You guys are alluding to stalking
but plenty of cops work security during Christmas in malls. Police Officers are never off duty unless they choose to be.
She was warned. Nice of him to not impound the car.
Wait....
Can I help? I want to help.
Here you go:
Prima Facie
Mala In Se
Mens Rea
Actus Reus
Mala Prohibidum
See... I'm helping.
how did said officer KNOW who, out of ALL the Best Buy employees, did the car belong to?
It's supposed to be that way. Unless she has a jury trial, I doubt it would be.This has always been the problem I've seen, the presumption of truth because of one's job, because in theory, the officer has nothing to gain or lose, either way, while it's to the non-LEO's benefit to tell a falsehood if it gets them out of trouble. In a word, "BULL". We all know that if, as it seems to some including me, this officer has targeted her, it is to his advantage for whatever reason it is in his head to do whatever he's done.
The simple fact is that unless there is proof that she did drive it on the public roads, she doesn't have to perjure herself. All she has to do is plead the Fifth. It's not up to her to prove her innocence, it's up to him to prove her guilt. Now...
Is it really worth it to him to expend all the effort and resources to do that for a DWS from a couple weeks earlier, and if so, why? This is a case, to me, of, "Don't you have better things to do than harass this one citizen who wanted to do Christmas for people, and may have been waiting only for a paycheck and a day off to go pay Caesar what is Caesar's?
Blessings,
Bill
It's supposed to be that way. Unless she has a jury trial, I doubt it would be.
It's supposed to be that way. Unless she has a jury trial, I doubt it would be.
It depends on how it is filed. If filed as an infraction, no right to take 5. If filed as misdemeanor, person has right to remain silent.
Do you find that out at court?
No, before. The summons that she receives will have a cause number with an "IF" (infraction) or "CM" ("criminal misdemeanor") cause number. It will be the same on-line.
This has always been the problem I've seen, the presumption of truth because of one's job, because in theory, the officer has nothing to gain or lose, either way, while it's to the non-LEO's benefit to tell a falsehood if it gets them out of trouble. In a word, "BULL". We all know that if, as it seems to some including me, this officer has targeted her, it is to his advantage for whatever reason it is in his head to do whatever he's done.
The simple fact is that unless there is proof that she did drive it on the public roads, she doesn't have to perjure herself. All she has to do is plead the Fifth. It's not up to her to prove her innocence, it's up to him to prove her guilt. Now...
Is it really worth it to him to expend all the effort and resources to do that for a DWS from a couple weeks earlier, and if so, why? This is a case, to me, of, "Don't you have better things to do than harass this one citizen who wanted to do Christmas for people, and may have been waiting only for a paycheck and a day off to go pay Caesar what is Caesar's?
Blessings,
Bill
Not sure where this took place but it seems there may be a dept with some officers having way too much time on their hands and may be in need of some downsizing. At the same time he may be a gogetter he did give the ticket in plain clothes so maybe he was on his own time or as BBI said maybe he's new and/or has no life
Some officer has WAY too much time on their hands......Well the whole check your plates while your in the parking lot has been ruled legit. My concern now is dishing out a ticket/summons to court in plain clothes off duty for something you "think" happened weeks ago and have no proof of
Which is interesting because a fellow brother in blue seems to think it's a lock for "conviction," what with the singular testimony of the officer and all.I can't think of a single judge that would allow this to fly, if she invoked the 5th Amendment.