| |||||||||||
Government can sue someone civillyGovernment can sue someone civillyPosted Dec 5, 2003 17:47 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register) by jack_walker Parent article: DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register)
In the US, the government can never be a plaintiff in a _civil_ trial. Yes it can. There are various statutes that specifically declare certain activity to be damaging, but not criminal, and designate a certain government official as having standing to sue people on the public's behalf to recover the damages. This is a fairly recent adjustment to US legal system and is IMO a huge slide away from traditional Constitutional values. But it's there. And of course it's always been possible for the government to sue a person for traditional damages, such as where the person vandalizes a bridge and the government makes him pay to repair it. That was taken a little too far by the city of Gilroy, California, some years ago which IIRC passed an ordinance saying that drunk drivers were civilly responsible for the costs of arresting and trying them. Because it was civil liability, the city had a lower standard of proof that the person really drove drunk than for criminal penalties. So you could be acquitted of the crime of drunk driving, but if a court still found it was more likely than not that you were driving drunk, you'd have to pay thousands to reimburse the city for arresting you. I always expected that to fail a 14th amendment (criminal due process) test, but I never heard.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||