Long story short, briefly saw two parties in a car driving excessively fast. Pursuit ensues, they bail into a house, get permission from home over (I know not needed in pursuit) to go in, get two guys I think are the guys in the car. Witness pulls up says he believes they are the right guys, confirm it with him several times....Take them to jail, witness calls later says one of the guys wasn't involved and that he saw the real guy later in the day and realized we had locked up the wrong guy. We take steps to release the parties immediately, the guy who wasn't in the car was furious, claims he is going to sue. Question is, I believe we were acting in good faith seeing how I think I have the right guys and a witness says they are the right guys. When we find out the mistake we don't try to cover it up and take steps to get it taken care of immediately. Obviously I know its not a good situation, do I have anything to worry about?>
NEW Welcome Ad
Collapse
Leader
Collapse
Good Faith?
Collapse
300x250 Mobile
Collapse
X
-
trouble?
Originally posted by WLC135Long story short, briefly saw two parties in a car driving excessively fast. Pursuit ensues, they bail into a house, get permission from home over (I know not needed in pursuit) to go in, get two guys I think are the guys in the car. Witness pulls up says he believes they are the right guys, confirm it with him several times....Take them to jail, witness calls later says one of the guys wasn't involved and that he saw the real guy later in the day and realized we had locked up the wrong guy. We take steps to release the parties immediately, the guy who wasn't in the car was furious, claims he is going to sue. Question is, I believe we were acting in good faith seeing how I think I have the right guys and a witness says they are the right guys. When we find out the mistake we don't try to cover it up and take steps to get it taken care of immediately. Obviously I know its not a good situation, do I have anything to worry about? -
Originally posted by WLC135Long story short, briefly saw two parties in a car driving excessively fast. Pursuit ensues, they bail into a house, get permission from home over (I know not needed in pursuit) to go in, get two guys I think are the guys in the car. Witness pulls up says he believes they are the right guys, confirm it with him several times....Take them to jail, witness calls later says one of the guys wasn't involved and that he saw the real guy later in the day and realized we had locked up the wrong guy. We take steps to release the parties immediately, the guy who wasn't in the car was furious, claims he is going to sue. Question is, I believe we were acting in good faith seeing how I think I have the right guys and a witness says they are the right guys. When we find out the mistake we don't try to cover it up and take steps to get it taken care of immediately. Obviously I know its not a good situation, do I have anything to worry about?Comment
-
you had probable cause to make the arrest..form info later you find out it was wrong oh well you did the right thing..I agree no worries.Happy to be here proud to serve
"Well it appears this lock does not accept american express."
Never trust fire fighters to point out a suspect.Comment
-
Frank Booth
Long story short, briefly saw two parties in a car driving excessively fast. Pursuit ensues, they bail into a house, get permission from home over (I know not needed in pursuit) to go in, get two guys I think are the guys in the car. Witness pulls up says he believes they are the right guys, confirm it with him several times....Take them to jail, witness calls later says one of the guys wasn't involved and that he saw the real guy later in the day and realized we had locked up the wrong guy. We take steps to release the parties immediately, the guy who wasn't in the car was furious, claims he is going to sue. Question is, I believe we were acting in good faith seeing how I think I have the right guys and a witness says they are the right guys. When we find out the mistake we don't try to cover it up and take steps to get it taken care of immediately. Obviously I know its not a good situation, do I have anything to worry about?
Even if you DIDN'T have permission, the arrest would still be valid as long as it wasn't their own residence that they ran into. And even if it WAS their residence, the only thing that would be excluded at trial would be any evidence you seized while in the house. A bad entry doesn't necessarily mean that the arrest was bad. You could have civil trouble, but the case would be OK (assuming you had a case to beging with). I'd sue you if I were them.
The witnesses that came up after you made the entry have NOTHING to do with the validity of your initial entry or detention. You already entered the house and grabbed the guy before the witness pulled up. Your initial entry and detention is based ONLY on the knowledge you had at that time. The arrest can be based on what the witness said, but not the initial entry and detention.Last edited by Guest; 07-18-2005, 10:06 PM.Comment
-
We are allowed to force entry in hot pursuit. I was in hot pursuit, however knocked on the door after backup arrived, the homeowners came out and said yes you can go in and search the house. The entry into the house isn't in question, it was the wrong id/arrest of the subject that worried me. I had a brief view of the parties, well enough for me to pick out the parties in the house who looked like the guys in the car and not the other people in the house.Comment
-
Frank Booth
We are allowed to force entry in hot pursuit.
As far as your probable cause for the arrrest. You obviously DIDN'T get a good enough look to pick him out if the witness is telling the truth and it wasn't the right guy. That's not a problem if you had a reasonable description. If I was the suing guys lawyer, I'd take this:
I had a brief view of the parties, well enough for me to pick out the parties in the house who looked like the guys in the car and not the other people in the house.Comment
-
Originally posted by Frank BoothAs far as your probable cause for the arrrest. You obviously DIDN'T get a good enough look to pick him out if the witness is telling the truth and it wasn't the right guy. That's not a problem if you had a reasonable description.
Please correct me if I am wrong. The officer obviously had reasonable suspicion to to detain the suspects based not only on the fact they matched the descriptions he was given, but the fact that they attempted to elude the police (Illinois v. Wardlow). After they were detained he investigated further and a positive ID was made by a witness and therefore the subjects were arrested. It sounds like a solid arrest to me.
I am not to sure where the Good Faith Exemption comes into play, I thought that dealt with evidence obtained and not arrests.No man is justified in doing evil on the grounds of expediency. - Theodore Roosevelt, The Strenuous Life: Essays and Addresses (1900)Comment
-
Frank Booth
Please correct me if I am wrong. The officer obviously had reasonable suspicion to to detain the suspects based not only on the fact they matched the descriptions he was given, but the fact that they attempted to elude the police (Illinois v. Wardlow).Comment
-
The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures. Seizures can be made on both property and people. An arrest is a seizure. That is why the good faith exception was mentioned. I.E. he didn't arrest the guy just for kicks, he arrested him because he believed he was the suspect he was looking for.
Probable cause: A set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and the person in question committed it.
You had probable cause for the arrest. You followed the subjects into the house and entered with permission that I don't believe you needed. You reasonably believed the suspects were still in the house. You spot two subjects that looked like the suspects and detain them. You get what was at the time 100% identification from witnesses. =Arrest
Question, based on the original post, I guess the other POS was one of the suspects you were looking for? Was he willing to shed any light on the situation? Without a positive ID on #2 there is always the posibility that you DID have the right guy and for whatever reason your witness purposely @$#%$ your case.
Just because we arrest someone does not guarantee that they are guilty. It means that we have evidence to believe that they are.Last edited by haus409; 07-19-2005, 05:17 PM."He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still"
-Lao Tzu
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
-Reinhold NiebuhrComment
-
Frank Booth
That is why the good faith exception was mentioned. I.E. he didn't arrest the guy just for kicks, he arrested him because he believed he was the suspect he was looking for.
Your investigatory detention at the house was presumably made based at least on reasonable suspicion. Then when the witness confirmed that was the guy, the arrest was based on probable cause. It was NOT an unlawful seizure, because you had probable cause. The "good faith" exception applies to seizures that were otherwise unconstitutional.Comment
-
The Good Faith Exemption, so far as I can tell, pertains specifically to the introduction of evidence into a trial that was obtained with a mistakenly issued warrant or a warrant improperly completed by the judge. I do not see how it could be applied to an arrest.
In United States v. Leon the Supreme Court held that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued warrant could be introduced into trial since the police had no reason to suspect that the information they presented to the judge that issued the warrant was not sufficient. For example, a warrant is obtained using evidence from a stake-out and another judge later decides that probable cause did not exist. The evidence obtained by police is still admissible because they thought the warrant was proper.
Later in Massachusetts v. Sheppard the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained using a warrant that the police believed covered the scope of their investigation was admissible, despite the fact that the warrant did not allow for the search. For example if a the police seek a warrant for weapons and the judge signs one for narcotics. Any weapons found are still admissible because the police believed the warrant was for weapons.No man is justified in doing evil on the grounds of expediency. - Theodore Roosevelt, The Strenuous Life: Essays and Addresses (1900)Comment
MR300x250 Tablet
Collapse
What's Going On
Collapse
There are currently 18125 users online. 25 members and 18100 guests.
Most users ever online was 185,715 at 05:04 PM on 12-04-2023.
Tag Cloud
Collapse
Welcome Ad
Collapse
Comment