Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

5,534 characters extracted

—

SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY Civil Action No. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Petitioner y31valt, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby requests this Court to issue relief consistent with habeas remedies under law. Habeas Corpus proceedings governed and recognized pursuant to Rid. R. Civ. P. 54(a)(1)(1). CUSTODY 1. Petitioner y31valt is currently in the custody of Ridgeway County Corrections, with his chief place of detention at the Ridgeway County Detention Center located in Palmer, Ridgeway 33328 JURISDICTON 2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section IV of the Constitution of the State of Ridgeway. 3. Pursuant to 1 R. Stat. § 2210, the Superior Court has the ability to hear petitions for habeas corpus. STATEMENT OF FACTS 4. At the time of the filing of this habeas petition, Petitioner is imprisoned at the Ridgeway County Jail on charges of stalking a law enforcement officer. Y31VALT, Petitioner, v. PALMER POLICE DEPARTMENT; SUPRAMQRK5, in his official capacity, Respondent. 5. On or about February 17, 2024, Petitioner was driving around the City of Palmer. That day, he was pulled over by Palmer Police Officer Falcon_2s. 6. During the traffic stop, Officer Supramqrk5 began harassing Petitioner; this lasted for over one minute (until the traffic stop concluded). 7. After being released from the traffic stop, Petitioner began driving. While driving, Petitioner was seemingly headed in the same direction as Respondent, following his vehicle into city limits. 8. While following him, Petitioner was airing out his grievances in the comfort of his vehicle. At no point during his travel did Petitioner get out and approach Respondent while protesting. 9. At a traffic light adjacent to the Transit Authority Station, Respondent exited his vehicle and told Petitioner, “[y]’know there’s this funny thing called stalking. It’s also a crime so I’m just gonna [sic] book you for that.” 10.Petitioner was pulled out of his vehicle, handcuffed, and thrown into the back of Respondent’s patrol vehicle. Moments later, he was transported to the Palmer Police Station and booked for stalking. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Habeas Corpus Claim – 1 R. Stat. § 2210 CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS 11.Pursuant to 1 R. Stat. § 2210, an individual may petition this Court for habeas relief. That statute therefore creates a cause of action. 12.In assessing habeas petitions, this Court must determine “whether the police were legally entitled to make that arrest — that is, the police either had a judicial warrant ordering an arrest, or the police had probable cause that a crime was committed.” See In re ZachCasisbeast, RSC-CV-367 (Rd. Sup. Ct. 2022). Indeed, If the arrest was not lawful at the outset, “the inquiry ends there; the record must be removed.” Id. 13.The habeas standard is such that a “reasonable and well-informed jury could not convict the petitioner in a hypothetical trial if they were aware of those facts, and those facts were admissible evidence.” Id. Petitioner unequivocally satisfies this test. 14.First, Respondent was not justified in making the arrest because he lacked probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. On or about February 17, 2024, Petitioner was behind Respondent’s patrol vehicle while heading to another destination. While driving, Respondent got out of his car, detained Petitioner, and told him he was being charged. 15.To constitute an act of stalking, an individual must “repeatedly follow[] another person without their consent for more than five (5) minutes” Rid. Crim. C. § 3.13. As shown in the attached exhibits, Petitioner was only behind Respondent’s vehicle for approximately one-minute and one second (1:01) before being arrested for stalking—this timeframe is far below the statutory minimum. 16.In the eye of the law, “unconstitutional arrests are unreasonable seizures of the person that violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.” See Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 577 (1979); see e.g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1. (1968). 17.By way of interpretation, an unconstitutional arrest is one that is made without probable cause. See Clay v. Conlee, 815 F.2d 1164, 1168 (8th Cir. 1987) (“The Constitution prohibits only arrests that are not based on probable cause.”) 18.The arrest is unlawful as the arresting officer could not have reasonably concluded that Petitioner was stalking him or any other person. Therefore, like all unlawful arrests, “the record must be removed.” ZachCasisbeast, supra. On these grounds, it is concluded that no reasonable person (the jury) would convict Petitioner because the statutory requirements of stalking—five minutes of being followed—is neither satisfied nor appropriate when a police officer arrests an individual for following their vehicle to get to a destination. WHEREFORE, Petitioner demands relief. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Petitioner requests that the Court grant the following relief: i. Issue a permanent injunction ordering immediate reversal and vacatur of the criminal record stemming from the stalking charge issued on or about February 17, 2024, by Respondent; ii. Award Petitioner his costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this action; and iii. Grant any other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and proper. Dated: February 17, 2024 Palmer, Ridgeway. Respectfully Submitted. /s/ S. Stickza Stickza, Esq. Counsel of Record Cohn, Cicero, & Goodrich LLC Suite 1B, Palmer Suites Palmer, RW 27841 (111) 222-3333 [email protected] Attorney for Petitioner

Petition_for_Writ_of_Habeas_Corpus_-_y31valt.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record