California Cops Locked an Innocent Man in a Sex Offender Unit for 3 Days

Victor Manuel Martinez Wario was jailed for a total of five days, spending three of those in special housing for sex offenders.

In 2021, Whittier, California, police arrested Victor Manuel Martinez Wario on an outstanding warrant related to a 2012 child molestation conviction. The only problem? Police had arrested the wrong person. However, despite Wario frequently telling police he didn't have any warrants out for his arrest, they didn't bother to check—leaving Wario imprisoned for five days. 

Now, Wario is suing, claiming that police negligence amounted to a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The officer's actions caused Wario to suffer "emotional and mental trauma," according to the suit. "He also missed time at work, and was unable to provide care to his disabled fiancée."

In March 2021, Wario was pulled over by several Whittier police officers for a minor traffic violation. During the stop, police mistakenly found that he had an active warrant out for his arrest. Even though Wario denied that he had any active warrants, he was still arrested and booked into a nearby jail.

According to the lawsuit, during the booking process, police told Wario that the warrant originated from Wario's failure to register as a sex offender and "check in with the probation department" after a 2012 conviction for child molestation. Wario again "adamantly told them that they had the wrong person," the complaint reads. But, again, no one decided to double-check that the police had arrested the correct person.

Two days later, Wario was transferred to another jail. This time, "he was assigned special housing for custodies with child molestation cases, given a specially colored jumpsuit indicating his status as a sex offender, and a wristband was placed on his wrist also showing that his case involved child molestation," the suit reads. "Because of his perceived status as a convicted child molester, Mr. Wario was in serious jeopardy of being attacked by fellow inmates."

That day, he was taken to be arraigned. During a brief discussion with his attorney, he again insisted that he was the wrong person. However, when the attorney relayed this to Judge Mary Lou Villar, she set a $30,000 bail and refused to release Wario.  

"She ordered a fingerprints expert to appear in court the following week to take his fingerprints and verify his identity," the suit reads. 

However, the following day, someone finally took basic measures to check Wario's claims. According to the suit, "the Deputy District Attorney assigned to the case obtained the booking photo of the actual defendant in the case and determined that it was not Mr. Wario."

It took another day for Wario to be released—five days after his arrest.

On Tuesday, Wario filed a lawsuit against the Whittier Police Department, claiming that his false arrest was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, arguing that police had no reasonable basis for arresting and jailing him.

"No reasonable conclusion could be drawn that such an arrest and confinement was reasonable," his suit reads. "No objective facts readily available and known to Defendants could have reasonably led them to conclude that Plaintiff was a fugitive from justice stemming from a 2012 child molestation case."

Comments

[sarcasmic]

Waluigi set him up.

[n00bdragon]

It'sa not-a mee-a, Wario!

[Don't look at me!]

Can you imagine having pluggo as a cel mate?

[Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick]

That would be cruel and unusual punishment.

[Jerry B.]

And QI will strike again.

[JoeJoetheIdiotCircusBoy]

my thoughts exactly. No "reasonable conclusion" could be draw from this...except that a cop did it which by definition makes it reasonable I guess.

[Michael Ejercito]

So immunity already exists?

[Eeyore]

It's pointless to talk to cops. They are incapable of listening.

[creech]

Gee, what are the odds of someone being arrested telling the cops "You got the wrong man"? And the odds of said cops saying, "Oh, sorry to have bothered you"? The failure here appears to be that, once taken to the station house, the cops couldn't be bothered to check further.

[AT]

Because the cops have never heard, “You’ve got the wrong guy!” before.

Also, in true LOL Emma JoUrNaLiSm fashion, the allegations of a complaint are taken as indisputable gospel and reported as absolute fact.

During the traffic stop the police officers erroneously determined that Mr. Wario had an active warrant and placed him under arrest.

OK, so how was the error made? Emma? How did they make that error? No? Not going to investigate that even slightly? Let me throw out a suggestion: there’s a Victor Martinez (or even Victor Wario, or even possibly Martinez-Wario) somewhere in California who’s a registered sex offender with an open warrant.

Funfact: a public search of Whittier CA sex offenders turns up a LOT of results, almost exclusively hispanic names. (I didn’t actually find Mr. Wario, but admittedly I also didn’t deep-dive into it. And casually looking for a record that old won’t just be a two/three-step search starting at Google.)

But no, the wanted criminal suspect says, “it wasn’t me, it was the one-armed man!” So… let’s just release the potential sex offender until we clear this up?

Another Funfact: Whittier CA crime rate index: 16/100. (100 is virtually crime-free.) …oof. That’s… a LOT of crime. Bet it keeps the police real busy.

Was Victor wrongfully arrested and detained? Yes. Does he deserve some kind of restitution for that? Yes. Did I belly-laugh at the absurdity of this line: “Based on the facts readily available and known to the Defendants, no reasonable conclusion could be drawn that probable cause existed to arrest and confine Plaintiff.” You bet I did, because obviously that wasn’t the case. (Full disclosure, I also detached a retina rolling my eyes at the entirely cringeworthy “unable to provide care to his disabled fiancée” bit. lol *cue said violin* – and if you don’t know why this is so laughably pathetic, ask yourself why she isn’t also a plaintiff.)

Because here’s the reality: innocent mistake that was quickly remedied; and, outside of the unpleasant stay in lockup, no harm done. If he’d been jailraped or murdered, we’d be having an entirely different conversation (which wouldn’t be focused exclusively on Mr. Martinez-Wario). But he wasn’t.

Settle him out with five days at his current pay rate plus a little P&S cash to quit being such a baby about it.

[Don't look at me!]

“If you return the stolen documents when asked, no harm, no foul”!

[AT]

I don't know what that's supposed to reference.

[Ken Arromdee]

It references “innocent mistake that was quickly remedied”. If you commit a crime like stealing, returning the item and therefore “remedying” the harm from your stealing doesn’t exempt you from being punished for the theft. This should apply to the government as well; “quickly remedying” the harm by letting him out of jail is no excuse.

>You bet I did, because obviously that wasn’t the case.

Yes it was. “Facts that are readily available and known” doesn’t mean facts that fit into both categories simultaneously; it means either/or. The fact that he was not the suspect was not known, but it was readily available.

>Because the cops have never heard, “You’ve got the wrong guy!” before.

If they hear "you got the wrong guy, and you can verify this with a simple check" they should be obligated to do the check no matter how many times they heard it before.

[n00bdragon]

Better yet, they shouldn't have to be told. Doing the simple check to verify that you do, in fact, have the correct guy should be the very baseline bare minimum of detective work that the police MUST do.

[AT]

It's probably a GOOD thing that it wasn't as easy as a "simple check" to verify. Because if it was, you'd be arguing in defense of beat cops having an immediately accessible biometric database that the State can use to identify people.

Is that what you want? Because it's amazing to me that I'm seeing implicit support for such a thing on a supposedly libertarian site.

(Spoiler alert: it's actually not amazing, you're just typical leftists who don't think beyond your immediate reflexive outrages. But hey, since you're on board with it - let's put them at polling stations as well. There's no valid argument against it, if you think it should be implemented here.)

And he wasn't arrested by detectives. He was arrested by traffic cops. This wasn't some dude who was investigated and tracked down, he was happened upon with what was believed to be an outstanding warrant.

[Kyol]

Since it's a crime to lie to law enforcement agents, cops can easily tack on an additional charge if they hear "You have the wrong guy!", check, and get confirmation that they, indeed, have the right guy.

And, in a case like this where taking the time the verify a claim of mistaken identity can potentially keep an innocent person out of jail, I would have NO problems with tacking on an additional charge for people who lie to cops in a situation like this, wasting time and resources, if only to encourage the police to get confirmation one way or the other.

[AT]

An interesting idea, but there would almost certainly be 5th Amendment implications there.

If you deny the commission of a crime, of course you’re innocent until proven guilty. To tack on an additional crime for lying in your denial would have to come at the charging stage – when your guilt is FAR from having been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This in turn could arguably be used to coerce confessions to avoid the additional charge of a separate crime.

Like I said above – or below, depending how this comment nests – it’s really not the cops’ job to confirm that they have the right guy. It’s their job to arrest the suspect, and then the DA’s job to determine whether they have the right guy and charge him accordingly. (Which is why I think this suit doesn’t have much chance of success, even though the dude had an unpleasant stay in the State’s custody.)

It’s why I also have little sympathy for people who get belligerent during a traffic stop. Even if you’re 100% certain of your innocence, it’s not the charging/arresting officer’s job to make that immediate determination based on your protestations. And best practice is to comply, and let it get resolved after-the-fact.

Which, to Mr. Wario’s credit, he appeared to do without engaging in hostilities that escalated the situation – unlike the countless traffic stop belligerents we’ve seen videos of, where the motorist usually ends up shot or dead.

[AT]

This should apply to the government as well; “quickly remedying” the harm by letting him out of jail is no excuse.

Uh, yea - I said that explicitly. Even suggested what his restitution should be.

Though, it should be noted that the timeline between grievance and suit is an interesting one. The complaint says, "On or about the evening of March 25, 2021" - but I'm inclined to think that's a typo (which LOL JoUrNaLiSt Emma should have caught if she'd done ANYTHING beyond mindlessly copy/pasting anti-cop narrative complaint allegations into an article) because otherwise the SOL would be blown. If it actually occurred in 2023, then the filing of the CA Tort Claim in September 2023 would be to preserve the statute - meaning that in the six months between, the State was pretty confident that the cops followed all proper procedures and was telling Wario's attorney to go pound sand during prelit.

I'm not saying I agree with it - I do think the guy deserves a little cheddar for his largely harmless ordeal - but it blows this next argument of yours out of the water:

The fact that he was not the suspect was not known, but it was readily available.

Obviously it wasn't. Like LOL JoUrNaLiSt Emma, you declare this claim with a haughty implication that it somehow should be and then conclude it therefore was.

But you offer no reason why.

If they hear “you got the wrong guy, and you can verify this with a simple check” they should be obligated to do the check no matter how many times they heard it before.

That's not their job. Their job is to arrest criminal suspects. It's not their job to then exonerate them. That's the whole reason you should never speak to them when you're under arrest and without an attorney present. They are NOT there to determine whether you're guilty or innocent or even the right guy. They think you're guilty of something - in this case, having an outstanding warrant. If they're wrong, it's the DA's job to decide that.

Which is precisely what happened here.

(And, to take it the next step, if the DA is also wrong - that's why we have defense attorneys, an procedural court system, and a jury of peers.)

[Ken Arromdee]

>Obviously it wasn’t.

They didn’t check. Checking would have been easy and would have revealed that he wasn’t the suspect. So it was.

>Their job is to arrest criminal suspects.

He wasn’t a criminal suspect.

Having the job to arrest criminal suspects inherently means that part of the job is to do due diligence to determine whether someone *is* a suspect.

(And no, "every person they arrest is by definition a suspect" isn't true.)

[AT]

They didn’t check. Checking would have been easy and would have revealed that he wasn’t the suspect. So it was.

Like I said: "Like LOL JoUrNaLiSt Emma, you declare this claim with a haughty implication that it somehow should be and then conclude it therefore was."

They DID check. They wouldn't have been able to determine he was suspect of having an open warrant if they didn't check.

What you should really be asking is WHY they were so certain they had the right guy at the time of arrest AND at the time of charging. I mean, the DA finally figured it out after arraignment by looking at a picture. OK - but shouldn't there have been other indicators? Like, say, date of birth? What are the odds of TWO people named Victor Manuel Martinez Wario ALSO having the exact same DOB? Which 5-0 would almost certainly have readily available (unlike a photo log, with computerized age progression, of all criminals with outstanding warrants) and could verify against, say, a valid identification?

Now, I don't know if Mr. Wario had ID or not (LOL JoUrNaLiSt Emma didn't investigate the subject even slightly), but a claim of, "You have the wrong guy" would be STRONGLY bolstered with, "Here, look at my ID! Check my address and DOB! Here's my SSN! You can look that up too!"

I wonder why Mr. Wario didn't advance these claims at the time of his arrest. Interesting question, don't you think? I wonder if that has anything to do with his CA Tort Claim being summarily denied.

Use your brain Ken. There's clearly more going on here than what he alleged in his complaint.

He wasn’t a criminal suspect.

Yes he was. He was reasonably believed to be a person with an open warrant. That IS a criminal suspect. They had no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise, but for his protestations to the contrary. Which every criminal makes.

[NM Dave]

Wow. I've seen a lot of copsuckers in action over the years but none as blindly supportive of incompetence as you. At least i hope it's incompetence, otherwise it's a conscious criminal action. You had to go out of your way to be this callous and vile. Come to think of it, you're a cop, aren't you? Or even worse, a wannabe cop, too stupid to pass the simplistic test.

[AT]

Where did the incompetence occur?

It's funny, because I'm often very critical of police officers when they color outside of the lines. But Reason - and, in particular, Brickbat and LOL JoUrNaLiSt Emma Camp - are often railing against cops even when they're not; when they're clearly inside the lines. It's stupid - but I get it, they're driving that narrative and relying on a stupid highly-prejudiced audience (ie. you) that won't question it because it's what you want to hear.

They're groomers that way. Pandering affirmations to you to secure your loyalty and useful idiocy. You're their little brain-rape victim, because you lack the capacity (or, worse, the will) to defend yourself against it.

Where did the incompetence occur, Dave? Read all my replies to this article. Understand it fully. Where did the incompetence occur?

[KiwiDude]

"Where did the incompetence occur?"
The incompetence occurred at every point along the trail where it was assumed that this was "the guy".
When they actually got around to checking, it didn't take long to realize he wasn't "the guy".
Jail first, check later is not competence

[AT]

They didn't "assume" he was the guy. All the information they had readily available suggested he was, and he apparently had nothing to suggest otherwise other than his word.

Which a cop has no reason to take at face value.

[Wizard4169]

So the warrant didn't include a photo or at least a basic description? All it took was a quick look at the actual criminal's mug shot to clear this up. With modern technology the arresting officers should have been able to do that. At the absolute minimum this should have been done before he was even booked, much less tossed into a sex offender unit.
Oh, and let's see. Somebody who thinks complaining about being wrongfully locked up for most of a week, in potentially dangerous conditions makes someone a "baby" has the sheer brass chutzpah to call other people fake libertarians? I can't decide whether to laugh or vomit. When did this comments section degenerate into such an utter shitshow?

[AT]

So the warrant didn’t include a photo or at least a basic description?

No idea. Again, I wasn’t there.

But either way, it stands to reason that it’d be an old photo of the guy. 11 years, at least. I think the picture on my costco card is that old. Looks very little like me today.

With modern technology the arresting officers should have been able to do that.

Remember – we’ve gone to great lengths to defund the police in the last half-decade or so. “Modern technology” isn’t really in the budget these days – and when it is, it’s in bodycams.

Request a ridealong someday. See what they’re working with when they’re out on traffic beat.

At the absolute minimum this should have been done before he was even booked, much less tossed into a sex offender unit.

Why? They had a criminal suspect who, by all accounts except his, was the guy they thought he was. At that point, it’s for the Courts to figure out.

Which is precisely how it played out.

I can’t decide whether to laugh or vomit.

Laugh. It’s healthier.

And yes, I’m calling them fake libertarians. Because they’re allowing their reflexive outrage to eclipse the bigger picture. These clods are flat out advocating for the State to have a MORE invasive means of identifying people. It’s just like when they took the sides of masks and social distancing to “prevent COVID.” It’s like they were totally oblivious to the fact that they were useful idiots working to help expand State-owned partial facial-recognition databases.

This is short-thinking anti-cop losertarianism at play. Not long-term freedom-maximizing libertarianism.

[rloquitur]

If it is true that after the DA saw that they had the wrong it still took a day to release him, then people need to be fired.

[Liberty_Belle]

During the stop, police mistakenly found that he had an active warrant out for his arrest.
----------------
How did it go from traffic stop to arrest ? Mistype Driver's license ? Name match ? It wasn't a photo, as soon as they had a photo they let him go. What did sheriffs use to determine he was "the guy" ?

[KiwiDude]

What did sheriffs use to determine he was “the guy” ?

Gut feeling? Training and experience? He was guilty of something?

[TLoro]

My place in the federal suit pool is $500,000

[deesine]

Look at all the bootlickers here "Gosh cops have never heard that one before, dur!"

[Minadin]

Could be worse: This guy in Canada was accused of sex-trafficking 500 girls by the RCMP, but after the evidence all fell apart, they quietly dismissed the case, after making a big spectacle of his arrest:

https://nationalpost.com/feature/rcmp-destroyed-my-life-with-sex-trafficking-kingpin-claims

He spent 32 months in jail before they decided not to prosecute.