Submitted by LeeOblivious t3_11s1szb in springfieldMO
Comments
QuarterInchSocket t1_jccvpvf wrote
"Oh it could be a fake".
Bullshit....you have a computer and access to all information within the realm of law enforcement. Stop being a lazy pig and start searching. Bitch just wanted to bring in an arrest and not to do her fucking job with accuracy. ACAB.
mb10240 t1_jcdhyfx wrote
> So apparently the local highway patrol office is not following court orders and sealing expunged convictions.
Or the circuit clerk didn’t forward a copy of the judgment to the Highway Patrol’s CJIS division. This happens a lot more often then you’d like to think; not everything is nefarious or neglectful on the part of law enforcement.
There are a number of other non-nefarious scenarios where the computer record doesn’t get expunged like it should.
Source: I’ve been a lawyer in Missouri for nearly 15 years.
probably_inside t1_jcbeho3 wrote
This sounds like a good example of don't consent without a warrant, and don't talk without a lawyer.
LeeOblivious OP t1_jcbf9fv wrote
Sadly I do not think it would have mattered in this case as his personal info would have already been taken by the officer for the accident and the firearm was in plain sight. So if he had not provided the expungement paperwork to her, he still would have been arrested. Him having provided it, just makes it that much more damming on the officer.
hopelesswriter1 t1_jccgier wrote
Still a good reminder of the best advice that one has when dealing with the police: “It’s shut the fuck up Friday”
QuarterInchSocket t1_jccvgkm wrote
Sorry but no. That doesn't even make sense. The accident wasn't his fault, so he did everything he was supposed to do. How are you going to be a victim in an accident, call the cops, then just say nothing when they show up??
hopelesswriter1 t1_jcd04ax wrote
You’re misunderstanding. Yes, he was screwed because cops are bullies so they’re going to bully him if given the chance, especially if they think they can get away with it. They probably will in the end still. Qualified immunity and all that.
I was saying, that the comment replying to the OP is still correct in the general that this is a a lesson on why you STFU if cops talk with you. Give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile.
reidict t1_jcbhsiw wrote
I got in trouble for smoking weed in the dorms at Mizzou, they had me take some drunk driving education courses and do some community service to get it "expunged" from my record so that "it would be the same on your record as if it didn't happen". Well a few years back when I was applying to DoorDash I found out it very much still shows up and basically gets treated the same as if I had a DUI, seemingly. So based on my own negative experience and this story it feels that expungement just does not get taken seriously in Missouri, unfortunately.
GenealogyThrowaway85 t1_jci1q7b wrote
An expungement is a specific legal procedure with a specific meaning, and you generally need to hire an attorney to get one done. It sounds more like you entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is a typical outcome for a lot of minor in possession cases and things like that. A DPA just means that the prosecuting attorney won't pursue the case, so it won't go to court, you won't have to worry about ending up with a conviction on your record, and there won't be any record of the charge with the court or on CaseNet as long as you hold up your end of the bargain. However, your arrest records still exist and, unless you pursue an actual expungement, they will remain on file and show up on any background check that goes through a law enforcement agency.
Anima_EB t1_jcbn69m wrote
Seems like cops should probably learn the laws.
LeeOblivious OP t1_jcbo03s wrote
Sadly, the courts have ruled that they do not have to know the law, and that ignorance of the law means they get a free pass (unlike the rest of us). See the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Anima_EB t1_jcbt69i wrote
Oh absolutely. I was mostly being sarcastic because I feel the same way most of you do about it.
byah1601 t1_jcd6amc wrote
Lol that is not what any court has said.
LeeOblivious OP t1_jcda0yr wrote
Heien v. North Carolina and U.S. v Shelton Barnes et. al. to name a few of many.
byah1601 t1_jcdboof wrote
And the Shelton case is about Medicare fraud…
byah1601 t1_jcdbchy wrote
In the nc case it ruled that a “reasonable” misinterpretation wasn’t a violation of rights. There were multiple wordings regarding lights on cars and he mistook one statute for another. It doesn’t say cops don’t have to know the law and can do whatever they want. Literally no court case said cops don’t have to know the law and get a free pass
LeeOblivious OP t1_jcdcx3i wrote
In both cases they did not follow/know the law and suffered no consequences. Yet if you or I tried that argument, do you think the judge would buy it?
h1ghjynx81 t1_jcc0ktq wrote
Hey! Shut up and just do what I think is right!
feralfantastic t1_jcbrptx wrote
Only thing I’m curious about is if the expungement order was certified or not. As in, a copy with a raised seal.
I had this nagging sensation when I first read this article that people in this person’s position would probably keep a certified copy on them, and if cops are going to treat certified copies as possible fakes, they need to be directly penalized with no qualified immunity.
He should win either way. If it was a certified copy, the officer should be personally liable as well.
sajabla t1_jccy1hx wrote
It says in the article that it was certified
feralfantastic t1_jccyfqw wrote
Where does it say that?
sajabla t1_jccyydi wrote
Here’s the 5th and 6th paragraph
“Cunningham says he explained that to the trooper and produced an official copy of the expungement and said the bottom of the record that showed his conviction should end with the word "closed."
The trooper "advised she was aware of the expungement statute and its implications, but that she could not accept the certified copy of the expungement order because it could be a fake," court records say.”
feralfantastic t1_jcd1ld5 wrote
Wow, I don’t know how I missed that twice. Sorry, you’re right.
sajabla t1_jcd5u25 wrote
Wow my first ever award lol thank you ETA my first gold award, I guess I had another one before
whattheduce86 t1_jcbf58e wrote
I hope he gets money from them.
LeeOblivious OP t1_jcbftg8 wrote
A lot of money, and better yet a consent decree requiring them to properly seal expunged records so that they can only be opened/accessed via court order.
[deleted] t1_jcchd77 wrote
[removed]
HoboScabs t1_jcbs3gp wrote
Always record the police, for your safety and the safety of others. These cops are now nothing more than legal gangs
Benway23 t1_jcbthd4 wrote
Remember kids, if he gets a payout that money comes from us. Go cops! Gotta leave the /s
armenia4ever t1_jcbxeq5 wrote
This is all sorts of fucked up. I hope this guy has the resources to fight this.
Always_0421 t1_jchqxn8 wrote
Right after the courts struck down the Second Amendment Protection Act...what a coincidence.
Ok-Survey406 t1_jcc0s5y wrote
I’m not pro police by any means but this seems like a pretty standard arrest.
popetorak t1_jcc38hr wrote
>I’m not pro police
thats a lie
Ok-Survey406 t1_jccsb5e wrote
Why do you say that?
QuarterInchSocket t1_jccw2t9 wrote
Because it has the same stink as "I'm not racist, but...."
popetorak t1_jcfyudw wrote
>Because it has the same stink as "I'm not racist, but...."
"its not about gay people its about grooming children!"
Ok-Survey406 t1_jcdh00p wrote
Maybe so. Feel free to look at my post history and the subs I’m active in. I think it’s possible to have views while also trying to be objective. I don’t think every conversation has to devolve into ‘you’re either with us or against us.’
popetorak t1_jcfyoxk wrote
because you didn't read and immediately was on the cops side
LeeOblivious OP t1_jcc3mmz wrote
He was arrested for a crime he did not commit and had proof that he had not committed. The database the officer used should not have shown he was a felon as that record was ordered sealed. And when he presented a certified official copy expungement the officer chose to ignore it.
Law enforcement made three failures here that compromised this man's rights. First, they did not follow the courts order and statutory process when his record was expunged. Rather they completely ignored it and continued to have his information listed as a convicted felon. Secondly, when presented with the official certified copy of the expungement they refused to accept it because it could be fake. If a certified official copy does not count as an official record anymore because it could be fake, then a whole lot of people just lost their citizenship, professional licenses, and other status's that rely on such documentation. And, thirdly, as a result of their unlawful action they kidnaped and held this man illegally under threat of official violence.
So no it was not a pretty standard arrest.
Ok-Survey406 t1_jccrocj wrote
It’s unfortunate that it happened. It’s also not that noteworthy.
He had a gun. He had proof his record had been expunged. The HP didn’t think his proof was sufficient. They arrested him. Was his proof sufficient? Who knows, the article doesn’t elaborate.
Either way, It doesn’t seem like any law was broken. Unless you can prove this, the civil suit has no chance. You mention kidnapping. That is extremely unlikely.
LeeOblivious OP t1_jcctx8n wrote
What more elaboration do you expect than the statement that it was an official copy and that it was certified? Do they need to go into detail on what all that means in a word limited article? Or can we just conclude that the words mean what they say they do?
The laws that were broken have been laid out already. First the expungement statute, next the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. I could also make a 5th and 14th amendment due process argument.
Kidnaping is the taking and holding someone by force (or threat of force even if only implied or understood) unlawfully. Clearly as there was NO LAWFUL reason to arrest this man, his subsequent arrest and detention was unlawful. By definition! An ok sorry my bad I made a mistake does not make it not kidnaping.
The lawsuit has apparently already passed through initial motions to dismiss as the judge has sent it to mediation. If it had no grounds to stand on it would not have gotten this far. And when a Judge sends a case to a mediator that is them generally trying to tell the sued side to settle or else face a worse outcome in front of a jury.
Ok-Survey406 t1_jccvtai wrote
You are very obviously not a lawyer.
LeeOblivious OP t1_jccw9ni wrote
Cite the statute and case law backing up your claims.
KlounceTheKid t1_jccckx7 wrote
It’s okay to support the police AND it’s also okay to say “wow they fucked up there”. Because she did.
HwyP didn’t do their job on the front end and update MULES/NCIC , she doesn’t believe a certified court document is real 🙄🙄 give me a break. If she was that concerned she has the ability to contact the court and verify the record not to mention she has all his information.. write a pc statement drop the warrant and pick him up later. You can support things and recognize the failures…
Ok-Survey406 t1_jccvepp wrote
I don’t support the police. This is not a noteworthy incident in my opinion.
The patrolman arrested him because he didn’t believe his documentation was sufficient. Was it sufficient? I don’t know. The article doesn’t elaborate. The bill that restored gun rights to felons is only 1.5 years old. Bureaucracies are notoriously bad/slow about updating systems/databases/ policies procedures. It’s also possible they’ve not encountered this situation much.
Did they fuck up? Most likely. It’s still notoriously hard to sue a government entity. You need proof they knowingly violated a well established law. I don’t think that’s the case here.
SansSheriff_MO t1_jcg095j wrote
>The bill that restored gun rights to felons is only 1.5 years old.
>
>You need proof they knowingly violated a well established law.
So how many years after enactment does a law become "well established"?
​
Edit to add: This may not be noteworthy to you right now, but the precedent it could set is noteworthy. If an officer believes your proof is fake, what's to stop them from charging and arresting you? Who determines what is fake? Will these "fakes" start to pop up more? How will the number of "fakes" across various races be affected? Will we start to see more BIPOC citizens getting arrested for alleged fakes, even if they're just as credible as the expungement record Joe Bob showed the officer a half hour earlier? This needs to be viewed as a possible infringement on a person's second amendment rights.
ArtisticTomatillo106 t1_jcft5b5 wrote
He did have the right to have a fire arm and the police said we don't care what evidence you have to the contrary we are arresting you anyway. Not any kind of normal arrest the cop knowingly arrested a man for no reason other than he wanted to.
LeeOblivious OP t1_jcbb6zf wrote
So apparently the local highway patrol office is not following court orders and sealing expunged convictions. They arrested a man for having a firearm after someone else rear-ended him, because they still had a record of his conviction (that was expunged in 2021). The incident happened in May of 2022.
It sounds like he has a strong case. He had the proof of expungement on him, and they just did not like it.