officer outside his jurisdiction

[suhelms]

My daughter was driving a friend of hers around to pay bills, shop, etc. He has one leg amputated and one arm paralyzed from a stroke. She pulled out of a tobacco shop at 10262 E. Apache Trail in Apache Junction. They pulled along side an officer on a motorcycle at Chrismon Road a half mile from where they left the store. When the light turned green, He pulled behind her and initatiated a stop. He said she made an improper right turn. There is only one way to turn onto a two lane highway. He gave her a field sobriety test and must have thought she was impaired when she wasn't as stable on her feet as most people are,(she had head trauma from an auto accident a few years back and she has slipped disks in her back) There was no breathalyzer test given though the charge says ‘liquor/drugs/vapors/combo” and she had not been drinking or taking drugs other than one half a pain killer hours earlier. He put the address on the ticket at 10200 E. Main, which put her in his jurisdiction and made the stop at 9800 E. Main. He had no probable cause to believe that her ability to drive was impaired, yet he made her friend drive and took her all the way into Mesa to a mobile station where she was made to submit to a blood test and released after he ticketed her for improper right turn and DUI 28-1381 A 1& 2. There were rows of shiny motorcycles and decked out officers at the location they took her to along with a filming crew that was making a documentary for National Geographic. Her friend took movies of the event on his phone and talked to the filming crew who informed him of what they were doing. Not only did the officer falsify the address on his report placing her in his jurisdiction, but he had no reason to even stop her, make her friend drive, and transport her miles from where they were going just to be there where they were filming. We believe it was for "show", and now she faces felony driving charges. What can be done? She was given a public ‘pretender‘, but we all know where that will go..….. in the States favor without a doubt.

 

[Proserpina]

Public "pretender"?

That's how you refer to the attorney who went through years of schooling in order to defend your child?

Okey dokey then.

You go and pay a Big Bad Attorney to help your kid. That's how you can help her.

ETA: Your post history...is interesting. (The kids haven't learned, huh?)

 

[Ohiogal]

Pro, this person is the type we dread. Why? Because OP has nothing better to do than gripe and whine and yet doesn't have the education to understand anything. Public "pretenders" have a whole heck of lot more knowledge than OP ever will.

 

[Zigner]

OP dances right around the fact that the little angel was driving while intoxicated. I'll be s/he took kiddo to the bar to celebrate

 

[suhelms]

Excuse me but she was not intoxicated and was not under the influence of drugs. Her friend would not have allowed her to drive him anywhere had she been impared in any way. You can insult me all you want, but it dosen't take away from the fact that this cop was in the wrong, and it's a known FACT that court appointed attorneys work for the State and they pretty much follow the "plea" plan even when someone is not guilty of the charges. It all makes money for the State. I asked a legitimate question and the answers I've seen here make me believe you all are of the mind set "guilty until proven innosent". I understand why we as a nation imprison more of our population than any nation on earth. The badge, unfortunately, gives balls to some who don't have any but it dosen't make them ALWAYS in the right!

 

[Proserpina]

Excuse me but she was not intoxicated and was not under the influence of drugs. Her friend would notallowed her to drive him anywhere had she been impared in any way. You can insult me all you want, but it dosen't take away from the fact that this cop was in the wrong, and it's a known FACT that court appointed attorneys work for the State and they pretty much follow the "plea" plan even when someone is not guilty of the charges. It all makes money for the State. I asked a legitimate question and the answers I've seen here make me believe you all are of the mind set "guilty until proven innosent". I understand why we as a nation imprison more of our population than any nation on earth.

Your "facts" are obviously wrong, madam.

 

[Captain Picard]

What was the driver charged with, statue-wise. I may not matter if the officer pulled the driver over outside of the correct jurisdiction anyway.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

OP, Your family seems to have alot of run ins with the police, where the police are wrong or unprofessional, and your family members are innocent victims.

 

[CJane]

So, the blood test administered after the stop will reveal that there was NO alcohol in her system, and no other drugs or substances that may possibly impair a driver?

 

[Ohiogal]

Excuse me but she was not intoxicated and was not under the influence of drugs. Her friend would not have allowed her to drive him anywhere had she been impared in any way. You can insult me all you want, but it dosen't take away from the fact that this cop was in the wrong, and it's a known FACT that court appointed attorneys work for the State and they pretty much follow the "plea" plan even when someone is not guilty of the charges. It all makes money for the State. I asked a legitimate question and the answers I've seen here make me believe you all are of the mind set "guilty until proven innosent". I understand why we as a nation imprison more of our population than any nation on earth. The badge, unfortunately, gives balls to some who don't have any but it dosen't make them ALWAYS in the right!

You are so stupid it is almost funny. It is NOT a known fact that court appointed attorneys work for the State and follow the plea plan. You are a moron. How do you KNOW she was NOT intoxicated or under the influence of anything? You believe her? What was her BAC? Your lack of education is showing. The word is "innocent" by the way. "Impaired" not "impared". Shall I continue?

Why don't you show some respect for the people from whom you are asking advice? Oh yeah. Because you would rather criticize and flaunt your ignorance. Got it.

Signed,
Court appointed counsel who has won more cases than many hired guns.

 

[Ohiogal]

What was the driver charged with, statue-wise. I may not matter if the officer pulled the driver over outside of the correct jurisdiction anyway.

Statue-wise? Is this the statue of the man on the horse? Or is it of Abraham Lincoln? Lady Justice?

 

[Zigner]

OG covered everything except for one point. The OP feels the officer was out of his jurisdiction. However, that is simply not true. The officer may have been outside of the area that his agency covers, but I can assure you that he was within his jurisdiction.

 

[HighwayMan]

...and she had not been drinking or taking drugs other than one half a pain killer hours earlier.

Really. Now what kind of pain killer was that?

He had no probable cause to believe that her ability to drive was impaired, yet he made her friend drive and

Were you there with the officer? If not then how do you know? All that is required to make a vehicle stop is reasonable suspicion, by the way.

There were rows of shiny motorcycles and decked out officers at the location they took her to along with a filming crew that was making a documentary for National Geographic.

Decked out? How so?

How is the film crew relevant?

he had no reason to even stop her, make her friend drive, and transport her miles from where they were going just to be there where they were filming.

Again, you don't know that. She was transported to a place where a test would be administered. That is not done at the side of the road - it's usually done at a police facility, what's the surprise there? If a film crew happened to be there then so be it. I think you're trying to connect facts that are not related.

 

[suhelms]

I wasn't there, but her friend was. He's a respected decorated veteran in his late sixty's with no reason to have to lie about the situation. I saw the video he has on his phone and listened to his account of how things happened that morning. The lab results haven't been completed yet and the incident occured on 9/5/2011, yet they've gone forward with dragging her into court, ordering her to be fingerprinted, and charging her with DUI without the evidence to back them up. I have no doubt that they will not find any substance in her system. The fact still remains that the original charge of 'improper' right turn used by the officer to stop her, was wrongfully given and was out of his jurisdiction. According to her friend, she did not make an improper right turn, the officer was over a half mile ahead of them and didn't even notice them until they pulled along side and he heard them comment on his fancy bike, at which time he fell back behind them and followed for quite a distance before turning on his lights. Again, she didn't do anything that would make him believe her ability to drive was impaired. The pain medicine was an over the counter and not an illegal drug. Any more questions? I just want to know, can a Mesa cop ticket an alleged incident that occurred in Apache Junction? And does my spelling meet your standards now?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Spelling does. Story doesn't.