I appreciate all the time and effort you put into copying and pasting phrase for phrase, but unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, a lot of your posting is irrelevant.

How you THINK they should have done their job isn't relevant if they follow the law. I appreciate your sense of civic duty but what does attending city council meetings or being a first responder have to do with establishing guilt or innocence, or for that matter--probable cause?

Your snippy comment about "we don't do background checks on everyone we meet" reflects on your mentality. When the police came and you KNEW they were looking for the person in question---the fact that you still allowed them to be on your property, talk with them, at the garage, in the yard, on the porch--it doesn't matter where you and they were--you stood and chatted with these upstanding citizens when you knew the police were looking for them re: stolen vehicle. Maybe that would have been a clue maybe everything wasn't on the up and up? Just a guess...

Also, being faced with an alleged car thief establishes probable cause enough so the police don't HAVE to say, "Hiya, Skipper, how are the wife and kids? Seen any robbers around?" They cannot treat you any differently than anyone who has an alleged criminal on their property. For their safety, they secure the scene, THEN sort out who and what.

Just like a traffic stop--they put driver and passenger (at times) in handcuffs for their own protection. Ask questions, then remove the handcuffs. Was the person arrested? No... was he free to go? Yes.

Bottom line---the actions of your 'friends' implicated you that day, not the police. You are still missing the point---the cops were on your property BECAUSE THE ALLEGED THIEF was on YOUR PROPERTY. They don't REMOVE him from where they found him to arrest him, or question him.

If a guy robs a bank and flees into a neighboring house and breaks the door down, when the cops nab the guy, they don't take him BACK to the bank and discuss the crime with him. What you are saying doesn't make sense. You let someone you KNOW the police are looking for in connection with theft of an auto ON your property to chat and say, Hey, thanks for the memories, dude..... the first words out of MY mouth would have been, "Hey, I don't know what the hell is up, but the cops were here and they are looking for you. Leave my property before they come back!!"

I found this comment particularly attractive: "So now we KNOW he is in fact NOT a criminal tell me exactly how I should go about finding out who is/isn't of ill repute before they set foot on my property?. " Although it isn't my job to tell you how to be a judge of character, although some of us have managed to go our whole life without every getting our doors busted down because we invited criminals over, since you asked, I will tell you. There was no expectation that you would know BEFORE hand that the person was suspect in a theft, BUT your actions AFTER that point were contributory to the chain of events that followed. No, you don't run back ground checks, although, apparently according to you, with your stellar access as a pillar of the community as a first responder and conscientious city council meeting goer, you shouldn't have any trouble doing so if you wanted to----but your actions AFTER you knew they were wanted are what reflects suspicion on you by association. Understand?

None of this makes you guilty of a crime----but your actions regarding these "friends" DOES reflect on the POSSIBILITY (reasonable suspicion) that you were involved.

As I said, if you think your rights were violated, hire an attorney who has experience with Section 1983, Civil Liability regarding police officers acting under color of the law and sue. But, be advised, I suspect he or she will tell you the same thing I have.

Good luck.