- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If charges are dismissed and Players are cleared can they sue the BRPD
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:49 pm
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:49 pm
for defamation of character among other things.
7
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:50 pm to ready4something
I think JJ has a case. Money year looks gone...can't believe I just said that.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:50 pm to ready4something
The true answer is lengthy and complicated, but suffice it to say that it would be extraordinarily difficult for the players to recover any damages for defamation or abuse of process/malicious prosecution. Not impossible, I suppose, but challenging.
This post was edited on 8/26/11 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:52 pm to ready4something
Football players should be immune from having to go through the whole judicial process.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:52 pm to ready4something
An easier route would be if it's found the our boy lowery fabricated the story.....
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:56 pm to The312
The answer is No. As a police officer, I'm sure that this being a high profile case the BRPD investigated, collected evidence and statements then sent what they had to the DA's office and let them make the final decision to pursue charges. Just my take but highly likely.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:56 pm to ready4something
Only if they can prove that the police intentionally mis lead the judge in order to obtain the arrest warrant.
The arrest warrant provides the officers protection from litigation since a judge did rule that probable cause did exist in support of the arrest warrant.
The arrest warrant provides the officers protection from litigation since a judge did rule that probable cause did exist in support of the arrest warrant.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:57 pm to WAY2GOLSU
quote:
An easier route would be if it's found the our boy lowery fabricated the story.....
I think if the story was a total fabrication it would have been well known by this point with witnesses, etc.
Remember JJ lied to his dad about his whereabouts the night of the fight so I doubt this is a total fabrication.
This post was edited on 8/26/11 at 5:58 pm
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:58 pm to The312
Short answer yes
Long answer:
Longer answer: they could try the same with the 4 people currently pressing charges especially if they are found to have falsified statements or purgered themselves. However, they dont have any money so what good would it do?
Long answer:
quote:
The true answer is lengthy and complicated, but suffice it to say that it would be extraordinarily difficult for the players to recover any damages for defamation or abuse of process. Not impossible, I suppose, but challenging.
Longer answer: they could try the same with the 4 people currently pressing charges especially if they are found to have falsified statements or purgered themselves. However, they dont have any money so what good would it do?
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:59 pm to The312
Don't think you can sue the police department..anybody reference when this was done successfully?... 
Posted on 8/26/11 at 6:01 pm to ready4something
Someone's gonna sue Shadys
Posted on 8/26/11 at 6:02 pm to tiger chaser
quote:
Don't think you can sue the police department..anybody reference when this was done successfully?...
You can sue police departments, in limited circumstances where sovereign immunity has been waived. But you are absolutely correct, there are signifcant procedure and substantive legal hurdles you have to overcome. In other words, it's damn hard.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 6:14 pm to The312
Police departments are sued all the time.
But
The arrest warrant protects the police due to it being a court order that has been ruled upon by a judge.
You would have to be able to show that the police knowingly mislead the judge in order for the issuance of the arrest warrant.
But
The arrest warrant protects the police due to it being a court order that has been ruled upon by a judge.
You would have to be able to show that the police knowingly mislead the judge in order for the issuance of the arrest warrant.
This post was edited on 8/26/11 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 8/26/11 at 6:17 pm to The312
quote::sigh:
in limited circumstances where sovereign immunity has been waived
Qualified immunity protects the police from liability for civil monetary claims as long as the officer's actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
The court takes a two step analysis to determine qualified immunity claims: (1) the court must determine whether the facts state a violation of a constitutional right; (2) the court must determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the officer's alleged action. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001).
In this case, the police had probable cause from the statements of Lowery and his witness.
This post was edited on 8/26/11 at 6:22 pm
Posted on 8/26/11 at 6:24 pm to The312
quote:
The true answer is lengthy and complicated, but suffice it to say that it would be extraordinarily difficult for the players to recover any damages for defamation or abuse of process/malicious prosecution. Not impossible, I suppose, but challenging.
If they are cleared, wouldn't that mean that the statments given to the police were wrong? Wouldn't that give them some recourse in civil court against those that made the statements?
Posted on 8/26/11 at 6:26 pm to ready4something
What happened with the Duke case? I know the da lost his job over it, but were thier any civil cases?
Posted on 8/26/11 at 6:29 pm to just me
quote:
:sigh:
Qualified immunity protects the police from liability for civil monetary claims as long as the officer's actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
The court takes a two step analysis to determine qualified immunity claims: (1) the court must determine whether the facts state a violation of a constitutional right; (2) the court must determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the officer's alleged action. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001).
In this case, the police had probable cause from the statements of Lowery and his witness.
How, exactly, is this inconsistent with my statement that police departments can be sued in those circumstances where sovereign immunity has been waived? I know you are still stinging from (a) your ludicrous and erroneous attempt to deduce that Jefferson wasn't going to face second degree battery charges; and (b) your inability to weild basic legal nomenclature, but you need to stop stalking my posts in effort to redeem yourself with yet more pedantic cut and pastes. Jesus. The guy asked a simple question: can you sue police departments? The answer is yes, in circumstances where sovereign immunity doesn't apply.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 6:29 pm to LSUtigersarefun
If the cops don't fudge evidence, then no. Just remember, an aquittal doesn't necessarily mean that the defendant is actually innocent, only that the evidence wasn't sufficient enough to convict. That's a huge deal.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 6:32 pm to Gray Tiger
quote:Not necessarily. Statments say that Jefferson hit. Jefferson says he didn't hit.
If they are cleared, wouldn't that mean that the statments given to the police were wrong?
The burden of proof at trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The jury might not believe the persons who made the statement. That doesn't mean they are false.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News