that. In Miller v. Jefferson City Police Department, 569 S.W.2d 189 (1978) there was a worse situation of identification mixup and neither the police or the person making the report were found at fault.

The facts creating this problem need further elaboration. Miller sold his 1963 Dodge on January 5, 1976, and completed the transfer by recording the necessary documents in the Jefferson County Court Clerk's Office. On February 10, 1976, someone driving the vehicle harassed Johnson during the day. That night, someone fired shots into Johnson's dwelling, and a neighbor who witnessed the shooting described the 1963 Dodge as the vehicle from which the shots were fired.

Officer Fisher investigated the incident and called in the license number to the police department for an identification. He was given Miller's name and address, which he wrote down and gave to Johnson. Johnson alleged in his cross-claim and in his deposition that Officer Fisher advised him to take a warrant for Miller. Officer Fisher was deposed and contended that he did not attempt to induce Johnson to take a warrant and that he made no statement regarding where or for what to obtain a warrant. Furthermore, Officer Fisher testified that he told Johnson he would watch his house through the night in order to determine who might be driving the vehicle because the driver might not be the registered owner.

The next morning, Johnson obtained a warrant from a Jefferson County official, and Miller's problems began.
Miller's complaint against Johnson was primarily for malicious prosecution. Two essential elements are lacking. There was no malice, and although the concept of probable cause may be stretched in this case, it nevertheless seems to be satisfied. See Mink v. Stratton, Ky., 499 S.W.2d 291 191*191 (1973), which is a somewhat analogous case. More evidence would be desirable for obtaining a warrant than merely such information as the name and address of the latest record owner of a vehicle. Even if Miller had been the owner of the vehicle at the time of the incident, the vehicle could have been driven by another person without Miller's knowledge or at least without his knowledge of any crime.

Nevertheless, Johnson presented the information to an official who saw fit to issue the warrant. The issuing magistrate made the determination that there was probable cause for the warrant. Neither Johnson or Officer Fisher actually made that decision, and there is no evidence that Johnson added any false information to support his complaint for the warrant.

Even if we determined that there was no probable cause to obtain a warrant, we could not infer malice from the circumstances in this case. Certainly there was no actual malice. Johnson had been wronged, and he wanted justice for the offender. He did not know Miller, and in no way did Johnson act out of malice toward Miller. The summary judgment in favor of Johnson was proper. Malice may not be merely presumed. Cravens v. Long, Ky., 257 S.W.2d 548 (1953), and Hendrie v. Perkins, 240 Ky. 366, 42 S.W.2d 502 (1931).

[cdwjava]

Read what I wrote again and point out the error. I understand both parts need to be to the probable cause level for the police. The store would not have the same protections. I could not easily find the Kentucky statute on citing and releasing. The criminal procedure statue on making a warrant requires probable cause. Rcr 2.06 and 2.04 show the requirements.

2.04 describes the requirements for a judge to issue a warrant based upon probable cause ... PC that would appear to have existed at the time. And 2.06 covers what should be contained in the warrant:

It shall name or describe the offenses charged to have been committed
and the county in which they are alleged to have occurred, specify the name of the defendant, or,
if the defendant's name is unknown, any name or description by which the defendant can be
identified with reasonable certainty, and the name of the complaining party or parties.

How were these requirements NOT met if the officers believed they had the name and identification of the suspect involved, and the judge concurred and issued a warrant?

But the WARRANT cannot be issued unless there is probable cause to the identification of the party.

Which is a relatively low standard. Once again, we don't know what steps the police took to match the name of the suspect with the ID. DNA would be extreme, but matching a name, birthdate, and an address is generally sufficient for a CITATION. Remember, this was originally a citation for the theft, not a custodial arrest. The warrant was for failing to appear. How is this the fault of the store or the police if the court issued a warrant for what was probably FTA?

If the discretion of the police officer was below the standard of probable cause of identification of the party and that failure caused the poster to be arrested, then he was arrested without probable cause.

And, can you post the minimum legal requirement for suspect identification required by an officer in KY before he can write a citation? Maybe it exists, but I can't find it. I know in MY state, we CAN issue a citation without the added scrutiny. As I said, it's unwise, but not unlawful and likely not outside any agency policy. Now if the employing agency had a policy mandating officers run the poor sot in if he lacks good ID, then there MIGHT be a case. As it is, I don't see it.

That is not what the poster said happened. He said they went by social security number. That would be actionable.

They could not have gotten anything from a SSN, so that is NOT what happened. Unlike TV, an SSN is worthless for ID as it does not contain physical descriptions, rarely contains anything more than an address, and takes a lot of hoop jumping to obtain data on. One cannot simply query a database like they do on CSI to find out job history and other info.

[Welfarelvr]

Which is a relatively low standard. Once again, we don't know what steps the police took to match the name of the suspect with the ID. DNA would be extreme, but matching a name, birthdate, and an address is generally sufficient for a CITATION. Remember, this was originally a citation for the theft, not a custodial arrest. The warrant was for failing to appear. How is this the fault of the store or the police if the court issued a warrant for what was probably FTA?


And, can you post the minimum legal requirement for suspect identification required by an officer in KY before he can write a citation? Maybe it exists, but I can't find it. I know in MY state, we CAN issue a citation without the added scrutiny. As I said, it's unwise, but not unlawful and likely not outside any agency policy. Now if the employing agency had a policy mandating officers run the poor sot in if he lacks good ID, then there MIGHT be a case. As it is, I don't see it.


They could not have gotten anything from a SSN, so that is NOT what happened. Unlike TV, an SSN is worthless for ID as it does not contain physical descriptions, rarely contains anything more than an address, and takes a lot of hoop jumping to obtain data on. One cannot simply query a database like they do on CSI to find out job history and other info.

I already replied hours before your posting with a case showing the police do not really have anything resembling a standard for probable cause for identification in KY. I was wrong. In your state the statute is:

853.5. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, in any case in
which a person is arrested for an offense declared to be an
infraction, the person may be released according to the procedures
set forth by this chapter for the release of persons arrested for an
offense declared to be a misdemeanor. In all cases, except as
specified in Sections 40302, 40303, 40305, and 40305.5 of the Vehicle
Code, in which a person is arrested for an infraction, a peace
officer shall only require the arrestee to present his or her driver'
s license or other satisfactory evidence of his or her identity for
examination and to sign a written promise to appear contained in a
notice to appear. If the arrestee does not have a driver's license or
other satisfactory evidence of identity in his or her possession,
the officer may require the arrestee to place a right thumbprint, or
a left thumbprint or fingerprint if the person has a missing or
disfigured right thumb, on the notice to appear. Except for law
enforcement purposes relating to the identity of the arrestee, no
person or entity may sell, give away, allow the distribution of,
include in a database, or create a database with, this print. Only if
the arrestee refuses to sign a written promise, has no satisfactory
identification, or refuses to provide a thumbprint or fingerprint may
the arrestee be taken into custody.

Which has no standard either. The police "may" do as they please.