YES, you can sue and win as demonstrated by these cases…
A North Vancouver man sues and wins for false arrest and false imprisonment. He handled the case himself.
Park v. Solicitor General
2012 BCPC 0138
Date: 20120510 + Date: 20120323
File No: 07-18599
Registry: North Vancouver
- the reasons for judgement for the trial coving the whole story, facts and legal arguments, where the judge finds for the applicant (private citizen) against the defendant (Solicitor General) that there was a false/wrongful arrest therefore unlawful/false imprisonment.
- the reasons for judgement for the sentencing/assessment of damages in the amount of $15,000
the officer was found guilty of being “negligent, but that she did not abuse her authority, she was not grossly negligent, and she did not act maliciously or for any improper motive. I characterized her actions as inattentiveness to rights, lack of care about her grounds for arrest, about the authority under which she attended the hospital, and about the manner in which she treated Mr. Park after his arrest, including keeping him for more than four hours completely unnecessarily. “
award of $15,000 for the events including four hours in jail awarded as “general damages” plus court costs against the Solicitor General.
Newspaper Article – PDF
North Vancouver Man Awarded 15,000 for Wrongful Arrest By RCMP
There are two transcripts for Park v A.G.:
Trial Reasons for Judgement – http://canlii.ca/t/fr4vc
Wrongful Arrest-Park v .A.G., Trial Reasons for Judgment
Assessment of Damages Reasons for Judgement – http://canlii.ca/t/frfkh
Park Wrongful Arrest -Assessment Reasons For Judgement -2012bcpc138
You have to make your claim of harm and present your case in order to win. There are rules and processes to follow with evidence to gather which anyone can learn to do.
We explore the yes you can, why you should and here’s how in:
Hope For Justice: Your Complaint IS Their Restraint
Video covers this situation almost exactly as to the police violating process, false arrest, explained very clearly:
Trezevant v City of Tampa
Here is a successful U.S. case with some very good insights into the process: PDF- Trezevant v. City of Tampa
741 F. 2d 336 – Trezevant v. City of Tampa C Trezevant
Wilson v City of Vancouver:
[2] Mr. Wilson was detained by the police for a period of approximately 75 minutes until he was released on his own recognizance relating to an obstruction charge arising from the altercation. Those charges were later stayed.
[3] Mr. Wilson sued the appellant, City of Vancouver (the “City”), and the police officers in Small Claims Court, alleging that he had been assaulted by the police officers and illegally detained by them. Most of those claims were dismissed by the Small Claims Court judge after trial in late 2011. The trial judge found that while the initial detention was lawful, Mr. Wilson was detained beyond a reasonable period of time. She assessed damages against the City for that breach at $2,000, plus incidental costs, interest and other reasonable expenses.
[4] The City now appeals the finding that Mr. Wilson was unreasonably detained and, in the alternative, the award of damages, pursuant to the Small Claims Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 430, s. 5(1) (the “Small Claims Act”).
R v Fortune
R. v. Fortune, 2012 BCSC 2031 Date: 20120522 Docket: 58825-2
Registry: Chilliwack Regina v. Matthew David James Fortune
[1] Mr. Fortune, the accused, asserts that on August 4, 2011, two police officers unlawfully arrested and detained him and conducted incidental searches pursuant to this alleged unlawful arrest. He says the officer who arrested and detained him did so because of a policy set by the officer’s RCMP superiors directing him to do so. Mr. Fortune says the officer’s actions and this policy are inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter].
[2] Cst. M1 and Cst. M2, the two officers involved in Mr. Fortune’s arrest, detention, and incidental searches, explained that this official arrest policy directed officers to arrest anyone they found driving while prohibited, and to search their vehicle; regardless of whether the officer was arresting the driver under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Code] or under s. 79 of the Motor Vehicle ActR.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318[MVA] and regardless of the particular circumstances at the time of arrest, the officers were directed to apply the policy.
(Please submit any cases you know about where people have made claims and won)
