A few weeks ago I wrote about Ron Martin of Frisco, Texas who was arrested and charged with violating Frisco's sign ordinance after holding up a sign warning drivers to slow down before a speed trap.
On Wednesday the charges against Mr. Martin were dismissed because the prosecution could not point out to the court the provision of the ordinance that Mr. Martin allegedly violated.
The resolution of the case was proper given the fact that we all know that he was arrested not for holding up a sign but for not jumping when the officer told him to jump. The charge was nothing more than an attempted justification for a wrongful arrest. But where's the justice?
Mr. Martin was arrested. The case cost him time and money. He has been vindicated. But what about the officer who saw fit to arrest him on a trumped-up charge? The officer knew Mr. Martin hadn't done anything wrong. He knew there was no legal reason to arrest him and charge him with a criminal offense. That, however, didn't stop him.
What's to stop the next officer from doing the same thing?
1 comment:
A 1983 suit is the remedy and it allows for attorney's fees to plaintiffs who prevail.
Brad Walters
Post a Comment