Can I sue someone for giving a false police report resulting in my arrest? 11 Answers as of February 17, 2012

You can sue if you were not convicted. If the criminal case is still pending, you will likely have to await the outcome of the criminal case if it is still pending. I cannot say that you will win a civil case. It is what we call a "he said/she said" swearing contest with your word against his (unless you have some independent evidence that he lied). Being found not guilty, or having the criminal charges dismissed is not the same as winning a civil suit against the complaining witness. In the criminal case the state has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt whereas in a civil suit, you would have the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence. Also, all of your damages are intangible outside of your attorney fees and bail (ie, you have no medical bills or lost wages). Thus, if you are successful, you may only get $5,000.00. For these reasons, you may have a hard time finding an attorney to take the case, but you can always try. If you cannot find an attorney to take it, you can sue for up to $7,500.00 in small claims court. It is a court that is "user friendly" for litigants to bring their own case without an attorney.

The first question is whether the criminal case has been resolved. If you were found not guilty or the case was dismissed, you may have a civil case. If you pleaded guilty, then you probably do not. However, it will take a more thorough review of the facts and the criminal case result before a lawyer can tell you what your options are. If the criminal case is not resolved, then you should not even be thinking about a lawsuit.

You can sue for malicious prosecution if you won the case "on the merit", meaning there was a determination by a judge or jury that you didn't do it. There is a one year time limit on such suits.

A simple answer to your main question ("Can I sue someone for giving a false police report resulting in my arrest?"), is "yes" you can sue someone for giving a false police report. This type of case is called "malicious prosecution." In general, as it relates to the case you describe, to establish a claim for malicious prosecution you must prove each of the following: (1) the commencement or prosecution of a criminal proceeding against you; (2) its legal causation by the defendant ("the driver of the car"); (3) its bona fide termination in favor of you; (4) the absence of probable cause for such proceeding; (5) the presence of malice therein; and (6) damage, conforming to legal standards, resulting to you. The first element is easy if you have been criminal charged. The second also may be relatively easy to prove if the sole basis for your arrest was the statement of "the driver of the car." As to the third element, a "bona fide" termination means the charges were dropped or you were found not guilty; basically that you are actually innocent. Dismissals based on technical grounds, plea bargains or similar items do not meet the requirements of the third element. For the fourth element, "probable cause" is usually defined as: A reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by facts and circumstances of such a nature as to justify a cautious and prudent person in believing that the accused was guilty. The test as to whether or not there was probable cause is to be determined in the light of facts and circumstances as they existed and were known at the time the prosecution was commenced and not from the viewpoint of subsequently appearing facts. If "the driver of the car" was clearly providing false information and you were acting lawfully at all times, which "the driver" was aware of, then you have probably established "probable cause." The fifth element requires "malice," which is defined as "causing a criminal proceeding to be filed primarily for a purpose other than that of bringing an offender [you] to justice" for violating the law. Again, if "the driver" is making up information, then there is likely malice if "the driver's" intent was to get you arrested. The final element, "damages" is the harm you sustained as a result of the wrongful acts of the "the driver." Based on the information you provided, you do not have, at least at this point, a claim for "malicious prosecution" as there is no "bona fide" termination in your favor (the third element above). Until that occurs, it is not necessary to discuss the remaining elements. Whether you are "innocent" of any criminal acts is beyond the scope of this answer as it involves questions of criminal law. Finally, as to whether a claim can be brought by your parents for "emotional distress" the information you provided is insufficient to determine whether your parents would have a claim. As to your "emotional distress" that could be one of your "damages" in a claim for malicious prosecution. DISCLAIMER: This response is based on the limited information provided, makes certain assumptions, and assumes that all events took place in Nebraska. In addition, this response is not a substitute for professional legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor is it a solicitation to offer legal advice. If you ignore this warning and convey confidential information in a private message or comment, there is no duty to keep that information confidential or forego representation adverse to your interests. You should seek the advice of a licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction before taking any action that may affect your rights. If you believe you have a claim against someone, you should consult an attorney immediately, otherwise there is a risk that the time allotted to bring your claim may expire.

With all due respect, you are both idiots. Each of you unnecessarily escalated the situation at every opportunity. There was no need for him to cut you off. There was no need for you to honk. There was no need for him to slam on the brakes. There was no need for you to exit your vehicle. There was no need to show your weapon. You cannot claim self-defense if you place every one in harm to begin with. Having a license to carry a weapon does NOT give you license to brandish it, which you admit you did. Hopefully, you have learned a lesson NOT to give in to road rage which is exactly what you did. You have no case.

There are causes of action at civil law for circumstances similar to those you describe. You should call a personal injury attorney to explore the possibilities.

If someone has you arrested based upon a false statement, you do have a potential right to recover your damages associated therewith. It is doubtful that your family could also sue for their own emotional distress (possible, but doubtful). The claim would need to be framed as one involving intentional infliction of emotional distress/outrageous conduct. The problem with cases like this is that they are extremely hard to prove. Your basic claim is that the other person lied and you were telling the truth, even though you are the one who was arrested. The police must have believed the other driver, so he must be a good liar if nothing else. You have the burden of proving in a civil case that he lied. If you had a difficult time convincing the police that he was lying, you will probably have a difficult time convincing a jury that he was lying. Moreover, these types of claims are not generally covered by the wrongdoers insurance so you would need consider whether you can collect anything from this guy even if you win the suit. You may want to pursue him as a matter of principle, but you'd probably have to pay a lawyer hourly to do that for you (lawyers won't work on contingency fees if there is nothing to collect from the wrongdoer).

You have a bad case of road rage here. You with a weapon. Your father with a weapon. Police had to bring under control. I would be surprised if you would be successful at a lawsuit. It is a case of he said, she said. How would a jury know who was telling the truth and how do you explain the brandishing of weapons.

Are you serious? You will need to spend another $10,000 to go to trial and try to convince a jury you are not guilty. Brandishing the weapons was unnecessary and, as it turned out, stupid. If you are convicted, do the time. If you are acquitted, go on with your life. You should have driven off when you had the chance.

No. There are no cases here that I see.