This is in response to a comment on another thread regarding why we don't hear of more prosecutions of police when this kind of thing happens.
I'm interested in finding out what people would really do if faced with this situation.
What would you do?

'Cuz I need the money to fund my 2a habit. 

Because Due process is required by LAW.  The judicial system is does not give police powers to falsely arrest people.

I'd start with a department complaint against the officer, then file a cause of action for violating my civil rights.  Willful or not, violating someone's civil rights must have consequences.  That is the only way to hopefully prevent these types of acts in the future.

I sympathize with the job cops have to do day after day, and I know it's difficult.  However, no citizen's rights should be compromised to make the job of law enforcement easier.  I think we have way too many laws on the books.  If I have to play by all these rules or risk being fined or arrested, then the cops can do the same.

I sympathize with the job cops have to do day after day, and I know it's difficult.  However, no citizen's rights should be compromised to make the job of law enforcement easier.  I think we have way too many laws on the books.  If I have to play by all these rules or risk being fined or arrested, then the cops can do the same.

heard that!

I'd start with a department complaint against the officer, then file a cause of action for violating my civil rights.  Willful or not, violating someone's civil rights must have consequences.  That is the only way to hopefully prevent these types of acts in the future.

I sympathize with the job cops have to do day after day, and I know it's difficult.  However, no citizen's rights should be compromised to make the job of law enforcement easier.  I think we have way too many laws on the books. If I have to play by all these rules or risk being fined or arrested, then the cops can do the same.

I agree. Too many laws, many of them contradictory, leaving citizens in a "Catch 22" situation. We're beyond the point of saturation, we're being buried under an avalanche of ridiculous laws designed to allow the government to control our day to day lives.

I'd like to think it would be possible to simply review the statutes and remove the laws that infringe upon our freedoms and give too much power to the government, but at this point I think the task is too monumental. Even if we could get our legislators up off of their collective asses to make the attempt.

I would love to be holier than thou and sue the Department, City Etc. but in reality it costs a lot of time and money.

To put up all that attorney money for a case which is very difficult to prove and roll the dice wouldn't be worth it to me.

Best case scenario, officer gets fired, but what are your damages ? You were held for a few hours. ( Doesn't Hawaii have a 48 hour hold law or something to that effect ? )

Worst case scenario, you lose the case and the PD and City get awarded fees and costs. Now your paying for the lawyers and court costs for both sides, your broke and shit out of luck and doubly pissed off.

It's a roll of the dice at best.
Of course this is just an opinion ( unpopular, realist one at that )

I agree. Too many laws, many of them contradictory, leaving citizens in a "Catch 22" situation. We're beyond the point of saturation, we're being buried under an avalanche of ridiculous laws designed to allow the government to control our day to day lives.

+1
Catch-22

I would love to be holier than thou and sue the Department, City Etc. but in reality it costs a lot of time and money.

To put up all that attorney money for a case which is very difficult to prove and roll the dice wouldn't be worth it to me.

Best case scenario, officer gets fired, but what are your damages ? You were held for a few hours. ( Doesn't Hawaii have a 48 hour hold law or something to that effect ? )

Worst case scenario, you lose the case and the PD and City get awarded fees and costs. Now your paying for the lawyers and court costs for both sides, your broke and shit out of luck and doubly pissed off.

It's a roll of the dice at best.
Of course this is just an opinion ( unpopular, realist one at that )
+1
Catch-22

This isn't a popularity contest a-hound. I commend you for your honesty and bringing the realities of such an endeavor to light.

Even though taking them to court would be the "right" thing to do, realistically they would put as many obstacles in your path as possible. I imagine that about half of those that feel they would take on the task would give up when faced with the cost and work involved.

I agree. Too many laws, many of them contradictory, leaving citizens in a "Catch 22" situation. We're beyond the point of saturation, we're being buried under an avalanche of ridiculous laws designed to allow the government to control our day to day lives.

I'd like to think it would be possible to simply review the statutes and remove the laws that infringe upon our freedoms and give too much power to the government, but at this point I think the task is too monumental. Even if we could get our legislators up off of their collective asses to make the attempt.

The number of laws is the result of action by the legislature.  Legislators pride themselves in the number of bills they are able to successfully get passed into law.  Lobbyists under the employ of companies or industry groups communicate with legislators all the time to get favorable laws passed.   There is no reason why we shouldn't get involved in this process as citizens.  The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

On a tangent....

HCR-PAC is the advocacy organization in Hawaii that talks to the legislators about pro-2a issues.  We need to support this PAC. 

As citizens, we should also educate ourselves about the HRS so we can have an intelligent conversation about the current laws with Dr. Cooper (HCR-PAC) and our elected representatives. 

I am guilty of not having read through or knowing the HRS myself and will take the time to learn it from now on.  Bedtime reading? If there are too many laws, a good topic would be laws that should be repealed.

Link to Hawaii Revised Statutes Table of Contents
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/docs/HRS.htm

A good starting point: HRS 134 (Firearms, Ammunition and Dangerous Weapons)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-.htm

As it relates to this topic: HRS 803 (Arrests, Search Warrants)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0803/HRS_0803-.htm

I choose the last option but I would prefer to sue only the officer. Suing the city or settling seems counter productive as it's my tax dollars that pay for all this. Me and my fellow tax payers did no wrong so why should we suffer? I'd like the individual know there are consequences to their actions. I'd also like that person to be out of a job as well. Well maybe just out of a job with the city because it annoys may when they remove someone as on officer but give them a city desk job instead.

I choose the last option but I would prefer to sue only the officer. Suing the city or settling seems counter productive as it's my tax dollars that pay for all this. Me and my fellow tax payers did no wrong so why should we suffer? I'd like the individual know there are consequences to their actions. I'd also like that person to be out of a job as well. Well maybe just out of a job with the city because it annoys may when they remove someone as on officer but give them a city desk job instead.

The problem with suing just the individual is, what if they use the defense they were not properly trained, or there is a pervasive attitude in the department allowing such misconduct to go unchecked?  If the office could prove those points and diminish his own responsibility in his bad behavior, now you have to start all over again to go after the organizations who are to blame.

Better, I think, to file one action and let them all turn against each other.  It only takes one of them refusing to be the scapegoat to shine the light on the real culprit. 

I choose the last option but I would prefer to sue only the officer. Suing the city or settling seems counter productive as it's my tax dollars that pay for all this. Me and my fellow tax payers did no wrong so why should we suffer? I'd like the individual know there are consequences to their actions. I'd also like that person to be out of a job as well. Well maybe just out of a job with the city because it annoys may when they remove someone as on officer but give them a city desk job instead.

You really can't sue "just the officer" as he will claim qualified immunity. I think you would have to sue the department and have a judgement for you, then initiate (maybe you can do so concurrently) a 42 USC 1983 (civil rights violation) action against the individual officer.

I am pretty sure you can do so concurrently. It will be only one lawsuit, probably with multiple defendants: both the department and the individual officer(s).

If you can prove that your civil rights were violated AND that the individual officer(s) did not follow their department's guidelines, then you can recover monetary damages from the individual officer(s). Though in practice I think the money will come from the department because the officer's employment contract probably has an indemnification clause, shifting responsibility to the department.

If you fail to prove either one of those two things, then the individual officer(s) will get off based on qualified immunity. That's my understanding anyway, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

The problem with suing just the individual is, what if they use the defense they were not properly trained, or there is a pervasive attitude in the department allowing such misconduct to go unchecked?  If the office could prove those points and diminish his own responsibility in his bad behavior, now you have to start all over again to go after the organizations who are to blame.

Better, I think, to file one action and let them all turn against each other.  It only takes one of them refusing to be the scapegoat to shine the light on the real culprit.

Not properly trained is not an affirmative defense. Only qualified immunity can preclude any criminal suit and if they are not in the right can be held for criminal and civil penalties.

Better to go with the flow then have your attorney show where the fruit of the poisonous tree throws out subsequent finds.

The number of laws is the result of action by the legislature.  Legislators pride themselves in the number of bills they are able to successfully get passed into law.  Lobbyists under the employ of companies or industry groups communicate with legislators all the time to get favorable laws passed.   There is no reason why we shouldn't get involved in this process as citizens.  The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

On a tangent....

HCR-PAC is the advocacy organization in Hawaii that talks to the legislators about pro-2a issues.  We need to support this PAC. 

As citizens, we should also educate ourselves about the HRS so we can have an intelligent conversation about the current laws with Dr. Cooper (HCR-PAC) and our elected representatives. 

I am guilty of not having read through or knowing the HRS myself and will take the time to learn it from now on.  Bedtime reading? If there are too many laws, a good topic would be laws that should be repealed.

Link to Hawaii Revised Statutes Table of Contents
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/docs/HRS.htm

A good starting point: HRS 134 (Firearms, Ammunition and Dangerous Weapons)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-.htm

As it relates to this topic: HRS 803 (Arrests, Search Warrants)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0803/HRS_0803-.htm

This is a HUGE part of the problem.

It seems as though these days everything has a law attached to it. They're going for quantity over quality. Not to mention making laws to give advantage to their biggest campaign contributors. It's no longer "By the people, for the people" it's "buy the legislator, for the highest bidder". Governance by the biggest wallet.

IMHO this is wrong.

Especially here. We don't have a huge population, 1.2 million people wouldn't even fill a single suburb in L.A. What the hell are they writing all these laws for? You're right, I don't know enough about the HRS and I too will begin reading up. Every law they pass infringes on our freedoms juust a leetle more, they're virtually never written to provide more freedom.

Personally, I think they should only be allowed to meet for 4 months every other year, like Montana. It would help keep them from screwing things up.

I declined to vote because it is a little too generalized.

Now if it were truly an illegal arrest and one done maliciously by the officer then I would make an internal complaint and perhaps consider a small claims suit against the city for lost wages, other costs suffered etc. Losign a few hours wouldn't really amount to much "injury" to claim in court. Making the internal complaint is what is going to teach that officer a lesson and keep the department accountable. Granted a complaint or lawsuit isn't a guarantee, especially when it comes to their word vs yours but if one officer consistently gets the same types of complaints then there is a much better case to be made that the officer is abusing their power somehow.

If it were made by an officer who was negligent of the law then I would probably still take the same route because even though the officer might not have been malicious it is important to have the officer learn the laws/regulations he/she has to enforce. No one can know every law and regulation so a smart cop will realize that if they are not sure then it is better to err on the side of caution and not arrest rather than arrest and have the person be innocent.

I would bet that a lot of people don't really know the law that well though and what they think is an "illegal arrest" really isn't. Arresting the wrong person is not the same thing as an illegal arrest. Remember that an officer might arrest the wrong person out of no fault of his own and though the person may think they were illegally arrested the officer is covered by good faith. The thing that comes into play in this sort of instance is whether the officer did his/her job properly and the mistake was beyond his/her control.

Your point brings validaition to Ed's so clearly.  Too many laws, and no one knows them...  you could conceivably get arrested for no reason at all and whomever so inclined could "find" some dirt to throw on you.  We might be breaking some law now, just don't know it!

Not only are there too many laws, so many that it is impossible for the average person to know, let alone understand all of them, a recent SCOTUS decision said that evidence of a search, even one predicated on a "misunderstanding" of a law used to establish probable cause, is admissible.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/16/supreme-court-traffic-stop-search-ok-despite-mistake-law/

So now, you can be stopped, with probable cause for said search based on an officer's understanding of a law, even if that understanding is factually incorrect, and any evidence found is admissible. Great......

Obviously there are so many laws even the police don't/can't know them all.

It's starting to boil down to "We think you did something illegal, hang around for awhile and we'll figure out what it is."

This is not how things are supposed to be in the United States of America.

Obviously there are so many laws even the police don't/can't know them all.

It's starting to boil down to "We think you did something illegal, hang around for awhile and we'll figure out what it is."

This is not how things are supposed to be in the United States of America.

Two words:  Fundamental Transformation