|
The officers field report is public information. Ofton the case is poor field report that causes this to happen, and secondly if the officer has certification by their State and National P.O.S.T. Standards. Secondly
I would like to know if physical evidence was added, Video camera and the voice recording of the Field investigation, The field Soriety test in view of the vehicle. And the PBT or intoxilizer.
It is not so much Constitutional cause but of the States guidlnes for their officers that gives the officer the probable cause for stop empowerment.
These types of cases happen ofton, it is not specific to ones wealth or position in life.
IF the officer did not have viable evidence a crime was being commited then he cannot stop a vehicle. Officers are trined in detecting "Inhanced driving patterns" A simple recording of this on the Video camera is enough to establish probable cause. The additional evidence of the field investigation interview , and then a motorists consent to take a PBT and intoxiliser helps seal the case.
My suspicion is that the Officer had not established that probable casue and his case was weak. but it is not the officers fault. The officer is only an extension of the prosecuter. the prosecuter is the one that actually charges the defendent. It is the prosecuters responsebility to evaluate the case and define if a law was broken and then to present this to the court.
the patrolman, and the prosecuter failed in this case and the judge simply stated that fact. You cannot prosecute evidence that was obtained by violation of ones civil rights.
"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
