• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Long story with a somewhat happy ending but still need help

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Drewcrew73

Junior Member
OHIO
So the other night I was driving a friend home from the bar. I was pulled over and asked for my drivers license. I produced my license and the officer called it in. Upon hearing that I had a prior DUI he told me to get out of the vehicle. I asked him why I was getting out of the vehicle and he immediately told me to drop the attitude even though I didn't have one. He walked me to the back of my vehicle. I asked him why I was stopped in the first place. He then told me that I had failed to display my rear license due to snow covering it. I then looked at the license plate and it was clear as day. I asked the officer what he meant by failure to display when my license plate was clean. He told me that he wiped it off. I then asked him if he made a habit of removing evidence from the scene.
He then asked me how much I had to drink tonight. Not if I was drinking but how much I had to drink. I told him I had 2 beers the last of which being over an hour prior to driving. He then told me to take a field sobriety test. At this time it was a middle of a snow storm. He began to administer a field sobriety test during the storm with my facing into the wind and snow. After this test he had me walk 9 steps turn and pivot. I did this test with no issues. I asked him if I could be on my way. He told me to hold on a minute. He then got into his car and grabbed a breathalyzer and told me to take it. I told him that I didn't think he had just cause to give me a breathalyzer. He asked me if I was refusing. I told him no i'm just stating that I don't think you had probable cause to pull me over in the first place. After passing your tests I dont think it's warranted that I take a breathalyzer. I asked him if I had failed the field sobriety tests. He told me that I passed the heal to toe walk but failed the horizontal gaze test. Again he told me to blow into the breathlyzer. At this moment I said that I would like to consult my council at this time. He warned me that I would be placed under arrest if I refused. I said that I am not refusing I would like to call my lawyer. At this time he told me that I would be placed under arrest. I turned around willingly and offered my hands to be cuffed.
I asked him to please be careful of my watch when he put on the cuffs. He then put the cuffs around my watch scratching it. The other cuff he put on so tight that He cut and bruised my wrist. When I was placed in the rear of his cruiser he slammed the door on my leg which was not yet in the vehicle. After realizing he had just assaulted me and me politely asking he removed my cuffs and recuffed my with my hands in front. He allowed me to call someone to come get the vehicle I was driving.
When I got to the station I had asked if I could use the restroom. He told me no because the test had already begun. Even though we had just walked in the station. He put me in a room where I was given a piece of paper to read with the top paragraph highlighted. I began to read the document when he began to talk to me at the same time. I politely asked him if he could refrain from speaking while I read the document. He proceeded to tell me that he was reading the same document. So I asked him to start over so that I could read along with him. I stopped him several times so that he could clarify some things for me. After he had finished reading the paragraph he asked me if I was ready to take the breathalyzer. I replied that I was giving a document and would like ample time to read over it. He had only read the top part of the document that was highlighted, which only comprised about 1/3 of the document. So I took my good ole time to finish reading it. When I had finished he asked me if I was ready to take the test.
I said that I would like to attempt to get ahold of my lawyer again at this moment to seek his council. He never answered. I was asked again if I was willing to take the breathalyzer. I did not answer. The sergeant that was administering the test asked me if I knew what would happen if I refused to take the test. I replied to him that I was well aware of what would happen to me if I refused to take this test. I then agreed to take it. I blew twice and waited for the results. I ended up blowing under the legal limit. So the DUI was out of the equation. The officer then began to write up my ticket for failure to display. While he was doing this he threatened to still give me a DUI based off of his observations.
I put in a request of public records from everything from that night. I just got them yesterday. The main thing that I wanted to show that I was pulled over under false pretenses was the MVR. The mobile video recorder. They told me that this officers vehicle was one of the few that did not have one. I also got the dispatch tapes from that night. I only received dispatch transmissions from the point of me being pulled over to me getting out of the vehicle. They said there were no more after that point. Seems fishy to me.
In the police report their were several discrepancies. The first being he had stated that he observed me stopped at an intersection. This is when he couldn't see my license plate. Well the intersection he allegedly saw me stopped at has no stop sign or stop light. He then said that I turned onto a street that I never drove on. He wrote several times in his report that this is where he pulled me over. He wrote down the wrong street on the report. He also said that only the horizontal gaze test was performed because I refused any other testing. This isn't true because he made me do the heal to toe walk. Also he said that my vehicle as well as my passenger were released to the person that I had come get my vehicle. This also isn't true. When they came to get my car my passenger was no longer there because another officer already gave him a ride home.
Sorry for being so long winded but I didn't want to leave any detail out. I was hoping to get the dashcam to prove that my license wasn't covered in snow but again his car didn't have one supposedly. Does anyone think this is worth looking into? Maybe talking to someone else in the department about that vehicle? Also because there are so many discrepancies in the police report is this grounds or a dismissal? I have my court date in a couple of days. Any advice that you all have for me is greatly appreciated. People have told me just be glad I didn't get a DUI and to just pay the fine. I don't believe in this because I was pulled over under false pretenses. This officer was just hoping to catch a drunk driver and failed. He was extremely rude and unprofessional, as well as he assaulted me.
 


CdwJava

Senior Member
He then told me that I had failed to display my rear license due to snow covering it. I then looked at the license plate and it was clear as day. I asked the officer what he meant by failure to display when my license plate was clean. He told me that he wiped it off. I then asked him if he made a habit of removing evidence from the scene.
Now THAT was a smart-a remark.

From the officer's perspective he dd that to protect himself because he would have needed to advise dispatch of the license plate. It's safety thing. The evidence of it being covered would be his testimony as to his observation. Unless you really think he intended to seize the license plate and preserve it in a flash-frozen box with the snow and all until court came up?

He then asked me how much I had to drink tonight. Not if I was drinking but how much I had to drink.
Apparently the odor of an alcoholic beverage was emanating from your person. Why should he ask a question that he knows the answer to? But, as an investigative tactic, I ask whether a person has been drinking because it will tell me right off the bat if someone is a liar or not, and how cooperative they might be.

I told him I had 2 beers the last of which being over an hour prior to driving.
The number one answer nationwide when asked the question about how much someone has had to drink is "two." Even if the truth is ten, twenty, or five, the response is "two" in some 9 out of 10 times. Ask any cop anywhere in the nation and the answer should be the same.

After this test he had me walk 9 steps turn and pivot. I did this test with no issues.
So you believe. Most people have no true clue how they perform on the FSTs because they (a) do not know the clues that are being observed, and, (b) if they are impaired (and I am not saying you were) their judgement is the first thing to go bye-bye.

I told him no i'm just stating that I don't think you had probable cause to pull me over in the first place.
The covered plate ... he told you. But, the place to argue that is in court, not on the roadway.

At this moment I said that I would like to consult my council at this time. He warned me that I would be placed under arrest if I refused. I said that I am not refusing I would like to call my lawyer. At this time he told me that I would be placed under arrest. I turned around willingly and offered my hands to be cuffed.
Okay.

I replied that I was giving a document and would like ample time to read over it. He had only read the top part of the document that was highlighted, which only comprised about 1/3 of the document. So I took my good ole time to finish reading it. When I had finished he asked me if I was ready to take the test.
It sounds as if you were being a tad obstinate to me. The laws in your state are clearly different than they are in mine. We would have asked you for a test, if you refused to take the test then it's a refusal and you'd face a license suspension. We don't like those games.

I blew twice and waited for the results. I ended up blowing under the legal limit. So the DUI was out of the equation.
As a note, the "legal limit" is not the level at which you are sober. The so-called legal limit is actually the "per se" limit where the law says you ARE impaired. You CAN be impaired below .08. Think of it logically ... if I take a handful of Vicodin and have to crawl to my car, and I drive it into a pole, my BAC is. 0.00 and UNDER the "legal limit." But, I am impaired. So, keep that in mind - .08 is the per se limit where the law says you are impaired, period. Below .08 the state must show impairment at trial.

The officer then began to write up my ticket for failure to display. While he was doing this he threatened to still give me a DUI based off of his observations.
Which was possible, but if he admitted that you "passed" at least one of the tests would be a little more difficult.

I also got the dispatch tapes from that night. I only received dispatch transmissions from the point of me being pulled over to me getting out of the vehicle. They said there were no more after that point. Seems fishy to me.
Why? The radio transmissions are not a constant conversation, they are what he says when he depresses the mic and speaks to his dispatcher. They should have the stop, maybe some running of your information, then maybe his being enroute top the jail. It is also possible that if he had a computer in the car that some of this was done via the computer and not on the radio.

I was hoping to get the dashcam to prove that my license wasn't covered in snow but again his car didn't have one supposedly.
So, you think he just randomly pulled you over hoping he could frame you for DUI? Did he just get lucky that the guy he stopped happened to have been drinking that night?

Does anyone think this is worth looking into? Maybe talking to someone else in the department about that vehicle?
Sure. You can always make a personnel complaint and point to those issues. If the officer falsified anything or acted inappropriately, I am sure the agency would like to know. On the other hand, it is just as likely that he followed all the procedures he is expected to in the situation.

DUI laws vary by state, so I cannot speak to his procedures as compared to mine in CA, but he might have done something outside his training or he might not have. It is possible that you must submit to a field breath test ... it might also be possible that you do not have to. I don't know, and it's late so I'm not going to look it up right now. But, the agency should know and a supervisor or someone higher up should know.

Also because there are so many discrepancies in the police report is this grounds or a dismissal?
Only if you can show that they demonstrate a lack of attention to detail that night. Most of the specifics will have nothing to do with regards to the offense of having an obscured license plate so the court may not care. But, if you can show that he was wrong about a street, a stop sign, or some other stuff then maybe the court might agree that his attention to detail that night was spotty.
 

Proseguru

Member
A dismissal is not the avenue for winning your case. Look up the reasons for filing a motion to dismiss & learn. Why do people think a motion to dismiss is for everything?

If there are issues with his testimony (stop sign etc) bring these up during your cross (just the fact that a stop sign was there). Then during your presentation of the case, show proof that there is no stop sign. The officer's credibility goes down to zero at that point.

During your closing arguments, highlight that the officer is either lying or very confused - confusing your stop with someone else's.

Other than that, I see nothing wrong with your behavior in respect to that nite.

You should not answer any questions from an officer or argue with him on the side of the road .. that's for court.

I think the cop may have issued an improper ticket -- they are known for making stuff up like this.
 

Drewcrew73

Junior Member
Not so I believe. He told me I passed when he tried to get me to take the breathalyzer in the field that I passed the heal to toe walk. Then in the report he claimed that I refused to take any test after the horizontal gaze test.

I don't think that he randomly pulled me over to "frame" me with a dui. I know that he saw me leave a bar and that he followed me from said bar. When he didn't have anything to pull me over for he made up some B.S. about a license plate being covered up in hopes of eventually getting me for a dui. So I don't think he was trying to "frame" me, thats just silly.
 
Last edited:

Drewcrew73

Junior Member
Thanks proseguru, you bring up some valid points that I will definitely use. Is there any chance that his vehicle did have a dashcam and they say he didn't have one because I requested the wrong thing? Like on a technicality because I asked for the MVR and actually they dont call it that so they said he doesn't have an MVR? He was a sheriff and I find it hard to believe that a sheriff wouldn't have a dashcam.

Can I bring up the officers past to show a history? I have his personnel file and it is littered with complaints, written and verbal reprimands. He has a history of conduct unbecoming an officer as well as a poor history in filling out reports. I wont go into detail about what all is in there but in his short tenure he has an awefully big file.
 

HighwayMan

Super Secret Senior Member
He was a sheriff and I find it hard to believe that a sheriff wouldn't have a dashcam.
Doesn't matter what you find hard to believe. Not every police vehicle is equipped with a working video system, no matter what department it is.
 

Drewcrew73

Junior Member
Doesn't matter what you find hard to believe. Not every police vehicle is equipped with a working video system, no matter what department it is.
Thanks for nothing man. Is that what you do? Just post things that don't matter to boost your post count or something? That could have gone without saying.
 

asiny

Senior Member
Not so I believe. He told me I passed when he tried to get me to take the breathalyzer in the field that I passed the heal to toe walk.
You may have, you may not have passed. Some officers will actually give encouragement and say that a suspect is doing well- as this relaxes the individual as they are already tense from being pulled over.
The first being he had stated that he observed me stopped at an intersection. This is when he couldn't see my license plate. Well the intersection he allegedly saw me stopped at has no stop sign or stop light.
Were you stopped at an intersection? What difference does it make if the intersection had a stop sign or stop light?
 

tranquility

Senior Member
From the officer's perspective he dd that to protect himself because he would have needed to advise dispatch of the license plate. It's safety thing.
While I question the safety of an officer getting between two vehicles on approach and wiping down a plate and then calling it in, I suppose it's possible.

The number one answer nationwide when asked the question about how much someone has had to drink is "two."
I would say the answer is "Just two", but agree with "two".

Obviously, the OP was obstinate all the way through. But, he was smart enough about it to not make it a legal issue, just a time one. I'm sure he got a little extra time before being tested, which made his BAC lower. But, if they released him, I don't think it likely he came that close to the per se limit to have saved him.

He wasn't DUI. Good. I think the citation is a bit of CYA by the officer, but I don't think the OP will successfully fight it unless he gets the traffic court to believe the officer committed perjury in his testimony, so I'm wondering what his plan is. (Because he ain't gonna get that.)
 

Drewcrew73

Junior Member
I guess it doesn't matter if there was a stop sign or not. But I wasn't stopped at that intersection at all. I did pass the heel toe walk. I asked him again at the station in front of a police officer from the city "did I pass he heel toe walk" in which he replied "yes"
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
If he truly said that you "passed" the heel-to-toe, and that his only observation was some problem with the HGN, then it could very well be that the arrest was bad ... unless your state mandates a roadside PBT test and a refusal to take one allows for a custodial arrest.
 

asiny

Senior Member
I guess it doesn't matter if there was a stop sign or not.
Considering you listed it as one of 'several discrepancies'- suddenly it doesn't matter. Why the change of thought on this?
But I wasn't stopped at that intersection at all.
The officer stated that when you stopped at an intersection, he observed he could not see your licence plate;
The first being he had stated that he observed me stopped at an intersection. This is when he couldn't see my license plate. Well the intersection he allegedly saw me stopped at has no stop sign or stop light.
Did you drive through that intersection?
I did pass the heel toe walk. I asked him again at the station in front of a police officer from the city "did I pass he heel toe walk" in which he replied "yes"
An officer can lie to you about anything. Whatever the officer says to you- to make you comfortable.
So stop thinking that because he 'told' you you passed, that it's a valid point.
Although CdwJava brings up a valid point and counter-point regarding the 'refusal'.
He then said that I turned onto a street that I never drove on.
In the report did he write it like this;
"The suspect stopped at the intersection of Some Street and Some Road. This is where I observed the vehicle licence plate was obscured. The suspect then made a left turn onto Some Road which is when I indicated him to stop the vehicle."
or this;
"The suspect stopped at the intersection of Some Street and Some Road. This is where I observed the vehicle licence plate was obscured.
When the suspect vehicle turned onto Another Street I indicated him to stop the vehicle."
How many intersections did you go through before he stopped you?
Also he said that my vehicle as well as my passenger were released to the person that I had come get my vehicle. This also isn't true. When they came to get my car my passenger was no longer there because another officer already gave him a ride home.
Where was the 2nd officer?
When did he arrive on the scene?
He wrote several times in his report that this is where he pulled me over. He wrote down the wrong street on the report.
What is the proximity of the 'incorrect street' where he wrote he pulled you over and the actual street he pulled you over?
People have told me just be glad I didn't get a DUI and to just pay the fine. I don't believe in this because I was pulled over under false pretenses.
Your word against the officers- your attorney will be able to decide on the best direction to take.
This officer was just hoping to catch a drunk driver and failed.
He never failed- what was your BAC? Anything about 0.0 is intoxicated. As CdwJava posted, .08 is the per se limit. Many people feel that if they are below .08 that they cannot be charged... which is not the case.
 
Last edited:
Anything about 0.0 is intoxicated. As CdwJava posted, .08 is the per se limit. Many people feel that if they are below .08 that they cannot be charged... which is not the case.
I think you meant to say anything above 0.0 is intoxicated. You'll need to back up that statement. My understanding is that the definition of intoxication means you are impaired. One can have a BAC of above 0.0 and not be impaired. Which is exactly why anything below .08 can be considered impairment, but is not necessarily so. So, anything between 0.0 and 0.8 can be intoxication. If it were as you say, the per se limit would be 0.1, because everything above 0.0 is intoxication.
 

Drewcrew73

Junior Member
He wrote it as... I observed the subject vehicle stopped at the intersection of alpha st. And bravo st. This is when I observed the license plate was not visible due to snow. The vehicle then turned left onto bravo st. At which time I pulled the vehicle over.....
But to answer someone else's ? I was driving down alpha st. Drove through the intersection of alpha and bravo until I came up to Charlie st. Stopped at a stop sign and turned left

The other officers never showed up until I was in the back of the cruiser.


I don't have an attorney and don't plan on getting one. I'm just trying to fight a failure to display ticket. I'm not going to get an attorney to fight a $100 ticket
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top