| 1. |
|
| 2. |
|
| 3. |
|
A Constitutional Issue: Unlawful Police Prosecution: investigation by uniformed 0fficer, of website protesting of City Action.
Petaluma, CA
Viewed 214 times.
Posted about 1 year ago in Constitutional
Flag as objectionable
I'll keep it short.
I emailed a local city manager (a Mr. Ron DeNicola) about a fence at a local city dog park, offering to him to him the option to reply to an editorial of mine on my personal website . http://ptownnet.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101:rocky-the-dog-park&catid=36:editorial-pages&Itemid=34 In reply I got a snail-mail, official City letter demanding I "license" my un-licensed dog. I showed the letter to my Wife and offered that I had had no truck with any member of the LE community...so I wondered aloud how this Cop came by my name in the first place. So I went down to the Dog Pound and confronted this individual. After the usual obfuscatory ramblings in his reply to my questions,I asked him the pivotal question "Just how did my name come to your attention?" He then spoke the words that blew my mind! "Mr. DeNicola showed me your email." I was floored. Like a criminal I was being singled out for examination by the Police, not for criminal activity, but because I had raised my voice in protest. I'm just glad I'm NOT a criminal...<frown> So, so far everybody in the City I've talked to obfuscates and avoids specifics whenever I've tried to get them to recognize that my problem is fundamentally Constitutional in nature and not just the sniveling whimpers of some victim personality. Like, DeNicolas' boss offered that I should go to the police and lodge a complaint. But it is my opinion that the closed & barricaded society that is our local Police Officers Association would never allow for the issues I raise to be effectively addressed. To wit: that this person violated my Constitutional Rights when he subjected me to his arbitrary and unlawful examination under the color of authority. No, they "protect and serve" only their own, in my mind. Due Process, Un-lawful search, privacy considerations...I don't know how to speak "Constitutional Law"...but I do know my Constitutionally Recognized Rights have been violated and I feel helpless to address this seemingly political emasculation! Should I talk to the Mayor and hope she can somehow censure this individual? Or talk to a Lawyer about the potential for a law-suit? I just know that someone has to put this jerk in his place...or he will continue to violate other peoples rights as blithely as mine...but to more evil effects! Michael@ptownnet.org - Is this your question? Add additional information Answers (1)Alan James Brinkmeier
This attorney is licensed in Illinois.
Posted 2 months ago.
Flag as objectionable
A violation of a clearly established constitutional right under color of law gives rise to a Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit. In this situation, you may not have a civil rights violation but you should see a lawyer in your locale to fully discuss your situation.
You might find my Legal Guide helpful "How to Choose A Lawyer For You" http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/how-to-choose-a-lawyer-for-you You might find my Legal Guide helpful " What Do I Tell My Lawyer" http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/what-do-i-tell-my-lawyer You may find help in my Legal Guide "What is a Civil Right?" http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/what-is-a-civil-right Act quickly because such lawsuits have strict time limits, called statutes of limitations. Good luck to you. NOTE: This answer is made available by the out-of-state lawyer for educational purposes only. By using or participating in this site you understand that there is no attorney client privilege between you and the attorney responding. This site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state that practices in the subject practice discipline and with whom you have an atttorney client relationship along with all the privileges that relationship provides. The law changes frequently and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The information and materials provided are general in nature, and may not apply to a specific factual or legal circumstance described in the question. |