Couple weeks ago a friend is working at best buy, a state officer comes inside her job and tells her hebwas running plates in the parking lot and noticed she had a suspended license and figured he let her know and left it at that. (I made a separate thread about this then) well now today the same officer came in off duty and gave her a ticket for driving without a license. Told her he knows she drove it home that day and knows she drove in today. Then he left. Please discuss.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
here's one for the lawyers
- Thread starter dansgotguns
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public.
The leo is within the law.
The leo is just trying to keep you safe...and he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
If you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about.
Oh yeah, we're going to need some more of your property to pay for more protection.
The leo is within the law.
The leo is just trying to keep you safe...and he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
If you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about.
Oh yeah, we're going to need some more of your property to pay for more protection.
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
CathyInBlue
Grandmaster
She might have had someone else drive her to work and then walk elsewhere for reasons. Just because her car is in the parking lot of her place of employment does not mean that she drove it there. Habeas corpus. Where's the proof of the violation?
My thoughts exactly
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
1. Is your friend hot? If she is hot, this might be a set phasers to creepy moment.
2. Sounds like a defensible case. No evidence of operation.
3. She needs to speak with an attorney.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Don't say that, you'll draw all the Lincoln-hating conspiracy lunatics into the thread.
Corpus delicti is the term you meant.
sloughfoot
Grandmaster
Better make sure there is no parking lot videotape of her driving up and getting out of the car. Also, how do you know that he did not observe the same? You say he says he did.
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. They get to choose when with family.
Has she been driving while suspended? That is wrong. She knows that, right? And that her insurance Co. will usually deny a claim if she has an accident if DWS?
She was warned. Nice of him to not impound the car.
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. They get to choose when with family.
Has she been driving while suspended? That is wrong. She knows that, right? And that her insurance Co. will usually deny a claim if she has an accident if DWS?
She was warned. Nice of him to not impound the car.
Last edited:
CathyInBlue
Grandmaster
I've never been anywhere near south Texas.Don't say that, you'll draw all the Lincoln-hating conspiracy lunatics into the thread.
Corpus delicti is the term you meant.
Some guys in the LE calling do not have a life and live to ticket anyone and everyone. They are usually new at the job and tend to be that way for about two to three years or so on average. This sounds like a newer guy to me.
As for what the LEO did I guess the real question is did the person in fact drive the vehicle to work. We all know that she did. Is she going to lie under oath that she didn't drive if she in fact did? The LEO is allowed to run the plate for any reason or no reason. He is also well within his duties to warn the owner of the vehicle of her status. He is also allowed to ticket the driver/owner while in plain clothes. He did not conduct a traffic stop on her. Weird? Yea kinda. When the rubber hits the road it will be whether the judge believes the officer or the suspended female whose vehicle was sitting in the parking lot of her work. Now who is going to be most believable?
As for what the LEO did I guess the real question is did the person in fact drive the vehicle to work. We all know that she did. Is she going to lie under oath that she didn't drive if she in fact did? The LEO is allowed to run the plate for any reason or no reason. He is also well within his duties to warn the owner of the vehicle of her status. He is also allowed to ticket the driver/owner while in plain clothes. He did not conduct a traffic stop on her. Weird? Yea kinda. When the rubber hits the road it will be whether the judge believes the officer or the suspended female whose vehicle was sitting in the parking lot of her work. Now who is going to be most believable?
Don't say that, you'll draw all the Lincoln-hating conspiracy lunatics into the thread.
Corpus delicti is the term you meant.
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.
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
Did this really happen, or is this a "what if" story? IANAL, but it would seem that this could very easily be beaten in court. Sure we all know that she drove the car, but in court, the officer would be required to state when, at what time, and what direction. And being that she is the defendant, she doesn't even have to lie.... because she doesn't have to testify.... ya know 5th Amendment - self incrimination - blah, blah, blah. The officer would look like an idiot.
Site Supporter
Members online
- mikeruth
- oldfish15
- MarylandTacomaRider
- chuckp
- FN5.7FAN
- JAL
- tweekie1953
- Sevenpointsevenfmj
- TR1032
- gmcman355
- Doug
- WebSnyper
- Tradesylver
- diver dan
- MongooseLaw
- ionguy
- rkweber
- JoeBear44
- Born2vette
- bocefus78
- Altrex
- pewpew2232
- mcapo
- wagyu52
- 04FXSTS
- eric001
- rkwhyte2
- 2tonic
- draftyranger
- DoggyDaddy
- pitbulld45
- Midwestjimbo
- Hoosierdood
- Hoosierhunter3
- David Rose
- NHT3
- KMaC
- n9znd
- Joniki
- swamptick
- Basher
- Dutchmaster
- Defensive Shooting Concepts
- Pyro
- AlienRayGun
- sescbo
- 92FSTech
- Kirk Freeman
- Bosshoss
- fender
