Blackmoor Vituperative

San Francisco resident Matthew Shinnick tried to sell a pair of mountain bikes on Craigslist late last year. He attracted a buyer, received a check in the mail — and ended up handcuffed by police in a downtown Bank of America branch and jailed for almost 12 hours.

[…]

In July, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled that Shinnick was innocent by “findings of fact” — a decision that essentially erases all record of the case.

But by this time, Shinnick said, he’d spent about $14,000 clearing his name. He wanted that money back and he felt BofA should pay it.

BofA felt otherwise. Earlier this month, a bank vice president, William Minnes, wrote to Shinnick’s lawyer to say that “Bank of America can certainly understand that your client is angry at the bank.”

However, he said, BofA has no legal liability in the case because of the 2004 Supreme Court ruling. Minnes warned that “litigation would not prove financially beneficial” to Shinnick.

[…]

The Supreme Court case, Hagberg vs. California Federal Bank, was remarkably similar to Shinnick’s. It involved a woman who presented an unusually large check for deposit from her stockbroker.

A teller believed the check was phony and called the police. The check turned out to be real, but by then the police had arrived and had handcuffed the woman.

The woman subsequently sued for damages, but the court ruled that all reports to the police are absolutely privileged. In other words, no liability can be connected to telling police of a suspected crime, whether real or not.

“The court wants to protect people when reporting criminal activity,” said Paul Glusman, a Berkeley attorney who has written about the Hagberg case. “But this can be abused. At this point, there’s nothing that will protect ordinary citizens from a false police report.”

(from SFGate, Check from a scammer bounces victim into jail)