FALSE IMPRISONMENT
The court awarded and set precedence of One thousand dollars per minute for unlawful detention. Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 1,5. see also, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983.
Where an individual is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a crime, the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment. This is case law in Florida. Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 241 F2d. 336 (11th CIR 1984). Trezevant was illegally held for 23 minutes and was awarded $25,000 in damages. The above case sets the foundation for $1,086.00 per minute, $75,000 dollars per hour, or $1,800,000 dollars per day.
TREZEVANT CASE DAMAGE AWARD STANDARD “Evidence that motorist cited for traffic violation was incarcerated for 23 minutes during booking process, even though he had never been arrested and at all times had sufficient cash on hand to post bond pending court disposition of citation, was sufficient to support finding that municipality employing officer who cited motorist and county board of criminal justice, which operated facility in which motorist was incarcerated, had unconstitutionally deprived motorist of his right to liberty. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983.” Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 1.
“Jury verdict of $25,000 in favor of motorist who was unconstitutionally deprived of his liberty when incarcerated during booking process following citation for traffic violation was not excessive in view of evidence of motorist’s back pain during period of incarceration and jailor’s refusal to provide medical treatment, as well as fact that motorist was clearly entitled to compensation for incarceration itself and for mental anguish that he had suffered from entire episode. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983.” Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 5.
Habeas Corpus. Article 1. Constitutional Provisions.
§ 17-1. Remedy without delay for restraint of liberty.
Every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy to inquire into the lawfulness
thereof, and to remove the same, if unlawful; and such remedy ought not to be denied or delayed.
(Const., art. 1, s. 18; Rev., s. 1819; C.S., s. 2203.)
§ 17-2. Habeas corpus not to be suspended.
The privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended. (Const., art. 1, s. 21; Rev.,
s. 1820; C.S., s. 2204.).
************************************************
U.S. Code § 2007.
Imprisonment for debt
(a)A person shall not be imprisoned for debt on a writ of execution or other process issued from a court of the United States in any State wherein imprisonment for debt has been abolished. All modifications, conditions, and restrictions upon such imprisonment provided by State law shall apply to any writ of execution or process issued from a court of the United States in accordance with the procedure applicable in such State.
(b)Any person arrested or imprisoned in any State on a writ of execution or other process issued from any court of the United States in a civil action shall have the same jail privileges and be governed by the same regulations as persons confined in like cases on process issued from the courts of such State. The same requirements governing discharge as are applicable in such State shall apply. Any proceedings for discharge shall be conducted before a United States magistrate judge for the judicial district wherein the defendant is held.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 960; Pub. L. 90–578, title IV, § 402(b)(2), Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1118; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)
***************************************************
“A special deputy is bound to show his warrant if requested to do so, and if he omit, the party against whom the warrant issues may resist an arrest, and the warrant under such circumstances is no protection against an action for an assault, battery and false imprisonment.” Frost v. Thomas, 24 Wendell’s Rep. (N.Y.) 418, 419 (1840).
“An accused person, if he demands it, is entitled to have the warrant for his arrest shown to him at the time of arrest.” 42 L.R.A. 682, 51 L.R.A. 211, Crosswhite v. Barnes, 124 S.E. 242, 245 (1924).
“Any arrest made without a warrant, if challenged by the defendant, is presumptively invalid…the burden is upon the state” to justify it as authorized by statute, and as not violative of constitutional provisions. State v. Mastrian, 171 N.W.2d 695 (1969); Butler v. State, 212 So.2d 577 (Miss 1968).
“As in the case of illegal arrests, the officer … must keep within the law at his peril.” Thiede v. Scandia, 217 Minn. 231, 14 N.W.2d 400 (1944).
Every confinement of a person is an imprisonment, whether it be in a common prison, or in a private house, or in the stocks, or even by forcibly detaining one in the public streets. Cited by: Fox v. McCurnin, 205 Iowa 752, 218 N.W. 499,501 (1928); Sergeant v. Watson Bros Transp. Co., 244 Iowa 185, 52 N.W. 2d. 86, 93 (1952).
False Imprisonment is akin to the wrongs of assault and battery, and consists in imposing, by force or threats, an unlawful restraint upon a man’s Freedom of Locomotion. Thomas Cooley Treatise on the Law of Torts. 205 Iowa752, vol. 1, 4th Ed. Sect. 109, p. 345, Meints v. Huntington, 276 F. 245, 248, (1921).
False imprison is classified as a tort in Common Law, and also as a crime. Kroeger v. Passmore, 36 Mont. 504, 93 Pac.805, 807 (1908). McBeath v. Campbell, 12 S.W. 2d, 18-18, 122 (Tex. 1929).
FALSE IMPRISONMENT is necessarily a wrongful interference with the personal liberty of an individual. The wrong may be committed by words alone or actions alone, or by both, and by merely operating on the will of the individual, or by violence, or by both. It is not necessary that the individual to be confined within a prison, or within walls, or that he be assaulted or touched. It is not necessary that there should be any injury done to the individual’s person or his character or reputation; nor is it necessary that the wrongful act be committed by malice or ill will, or even the slightest wrongful intention; nor is it necessary that the act be under color of legal or judicial proceeding. All that is necessary is that the individual be restrained of his liberty without any sufficient legal cause therefor, and by words or acts which he fears to disregard. Granier v Squires, 62 Kan. 321, 62 Pac. 1005, 1006 (1900); Kroeger v. Passmore, 36 Mont. 504, 93 Pac.805, 807 (1908).
FALSE IMPRISONMENT is the unlawful and total restraint of the liberty of the person. The imprisonment is false in the sense of being unlawful. The right violated by this tort is “right of free locomotion”. It belongs historically to the class of rights known as simple or primary rights. *** The theory of law is that one interferes with the right of locomotion of another at his own peril. Riley v. Stone, 174 N.C. 588; 94 S.E. 434, 440 (1917).
FORCEFULLY to deprive a man of FREEDOM to go wheresoever he may is clearly a TRESPASS. False imprison was indeed one of the first trespasses recognized by the Common Law. Street’s Foundation of Legal Liability, Vol. P.12, citing Bacon’s Note Book, Vol. 2, P. 314 (1229), pl. 465.
“He must show it (warrant) to the accused, if requested to do so.” Smith v. State, 208 S.2d 747 (Miss., 1968).
“It is doubtless the duty of an officer who executes a warrant of arrest to state the nature and substance of the process which gives him the authority he professes to exercise, and, if it is demanded, to exhibit his warrant, that the party arrested may have no excuse for resistance.” Shovlon v. Com., 106 Pa. 369, 5 Am. Crim. Rep. 41 (1884).
“It is equally plain, however, that the length of confinement cannot be ignored in deciding whether the confinement meets constitutional standards. A filthy, overcrowded cell and a diet of “grue” might be tolerable for a few days and intolerably cruel for weeks or months.” Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978).
“It was the duty of an officer who attempts to make an arrest to exhibit the warrant if he has one.” Jones v. State, 114 Ga. 79, 39 S.E. 861 (1901).
No immunity for wrongful imprisonment. Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1993):
“..One Who Interferes with another’s LIBERTY does so at his peril.” Knight v. Baker, 117 Ore. 492, 244 Pac. 543,544 (1926).
“Since it is the present policy of the Department of Justice to remove to the federal courts all suits in state courts against federal officers for trespass or false imprisonment, a claim for relief, whether based on state common law or directly on the Fourth Amendment, will ultimately be heard in a federal court.” Brief for Respondents 13 (citations omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a); Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (1969).
“The burden is upon the defendant to show that the arrest was by authority of law.” McAleer v. Good, 65 Atl. 934, 935 (1907); Mackie v. Ambassador, 11 P.2d 6 (1932).
“.. the essential elements of the action are: (1)Detention or restraint against ONE’S WILL and; (2) The unlawfulness of such detention or restraint. Sergeant v. Watson Bros. Transp. Co., 244 Iowa 185, 52 N.W. 2d. 86, 93 (1952), Sinclair Mining Co. v. Meek, 62 Ga. App. 850, 10 S.E. 2d, 76, 79 (1940), Southern Ry. Co. in Kentucky v. Shirley, 121 Ky.863, 90 S.W. 597, 599 (1906).
The only thing the plaintiff needs to plead and to prove if alleging false arrest, is either (1) that the defendant made an arrest or imprisonment, or (2) that the defendant affirmatively instigated, encouraged, incited, or caused the arrest or imprisonment. Burlington v. Josephson, 153 Fed.2d 372,276 (1946).
“If demanded, he must produce the warrant and read it to the accused, that he may know by what authority and for what cause he is deprived of his liberty.” State v. Shaw, 89 S.E. 322 (1916).
Imprisonment is any restraint of the personal liberty of another; and prevention of his movements from place to place; or his free action according to his own pleasure and will; *** it is false imprisonment when this is done without lawful authority. Griffin v. Clark, 53 Idaho 364, 42 p.(2d) 297, 301 (1935); citing Cordell v. Standard Oil Co., 131 Kan. 221,289 P. 472, 473 (1930); Johnson v. Thompson, 13 Fed. Case 840, 853, No. 7,416 (1833).
The temporary detention of individuals during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief period, constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, an automobile stop is subject to the Constitutional requirement that the seizure not be ´unreasonable´ under the circumstances.” Litzenberger v. Vanim, No. 01-5454, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13843 (E.D. Pa. July 31, 2002) (citing Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996).
The Infraction of personal LIBERTY has ever been regarded as one of the greatest injuries. The injuries to LIBERTY are principally termed False Imprisonments, or Malicious Prosecutions. Joseph Chitty, Esq., The Practice of the Law, vol. 1, chap. II, p. 47, London, 1837.
Unlawful detention or deprivation of liberty is the basis of an action for the tort of false imprisonment. Actual seizureor the laying on of hands is not necessary to constitute an unlawful detention. Hanser v. Bieber , 241 Mo. 326, 197 S.W.68, 70 (1917).
”When the plaintiff has shown that he was arrested, imprisoned or restrained of his liberty by the defendant, “the law presumes it to be unlawful.” People v. McGrew, 20 Pac. 92 (1888); Knight v. Baker, 133 P. 544(1926).
**************************************** Article 10 stipulates that “all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” Article 14 states that “all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals.” Both article 14 and article 15 recognize important rights in the context of criminal proceedings such as the right to a fair,hearing, including “to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court” (article 14(3)(f)).
Arrest is presumed to be false if …
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. Arrest is presumed to be false; officer has the burden of proof
“Any arrest made without a warrant, if challenged by the defendant, is presumptively invalid…the burden is upon the state” to justify it as authorized by statute, and as not violative of constitutional provisions. State v. Mastrian, 171 N.W.2d 695 (1969); Butler v. State, 212 So.2d 577 (Miss 1968).
“As in the case of illegal arrests, the officer … must keep within the law at his peril.” Thiede v. Scandia, 217 Minn. 231, 14 N.W.2d 400 (1944).
“The burden is upon the defendant to show that the arrest was by authority of law.” McAleer v. Good, 65 Atl. 934, 935 (1907); Mackie v. Ambassador, 11 P.2d 6 (1932).
The only thing the plaintiff needs to plead and to prove if alleging false arrest, is either (1) that the defendant made an arrest or imprisonment, or (2) that the defendant affirmatively instigated, encouraged, incited, or caused the arrest or imprisonment. Burlington v. Josephson, 153 Fed.2d 372,276 (1946).
”When the plaintiff has shown that he was arrested, imprisoned or restrained of his liberty by the defendant, “the law presumes it to be unlawful.” People v. McGrew, 20 Pac. 92 (1888); Knight v. Baker, 133 P. 544(1926).
2. Must show warrant upon request
“A special deputy is bound to show his warrant if requested to do so, and if he omit, the party against whom the warrant issues may resist an arrest, and the warrant under such circumstances is no protection against an action for an assault, battery and false imprisonment.” Frost v. Thomas, 24 Wendell’s Rep. (N.Y.) 418, 419 (1840).
“An accused person, if he demands it, is entitled to have the warrant for his arrest shown to him at the time of arrest.” 42 L.R.A. 682, 51 L.R.A. 211, Crosswhite v. Barnes, 124 S.E. 242, 245 (1924).
“He must show it to the accused, if requested to do so.” Smith v. State, 208 S.2d 747 (Miss., 1968).
“If demanded, he must produce the warrant and read it to the accused, that he may know by what authority and for what cause he is deprived of his liberty.” State v. Shaw, 89 S.E. 322 (1916).
“It is doubtless the duty of an officer who executes a warrant of arrest to state the nature and substance of the process which gives him the authority he professes to exercise, and, if it is demanded, to exhibit his warrant, that the party arrested may have no excuse for resistance.” Shovlon v. Com., 106 Pa. 369, 5 Am. Crim. Rep. 41 (1884).
“It was the duty of an officer who attempts to make an arrest to exhibit the warrant if he has one.” Jones v. State, 114 Ga. 79, 39 S.E. 861 (1901).
3.Warrant must be valid
A constable justifying an imprisonment under a warrant must show that the warrant on its face is legal, and that the magistrate had jurisdiction of the subject-matter. 51 L.R.A. 197, Poulk v. Slocum, 3 Blackfords (Ind). 421. (Meaning, you should also demand a copy of the affidavit giving the judge probable cause to issue the warrant. All warrants must issue upon submission of an affidavit of probable cause.).
“A warrant is regarded as insufficient and thus void if, on its face, it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a crime.” Wharton’s Crim. Proc., 12th Ed., vol. 1, p. 152 (1974).
4. No rubber-stamp “signature”
“The United States Supreme Court … stressed the need for ‘individualized review’ to avoid the issuance of ‘rubber stamp’ warrants.” State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140, 151 N.W.2d 596 (1967).
5. False arrest is assault and battery
“An arrest without warrant is a trespass, an unlawful assault upon the person … where one is about to be unlawfully deprived of his liberty he may resist the aggressions of the offender, whether of a private citizen or a public officer, to the extent of taking the life of the assailant, if that be necessary to preserve his own life, or prevent infliction upon him of some great bodily harm.” State v. Gum, 69 S.E. 464 (1910).
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery.” State v. Robinson, 72 Atl.2d 262 (1950).
“Every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest … and, in preventing such illegal restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary.” Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.E.2d 306 (1958).
6. No handcuffs (sorry, OSHA)
“But a constable cannot justify handcuffing a prisoner unless he has attempted to escape, or unless it be necessary in order to prevent his doing so.” 51 L.R.A. 216.
“The handcuffing was utterly unlawful.” Osborn v. Veitch 1 Foster & Fin Eng Rep 317.
7. Go immediately to a magistrate (no photographs, no fingerprinting).
“Any undue delay is unlawful and wrongful, and renders the officer himself and all persons aiding and abetting therein wrongdoers from the beginning.” Ulvestad v. Dolphin, 278 Pac. 684 (1929).
“Compulsory fingerprinting before conviction is an unlawful encroachment…[and] involves prohibited compulsory self-incrimination.” People v. Helvern, 215 N.Y. Supp. 417 (1926).
“The one arresting has “a duty to immediately seek a magistrate,” and failure to do so “makes a case of false imprisonment.” Heath v. Boyd, 175 S.W.2d. 217 (1943); Brock v. Stimson, 108 Mass. 520 (1871).
“The power to arrest does not confer upon the arresting officer the power to detain a prisoner for other purposes.” Geldon v. Finnegan, 252 N.W. 372 (1934).
“The taking of the plaintiff’s picture before conviction was an illegal act.” Hawkins v. Kuhne, 137 NY Supp 1090, 153 App Div 216 (1912).
“To detain the person arrested in custody for any purpose other than that of taking him before a magistrate is illegal.” Kominsky v. Durand, 12 Atl.2d. 654 (1940).
Summary:
A warrant must be issued and be signed (no rubber stamp) by a judge who has jurisdiction;
must state the facts showing jurisdiction;
must be based upon probable cause;
must name the offense committed;
must contain an affidavit (under oath) by the accuser, stating FIRST HAND facts constituting a crime;
must name the party to be arrested, or describe him sufficiently to identify him;
must offer the warrant and the affidavit for inspection upon request;
No handcuffs;
must take me immediately before a magistrate, and hold me for no other purpose (no photographs, no fingerprinting);
You are responsible for everything that happens to me even if you relinquish custody to an assign;
Unlawful arrest is assault, battery & trespass;
There is no immunity in a false arrest case;
Good faith is not a defense to sustain false arrest.
Lastly . . . If the warrant states as cause to issue, a mere civil/statutory infraction not rising to the level of a capital crime . . . the officer must produce title to your biological property/body, before said officer can make the arrest and take possession of the biological property. You do not by accommodation, accept the offer of arrest for any statutory infraction unless the statute defines a capital crime and probable cause exists.
NOTE:
The arresting officer that this information has been presented to, has both a civil and legal duty to become informed with the material incorporated herein before an arrest is determined to have cause to be made.
***************************************************
Title 28. JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE Part V. PROCEDURE Chapter 127. EXECUTIONS AND JUDICIAL SALES Section 2007. Imprisonment for debt
28 U.S. Code § 2007.Imprisonment for debt
(a) A person shall not be imprisoned for debt on a writ of execution or other process issued from a court of the United States in any State wherein imprisonment for debt has been abolished. All modifications, conditions, and restrictions upon such imprisonment provided by State law shall apply to any writ of execution or process issued from a court of the United States in accordance with the procedure applicable in such State.
(b) Any person arrested or imprisoned in any State on a writ of execution or other process issued from any court of the United States in a civil action shall have the same jail privileges and be governed by the same regulations as persons confined in like cases on process issued from the courts of such State. The same requirements governing discharge as are applicable in such State shall apply. Any proceedings for discharge shall be conducted before a United States magistrate judge for the judicial district wherein the defendant is held.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 960; Pub. L. 90–578, title IV, §402(b)(2), Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1118; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.
