Originally Posted by
thesaints
Exactly. Besides, it is called probable for a reason, otherwise they would have named it certain cause.
If the LEO honestly thinks he has a good reason, that's enough.
I'll say it again -- NO, it is not. There actually has to BE a good reason, not just have some half-wit cop "think" or "believe" there is. I thought we already settled this.
Originally Posted by
thesaints
It is up to you to demonstrate malice, ill intent and what not in court, in order to obtain compensation.
Nobody has said anything in this thread that suggests that cops aren't entitled to the same presumption of innocence civilians are or that the burden of proof isn't on the plaintiff. But again, good intentions don't get you off the hook. Cops probably do more damage and are sued more often for good old-fashioned well-meaning, bumbling incompetence than they are for malicious actions. Just ask the Menendez family.
Originally Posted by
thesaints
Example: somebody is shot and as the patrol car arrives they see you running away. Running in the street is perfectly legal and they didn't see you materially shooting, yet you'll be detained.
Once they find you have nothing to do with the shooting, you are set free, but you won't have any recourse for wrongful imprisonment, or anything like that.
And once again, as has already been addressed in this thread, nobody has suggested that ultimate release or acquittal means that there wasn't PC for the detention in the first place.