Security video proves man not guilty of DUI

Montgomery County police officers rarely get punished. Their union would never stand for it.

She will most likely retire on a disability due to a work related injury - Her pride and ego got smaked down.

Full retirement for MoCo's Finest!

It seems to me that most people don't realize what happens these days on the street.

The cop wants to play "Judge and Jury" too, so they decide on the spot whether you are guilty or not. Then they mold the "facts" to support that conclusion. The "truth" is not a necessary objective.

This guy is lucky two-fold. One that there was a camera, and two that he could actually get the video from it to support his version of the story.

Now obviously there was no evidence of DUI driving. But isn't there anything in MD about "drunk in public"? But of course you have to make the right charge. I guess the cop wanted the extra money for OT and donuts that the DUI charge would bring.

All cases brought by this liar cop should be thrown out, and this cop should receive some form of discipline. I don't think losing the job (at this point) is appropriate, but something in the personnel file to show if a pattern is present. Something other victims can refer to if necessary.

People just don't realize how typical this is of interactions between police and citizens.

There needs to be zero tolerance for stuff like this.

She knew the law and knew EXACTLY what to say in order to send an INNOCENT MAN to jail. She is a DANGER to the community.

We've always been told that you CAN be charged with DUI while sitting in the back seat with the keys in your pocket and that if you approach a vehicle with the keys while drunk you could be charged. It turns out that this was yet ANOTHER lie. It really never made sense to me but I just accepted it as fact. Like being charged with "assault on a law enforcement officer" if you kick a police DOG....

So.. It turns out that the TRUTH is.. In order to be charged with OPERATING a motor vehicle under the influence, you must in fact be OPERATING IT. Fancy that.....

She should be fired and charged with perjury and false arrest.

You can be charged with assault on an officer if you kick the police dog because the police dog is legally a police officer.

But with DUI, the charge is that you are operating a motor vehicle under influence of alcohol, therefore, you must be actually operating the vehicle. Otherwise, the charge would need to be intent.

And yes, I think police officers who deliberately commit perjury should be fired and prosecuted. We are at the mercy of officers of the law, and the courts need to be able to rely on their accounts of a scene or crime.

A police dog is an extension of a police officer's body. A police dog is not a police officer, per se.

The reasoning goes along the same line an assault charge that involves kicking the cane of a disabled person. The cane is not part of a person's body, but it is an extension of their body because they are holding it for support.

Similarly, throwing a snowball at somebody's car while it is being driven can result in an assault charge. The car is an extension of the driver's body, so long as the driver is in it.

Assault can be any offensive touching.

Can someone making an offensive post be charged with assaulting my eyes?

have those charges ever stuck when faced with legal opposition?

Regarding the term "operating a vehichle." It's genereally accepted that if you are drunk and your keys are in the ignition, you have intent to operate. Otherwise the judge will throw it out. But that is still based on the officer's testimony.

It shows that the person was sitting in the back seat. Intent to drive from there is hard to prove. Since any reasonable doubt would result in a not guilty verdict, the judge was right to just toss this one.

As for the officer, I think some people are being a bit too harsh. Yes, she was out of line for the charge. But every day officers have to make decisions based on what they feel will protect people. While her overall judgment may be off, her intent to protect people from a potential drunk driver were probably correct.

And to be perfectly honest, I'd much rather stop a drunk driver BEFORE they kill someone.

She flat out lied.

the doubt. I have seen officers testify on the stand and they reference their handwritten notes and try to remember one out the seven stops they made that day three months ago. One time the officer cited the wrong notes and the defending atty caught it and the judge threw it out. If she had been able to see the video prior to testifying then it would have made all of the difference, but instead it was a waste of court time and resulted in a blemish on her record (which I am sure she didn't want or plan.)

Or arrest reports that were written IN DETAIL immediately after the event.

She lied and she knew what she was doing...

I have to disagree. In this case, the officer NEVER had a case of DUI. She had a case of a drunk in the back seat. The original charge was patently false, and she makes it worse by lying on the stand, and claiming she forgot. she can't forget what never happened. this guy should never have been charged with DUI and the officer knew it at the time. i don't know what she was thinking.

But did she walk into court knowing that they were prosecuting an innocent man? Why would she do that? I think she bumbled her arrest report and her notes. Probably did them all at the end of the day and confused one arrest with another.

This was not a fricking traffic stop. He was in the back seat of a parked car!! She knew exactly what she was doing!! She screwed up by arresting him for DUI in the first place, tried to lie her way out of it and got nailed!! This was probably her big deal of the day, I don't for one second believe she bumbled notes or confused what probably was at least a two hour arrest and booking with another that day.

Before any arrest is made the officer must assess what if any elements of the crime exist and what if any laws were broken. All of this is done before the handcuffs are placed on the suspect.
She flat out lied and should be fired, charged with perjury and any other realted crimes.
This simply cannot be tolerated!

says here, she did this intentionally, was aware at all times that she was committing pergury and willfully put an innocent man in jail. If that's the case she should be fired and sent to jail. If she's that stupid, she deserves what she gets. But what about the person who called this in? Did he have any interest in seeing this guy locked up for DWI? What did he tell the dispatcher, what was the cop thinking when she arrived on the scene? If she's a stupid cop who has no business being one, she should be fired. I just can't see an officer willfully putting themselves in this position. It's career suicide. I just think there is more here than meets the eye.

most cops could care less about sending an innocent to jail. Prosectors put officers and other witnesses on the stand knowing full well that they will lie in order to get their conviction and to protect their "numbers."

Our justice system needs revamping.

She clearly testified that the person was in the front seat.

She lied.

She is a disgrace and will never be able to testify in court again.

She should be fired immediately.

Harsh? Not at all. The cop 100% outright lied in order to put a man in jail for something he didn't do. There's no "too harsh" for that. A prison term wouldn't be unreasonable, fired should be a minimum. Every conviction ever obtained based on this officers testimony is now suspect. Any arrests this officer made since this one are completely irrelevant.

Stopping a drunk driver before they kill someone is good, but this guy wasn't driving. He was sleeping in the back seat, with the door open. You can't injure anyone by sleeping in the back seat.

So it is all right for a LEO to lie in order to convict someone of a crime of which they DID NOT commit...

Regardless of what the aledged crime is, a police officer is supposed to honestly assess what the person allegedly has done and react within the boundries of the law. Just because a person becomes a police officer doesn't automatically allow them to act above the law, and due to the fact that they are by nature more aware of what the laws are they should be held accountable to the letter of the law.

I know a lot of people in the law enforcement community and for the most part they are decent people that try to uphold the law to the best of their ability. Unfortunately there are a few that get a "I am better than the citizen because I am a cop complex" and that is totally unacceptable.

If this officer didn't react to the situation without keeping her personal agenda out of it then she is no longer capable of being a "Law abiding citizen"

No one is above the law and she should be fired immediately!

I feel safer already, TheAngryAdmin.

Hopefully you draw the line at planting evidence, but hey, if they're intent is right. Protect the people and all that.

Atkinson v. State, a Baltimore case, set guidelines when in the car and not driving it.
The court laid out a 6 factor test to determine whether or not the person had driving the vehicle while under the influence or was simply using the vehicle for shelter:
1) Whether or not the vehicle's engine is running or the ignition is on;

2) where and in what position the person is found in the vehicle;

3)whether the person is awake or asleep:

4) Where the vehicle's ignition key is located;

5) whether the vehicle's headlights are on; and

6) Whether the vehicle is located on the roadway or is legally parked;

If you're bored:
http://www.marylandduiattorneyblog.com/2009/02/third_time_duidwi_offender_suc.html

But Officer Hoffman has now compromised that deference as it pertains to her.

If there is ever a case that relies solely on her word, who is the judge going to believe? This may be the reason why she needs to go.

See my post below about jury selection in criminal trials.

Nowhere in my post or in this story was selecting a jury ever mentioned Telescope.

Why didn't you just attach your Grandmother's buncake recipe? Would make as much sense as your above response to my bench trial post.

Judge or jury, who cares?

The more important point is that you are mistaken in your contention. When there is no jury, the fact finder is a judge. When there is a jury, the fact finder is the jury.

Moreover, fact finders are held to the same rules of evidence with regard to believing witness testimony, whether the fact finder be a judge or jury.

In essence, then, you evade admitting being mistaken by distracting us with a "red herring" by observing that your original post never mentioned "jury selection."

The vastly more important point, that you deliberately gloss over to save face, is that jury instructions are the same instructions that a judge also follows, with respect to believing witness testimony.

Therefore, I was proper to cite jury instructions to refute your original contention.

Two, you have no idea of what "practicing law" means.

Three, I'm spot on to my first post. Judges do give great deference to police officer's testimony for many reasons. One being, MOST officers are testifying truthfully and know that the price to pay for falsely testifying is too great.

Four, as in this case, this was a bench trial in District Court. Jury trials are held in Circuit Court.

Nothing was evasive. Answer: where did "jury selection" come from? Your imagination? Your points are all convaluted. Have you been drinking already?

Your present post introduces no new contentions, but is instead nothing but a tantrum.

You then feign being more enlightened than me by pointing out the obvious. i.e. that jury trials are held only in Circuit Court, as if I didn't know.

Judges do not give more credibility to testimony of police officers, period. Testimony is testimony, regardless of its source. A judge has no choice but to interpret testimony without bias because there is no rule of fact finding or rule of evidence, spoken or unspoken, that allows a fact finder to believe the testimony of a cop sooner than testimony of any other witness.

Moreover, the rule of evidence that pertains to the character of a witness can be applied with equal adversity to police officers as to civilians.

In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about; although your rhetoric might make it seem so to somebody else who likewise doesn't understand.

Where did "jury selection" come from? Whose being evasive? I've asked three times now. Maybe you're delusional.

It's obvious who doesn't know what they're talking about.

You deliberately evade the more important point that fact finders must adhere to the same principles of fact finding, the same rules of evidence, and the same rules of procedure. This is true, regardless of whether the fact finder is a judge or a jury.

Your mistaken contention in your original post reveals you didn't know that. You therefore feel that your only means to save face is to harass me via your subsequent posts that amount to nothing more than a tirade.

If you understood legal process, you would be fun to debate with; but since you don't, you are nothing but a nuisance.

Telescope needs to be cited for PUI...Posting under the Influence. Don't worry about it Johnny D...he's a tool.

I believe there is a law about that or I know there was back in the dark ages but this man was asleep in the back seat so don't think
that could apply. But then again I guess they can make most any
thing apply if they want to. Am so glad this got tossed out and the
officer needs some type of punishment for sure.

I believe that, unless there was evidence of any other crime, the worse he would have gotten was a few hours in the tank to sober up. Not gonna make rank on that kind of stop.

It looks like she parked her car in such a way that the dash mouned camera would not be able to record exacly where the person was in the car.

She could have pointed her car directly at the car. She was trying to cover this up from the word "Go".

She needs to be fired - today!

in MoCo cars last May. Thank the police union. Don't know if they have installed them yet or if the union is still fighting cameras in court. They were ordered to install cameras as part of a court settlement, but the union filed suit against the ruling.

If there was, that would've been the way to go.

for perjury. Make it so security guard at Chuckie Cheese is the height of her next career.

What has Manger done to the MoCo popo? They used to be halfway decent before his reign. Now they are about par with PGPD.

I don;t want this person securing the Chuck E. Cheese that WE use....!!!

I was on a jury in Howard County a few years back and the police detective committed blatant perjury. The evidence made this crystal clear and we acquitted the poor young man after about 30 minutes deliberation.

Some things to remember:

MoCo PD Chief Tom Manger used to be Chief in Fairdax County

Both departments are strongly unionized.

Things like this happen all the time not just in both counties, but throughout the region.

DWI is a crime of violence. However, it must never be considered a"cash cow" or any other source of revenue.

This officer will likely lose her job in Maryland, but has a bright future in Fairfax County. Her ethics will fit right in!

That looks like a "City of Gaithersburg" police car...

A MOCO police car.

While Fairfax can have a union they have no bargaining power, it is in Virginia a right to work state. They can ask for things but they cannot demand.

I am sure Manger was in for a surprise when he went to MoCo. First that the police could get away with much more and then to deal with the liberal attitude that there are no criminals only victims of society.

Please explain how "DWI is a crime of violence." It may lead to it, but in and of itself it isn't.

where she has sent other innocent victims. She is a villain and now everyone knows it. Oh yeah one more thing....SKREW the union. They're half the reason businesses are heading south of the border.

During jury selection in a criminal trial, a judge will typically ask prospective jurors whether they would be more likely to believe the testimony of a police officer than testimony of a witness who is not a police officer. If a prospective juror answers "yes," they are dismissed from jury duty.

In other words, judges know that cops are as likely to give perjured testimony as any other witness.

But cops are not the only culprits. Most witnesses perjure themselves to some degree. All witnesses inherently struggle with what is best for themselves, versus what is best for either plaintiff or defendant whom they hope wins, versus telling the untainted truth.

Going to Court is ugly because it brings out the worst in people. That is why it is best to stay out of Court, if at all possible.

Because from a lay persons point of view this is not what goes on. The word of the popo is sacrosanct 99.9% of the time.

Secondly, a cop's testimony is often collaborated by other evidence. In a speeding ticket, for example, the case is always more than just a cop's word against a defendant's word. The cop additionally has the output of a radar gun to establish that his testimony is more credible.

As for defendants, who are not trained to testify, sometimes they come across as unpersuasive simply because their testimony is unrehearsed, they stutter, and so forth. This is true, even for defendant who tell the truth.

Who comes across as a more persuasive witness therefore has more to do with the fact that defendant's don't know what to anticipate when going to Court, whereas cops do know what to anticipate. It has nothing to do with judges being predisposed to believe a cop.

In District Court.

Why are you trying to "outsmart" people. Not very impressive discussing an entirely different court when the story is all about a bench trial.

All fact finders are held to the same rules of evidence and rules of fact finding, whether the fact finder be a judge or a jury. Therefore, your present point is irrelevant for being evasive to the more important issue.

You don't know what you are talking about, John D; and you are fuming mad because I persuasively pointed it out; and so the only thing you can do to retaliate is to deliberately confuse the issue by being picky with the semantics of my posts in ways intended to distract from the mistaken contention in your original post.

And stop voting with approval your own posts, while marking mine offensive. It is blatantly obvious because nobody else but you would be so passionate about our exchange.

INCREDIBLY naive.

Plus you serioulsy contradict yourself.

Besides name calling?

The defense could have produced the video far in advance of the trial to prove to the prosecutor that the cop was lying. Then the prosecutor would have dismissed the case himself without the fanfare an formality of any trial.

But instead, the defense knew the cop was lying; and so rather than show their hand, the defense allowed the case to go to Court, so as to cause the cop to perjure herself in front of a judge. That outcome was far more dramatic and satisfying for the defense than having a pretrial dismissal, wherein the latter would have never made the news and hence would have resulted in no embarrassment for police.

for once I agree with an attorney, I see no reason why the officer should not have to be truthful all the time, even if it doesn't go to court. The fact that the attorney waited did not cause the cop to perjure herself, only she is responsible for that. I generally support law enforcement and will generally take the word of a cop over a citizen based on the fact that their warrant (badge) obligates them to a higher standard. As for those who do not honor that, they are unworthy and should be dismissed immediately and with extreme prejudice.

And good lawyering for the defense to have the liar cop perjure herself in open court!

I'd prefer to see your photgraphs showing the defense attorney receiving the video over a year ago.

Btw, some cops lie all the time. It's not always so clear. But when one of them puts her neck on the block, why not chop it off.

Anyone else wonder if this is the only time she has lied in court?

We can presume as much because retail stores don't archive surveillance video indefinitely. Stores only archive surveillance video long enough to discern whether its content is needed, and that is typically a few days.

This necessarily means the defense attorney understood that timeliness meant everything in discovering whether any surveillance tape existed; and that he therefore must have been in possession of that surveillance tape from the moment it was created.

What drugs are you on?

Are you switching the burden of proof to the criminal defendant?

Understand something, a criminal defendant does not have to prove or share anything. The government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

You raised the point that the defense might not have had the surveillance video for the entire year. I replied by posing a hypothesis by which it is more likely than less likely that they did indeed have it the entire year. Then you retort by interjecting something about burden of proof that, while true, is totally irrelevant to what either of us had just said.

Face it, John D. You are still fuming mad because I proved you stupid at your original post above, entitled: "Robert H., most judges give overwhelming deference to police officer's testimony."

And to get even with me, you got drunk today and have been posting offensive posts in response to all my posts, ever since. And indeed it does seem you are drunk because your posts are a tirade that has deteriorated into rambling as today progressed.

Not only are you capable of diluding yourself that theory equals practice, you're capable of misplacing the officer's responsiblity for her own actions.

No one forced the officer to lie under oath. Up until the instant she spoke those words on the stand she had the choice not to.

The defense being aware that she lied in the past does not guarantee she will lie on the stand. No matter how likely the defense thought it would be that she would lie again, the defense isn't responsible for the words coming out of her mouth on the stand. She is.

Whether it is satisfying for the defense as you imagine or not, it is a service to the community to expose her conduct in the light of day in open court.

Your job was to serve and protect, but all you did was lie...
You have lost the public's trust and if you have any pride left at all, you would quit...

In Everybody Loves Raymond Deborah was put in jail. Operating a vehicle under the influence. She was asleep with her seat in a reclining position but the keys were in the ignition. She had her license taken away too. Just a little tidbit to brighten your day TGIF

Keys in the ignition is the damning fact in parked DUI cases. even if the vehicle has not in fact been operated by an intoxicated person asleep behind the wheel, they can and will still be convicted of DIU just because the keys were in the ignition.
Years ago, I had too much to drink one night and when I got behind the wheel of my car realized that i was in no condition to drive so I reclined the seat and just before i passed out, I pulled the keys from the ignition and threw them on the passenger side floor. A cop pulled up behind where I was parked on a street, woke me up, and told me I was so lucky that I did not have those keys in the ignition. Saved my sorry rear that night!

How'd this ever even get in front of a judge? Wouldn't the prosecution have access to this video under the disclosure rules? This case should have been dropped and never even made it to the docket. The prosecutor(s) need to be smacked upside the head, too.

The pressure to convict as many as they can of DUI/DWI to appease the MADD mothers is huge! Evidence be d4mned!

She gets MADD's Pig of the Year award for having the guts to fabricate evidence in order to rid our streets of drunks.

If the prosecutor's office simply refused to take this case, they'd lose the confidence of the police to go after people. I think it was right to let the judge throw this one out. The judge could also have allowed a jury to see the video and make a ruling that way.

You sound like a LOE or prosecutor. Or just an apologist for corrupt cops...

If the prosecutor knew of the surveillance tape and prosecuted anyway, he is guilty of malicious prosecution, and possibly conspiracy to commit perjury if he was aware that the cop was going to lie.

The prosecutor should be disbarred for violating the rule of professional conduct

who engage in misconduct. Paul Ebert would certainly be out of a job!

And for that reason, among others, we can be certain the prosecutor had no prior knowledge that the State's case was built upon a lie. The prosecutor was surely just as much a victim of the cop's fabrication as was the defendant. Happens all the time in that lawyers often don't know their own client has lied to them, until after their client is cross examined.

Time in Court is also very precious; and for that reason, prosecutors have no interest in trying cases that they know they are going to lose.

And for those criminal convictions, where this cop's testimony was the critical factor, those convictions should be overturned and expunged.

The reason this cop must be fired is as much practical as it is disciplinary. Her testimony is forever worthless in Court. Every future defendant, where her testimony is critical, will be acquitted because the defense will introduce evidence to establish this cop's history of perjury.

A cop whose testimony is inadmissible, due to prior instances of perjury, is a cop who is worthless to the police department that employs her.

This cop willprobably get an award...

That's just the way it is....

the article says that the guy was even drunk. But if he was, good for him for crashing in the back seat instead of driving.

Whatever happened to the sworn officer? I haven't been to court for any major traffic infractions, but every time they introduce a cop to the court, they announce the officer is sworn to uphold the law and to offer truthful testimony. That means the officer is being held to a higher standard and there should be a stiffer punishment for violating that standard.

Al these calls for the officer's resignation are legit. If sworn officers can't be trusted to offer truthful accounts, what good are they?

Proverbs 25:18 Like a club and a sword and a sharp arrow Is a man who bears false witness against his neighbor.

De 19:16-21. Punishment of a False Witness.

16-21. But if convicted of perjury, it will be sufficient for his own condemnation, and his punishment shall be exactly the same as would have overtaken the object of his malignant prosecution. (See on [158]Ex 21:23; see also Le 24:20).

She should have her drivers license suspended for six months and of course can no longer be trusted with the color of authority, she is a liar.

Good thing the New Testament trumps the old (for those who profess to be Christians anyway), otherwise we'd all be sk rued.

I'll take grace over rules any day.

You go Martin Luther!

On a human level. I'd love to see her stripped of her badge and thrown in jail...on a spiritual level...well I'll let God take of that. I'm sure he's got a special place in that hot place or purgatory for lying pigs.

Sue the cop and the county. Throw out every ticket and case she has ever brought before the courts. Then fire her sorry butt.

Good thing he found and hired a competent lawyer, they are few and far between.

This is exactly why public relations between the police and the public are at all time lows. No trust in the police or the corrupt justice system. Atleast the system worked for this guy this time.

Even if this guy was asleep in the driver seat, he was not driving. The purpose of DUI is to prevent reckless DRIVING by those assumed to be intoxicated, not to prevent someone from sleeping it off in their car. Keys in the ignition should not be enough to charge for DUI. If they have to reduce the standard this low, then maybe real DUIs aren't as prevalent as they would have you believe. At best they have too many resources and can't find enough real crimes to go after, at worse they are occupied with this low hanging fruit while real DUI drivers are on the road. Either way it's a problem.

Jeff - I agree with what you say. But, sadly it is true that convictions are common even if the defendant is sleeping it off in the back seat and the keys are no where near the ignition. If this "LEO" had not lied in the first place I would bet money a conviction would have been made in this case.

MADD moms don't care. Because it really isn't about safety anymore. It is about prohibition.

*to-->too :-(

Makes me sick. I used to generally have respect for the police and used to assume that they are telling the truth whenever they testify, but I guess not. there are too many cases like this-hard evidence directly contradicts a cops testimony and the reputation of honest cops everyehere is then tainted. The MOCO police union is disgusting in the way they get their members off of crimes! they refuse to make them pay speed camers infractions, even when the cop is off duty and driving to and from home, shopping, etc. Then they shamefully exploit the scandalously easy disability retirement system in MOCO. Funny how during the time when many, many, MOCO cops get full disability, NOT A SINGLE FAIRFAX COUNTY COP RETIRED ON DISABILITY. Nope, not one. And, of course, there was the MOCO cop who while on a total disability retirement, went to work full time for another jurtisdiction and competed in a physical fitness contest!
Thabnk god for Virginia's Right to Work laws!

Yet another example of how nonchalantly our "peace officer" toss the rule book out the window when it suits them. She should be tried for perjury to the fullest extent of the law because she, of all people, whould know how wrong it is to lie on the stand.

"peace officerS".

My typing goes out the window when I'm annoyed by government over-reaching

They can start by ridding their ranks of people like this woman.

Spedv is right on the money with that one

The next sentence was probably:

"That will show unequivocally that the officer did nothing wrong and was only accidentally mistaken"

6 or 8 months later. Officer Hoffman would be quietly put back on the street....

test

And start it from the beginning. I wonder if it shows the defendant actually *operating* the vehicle. Someone had to drive it onto the lot. Then, they re-file charges against him. I don't see where the judge found him "not guilty." It only appears that the judge dismissed the charges, so they could be brought up again.

No more of a presumption than your own, but I don't think the defense would have used footage from a source where an earlier segment would prove their client's guilt.

But we'd actually have to roll that earlier footage to see. It might have been a friend. Or him earlier when he was sober. Well, let's take a look. Here it is now and ...

(cue Journey's Don't Stop Believing)

unless they can get the footage from the defense attorney. The store probably does not still have that footage a year later.

wrong for this and clearly should have made an arrest as to drunk in public and not operating a vehicle. How the guy got there isn't explained nor was whether it was his car and he the only occupant. I think there is more to this story than the reporter bothered to research.

If the arresting officer purposefully lied just to get an arrest, then she should definitely be reprimanded and something official be placed in her file.

I forgot. Because it is a DUI lets we get to throw out the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Throw out the whole 5th amendment too while you are at it. Yeah, DUI is worse than rape, robbery, and murder because... Because... Because MADD said so darn it!

Fancy, you are assuming he drove there. We don't know that. The circumstances can be explained in a myriad of ways. Not simply that he had driven there...

So, that wasn't an option. In Maryland we have to stay drunk at all times. It's the only way we can cope with this stupid state and the politicians in charge of it!

This is what happens when the police chiefs give rewards and/or demand a certain number of tickets each month.

I cannot help but wonder how our police assault in the CVS pharmacy would have turned out if our attorneys had followed our instructions and obtained the CVS store video. What is interesting is the avoidance activity by Virginia authorities, attorneys, courts, Virginia State Bar, police, FBI and the Governor. A simple question, "lets see the CVS store video ?" was not answered by the courts or institutions all of whom declare that they adhere to something called "rule of law".

The Virginia State Bar is quick to claim that they do not address "strategy" grievances, but most attorneys are "good apples". When asked to identify the "good apples" they cannot support the claim of a competent, diligent population - but their members turn in their papers and have good attendance.

With the avoidance by the courts enter "law enforcement officers" who can say anything and it will be taken by both defense, prosecutors and the courts without contest. It is good that this one "bad apple" was caught - the question is how many others are out there, how many liars, thugs and bullies ?

It could be said that we had bad attorneys, we were punished but then there may have been a crime committed against us, attorney fraud, assault, frame, lying on a police report and yet when notified of such activity the authorities did nothing. The do nothing authorities start with the attorneys, Bar, Police Chief of Manassas, Mayor, Governor of Virginia and the FBI. At the time I did not find a contact for Manassas "Internal Affairs".

The question remains "where is the CVS store video ?"

http://criminaljustice.change.org/actions/view/reform_attorneys_with_functional_oversight

Our fence was hit by a punk the day after New Year's some year's ago, a cop showed up and noted he knew the kid that did it. This kid had no insurance on his brand new Ford Expedition, he took out 127' of our split rail fence. Anyhow, the cop told us he knew this kid and the kid would own up to paying for our fence, yeah only $200.00 out of $1800 bill. Well we kept calling this cop, even went a high as his Sargeant to no avail. Plain and simple, we were lied to by a Fairfax County cop. This kid splits on us and we're stuck paying the bill, WE WILL NEVER TRUST A COP AGAIN!!!! ANY ACCIDENT HAPPENS, GET A TICKET AND GO TO COURT. Don't let a cop talk you out of him writing that ticket, cover your own [no swearing please] because cops won't.

No matter how is sliced: "Probable cause", "Interpretation of the Law" SHE LIED. She knew the consequences of having this man under those charges. She could have this man's life destroyed for a lie. He did the right thing...park and sleep it off. Those who don't and get cought...let all the weight of the law fall on them. Just a thought...law were made to for all to follow including the executive brach.

As citizens, we trust our safety to the hands of our police officers. Many of these men and women do a fine job in making our local area a safer place to live.
In this case we have a police officer that made a horrible decision to arrest this man and then gets the facts wrong in court to the point that the line between criminal and police officer becomes reversed.
This deserves a police board review and possible disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.
Remember this same officer is carrying a firearm. Do you think they just might make a decision to shoot the wrong person too and cover it up?
It's not easy being an officer, but a bad decision made on the part of the officer in this case causes a lot of good police officers to look bad.

Interesting little gnome that votes "offensive" on those that relay incidents and facts that do not support the thugs in blue. They are wandering around making bad decisions and these are being covered up. The cover up is a reflection of the same philosphy that supports torture and had this country, ignore the facts and invade another. The claim is that they are keeping us safe.

Frame and convict me, claim to adhere to "rule of law" and then when confronted with evidence cover it up. Not the jerks that beat me up, their tactics were amusing. It is the cover up that is insidious and demonstrates the lie - dishonorable activities do not engender a healthy society, does not keep citizens safe, it shows that the "law" is irrelevant and biased, identifies that authority is not a solution, just an obstacle to be avoided.

Consider those involved in the banking crisis, it is your money, how are the authorities addressing those criminals. How about the Jay Bybee Memo's allowing torture ? How would you feel if someone came into your country and tortured your family ? Assaulted you in a store after you spent the night in the hospital because your girlfriend had a breakdown ? Such activities do not gain support from the community, it grows hatred, resentment and finally indifferent amusement.

Nothing is changed, the policies have not - cover up, avoidance, collusion, obstruction - law enforcement at its finest. Glad this attorney played the game like it is supposed to be played - did we find one competent defense attorney ?

Where is the CVS store video folks ?