[excon]

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

[stevetcg]

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

[preciouskitty]

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.

[preciouskitty]

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

[preciouskitty]

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!!

[ScottGem]

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.

[excon]

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

[JudyKayTee]

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.

[preciouskitty]

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.

[preciouskitty]

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?

[excon]

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!

[JudyKayTee]

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.

[preciouskitty]

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.

[JudyKayTee]

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?

[ScottGem]

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.

[excon]

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

[ScottGem]

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.

[preciouskitty]

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?

[excon]

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

[preciouskitty]

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.