if i had been arrested on a strictly indictable offense, the arrest would have been legal.

but, i was arrested - without a previous record - on a hybrid offense and then held (without cause) before eventually being charged with a summary conviction. those charges were dropped within a few weeks, because there was not any actual evidence of any actual harassment.

in the report, the officer cites case law that is strictly applicable to strictly indictable offenses. the exact case cited by the officer, which is a frequently cited case, points out that the arrest in that case was legal because the charge was strictly indictable, and would not have been if it were a hybrid charge. and, the law itself is quite clear, in context.

the review then claims that the officer's report "cited case law", and this was reasonable. but, the citation was completely wrong, and used in a completely wrong way, in context.

well, they're a civilian review board, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about....they just think it's reasonable to "cite case law". it's a farce.

when an actual judge finally looks at it, she'll set things right.