here's one for the lawyers

[spec4]

So why doesn't she (or didn't she in the first place) resolve the license issue? That said, the dark side of me can see other issues if he is a young man and she is attractive.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You guys are alluding to stalking

No, the OP is doing that. This is just a phasers to creepy moment. It would be a fun deposition.

And this from my own INGOtarian stalker fan club:

 

[Hogwylde]

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.

Shouldn't IC 9-21-18 apply here since it's private property and he has NO authority to issue traffic citations there?? Indiana Code 9-21-18

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Could be a misdemeanor, Hog.

Anywho, threshold question: Is she hot?

If yes, then something is not right.

Regardless she needs to talk to a lawyer on Monday.

 

[AtTheMurph]

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.

Semper Ubi Sub Ubi!

 

[Vigilant]

My question as to stalking, how did said officer KNOW who, out of ALL the Best Buy employees, did the car belong to? I mean I once worked in a place that had 4-5 Julie's, 2 Amanda's, several Williams or Bill's, etc. if he specifically went to her...set phasers to creepy is indeed in play!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

how did said officer KNOW who, out of ALL the Best Buy employees, did the car belong to?

Some enchanted evening, you may meet a stranger . . .

 

[88GT]

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.

 

[dansgotguns]

yes this really happened, attractive idk I haven't seen in her a few years she found me on Facebook recently and has no pictures but she used to be at least.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's supposed to be that way. Unless she has a jury trial, I doubt it would be.

I can't think of a single judge that would allow this to fly, if she invoked the 5th Amendment.

 

[96firephoenix]

IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt:

Unless the officer actually SAW the person with a suspended license drive home and back to work, the officer has zero evidence that a crime took place, only speculation.

For the crime of DWSL, I'm pretty sure that the only probable cause is actual knowledge of a suspended licence that has not been reinstated, and the officer witnessing the person in question driving. Similar to DUI. Seeing a drunk person in a bar, and then seeing their car at their house an hour later is not enough PC to write a ticket for DUI.

Also, the fact that the plates are tied to an owner with a suspended license does not mean that the driver of the car has a suspended license. Without checking the driver's license, the officer has zero evidence that a crime took place.

I.E. if the driver is living with her parents, the mother having the same name as her (call her Diane Smith), then the car would show up registered to a Diane Smith (the mother), who has a suspended license. Diane Smith (the daughter) has come on hard times and had to get a job at Best Buy after her accounting firm collapsed, and had to sell her car and drive her mom's car. Now the car is registered to a Diane Smith with a suspended license and driven by a Diane Smith with a valid license.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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.

 

[dansgotguns]

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?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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.

 

[dansgotguns]

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.

So what she'll get in the mail not what they gave her at best buy, correct?

 

[drillsgt]

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

 

[dansgotguns]

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

State officer in Merrillville indiana best buy

 

[Denny347]

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

Some officer has WAY too much time on their hands......

 

[jedi]

OP you have some real interesting posts.
Keep us posted on what happens.
Also we need pics of your freinds.

 

[88GT]

I can't think of a single judge that would allow this to fly, if she invoked the 5th Amendment.

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.