Long story with a somewhat happy ending but still need help

[asiny]

Sorry Cali408nia, you are entirely correct. I was in the same region, just not the correct place in my definition.

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

So he had the intersection correct- and you very well my have had snow obscuring your licence plate.
He had incorrectly identified which street he pulled you over on. Not, necessarily, an error to completely mitigate the stop- but an error non-the-less.

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

Where was your passenger during all this time?
How long were you in the back of the cruiser, after the 2nd officer showed up, before being were taken to the station?
How long, after you called your friend to collect the car, before you were taken to the station?

He was extremely rude and unprofessional,

Nothing you wrote reflects this officer being rude and unprofessional.

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.

And how is it you know this? You overheard him on the radio? You heard the response from the station?

I only received dispatch transmissions from the point of me being pulled over to me getting out of the vehicle.

Was this communication, of having a prior DUI, part of the radio recordings that you acquired?

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.

You questioned the officers order to exit the vehicle- on what grounds did you have to question him? Perhaps your car had a flat tire, perhaps all your tail lights were out, perhaps there was something wrong with the vehicle that the officer wanted to point out to you.

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.

So you now argued with the officer and accused him of removing evidence.. it's already been said- not smart. You probably brought on the FST by being a smart-****

as well as he assaulted me.

Forgot to reference this earlier- and the 'assault' was intentional?

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

You word vs. the officers. The question would be how do you intend to prove the officer was incorrect?

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.

But what, in any of the above, shows a pattern that would imply he lied? If you have a pattern, you may have a direction. Poor history in filling out reports- if similair to yours- proves his recollection of the street names is incorrect... how does this show he lied about the reason for the citation?

If this were myself- i'd follow the great advice you have already received;

People have told me just be glad I didn't get a DUI and to just pay the fine.

Depending if a prosecutor is involved- Does anyone know if DUI charges could still be filed.

If your BAC was not .08... what was it?

 

[Drewcrew73]

There is no way a DUI could still be filed even if it could it would be the biggest joke ever. If you read I already stated what my bac was. No where close to over the limit.

 

[HighwayMan]

There is no way a DUI could still be filed even if it could it would be the biggest joke ever. If you read I already stated what my bac was. No where close to over the limit.

You don't understand what "the limit" is.

You don't have to have a BAC of .08 or higher to be intoxicated. The .08 number is a per se limit at which the law presumes that you are intoxicated. You can be intoxicated at a lower BAC.

 

[asiny]

There is no way a DUI could still be filed even if it could it would be the biggest joke ever.

Based on your years of experience in law enforcement and dealings with the legal system?

If you read I already stated what my bac was. No where close to over the limit.

Tell you what- you show me where you did that, and i'll apologise for asking?

And for reference, this is not your BAC.

I ended up blowing under the legal limit.

As has been posted, a few times, the BAC of .08 is the per se limit. You can still be charged with DUI below the .08- and no, it would not 'be the biggest joke ever'. Unless your idea of a joke is the money you spend for a DUI attorney to defend your case.
There is also the possibility if you lose your case- IF they bring DUI charges against you (which they still can);
(it is not known how long ago your last DUI was- so I included this too)

1st DUI conviction in 6 years
Misdemeanor of the 1st Degree
Minimum 3 days in jail or a driver intervention program with probation. Maximum of 6 months in jail.
Minimum $375 fine. Maximum of $1,075 fine.
Treatment may be ordered.
Mandatory license suspension of 6 months to 3 years.
Driving privileges not available for first 15 days.
Optional yellow license plates (the DUI plates) and Interlock device.

1st DUI conviction in 6 years and either high-end test or any prior in 20 years and refusal
Misdemeanor of the 1st Degree
Minimum 6 days in jail or 3 days in jail and 3 days in driver intervention program. Maximum 6 months in jail.
Minimum $375 fine. Maximum of $1,075 fine.
Treatment may be ordered.
Mandatory license suspension of 6 months to 3 years.
Driving privileges not available for first 15 days.
Mandatory yellow license plates (the DUI plates) for high-end test. Interlock device optional.

2nd DUI conviction in 6 years
Misdemeanor of the 1st Degree
Minimum 10 days in jail or 5 days in jail and 18 days of Electronically Monitored House Arrest and/or Continuous Alcohol Monitoring. Maximum 6 months in jail.
Minimum $525 fine. Maximum of $1,625 fine.
Alcohol/drug assessment and following recommendations mandatory.
Mandatory license suspension of 1 to 5 years.
Driving privileges not available for first 45 days.
Vehicle immobilized for 90 days if registered to defendant.
Mandatory restricted plates (the DUI plates). Interlock device required if offense is alcohol related.

 

[Drewcrew73]

My apologies I checked the posts I didn't give my bac that night. I was mistaken for another forum that I posted in. When I was at the station I blew a .042 and a .043. If they really can still charge me with a DUI I will have a field day with this.

 

[asiny]

My apologies I checked the posts I didn't give my bac that night. I was mistaken for another forum that I posted in.

No problem.

When I was at the station I blew a .042 and a .043. If they really can still charge me with a DUI I will have a field day with this.

1- What do you base that on?
2- You feel comfortable arguing in court, pro se, for a DUI charge?

I was going to ask further queries but realised I already did in my post of yesterday. Not reposting, if you really don't want to answer them.

As for the licence plate infraction- your argument has to be concise, on point, and bringing up the history of the officer- especially if you can't prove he lied on prior records or anything that would be relevant (in the court's eyes)- would be shot down before you could even argue.

Win = walk away.
Lose = original fine + court costs.

Your court date is coming up, be sure to come back and let everyone know the outcome. It could help others who fall into your situation.

 

[Drewcrew73]

I have his personnel file in which their are several instancEs in which he was incorrect in filing reports. Also he has a history of beig agressive to the public in which he was punished. This officer has been in the newspaper several times within the last year resulting from being unprofessional and breaking the law. Honestly I don't know how he still has a job. I requested to get the tapes from the police station today in which I performed my breathalyzer. On these tapes it should show him admitting that he gave me a heel to toe walk test and that I passed. This fact that he gave me the test and then lied in his report that I never did the test could be useful no? I will do my best to go back and answer the ?s that I hadn't prEviously answered. It's hard to go back and forth on my phone. I will definitely let everyone know how this turns out.

 

[Drewcrew73]

I feel. Comfortable arguing in court for a traffic ticket.... DUI no. I would just get a public defender and think that they could win that with their eyes closed. I don't think they would waste their time charging me with a DUI.

 

[CdwJava]

Ohio just gives up an officer's personnel file on request?!?!

In most states that takes a court order, and those are not easy to get and rarely cover anything more than what might be relevant.

If they have an officer who has been guilty or disciplined for falsifying reports, he should have been fired since he becomes entirely ineffective at that point. But, an "incorrect" report means ... what? That no case was filed? That he lost the matter at trial? That he was mistaken about something? Being "incorrect" is a far cry from making stuff up.

 

[asiny]

I feel. Comfortable arguing in court for a traffic ticket.... DUI no. I would just get a public defender and think that they could win that with their eyes closed. I don't think they would waste their time charging me with a DUI.

Do you qualify for a public defender? You can't just get one.
Again, this is really a moot point as they may not bring the DUI charge up at all... but what is your argument against the 'obscured plate'- outside of trying to discredit the officer from his report or personnel file (which anything to do with the DUI or FST would be not allowed because it has nothing to do with a obscured licence plate, nor anything to do with being aggressive or incorrect filings)?

Also he has a history of beig agressive to the public in which he was punished.

Him catching your leg, as you were getting into the cruiser, accident or intended? You say 'assault'...

I have his personnel file in which their are several instancEs in which he was incorrect in filing reports.

Incorrect or lied are two different things.
As CdwJava says;

Being "incorrect" is a far cry from making stuff up.

This officer has been in the newspaper several times within the last year resulting from being unprofessional and breaking the law.

What does his personnel file say about him being 'unprofessional and breaking the law'? Or is the above statement just from your google-searching the officer?

This fact that he gave me the test and then lied in his report that I never did the test could be useful no?

Depends on how it has been worded in 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.

 

[Drewcrew73]

In the report it said heel to toe walk an single leg stance were not performed due to a reported knee injury preventing them from bein done. No further test were performed because he refused to do so.....none of which is true.

The part about beig unprofessional has nothing to do with google searching.. There are several things in his personnel file showing this.

I'm sure the leg in the door was intended.

There were also several instances in his file in which he was disciplined for "lieing" he is an incompetent officer whom also left his firearm in his cruiser when he took it to maintenance.

Ya all it took for me to get his personnel file, internal affairs investigations, and civilian complaint forms was a simple phone call.

 

[asiny]

In the report it said heel to toe walk an single leg stance were not performed due to a reported knee injury preventing them from bein done. No further test were performed because he refused to do so.....none of which is true.

I can, somewhat, see the 'heel to toe' not performed... where did he get the 'reported knee injury' from? Seems an odd thing to add to a report.

The part about beig unprofessional has nothing to do with google searching.. There are several things in his personnel file showing this.

You mentioned 'newspaper', which is why I inquired. What about the 'breaking the law'?

I'm sure the leg in the door was intended.

Your thought against his. How did he react to your leg getting caught in the door?

There were also several instances in his file in which he was disciplined for "lieing" he is an incompetent officer whom also left his firearm in his cruiser when he took it to maintenance.

If he had, outright, lied- why did you not list this earlier? It seems the only time you brought this up was when queried. You seem to be refining the report to fit in with the thoughts.

The officer did not arrest you for the 'obscured plate' but for the DUI- if you bring up the arrest, with the leg getting caught in the door, then you open the door for the breathalyser results to be brought into play.

Your argument is against the 'obscured plate' citation. That's all you should argue. You should be careful about opening that personnel file, or even referencing to it, if nothing in it would be relevant to your situation.
If he left his weapon in the car, during maintenance, that's got nothing to do with your situation.
If he has unprofessional conduct references, then that has nothing to do with your situation- even in your original post- he was not unprofessional.
The reference about the FST cannot be brought up, because you then open up the DUI and breathalyser results, which the court can then take into account.