Comment: Case Analysis...

(See in situ)


Case Analysis...

1. Arresting officer and Supervisor were ignorant of the law.

2. This video was edited to get desired point of view. Driver's testimony of "three lies" on the radio or the officers yelling "shut up" were not caught on camera. Your word against his.

3. The request for change of venue was made after the citation was written.

4. The Vehicle is most likely a company property that is registered to a out of state company address. The citation issued by officer use vehicle registration address as proof of residency. Also the reason why the officer did not want to grant change of venue. (Her driver's license does not count as proof of residency)

5. The 70's burnout cameraman needs to put down the bung, get some exercise and stop making commentaries not relevant to him. (It pollutes the evidence) Also, the camera was pointed at the officers face, so yes, technically the camera was in his face.

6. The camera once again helped out yet another person in a situation where "misunderstanding" can occur during a traffic stop.

-----------------

Lastly, kudos to her for standing her ground. She reminded me of this clip from Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRsl38_HuK0

Edit:

Down voting does not make the analysis any more less analytical.