Quote Originally Posted by WETWRKS View Post
Ok, here is my thoughts on all of this.

My job is not in law enforcement. I am required by my employer to know not just the company rules but also what I am allowed to do legally.

According to the government and these officers...I am required to know the law. Not just what applies to me at the minute. I am required to know all law.

Officers...under their same requirements of my knowing the law also are required to know the law. But moreover...it is their JOB to know the law. They have even more of a requirement to know what the current law is. Someone mentioned that it changed 9 years ago. Would I be able to get away with the excuse that I knew what the law WAS and was acting based on that? I would still be arrested.

They held someone against that persons will...this would be kidnapping or unlawful detainment.

They took someone's personal property...this would be theft.

Those are both criminal actions. These officers need to be arrested and charged. If I failed to follow the law...if I did either of these actions I would be arrested.
The officers appeared to be acting in good faith based on information provided by their department. There is ample case law that protects them from liability in these circumstances. Ultimately, though, a civil court will decide.

Just one example:

Officer not liable for false arrest and false imprisonment. Where police officer had both probable cause to believe that an offense had been committed and that the plaintiff was the person who had committed it, he was not civilly liable for false arrest and false imprisonment. Beyer v. Young, 32 Colo. App. 273, 513 P.2d 1086 (1973).
And from 18-8-103 Resisting Arrest (I know the guy wasn't resisting...just for reference)
(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.
If a peace officer is acting in good faith, based on information provided by their department policies and training, and they make an arrest based on the information/training they believe to be valid, they're given certain protections, even when that information/training was wrong.

If it wasn't that way, then every time a jury acquitted someone of an offense they could claim they were arrested falsely.