1.
The Defendant acknowledges that incarcerating the Plaintiff twice based on the arrest warrant at
issue was a violation of legal rights and, to that extent, is unauthorized.
2.
Nevertheless, under 1 R. Stat. § 3114, "a reasonable person with his training, expertise, and
experiences should know that such an act is unauthorized" for the act to constitute official
misconduct.
The Defendant was unaware at the time that the arrest he performed was unauthorized and, in
fact, reasonably believed that his official duties required such actions. This belief was based on
his reasonable understanding that the warrant was valid and outstanding, as evidenced by his
affidavit.
The Defendant relied on his training, expertise, and experiences to access a “database, which is
shared with judges of the Superior Court of the State of Ridgeway,” and shows outstanding
warrants. O72yss Aff. ¶¶ 4-5.
Anyone with his training, expertise, and experiences in the same situation would have done the
same thing and seen a warrant out for the arrest of the Plaintiff. The only logical next step would
be to execute it.
The Plaintiff admits to failing to disclose that the warrant had already been executed despite
having ample opportunity. The Defendant's actions, therefore, stemmed from what he
reasonably perceived as a legitimate and valid situation based on the information and tools
available to him at the time.
* * *
The Plaintiff acknowledges that his arrest was inevitable due to the illegal firearm he was
carrying, irrespective of the existence of a warrant.
Had the Defendant not proceeded with the arrest, he would have been neglecting his legal and
policy obligations, potentially resulting in accusations of dereliction of duty.
It thus seems prudent to mention that the game will not allow someone to make an arrest
without including a charge for any outstanding warrants.
The Defendant was truly in a catch-22 situation.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant cannot be held liable for this count of official
misconduct.
3.
The agreed-upon facts are as follows: (1) The Plaintiff was found to be in possession of an
illegal firearm at the time of the arrest. (2) In response to this situation, the Defendant:
● Removed the Plaintiff, a suspected felon, from his vehicle
● Handcuffed the Plaintiff
● Transported the Plaintiff while he was handcuffed
● Placed the Plaintiff in the Defendant’s squad car
● Arrested the Plaintiff
Each of these actions was reasonable and necessary during the arrest of a suspected felon to
ensure the safety of both the public and the arresting officer. No individual with the same
training, expertise, and experiences as the Defendant would have acted differently.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant cannot be held liable for this count of official
misconduct.
Submitted August 27, 2024
/s/ Notableants
For the Defendant
