Can I legally refuse a civil summons that I am not a party to or named on?

Here are some circumstances...

I am not related by blood or marriage to the only named party on the civil summons.

I do reside at the same residence as the intended recipient of the civil summons.

Officer's are aware of recipients whereabouts and estimated time before returning home.

Officer's speak with very respected employer who confirms when recipient would be home.

I have never met nor do I have any dealings with plaintiff of the civil summons.

What purpose does it serve making things more difficult for the process server?

The issue is not about making it more difficult for the process server. The issue is a matter of the process server making things difficult for innocent civilians. The issue is a matter of civil rights. Do I have any obligation to be detained or questioned in any manner for somebody else's issue?

CHANGE NEVER COMES UNTIL SOMEONE STANDS FOR IT!

Do I have any obligation to be detained or questioned in any manner for somebody else's issue?Hello p:

No. But a process server doesn't do that. He just HANDS you stuff. THAT'S all it takes. If you don't want to accept it, don't hold out your hand.

But, everybody, when handed something, will reach out to take it.

excon

The issue is not about making it more difficult for the process server. The issue is a matter of the process server making things difficult for innocent civilians. The issue is a matter of civil rights. Do I have any obligation to be detained or questioned in any manner for somebody else's issue?

CHANGE NEVER COMES UNTIL SOMEONE STANDS FOR IT!

What is it that you think a process server does?

There are many cases where the US Postal Service or FedEx can be used to serve process. Its him handing paperwork to an allegedly responsible adult.

I understand what a process server is; however, my process server was deputy from the Sheriff's Department.
FURTHERMORE, I WAS ARRESTED FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE CIVIL SUMMONS FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

My reason for not accepting the summons is that it is not mine. It is that simple. Certainly many people would say what you did, "Why make things difficult?"

I wonder if Rosa Parks thought such a thing. I wonder if people asked her why she was being difficult.

Of course, for many, Rosa Park's choice might seem more profound than mine. However, you must understand that I truly feel violated.

I was not out of line with the officers; I was just trying to go to work. Nonetheless, I was humiliated, handcuffed, and taken to jail. I missed work and will miss more work when I go to court. In these tough times, missing work is a BIG DEAL and will land you unemployed.

There comes a time when somebody should be held accountable for overstepping their power.

It was unnecessary!! The police officer was on a POWER TRIP and determined to exert his authority.

I am not a lawyer either, nor do I know all of the law pertaining to service of civil summons. I do find it enraging that a person can be CRIMINALLY charged for refusing somebody else's CIVIL summons.

my process server was deputy from the Sheriff's Department.
FURTHERMORE, I WAS ARRESTED FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE CIVIL SUMMONS FOR SOMEONE ELSE.Hello again, p:

Boy. I HATE that you are going to make me argue for the police. I HATE cops..

But, a cop is NOT going to arrest you for NOT accepting service. That just isn't a crime. So, as they say, there's MORE to this story.

excon

My reason for not accepting the summons is that it is not mine. It is that simple. Certainly many people would say what you did, "Why make things difficult?"

I wonder if Rosa Parks thought such a thing. I wonder if people asked her why she was being difficult.

Of course, for many, Rosa Park's choice might seem more profound than mine. However, you must understand that I truly feel violated.

I was not out of line with the officers; I was just trying to go to work. Nonetheless, I was humiliated, handcuffed, and taken to jail. I missed work and will miss more work when I go to court. In these tough times, missing work is a BIG DEAL and will land you unemployed.

There comes a time when somebody should be held accountable for overstepping their power.

It was unnecessary!!!!!!!!!! The police officer was on a POWER TRIP and determined to exert his authority.

I am not a lawyer either, nor do I know all of the law pertaining to service of civil summons. I do find it enraging that a person can be CRIMINALLY charged for refusing somebody else's CIVIL summons.

First of all, you are NOT Rosa Parks and I take exceptional offense for suggesting you are even close.

Second, you didn't state that you were arrested. What were you charged with? If you were falsely arrested, you have your own civil claim against the police department. For that I would seek my own lawyer. Not signing for a service is not a criminal offense.

My original question stands though... why not just sign for it? Would it have hurt? Presumably this person is your roommate and not signing merely was your way of being insolent to the deputy.

Hello again, p:

Boy. I HATE that you are gonna make me argue for the police. I HATE cops..

But, a cop is NOT going to arrest you for NOT accepting service. That just isn't a crime. So, as they say, there's MORE to this story.

excon

Well I hate cops too and I hate to burst your bubble, but that is the WHOLE STORY. PLAIN & SIMPLE...

I am a law abiding citizen. I have never been in trouble with the police. I have never been charged nor convicted of a crime.

I was nauseatingly respectful to the officer.

Nonetheless, I am looking at my arrest papers right now and they say the following:

RESISTING A PUBLIC OFFICER BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT A CIVIL SUMMONS.

Well I hate cops too and I hate to burst your bubble, but that is the WHOLE STORY. PLAIN & SIMPLE..........

I am a law abiding citizen. I have never been in trouble with the police. I have never been charged nor convicted of a crime.

I was nauseatingly respectful to the officer.

Nonetheless, I am looking at my arrest papers right now and they say the following:

RESISTING A PUBLIC OFFICER BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT A CIVIL SUMMONS.

What state and county? This is a whole different issue than the summons itself. That's secondary at this point. Yes, your rights may have been violated.

I was nauseatingly respectful to the officer.Hello again, p:

Okee doakee, then. You, my dear young lady, have a big fat lawsuit against the cops.

You want CHANGE... You're going to get it. Hire a lawyer and sue those bastards.

excon

I am in Lenoir County, North Carolina.

I am in Lenoir County, North Carolina.

North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, Process Serving Laws ? ServeNow.com (http://www.serve-now.com/resources/process-serving-laws/North-Carolina)

Yeah - hire a lawyer and sue them. You are under no obligation to accept a summons even if it is directed at you.

North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, Process Serving Laws ? ServeNow.com (http://www.serve-now.com/resources/process-serving-laws/North-Carolina)

Yeah - hire a lawyer and sue them. You are under no obligation to accept a summons even if it is directed at you.

ServeNow.com is a website that I visited. Exactly what part do you think addresses this situation?

By the way, if I seemed rude earlier with my original response, please forgive me. I have received a lot of "WHY REFUSE IT?" from people. It has been quite frustrating.

ServeNow.com is a website that I visited. Exactly what part do you think addresses this situation?

By the way, if I seemed rude earlier with my original response, please forgive me. I have received alot of "WHY REFUSE IT?" from people. It has been quite frustrating.

Well, that's the first question that comes to mind, especially when you live with the person being served. First thought is usually refusal of summons implicates the person refusing. It wasn't a personal attack, just a matter of 'seen this question a lot'

The part that addresses this situation is the part that there is nothing that says that it is illegal to refuse a summons (as well as the NC Court System website) and details what to do if summons cannot be delivered. The information on this site is taken directly from the NC General Assembly laws

GS_1A-1,_Rule_4 (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_1A/GS_1A-1,_Rule_4.html)

Hello again,

I read rule 4. It speaks about the servers and their responsibilities - not the servee. Besides, I think you're looking at the wrong law.

I want to see the CRIMINAL statutes... I see that you were charged... I'll bet that your charging papers also included the statute number. I want to see THAT.

Besides, I can't imagine you'll find anything about the servee's criminal liabilities for NOT accepting service... But, in general, you can't be arrested in the process of a civil suit - PERIOD. There just isn't ANY provision in the law for that.

You were charged criminally. I'd hire a criminal attorney. Then when you find out they screwed you, see a civil attorney and get to suing.

excon

I am not a lawyer either, nor do I know all of the law pertaining to service of civil summons. I do find it enraging that a person can be CRIMINALLY charged for refusing somebody else's CIVIL summons.


Yes, that's very apparent. You also misunderstand how process service works. Before you scream at me in capitals, I own and operate a process service business.

In NY you don't have to "reach out your hand" to accept the summons. I can throw it at your feet, throw it in the door, say "here, this is for you" and tuck it in the door while you're standing there. And it's legal service of process.

In your State substitute service (throwing it at your feet) IS legal: "Personal service or substituted personal service of summons as prescribed by Rule 4(j)(1) a and b must be made" ...

Rule 4(j)(1) states that service may be made on: "(1) Natural Person. – Except as provided in subdivision (2) below, upon a natural person by one of the following: a. By delivering a copy of the summons and of the [B]complaint to the natural person or by leaving copies thereof at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.

I'll let someone else address the connection between you and Rosa Parks.

- If you were mistreated, then that is your defense. Your arrest gets set aside and then you sue the Police Department for overstepping its bounds. The way I read the law an Officer of the Court has full powers and if you "resist," you can be arrested.

First you can get arrested for interfering with a police officer and not providing them your ID.

A process server ieven if the police is only going to hand you the summons, if you start getting *** and I bet you did** loud and disorderly, yes you will be arrested.

In fact if they can't find the person for civil action, at some point they trial will go on with the person.

The General Statute is 14-223 which says, "If any person shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

There is also an Offense Code - 5310. I am not sure what that refers to.

Hello again, p:

So, this has NOTHING to do with service, and everything to do with a cops ego.

Like I said earlier, after I beat 'em criminally, I'd sue 'em civilly and PERSONALLY.

excon

The General Statute is 14-223 which says, "If any person shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

There is also an Offense Code - 5310. I am not sure what that refers to.

This statute does not apply since not accepting a civil summons is not "unlawfully".

Again, get a lawyer and sue them

Whatever! I did not intend to suggest that I had a CONNECTION with Rosa Parks, nor did I intend to offend anyone with my reference to her. Understand that I have a profound respect for her; however, my respect is derived from the fact that she felt she was being mistreated and that the circumstances before her were not fair. Certainly, life is not fair, but we all have our own convictions.

For the Christianity Expert, I was not loud and I was not disorderly. Believe it or not! I was "Yes Sir" and "No Sir" to the officer the entire time. As a matter of fact, I was oddly calm considering that I should have already been at work and not delayed with this nonsense. Of course, I understand the need to try to assume that there is more to the story, but there isn't. It was simply uncalled for.

Furthermore, I understand the "throw it at your feet" concept and so on. This was never the case.

Look... you can all have whatever opinion you choose. That is what I love about America. I am not a 'post on the internet' kind of person. I was simply looking for some feedback or... maybe similar situations or... well honestly I do not know. I do know that I am a very reasonable person, so for to have occurred, troubles me.

Personally, I feel violated. Whether I legally have a right to - the court will decide that. Will the court's decision change my opinion or yours? Probably not. But again, that is what I love about America.

Thanks to stevetcg and excon. I really appreciate the honesty.

hello again, p:

So, this has nothing to do with service, and everything to do with a cops ego.

Like i said earlier, after i beat 'em criminally, i'd sue 'em civilly and personally.

Excon

Thanks!!

The General Statute is 14-223 which says, "If any person shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.


Ok, I'm going to summarize here. The law you quoted above and the Section 4j1a previously quoted, may be sufficient to justify the officer's actions.

4j1a states that it is legal service to hand the summons to someone of "suitable age" at the residence. Therefore, the officer was complying with the law by handing you the summons. This then means that your refusal to accept the summons was, in fact, obstructing the officer in the performance of his duty. So, my reading of the laws posted here are that you had no legal right to refuse acceptance of the summons and by doing so, interfered with the officer's performance of his duties.

Now, whether the officer overstepped his bounds by arresting you is a point that can be debated. But In my opinion, you won't win if you claim that you were illegally arrested.

Now I know you claim you were very polite and did nothing to provoke the officer. But I have to say your reactions here do call that into question.

So, my advice is to consult an attorney. Let an attorney tell you if they think you have a case to pursue here.

Again, In my opinion you had no legal right NOT to accept the summons and by doing so you broke the law by interfering with the officer's performance of his duties.

4j1a states that it is legal service to hand the summons to someone of "suitable age" at the residence. Therefore, the officer was complying with the law by handing you the summons. This then means that your refusal to accept the summons was, in fact, obstructing the officer in the performance of his duty. So, my reading of the laws posted here are that you had no legal right to refuse acceptance of the summons and by doing so, interfered with the officer's performance of his duties.Hello Scott:

I don't agree. I believe the statute STOPS after it says that it's legal service to hand the summons to someone... It says NOTHING about the persons obligation to accept or reject the summons.

I hope the OP reports back, after she kicks a$$.

excon

The General Statute is 14-223 which says, "If any person shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

There is also an Offense Code - 5310. I am not sure what that refers to.



I think the Police Officer will say he acted within duties and you were resisting; you will say you were not resisting and he overreacted.

The Judge will decide.

Please come back and let us know what happens regarding the ticket and what the Attorney says about your lawsuit.

Hello Scott:

I don't agree. I believe the statute STOPS after it says that it's legal service to hand the summons to someone.... It says NOTHING about the persons obligation to accept or reject the summons.

I hope the OP reports back, after she kicks a$$.

excon

I will keep you updated. I do plan on following through.

I think the Police Officer will say he acted within duties and you were resisting; you will say you were not resisting and he overreacted.

The Judge will decide.

Please come back and let us know what happens regarding the ticket and what the Attorney says about your lawsuit.

Of course he can say that I resisted, but the question is did I willfully and unlawfully resist?

Of course he can say that I resisted, but the question is did I willfully and unlawfully resist?Hello again, p:

Bring witnesses...

excon

PS> To those of you out there in internetland, you know those memo recording applications on your phone - or better yet - those VIDEO recording applications?? Whenever you are confronted by the cops, turn it ON!

Of course he can say that I resisted, but the question is did I willfully and unlawfully resist?



What I think doesn't matter - it's going to come down to what a Judge believes after speaking with both of you, evaluating both sides.

Hello again, p:

Bring witnesses...

excon

PS> To those of you out there in internetland, you know those memo recording applications on your phone - or better yet - those VIDEO recording applications???? Whenever you are confronted by the cops, turn it ON!

I thought of this afterwards. I do have one witness.

I actually live right next door to the intended recipient's workplace. The owner of the organization came over and spoke with me and the officer. He explained that the intended recipient was out of town working and would be back the following day.

Also, to point out, officer's did visit the residence again to serve the papers and, without incident, accepted my refusal of the civil summons.

I thought of this afterwards. I do have one witness.

I actually live right next door to the intended recipient's workplace. The owner of the organization came over and spoke with me and the officer. He explained that the intended recipient was out of town working and would be back the following day.

Also, to point out, officer's did visit the residence again to serve the papers and, without incident, accepted my refusal of the civil summons.



If the witness saw and heard the whole thing you are 100% good and in the right - will he testify?

Hello Scott:

I don't agree. I believe the statute STOPS after it says that it's legal service to hand the summons to someone.... It says NOTHING about the persons obligation to accept or reject the summons.

I hope the OP reports back, after she kicks a$$.

excon

Clearly the law doesn't say anything about a person's right to refuse to accept the summons. But it does say that the server is within their right to deliver it to someone responsible living at the defendant's address. If the server is not a law enforcement official, then nothing more could be done. But if the server IS a law enforcement official, then refusal to accept a legally and duly authorized summons would be interefering with the LEO's duities. Which brings the other law into play.

I truly don't know how this would play out in court. But I can see a judge ruling either way.

Hello again, Scott:

If the cop takes on the roll of process server, is he bound by the rules of process servers who aren't cops??

I would say yes. It IS a civil process he is serving, after all. He's NOT acting in his capacity as a law enforcement officer.

And, yes. It could go either way. Judy should know. Where is she?

excon

The NC law seems to allow LEOs to act as process servers as part of their regular duties. But it also allows other, non LEOs, to also act as process servers. So I would think if he is in uniform or identified himself as a LEO, then he was acting as a LEO.

I will add, that from the OP's recent posts, it makes it more evident that the server may have acted improperly.

Clearly the law doesn't say anything about a person's right to refuse to accept the summons. But it does say that the server is within their right to deliver it to someone responsible living at the defendant's address. If the server is not a law enforcement offical, then nothing more could be done. But if the server IS a law enforcement official, then refusal to accept a legally and duly authorized summons would be interefering with the LEO's duities. Which brings the other law into play.

I truly don't know how this would play out in court. But I can see a judge ruling either way.

Maybe, but if that is the case, then we have a sad state of affairs.

I asked the police officer that day, "What if I accepted these papers and the intended recipient never receives them?" Well of course, then a civil judgment is placed without a defense being presented. Is that fair? Well, in that case, the intended recipient would have been slighted, because he/she was never served. Ah, but they were, via ME. With that being said, I have found research to support that the intended recipient could then contest the judgment arguing the discretion aspect of the law. However, I do not think that would go very far.

Has anyone considered the ramifications of such a thing?

I suppose that many may never experience these specific circumstances, but...
Do you want officials to be able to serve you without serving YOU?

I will add, that from the OP's recent posts, it makes it more evident that the server may have acted improperly.
I suppose that many may never experience these specific circumstances, but....... Do you want officials to be able to serve you without serving YOU?Hello again:

I'm pretty happy with the way service is being done in our courts... But, if you don't like what you KNOW already, you're really not going to want to hear about service by publication...

In terms of that, Scott... I can see the defendant getting "lippy" with the cop. Cops don't like "lippy" people, and think they have to show 'em who's boss.

I don't mean to imply, precious, that you WERE "lippy", or that you don't have the RIGHT to BE "lippy". You absolutely do. By the way "lippy" is a COP PHRASE. They HATE "lippy" people.

excon

Hello again:

I'm pretty happy with the way service is being done in our courts.... But, if you don't like what you KNOW already, you're really not going to want to hear about service by publication...

In terms of that, Scott.... I can see the defendant getting "lippy" with the cop. Cops don't like "lippy" people, and think they have to show 'em who's boss.

I don't mean to imply, precious, that you WERE "lippy", or that you don't have the RIGHT to BE "lippy". You absolutely do. By the way "lippy" is a COP PHRASE. They HATE "lippy" people.

excon

Sometimes when I think about it, I wished that I would have at least been 'lippy;' maybe I would feel better about it. But, you are correct about the 'showing who's boss.' I believe this is what caused the officer to show his EGO flaws.

He had to show me who was in control. He was not going to have me telling him what I was or was not going to do.

Maybe, but if that is the case, then we have a sad state of affairs.

I asked the police officer that day, "What if I accepted these papers and the intended recipient never receives them?" Well of course, then a civil judgment is placed without a defense being presented. Is that fair? Well, in that case, the intended recipient would have been slighted, because he/she was never served. Ah, but they were, via ME. With that being said, I have found research to support that the intended recipient could then contest the judgment arguing the discretion aspect of the law. However, I do not think that would go very far.

Has anyone considered the ramifications of such a thing?

I suppose that many may never experience these specific circumstances, but.......
Do you want officials to be able to serve you without serving YOU?

First, there is legal and there is fair. The two often do not jive. Second, You are looking at this from just one side, you need to step back and look at the big picture. What if YOU were the plaintiff. What if the defendant kept ducking service costing you time and money? Would it be fair to you to allow the defendant to keep ducking the process server, when they can give it to someone at the same residence?

And yes, if you neglect to give the summons to the defendant, then they do have the recourse to get the judgement vacated if they don't show up because of that. So, yes the ramifications have been considered, which is why there are laws that govern legal service.

But, if you want to talk about fair, how fair would it be of you to not forward the summons. Would you let the person get a default judgement because of your inaction?

The NY AG just recently announced a lawsuit against a process server who apparently practiced "sewer service". There are a potential 100,000 cases that may have to be retried because of their actions. So the government doesn't turn a blind eye to this.

One thing you have never mentioned is your relationship to the defendant. All you have said was that you aren't related by blood or marriage, but you do share the same residence.

Another point you haven't discussed is WHY you refused to accept the summons? Did you thionk that would help the defendant?

There are many ramifications to your actions and I don't think you have considered all of them.

first, there is legal and there is fair. The two often do not jive. Second, you are looking at this from just one side, you need to step back and look at the big picture. What if you were the plaintiff. What if the defendant kept ducking service costing you time and money? Would it be fair to you to allow the defendant to keep ducking the process server, when they can give it to someone at the same residence?

And yes, if you neglect to give the summons to the defendant, then they do have the recourse to get the judgement vacated if they don't show up because of that. So, yes the ramifications have been considered, which is why there are laws that govern legal service.

But, if you want to talk about fair, how fair would it be of you to not forward the summons. Would you let the person get a default judgement because of your inaction?

The ny ag just recently announced a lawsuit against a process server who apparently practiced "sewer service". There are a potential 100,000 cases that may have to be retried because of their actions. So the government doesn't turn a blind eye to this.

One thing you have never mentioned is your relationship to the defendant. All you have said was that you aren't related by blood or marriage, but you do share the same residence.

Another point you haven't discussed is why you refused to accept the summons? Did you thionk that would help the defendant?

There are many ramifications to your actions and i don't think you have considered all of them.



First, the intended recipient was not ducking from the summons. The intended recipient merely was not home when the officer came to serve the papers; work demands a lot of out of town work. When the officer came and the intended recipient was home; service was accepted without incident. I was there also.

Next, the issue was never a matter of me causing a default judgment. I simply expected the officer to return when the intended recipient was home. I really believe that it is not my responsibility to be the ‘middle man’ for something that did not pertain to me in any way, shape, or form if that is what I choose.

Additionally, my relationship with the intended recipient really does not pertain to this situation. I only offered the ‘blood and marriage’ information because, at that time and before researching, I thought that data might matter. I assumed maybe, for example, that a wife could be required to accept for a husband or a parent for a son or daughter.

Furthermore, I did not accept service because it had nothing to do with me and frankly the officer should never have tried to force the situation on me. Simply put, it is not my problem and should not have affected or interfered with my life unless I chose for it to. With that being said, so many have talked about the ‘leaving at your feet’ whether you want it or not. If the officer was that determined to see that these papers were served, why waste time and money on an unnecessary arrest? Ego, that is why.

Also, I never suggested that the government ignores such issues. I simply think that this was an infringement on me and my rights at this one particular time in history. I do not have any reason to believe that this is or has been or is not or has not been an issue in other places. I only know what I experienced and if it was illegal, it surely should not be.

Quite honestly, I suppose that this may not have happened very often; most people conform even in the instances when they should not have to. I really do not know the case law on it. I have tried researching it, but I always link to cases about the intended recipient refusing the civil summons, never about an “innocent bystander’s” refusal.

The truth of the matter is that while we are expected to respect and obey authority and certain officials, sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they are grossly wrong, sometimes they are slightly wrong, and sometimes they are absolutely what an officer should be. Just like we tell our children to respect and obey adults, but we also tell them not to talk to strangers. Some adults are good, some are bad, and some are seriously terrible

There comes a point when what is reasonable and logical within the given circumstances should be taken into consideration despite the norm. Officers should not be there to escalate a situation but rather diffuse any issues, if necessary. Officers should not be there to harass guiltless citizens but, without sounding trite, they should be there to protect and serve (and that does not mean serve papers).  how did this situation protect or serve anyone?

I am looking at it like this:

I was on my way to work. I do not believe that I should have even been legally obligated to even be questioned or delayed by the officer; however, I understand that most would simply do whatever the officer demanded. In my opinion, once the officer established that I was not the intended recipient, unless I chose to partake in any further interaction, I should have been allowed to go to work. However, I was not. Therein lays the problem.

Here is my concern - OP is not the first nor will she be the last person to receive service on another person and either never turn the papers over to the correct person or turn them over and deny having done so. "Sub" service is followed up with service by mail.

I have testified in Court more than a few times on this same argument. I have seen the Defendant come into Court and the matter wasn't even heard because the Defendant was served in person as he walked through the door; I have seen the matter heard and then the Defendant has been served; I have on two occasions seen the person who received service held in contempt of Court upon testifying that the papers were not turned over to the person named in the matter.

I don't see a Civil Rights or any other issue here - I also don't think any laws being changed under these circumstances.

I think this has turned into a lot of arguing back and forth with total disregard for the laws regarding service and how they are written.

If I attempt to serve (personally) and the person refuses, I throw the papers at his/her feet (except for matrimonial matters and a few others which require personal service) and leave it to the person served to decide what to do next. Defendant doesn't appear, Judgment is granted by default, Defendant then shows up and states he/she never received the papers the Attorney attempts to track down who accepted service and that person is brought in (by Subpoena) to testify whether the law was obstructed.

It's not all that complicated. Is it fair? I don't know. I've received papers intended for my "ex," who no longer resides in the area. I accepted them and then notified both the Court and the Attorney that I had received them and no ability to turn them over - also, I do not know exactly where he is. I don't know what happened after that.

The truth of the matter is that while we are expected to respect and obey authority and certain officials, sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they are grossly wrong, sometimes they are slightly wrong, and sometimes they are absolutely what an officer should be. Just like we tell our children to respect and obey adults, but we also tell them not to talk to strangers. Some adults are good, some are bad, and some are seriously terrible

....

I am looking at it like this:

I was on my way to work. I do not believe that i should have even been legally obligated to even be questioned or delayed by the officer; however, i understand that most would simply do whatever the officer demanded. In my opinion, once the officer established that i was not the intended recipient, unless i chose to partake in any further interaction, i should have been allowed to go to work. However, i was not. Therein lays the problem.

The real truth of the matter is that the officer was acting within the law performing his assigned duties. He either knocked on the door of the residence or encountered you coming out of the residence. Thereby he found you to be a responsible person living at the residence of the defendant and able to accept service under the law.

Your refusal to accept service interfered with his assigned duties. Therefore, you could be considered to be interfering with a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties.

Whether the officer overstepped the bounds of his duties is a secondary issue.

Now was your refusal to accept the summons reasonable? I really don't know. Without knowing your relationship with the defendant nor how much of a hurry you were in to get to work, its hard to say. I do agree that the officer did overstep based on what you told us.

Hello Scott:

I don't agree. I believe the statute STOPS after it says that it's legal service to hand the summons to someone.... It says NOTHING about the persons obligation to accept or reject the summons.

I hope the OP reports back, after she kicks a$$.

excon

Well, I hired a criminal attorney. Her exact words were, "This is bullsh**!" We attempted to try the case with a "Not Guilty" plea, in an effort to shine light on the events; however, the District Attorney would not allow it. He dismissed the charges to avoid embarrassment. I am going to hire a civil attorney! I feel that I should at least me made whole. I have had expenses as a result of this unnecessary behavior by the officers. Additionally, I am in the process of filing a complaint against the officer.

My lawyer warned, "You have to live in Lenoir County!" To begin with, No I Don't. But on the flip side, if I do have to live in Lenoir County, then this type of unnecessary, provocational, and antagonistic behavior by law enforcement can not be tolerated.

Anyway, I wanted to update you... Wish me luck!

What were the grounds for dismissal?

What were the grounds for dismissal?

I suspect what happened is the DA declined to prosecute resulting in the charges being dropped (not dismissed). But, as Kitty pointed out, this doesn't compensate her for the expenses she incurred as a result of the officer's actions. So that leaves a civil suit to try and get that compensation.

I also understand what her attorney is trying to tell her. She could, probably, win the battle and lose the war. There are many, subtle ways, that the county could take revenge making her life difficult. I'm not saying its right or fair, it isn't. But it is a possibility.