 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stewart v. District Attorney for the Eighteenth Circuit Court District for the State of Mississippi8/23/2005
etion of the duly elected and acting district attorney, or for cause by the senior circuit judge of the district.
Stewart argues that the assistant district attorney who located his file and passed along his identifying information so that he could be apprehended, exceeded the statutory authority granted to his position.
Stewart contends that by passing along this information, the assistant district attorney was acting as a part of the executive branch of government, namely as a sheriff's deputy. Mississippi Code Annotated ยง 19-25-35 which sets forth the duty of the sheriff to attend courts, incarcerate persons, and to execute orders and decrees, states as follows:
The sheriff shall be the executive officer of the circuit and chancery court of his county, and he shall attend all the sessions thereof with a sufficient number of deputies or bailiffs. He shall execute all orders and decrees of said courts directed to him to be executed. He shall take into his custody, and safely keep, in the jail of his county, all persons committed by order of either of said courts, or by any process issuing therefrom, or lawfully required to be held for appearance before either of them.
. As stated by this statute, the sheriff possesses the power to make arrests. Stewart takes a great leap in logic by stating that the assistant district attorney involved in this matter was functioning as the sheriff or a member of the sheriff's department. In support of this argument, Stewart contends that the United States Supreme Court decision of Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991), is analogous to the case sub judice. We find Burns to be distinguishable.
. In the Burns decision, the Supreme Court found that there is limited immunity for a state prosecutor. In Burns, the state prosecutor gave advice to the local police force stating that a confession which was given under hypnosis was likely enough for probable cause. The prosecutor then participated in the probable cause hearing, in which a search warrant was sought, without disclosing that the confession was induced by hypnosis. The Supreme Court held that the prosecutor's participation in the probable cause hearing was covered by the prosecutor's grant of immunity, though the prosecutor's rendering of legal advice to the police department exceeded the scope of immunity. Although the Burns decision stands for the proposition that one protected by governmental immunity can lose such immunity upon exceeding the scope of his or her responsibilities, Stewart fails to demonstrate how the assistant district attorney in this case has done acts which would be outside of the scope of governmental immunity as codified by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.
. Stewart contends that the assistant district attorney, by referring the name and social security numbers of individuals, against whom indictments had been returned by the grand jury, so that the police might apprehend those individuals, exceeded the authority of her position. Stewart argues that the assistant district attorney was acting as a law enforcement officer by participating in Stewart's arrest. The record shows that the assistant district attorney did not perform the arrest but, rather, passed on the information contained in the indictments returned against one going by the name of Gary Stewart with the same Social Security number as the Appellant, so that the individual could be apprehended. This information was required by law enforcement so that an arrest could be made, and passing this information along was not beyond the scope of the assistant district attorney's duties, as her office possessed the indictments. Therefore, this issue is without merit.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|