I have always wondered this question. If somebody is arrested, but is acquitted, do they have the right to file kidnapping charges on the arresting officer? It makes sense to me that they would.
I have always wondered this question. If somebody is arrested, but is acquitted, do they have the right to file kidnapping charges on the arresting officer? It makes sense to me that they would.
ONLY if it can be proven later the charges were made up and filed with malice.
Criminally, a Prosecutor won't touch it with a 30 foot pole unless the evidence comes to light that there is NO question this is the case.
Civily, I have never heard of such a case! Police enjoy qualified immunity from lawsuits, so this burden must be overcome in a court of law. Mere aquittal is by NO means enough.
Interesting topic though BE.
Let me try to think of an example...
Ok, let say a innocent man is arrested for robbery. The man insist he's innocent, but the police refuse to listen. When he goes to trial the jury learns he had a alibi for that night, which results in the jury voting to acquit. Does he have the right to file kidnapping charges on the arresting officer?
If he don't, why not? If he was innocent he should have the right to file charges for being locked against his will, right?
Because, quite obviously, the officer has no unlawful intent, and is privileged by law to perform the arrest.
There was NO false arrest here. I do know in the US 6th circuit court of appeals jurisdiction, unless the law has changed (and if I remember correctly), IF an officer about to effect an arrest knows in all probability the actor has a valid "affirmitive defense" to the charge and still arrests them, it may constitute false arrest. The AD need not be plead in court first.
In such a case, it is defacto kidnapping, IMO, but Prosecutorial discretion comes into play here also.
An arrest is made based upon probable cause - NOT upon absolute certainty. People are occasionally arrested and then later acquitted or even released without charges. That does NOT in any way infer that the arrest was unlawful or that kidnapping occurred. There are legal remedies for an unlawful arrest if made intentionally and with malice.
- Carl
The officer in the field is in no position evaluate the status of someone's "affirmative defense". Suspects say things like, "I was with my mother!" all the time. It may be incumbent upon the officer to look into that, but it does NOT mean that he has to let the guy go until he has had a chance to check out the alibi. He can hook the suspect then later look into the alibi. if the alibi is solid, he can then have the suspect released.
And, of course, alibi witnesses can lie or be unreliable.
An "affirmative defense" can be anything. And the police are not going to be strapped to avoid arresting someone simply because he claims he didn't do it and might be able to prove it. If there is sufficient probable cause to make the arrest, they can.
- Carl
But, lets say the officer checks into the accused story and several witnesses state the accused statements are correct and accurate. But, the officer firmly believes the accused is the guilty party and refuses to release the accused and does not put the witness statements in file.
Later, in court, it is learned that there is no way the accused could have committed the crime and, thus, acquitted.
Is the officer justified for the detainment or was this an act of kidnapping or false imprisonment?
Carl, I was referencing this case, a Civil case, where the officers knew beyond doubt the DF's had an absolute affirmative defense. The appeals court ruled the officers were NOT entitled to qualified immunity for arresting the DF's.
Conclusion:
The district court in this matter correctly determined that the defendant officers who arrested the Dietrichs for carrying concealed weapons knew that the plaintiffs were legitimately carrying firearms for protective purposes and had not engaged in, were not engaged in, nor were about to engage in criminal activity. The arrest of the plaintiffs thus violated Fourth Amendment principles, and the defendants were, therefore, appropriately denied summary judgment on the plaintiffs' false arrest claims.
http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/fe...a0053p.06.html
Opinion?