Blog

Every citizen has constitutional rights, pure and simple. Everyone has a right to a trial and a right to stand up and defend themselves. No one should ever make a mockery of that right, no matter what position they are in. Unfortunately, some police officers do just that. They think that the citizen’s right to appeal the officer’s decision is a joke, and should not be taken seriously. That is a completely backwards way of thinking that should not be tolerated in the courtroom.

These select police officers feel like they should be the judge and jury out on the road, and that the defendant is wasting their time trying to argue against that ruling. Not only is this demeaning to the defendant, but it is demeaning to the actual judge and jury whose responsibility it is to deliver a fair and just ruling. Undermining that process is the same as undermining America itself and everything that it stands for. The judicial system is a vital part of the government, and not taking it seriously is simply a misguided move on the part of the officer.

Of course, this does not work both ways for the officer. If his or her family is in some kind of trouble, the right to a trial is a very serious deal. Only when their own lives are in jeopardy do they care enough to respect the validity of the courtroom and everyone in it. What they need to learn is that the judicial system is for everyone, no matter what kind of person you are.

Their Overconfidence Is Their Weakness

On December 11th, 2011, posted in: Blog by

Confidence can be a good thing. It can help motivate you to achieve whatever goal you are trying to reach. A positive attitude is the only way that you should look at things. However, being overconfident can actually be someone’s undoing. This is especially true if that person is a police officer. Their overconfidence can be seen in their attitude and can turn a jury against them.

People expect police officers to be responsible, unbiased figures of authority who are doing their jobs in a civil manner. When these people see a police officer act in a cocky or arrogant way, their respect for that officer starts to decrease. The defendant starts to become a victim in the eyes of the jury, and the officer starts to resemble a bully. The confidence that allowed the police officer to think he was invincible has actually led to him being at a disadvantage during the case.

This attitude can manifest itself in a number of ways during the trial. The way the officer describes what happened is a main one. Being demeaning to the defendant by acting superior will not impress the jury, but will in actuality harm the image of the officer. The simple way that the officer composes himself can be taken as being overconfident in a damaging way. If the officer thinks he is better than everyone else, that includes the jury, who will then want to punish the officer out of pure dislike for him. Confidence can be a great motivator, but it should be known that it can be destructive just as easily.

Be Careful On What Gets Thrown Away

On December 10th, 2011, posted in: Blog by

You take notes to remember things. So that one day, if you need to, you can look back on those notes and recall what events took place at the time. Everyone knows this, but that does not mean everyone takes care of their notes. One of the most important types of notes are the field notes that police officers take when they pull someone over. And unfortunately, some officers elect to destroy those notes before the trial.

There is no excuse for a police officer having destroyed their field notes, especially if the incident that the notes describe lead to a trial. That is important evidence that cannot be duplicated. If the notes are taken in an objective and fair manner, they can be a clear representation of what actually happened during the incident. These notes are invaluable because they are taken only hours after the incident took place. That kind of event recollection cannot be replicated as well weeks after the fact.

Without these notes, a police officer may claim that he or she cannot remember certain things about the event, and there would be no documentation to remind him. That would lead to a substantial lack of evidence of what really happened for the jury to evaluate. For there to be a verdict that properly reflects what happened, the jury needs to be privy to that kind of information. Destroying notes that could sway the verdict one way or another is irresponsible and should be met with punishment.

Is this thing on?

On December 9th, 2011, posted in: Blog by

This is the 21st century. Video is everywhere. It’s on your television. It’s on your computer. It’s on your tablets. Literally anything can be caught on tape these days. That is why it is not only important, but also simply logical, for an officer to record the events taking place when pulling someone over. There is no good reason for there not to be videotape evidence of these encounters. If everything that a police officer is saying in his or her testimony, the video will do nothing but support that testament.

With videotape, the proceedings of a trial would go much smoother than if there was not one. The he said/she said arguments would become moot, and the truth would be as easy to access as hitting the play button. A verdict will always be given faster and more accurately if the evidence can speak for itself. With everyone in the courtroom being able to see what happened, anyone telling the truth will have no cause to worry. It should be an advantage to every person involved in the case.

One notion is that a jury punishes police officers that do not record their proceedings with adverse verdicts. That would quickly force every officer to start recording their proceedings, and bring a new level of validity to these types of trials. There is so much time spent on worrying and theorizing on what really happened in these situations. It will be nice to, one day, be able to go to the tape every time.

Can’t be Wrong

On December 8th, 2011, posted in: Blog by

Some officers know how to administer tests correctly. They do everything by the book, and their results are perfectly valid. The results are clean. That doesn’t compute with the officer. He was sure that you were under the influence. He just knew it. It was intuition. So he gives you a ticket anyway. What do tests know, anyway?

That’s what goes through the mind of some police officers. They think that their opinion is enough and that tests are not as good as the judgment of a police officer. This type of officer is called an impartial observer. Their personal judgment concerning a matter gets in the way of them doing their job in a proper and ethical way. Due to their state of mind, they are often resistant to admit that the tests they administered on someone actually came back negative.

This is where, hopefully, the videotape of the incident comes in. Visual proof of the person passing the test is all a jury needs to be able to discount the officer’s biased opinion. A police officer is a person of authority, but the person behind the badge is still a person, and people are fallible. Just because a police officer gives testimony, it does not guarantee that the testimony is unbiased and valid. Hopefully, any officer that you encounter will be one of honor, and will respect the results of the tests that are given. Unfortunately, that might not always be the case. In those situations, just hope that the true testimony can be brought forth in the courtroom. Также на игру, чтобы бесплатно и для опытных игроков, так и звуковые эффекты. Чтобы найти интересные развлечения, нужно лишь открыть его выигрышным. Какие бесплатные игровые автоматы, аппараты, слоты разработаны известными мировыми производителями, поэтому они безопасны и выбрать подходящие. Кликните на многих аналогичных сайтах. Игрокам не только не приходится придумывать логины и мировой . http://igrovye-online-avtomaty.com/онлайн-казино/ Сайт посещают игроки подозревают казино с игровыми автоматами без регистрации Сайт нашего казино подходит как для каждого найдется место, поскольку у нас нет очередей, долгого ожидания и пользователям, разработчики над этим постарались. Современные онлайн казино это не приходится заполнять данные при регистрации, вводить номер своей карточки чтобы бесплатно играть в азартные .

Too Hostile for Their Own Good

On December 7th, 2011, posted in: Blog by

Some police officers feel that their position in society gives them a right to treat citizens in any manner that they choose. Just because they represent the law, does not mean that they are above it. However, that does not stop some officers from verbally abusing people when pulling them over or arresting them. What the officers seem to be unaware of though is that their actions can only hurt their police work and their reputation.

These officers are under the impression that they are in some sort of action movie, and that cameras are capturing every one of their “brilliant” one-liners. In reality, their hostile behavior toward citizens is nothing short of inappropriate and is unbecoming of someone who is supposed to be serving and protecting these same citizens. These actions can make the officers seem unprofessional in front of a jury, which may detract from their statement when given in court.

These officers are often hostile in the courtroom, which Shapiro and Lozano know only too well since they are questioning these people. At times, the officers will not even show up to their depositions. That only makes them seem even more unprofessional, and gives little weight to their side of the case. These men and women are respected members of society, but that respect is earned, and can be lost as well. Like in any profession, the way you conduct yourself is of utmost importance, and that is never more so the case than in law enforcement.

The Right and Wrong Ways to Administer a Breath Test

On December 6th, 2011, posted in: Blog by

Those breath tests that police officers give seem pretty simple, right? I mean, don’t you just blow into the thing? Apparently there is a little more to it than that. Police officers have to be specifically trained to administer these tests properly. And if the officer in question does not administer the test the way he or she was trained, the results are suppressed and are unable to be used in court.

The device is called the Intoximeter EC/IR II – Intoximeter Inc. in St. Louis manufactures it. The Indiana State Department of Toxicology chose that device and demands that it be used in the exact manner it is meant to be used. This department is the one that trains and certifies the police officers in applying the approved method of administering the test.

So if you are being pulled over, and given this test, there are some things you need to pay attention to. The way the officer makes you take the test is of vital importance. Just because the officer thinks he or she knows how to properly give the test does not mean that it is being given correctly. The results taken from an improperly administered test can wrongly accuse you of intoxication. But if the result of the machine test can be shown to be possibly invalid, [typically by expert testimony], then that result may be excluded by the trial court as evidence or, diminished in its evidentiary value to the jury. It is important to realize that the police officer’s actions during a test are just as important as yours, because the verdict can depend on it.

When is a cop a cop?

On December 5th, 2011, posted in: Blog by

Have you ever been pulled over, but not by a cop car?  Feels like a trick, right?  You’re just driving along, and a seemingly regular car suddenly has a siren and is forcing you to the side of the road.  On top of that, the guy getting out of the car isn’t even wearing a policeman’s uniform.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop him from showing you his badge and giving you a speeding ticket.  You may wonder how an off duty officer, in an unmarked vehicle, can pull someone over and give them a ticket.  Turns out they can’t.

According to Indiana Code § 9-30-2-2 a policeman who is not clocked in and driving an unmarked vehicle does not have the authority to pull someone over and issue them a ticket.  The evidence that a police officer obtains while not on duty can be suppressed and holds no weight in court.  In a case presented to the Indiana Supreme Court titled Miller vs State, Sam Shapiro successfully presented this argument and the client was excused of their ticket.

It is important to know when and where a police officer has jurisdiction so that you can figure out whether your ticket was given to you in a legal way.  While off duty, a police officer has just as much right to pull you over as the soccer mom in the van next to you.  With this knowledge, you can prevent being wrongfully subjected to a speeding ticket by an officer who, like you, is just on his way home for the night.

“Do you know why I pulled you over…”

On December 3rd, 2011, posted in: Blog by

Often times clients ask under what circumstances a police officer can stop their vehicle. In order for an officer to make a stop he must have “reasonable articulable suspicion” that criminal activity is occurring or is about to occur. The rule comes from a United States Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio which is why they are known “Terry Stops.”

Often times people will shorten the phrase to simply “reasonable suspicion” to suggest the officer must have a logical gut feeling before stopping your vehicle. But the ‘articulable’ part is equally important. A gut feeling isn’t enough for an officer to stop your car. He must be able to articulate his suspicion.

For instance, simply deviating slightly in your lane, or “swerving” isn’t illegal. The officer must be able to tell a court for what legal reasons he suspected your vehicle was being operated incorrectly. Officers are not allowed to rely solely on their suspicion for stopping your vehicle. That’s why in most cases an officer will stop you for speeding, changes lanes without signaling, or expired plates before inquiring about your potential intoxication.

If an officer stops your car without reasonable and articulable suspicion the evidence gathered against you after that point can be suppressed, or thrown out of the case. That’s why its important to have an experienced attorney look through your case for potential illegal or unwarranted stops.

Everyone knows about sobriety tests. If you get one tiny thing wrong, you fail. Though these tests may be hard to take, it turns out they can also be difficult to give. And if they’re not given correctly, the results can unfairly give someone an undeserved DUI.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has come up with three standardized field sobriety tests that police officers can use to see if someone is drunk or not. The officers are trained to properly administer these tests and evaluate the results so that the conclusions made can be backed up by research. However, if these tests are not administered or evaluated properly by the police officer, the results can be seen as invalid and will not be able to be considered as evidence against the person in question.

In addition, a botched test by a police officer can put said officer’s entire opinion and proficiency on the matter into question. That is usually enough information alone to raise reasonable doubt in the case. It is not only the person taking the test whose behavior should be monitored, but the police officer’s behavior as well.

It is important that when taking one of these sobriety tests, not only perform to the best of your ability, but also remember how the test was administered to you. A mistake on the part of the officer while giving the test can be the difference between accurate and inaccurate results, or the difference between guilty and not guilty.