A Denver man is currently fighting to stay out of jail after supposedly being falsely accused of road rage.
The man has been charged with hitting another driver during a road rage incident that took place in Colorado.
Eddie Calhoun, 44, is an employee for the city of Denver and says he was plowing the streets last January when the incident happened.
He claims that the only connection he has to the accident is that the abandoned truck being driven by the suspect was left behind his mother’s house.
When his nephew told Calhoun that officers were looking for him, he willingly went to City Hall, where he was arrested.
Calhoun was arrested for assault and reckless endangerment and he was reportedly forced to post $25,000 bail.
“I have been falsely arrested and wrongly accused,” says Calhoun.
The woman in the victim’s car has even reported to police that Calhoun is not the man who launched the attack.
“It is a case of false arrest and sloppy police work,” says Calhoun’s attorney, Alvertis Simmons.
(Source: My Fox Colorado)
Have you or someone you know been falsely arrested? If so, please contact us today to speak with an experienced attorney who will evaluate your case and ensure that you receive the legal help and support you need and deserve.
In a 5-4 decision today, the Supreme Court has reinstated the rights of all imprisoned citizens and non-citizens on USA soil to file a petition in their local Federal Court to protest their incarceration. The court affirmed that Habeas Corpus petitions are as alive and relevant today as they were in 1215 AD when King John of England agreed to them.
This decision by the Supreme Court is a little unique in that the rights are extended to non-citizens as well as citizens. Also, the rights exist on property leased by the United States. There will not be two classes of courts for two classes of citizenship. No longer will it matter if you are an American Citizen or a resident Alien, each will be allowed to have their voice heard in a Federal Courtroom closest to them. The Guantanamo Bay Navel facility is leased to the US Navy from the Cuban government.
The court did not go, as far as to say that the Military Tribunals that were determining the guilt or innocence of the enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay were constitutional or unconstitutional. Currently the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) provides for the procedures used to determine the “detainees” status. In addition to suspending Habeas Corpus Petitions for detainees, the DTA allows for a three-member tribunals to determine if a prisoner is properly labeled an enemy combatant. The military tribunals can rely on classified information to make this determination, even though the same evidence is not given to the prisoner to examine. The tribunals are required to assume that the evidence is genuine and reliable. The prisoners are granted a “personal representatives” but they are not lawyers.
Justice Kennedy writing for the majority of the court stated, “Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our armed forces to act and interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers. It is from these principles that the judicial authority to consider petitions for habeas corpus relief derives.
The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The framers [of the US Constitution] decided that habeas corpus, a right of the first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law.”
