Reckless Driving Charges

[cbhausen]

Put the Lamborghini-driving douche bag in a 410 sprint car without a wing on top and watch his balls shrivel up like sun-dried raisins...

 

[SOUP]

The Sixth Amendment ensures that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against them in a criminal action.

That said, can they even consider themselves witnesses by observing a video that occurredafter the fact? From my understanding he wasn't pulled over, therefore he has no valid accuser?

I've heard of several video/ speed trap tickets being thrown out, simply because there is no accuser/ witness to the actual crime.

 

[DataGeek19]

The Sixth Amendment ensures that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against them in a criminal action.

That said, can they even consider themselves witnesses by observing a video that occurredafter the fact? From my understanding he wasn't pulled over, therefore he has no valid accuser?

I've heard of several video/ speed trap tickets being thrown out, simply because there is no accuser/ witness to the actual crime.

This is why the case will be interesting to watch. It may turn into a conviction, then let’s see if the defense finds a legal basis for an appeal. However, there may be a plea and then we will never see it played out...

 

[Rookie]

Video led to charges for Westfield man shown driving 213 mph on I-465

Gabriel Sleiman's initial hearing is set for 8:30 a.m. April 30.

www.wishtv.com

Seems like another case of keep your mouth shut.

 

[OneBadV8]

Video led to charges for Westfield man shown driving 213 mph on I-465

Gabriel Sleiman's initial hearing is set for 8:30 a.m. April 30.

www.wishtv.com

Seems like another case of keep your mouth shut.

don't post videos of crimes

Luckily people that break the law aren't the brightest

 

[JettaKnight]

The Sixth Amendment ensures that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against them in a criminal action.

That said, can they even consider themselves witnesses by observing a video that occurred after the fact? From my understanding he wasn't pulled over, therefore he has no valid accuser?

I've heard of several video/ speed trap tickets being thrown out, simply because there is no accuser/ witness to the actual crime.

But if I watch a video of a crime, aren't I a witness?


Video evidence is not tossed out simply because the camera was fixed and recording and no one was holding it.


In this case, the defendant was the cameraman, so his lawyer has every right to put him on the stand and confront him.
IANAL, but this is more like a confession.

 

[jsharmon7]

The Sixth Amendment ensures that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against them in a criminal action.

That said, can they even consider themselves witnesses by observing a video that occurredafter the fact? From my understanding he wasn't pulled over, therefore he has no valid accuser?

I've heard of several video/ speed trap tickets being thrown out, simply because there is no accuser/ witness to the actual crime.

Lots of crimes are charged based on video. If my Ring door camera catches you stealing a package off my porch, why couldn’t you be charged with theft?

 

[HoughMade]

The Sixth Amendment ensures that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against them in a criminal action.

That said, can they even consider themselves witnesses by observing a video that occurredafter the fact? From my understanding he wasn't pulled over, therefore he has no valid accuser?

I've heard of several video/ speed trap tickets being thrown out, simply because there is no accuser/ witness to the actual crime.

A picture- moving picture in this case- is not a witness and the confrontation clause does not apply. They just have to be able establish when and where it was. Nothing new or novel here. They do have to "authenticate" the video, but that is pretty simple.

 

[SOUP]

Valid points. I send people to jail all the time based on video evidence.

I guess the moral of the story is not to drive 200 mph on 465... and video it.

 

[HoughMade]

Valid points. I send people to jail all the time based on video evidence.

I guess the moral of the story is not to drive 200 mph on 465... and video it.

There are many morals to this story...one, not me, but one could say- or make sure there are no time, location or date markers in the finished video and the raw footage was....lost. I mean, I would never suggest someone do something reckless....but the prosecution does have to prove venue (the county) and that the charges were brought within the statute of limitations beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[printcraft]

A picture- moving picture in this case- is not a witness and the confrontation clause does not apply. They just have to be able establish when and where it was. Nothing new or novel here. They do have to "authenticate" the video, but that is pretty simple.

I would claim deep fake.



Looks horrible right?


https://www.dexerto.com/entertainme...aming-video-goes-viral-but-is-it-real-990872/

 

[HoughMade]

I would claim deep fake.



Looks horrible right?


https://www.dexerto.com/entertainme...aming-video-goes-viral-but-is-it-real-990872/

...and the burden of proof as to the "deepfake" claim would be on the defendant. In other words, if that is the defense, you have to prove it and, of course, the prosecution can rebut whatever evidence the defendant presents...in a big enough case, with forensic video examination.

The utter perfect stillness of that camera mount in relation to the interior of the car...

 

[femurphy77]

don't post videos of crimes

Luckily people that break the law aren't the brightest

Please! NO! Don't stop posting videos of crimes. I watch a LOT of "Stupid people doing stupid things" videos on the interwebz. Talk about mindless entertainment!!

 

[Cameramonkey]

I dont get one thing. Ive been told by officers that my video I shoot is not admissible and unless he sees the offense himself there is nothing he can do. Now he can take that video as supporting evidence for trial, but the video itself cant be the basis for a charge.

With the above advice (heard repeatedly) how does this actually hold water and get the guy charged? Which is it? Is it some nuance?

 

[HoughMade]

I dont get one thing. Ive been told by officers that my video I shoot is not admissible and unless he sees the offense himself there is nothing he can do. Now he can take that video as supporting evidence for trial, but the video itself cant be the basis for a charge.

With the above advice (heard repeatedly) how does this actually hold water and get the guy charged? Which is it? Is it some nuance?

Not true, legally. It may be a policy...or someone trying to extract themselves from something they do not want to deal with.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I dont get one thing. Ive been told by officers that my video I shoot is not admissible and unless he sees the offense himself there is nothing he can do. Now he can take that video as supporting evidence for trial, but the video itself cant be the basis for a charge.

With the above advice (heard repeatedly) how does this actually hold water and get the guy charged? Which is it? Is it some nuance?

Sounds like confusion over the misdemeanor exception rule. An officer cannot make an outright arrest on most misdemeanors he did not personally witness. The misdemeanors you can are called misdemeanor exceptions and, like felonies, only require probable cause be established by whatever means.

If you have evidence of a non-exception misdemeanor the officer cannot make an outright arrest but can use that evidence to establish probable cause (assuming the evidence is sufficient) for an arrest warrant for a later arrest.

 

[HoughMade]

Sounds like confusion over the misdemeanor exception rule. An officer cannot make an outright arrest on most misdemeanors he did not personally witness. The misdemeanors you can are called misdemeanor exceptions and, like felonies, only require probable cause be established by whatever means.

If you have evidence of a non-exception misdemeanor the officer cannot make an outright arrest but can use that evidence to establish probable cause (assuming the evidence is sufficient) for an arrest warrant for a later arrest.

Way back when, locally, the police would give a card containing contact info for the prosecutor's office to the complainant (in situations that were non-emergent), then the complainant would meet with the prosecutor's legal intern who would take information, possibly view a video (VHS or Mini CV) and hand it off to a prosecutor to make a decision about pursuing it. At least that's the way one former intern remembers it.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Thanks guys. That makes more sense now.

 

[kickbacked]

Back when I messed around with cars, it was always "street racing in Mexico".

 

[ljk]

Sometimes, it depends on how deep your pocket is, and who you know, sometimes.