Some of the defense attorneys involved in the Waco Twin Peaks case know what they are doing and some of them don’t.
The deadline for filing a false arrest lawsuit against the city, county or any of the conspirators who arranged to have nine score defendants arrested and locked up is Wednesday, May 17, 2017. If your lawyer tells you that the statute of limitations for filing a civil suit for false arrest does not begin until the charges against you are dropped or until you are acquitted, fire him. He is one of the lawyers who doesn’t know what he is doing and you deserve someone who does.
If you do not file a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Waco, McLennan County and any of the federal, state, county or city officials who falsely arrested you, you will forever lose your right to sue them by May 17.
Ku Klux Klan Act
The Aging Rebel is aware that some defense attorneys in this case have misadvised their clients. In one email, a lawyer erroneously advised: “…the statute of limitations does not begin to run until favorable resolution of the charges. For my client, I know the charges are still pending. The prosecutor has refused to dismiss charges so that bonds can be released. She refuses to say she will not present them to the grand jury. She told me she was never going to do that. Our injury continues and damages continue to rack up until we are free of the charges.” That lawyer is wrong.
The statute which allows those who were detained at the Twin Peaks and falsely arrested at the Waco Convention Center to sue is formally called “Section 1983” and informally called the “Ku Klux Klan Act.” It was part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. It eventually evolved into a kind of tort liability – particularly to provide a remedy for official abuses like false arrest.
The question of when the statute of limitations for filing a claim of false arrest begins and expires was answered in a split Supreme Court decision titled Andre Wallace, Petitioner v. Kristen Kato et al. The decision was published on February 21, 2007.
The Case Law
For the benefit of attorneys who may accuse this page of misinforming its readers, their clients, the majority opinion in Wallace begins:
“In January 1994, Chicago police arrested petitioner, a minor, for murder. He was tried and convicted, but the charges were ultimately dropped in April 2002. In April 2003, he filed this suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983 against the city and several of its officers, seeking damages for, inter alia, his unlawful arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted respondents summary judgment, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, ruling that the §1983 suit was time barred because petitioner’s cause of action accrued at the time of his arrest, not when his conviction was later set aside.”
“Held: The statute of limitations upon a §1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process.”