[aruanan]

When this judge did this, he as good as said "Go ahead-Sue the Sheriffs".

Let's posit that the judge determined that, indeed, there had been no justification for the arrest to begin with and, therefore, no substance to the felony charges. The only reason, then, that a suit could have gone forward is because the sheriff's deputies first acted in an irresponsible manner. Yes, they should get sued.

[Mad Dawg]

Let's posit that the judge determined that, indeed, there had been no justification for the arrest to begin with and, therefore, no substance to the felony charges.

Why would we posit that? What arrest? There's a difference between detention and arrest. And what if the alleged felony is alleged to have occurred AFTER the detention or arrest? The logical and temporal relationship between arrest and alleged felony is not simple or clear. And SOMEBODY thought there was reason to keep the little angle Fred in Juvie for 40 days. What's up with THAT? Deputies don't get to make that call. YOu don't keep someone in Juvie for almost 6 weeks without a judge or a magistrate getting involved at some point.

And don't get snowed by the writing (and presentation) of the article:

Fred Johnson was charged with felonies in Juvenile Court, but a judge there acquitted him, finding that deputies had no justification for detaining either of them, Marrinan wrote in the Johnsons' trial brief. Fred Johnson spent 40 days in Juvenile Hall, his mother said.

Does the reporter connect two unconnected things, the acquittal and ANOTHER finding that he should not have been detained? OR is the reporter concluding that an acquittal means there was sno justification for detention? And then the poster bolds part of the sentence, but leaves in normal face the part which tells us that the bolded part is what the kid's lawyer says, NOT necessarily what actually happened. It's a REPORTER remember? When reporters are not busy giving away military and intelligence secrets to our enemies, they don't as a rule line up and form a cheering squad for cops.The only reason, then, that a suit could have gone forward is because the sheriff's deputies first acted in an irresponsible manner. Yes, they should get sued. Suits go forward on, what, "probable cause", "reason to believe"? They're decided on, the standard is, a "preponderance of the evidence", right?

Maybe the way to look at this is: People are electing scoundrels as sheriffs, municipalities are hiring scoundrels and police chiefs, and sheriffs and police chiefs are hiring fools and scoundrels ans deputies and officers. Do you have any thoughts about how to improve the situation?