Appleseed News

Tag: civil rights

  • Charged with out Probable Cause

    Charged with out Probable Cause

    Sponsor

    Have you ever been criminally charged without probable cause to charge you?

    You may be due justice in the form of financial compensation.

    MANSFIELD, OH — Legal scrutiny is intensifying around the use of warrantless arrests and criminal charges filed without sufficient evidence in Mansfield Municipal Court, as local and state laws emphasize strict adherence to probable cause requirements. Legal professionals are highlighting potential constitutional violations when individuals are arrested or prosecuted without the necessary legal basis.

    Legal Foundation for Warrantless Arrests

    Under Ohio Revised Code § 2935.03, police officers in Ohio, including those operating within the City of Mansfield, are permitted to arrest individuals without a warrant if the offense is committed in the officer’s presence or under certain statutory exceptions. Despite this allowance, officers must still have probable cause—a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has occurred and the individual arrested committed it.

    This requirement is reinforced by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court in Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964), where the Court ruled:

    “Whether an arrest is made with or without a warrant, the constitutional requirement of probable cause remains the same.”

    🔗 Read the full opinion in Beck v. Ohio

    Mansfield Municipal Court’s Role

    The Mansfield Municipal Court, which oversees misdemeanor cases and conducts preliminary hearings in felony matters, plays a critical gatekeeping role in reviewing arrests and filings. Following an arrest without a warrant, the court is responsible for determining whether probable cause existed and whether the case may proceed.

    Prosecutorial Obligations and Ethical Standards

    In the City of Mansfield, misdemeanor prosecutions are managed by the Mansfield Law Director’s Office. Prosecutors must ensure that all charges filed with the court meet the minimum standard of probable cause. If charges are initiated without this standard, they are subject to legal challenge and may be dismissed.

    In addition, prosecutors are governed by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.8(a), which states:

    “A prosecutor in a criminal case shall refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.”

    🔗 Read the full Professional Conduct Rules

    Violations of this rule may lead to sanctions imposed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, up to and including suspension or disbarment by the Supreme Court of Ohio.

    Civil Liability for Malicious Prosecution

    Individuals who have been charged or arrested without probable cause may have civil remedies available. In Trussell v. General Motors Corp., 53 Ohio St.3d 142 (1990), the Ohio Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in a malicious prosecution case must show:

    • The prosecution ended in their favor,
    • It was initiated without probable cause,
    • The action was motivated by malice.

    🔗 Read the full opinion in Trussell v. General Motors

    Legal Resources and Next Steps

    Anyone in Mansfield who believes they have been subject to a warrantless arrest without probable cause or charged unlawfully is advised to contact a defense attorney.



    This article is the first in a series of articles to be published. Follow us on Facebook.

    Sponsor
  • Inmate removes their testicles in Utah Prison

    Inmate removes their testicles in Utah Prison

    Sponsor

    The Justice Department today announced its finding that the Utah Department of Corrections (UDOC) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against an incarcerated transgender woman on the basis of her disability, gender dysphoria. The department’s investigation found that UDOC failed to provide the complainant (who identifies as female but was assigned male at birth) equal access to health care services after she repeatedly requested hormone therapy. UDOC also failed to make reasonable modifications to its policies and practices to treat the complainant’s gender dysphoria.

    Gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition marked by clinically significant distress caused by an incongruence between the sex an individual is assigned at birth and their gender identity. Left untreated, individuals with gender dysphoria can experience serious adverse mental health outcomes. 

    “All people with disabilities including those who are incarcerated are protected by the ADA and are entitled to reasonable modifications and equal access to medical care, and that basic right extends to those with gender dysphoria,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Civil Rights Division is committed to ensuring that jails and prisons throughout the country do not discriminate against people with disabilities, and that right includes people with gender dysphoria.”

    The department’s investigation found that UDOC imposed unnecessary barriers to treatment for gender dysphoria that were not required for other health conditions, and unnecessarily delayed the complainant’s treatment. When UDOC finally provided her with hormone therapy, it failed to take basic steps to ensure that the treatment was provided safely and effectively.

    UDOC also failed to grant the complainant’s requests for reasonable modifications including permitting her to purchase female clothing and personal items in the commissary, modifying pat search policies and individually assessing her housing requests to avoid discrimination on the basis of gender dysphoria. As a result, her gender dysphoria worsened during her incarceration at UDOC. Twenty-two months after entering custody, she performed dangerous self-surgery and removed her own testicles.

    The department’s written notice to UDOC of its findings details remedial measures necessary to address them. The department’s investigation is part of its broader efforts to combat discrimination against individuals with gender dysphoria. These include the Civil Rights Division’s recently filed statement of interest clarifying that gender dysphoria can be a covered disability under the ADA and explaining that correctional institutions violate the Eighth Amendment when they categorically refuse to provide medically necessary gender-affirming care to incarcerated individuals with gender dysphoria.

    The Civil Rights Division’s Disability Rights Section is handling this matter in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah.

    For more information on the Civil Rights Division, please visit www.justice.gov/crt. For more information on the ADA, please call the department’s toll-free ADA Information Line at 1-800-514-0301 (TTY 1-833-610-1264) or visit www.ada.gov. 

    Sponsor