[ScottGem]

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.

[preciouskitty]

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.

[JudyKayTee]

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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[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

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!

[JudyKayTee]

What were the grounds for dismissal?

[ScottGem]

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.