Criminal Trials, Hearings state won't let me view police video, wants $150. there must be another way....

[thai1]

Hello and thank you. I was ticketed for failure to maintain lane, driving on suspended, and driving on invalid license in the state of GA. I filed a motion to preserve 4 days after arrest. Months later i recieved letter stating they had the police video. Now 3 weeks before trial I've spent the last week going back and forth to the soliciters office to try and go and view the police video before trial which they haven't let me do,and i cannot afford to purchase the tape, and have let them know this. Oh, and in all caps on the letter it states "YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VIEW OR LISTEN TO ANY VIDEO OR TAPE ON YOUR COURT DATE, THOSE ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE MADE PRIOR TO ANY COURT DATE" I'm trying to make the arrangements to no avail. I'm sure they're trying to screw me because I can win with it.

My question is this:

Can I supboena the police dept. directly somehow to get the tape(s)? If so, how would I go about this? Example subpoenas?

oh and also

HOW DO I GET/VIEW THE VIDEO/TAPE WITHOUT PAYING $150 FOR IT???

Thanks!

 

[army judge]

Pay the $150 if you want the video.
But, even if you had the video, it won't help.

You had no valid license.
Forget the lane change, it doesn't matter.
Your problem is driving on a suspended license.


Even if you beat the lane change, the lack of a valid license is your biggest problem.

The nature of the stop is irrelevant.
The lane change is a bullshit charge.
The license violation is your problem.



Driving on a suspended is a strict liability offense.
Your license is valid or not.
Yours wasn't.
You lose.
Make a deal.
They'll kick the lane change.
They've got you on the license!

 

[thai1]

"The nature of the stop is irrelevant."

Wait a minute, are you saying that if i can prove the stop was unlawful, then i cannot move to dismiss? suppress the arresting officer's testimony and therfore move to dismiss for lack of evidence?

Let me elaborate more. The cop pulled me over because he misread my license plate. He then admitted to doing this whilst driverside of my vehicle. He then continued to ask me questions, where i was going, had been, etc. He then asked me to get out of the vehicle. After exiting my vehicle, I asked "have i commited any crime", he THEN said i had crossed the fog line as well and began to run my lic info. He followed me for over 3 miles, so if/when/or where this occured is anyones guess. I had a valid FL lic, but a suspended GA lic. So then was the arrest. What will be interesting to note is if the audio portion of this video exists, which I wouldn't be supriesed at all if it somehow does not.

That cop is on tape admitting he pulled me an on his error, and then asking me to exit the vehicle with no prob. cause WITHOUT notifying me of my freedome to leave. (search siezure)

If for any reason the audio portion of that tape is not available, I plan to motion to supress his testimony because he's already lying on the police report (i motioned to preserve this evidence long ago)

Thanks for you reply army judge

BTW can i subpoena the police station for the evidence? I really can't afford $150

.

 

[army judge]

You can request the court issue a subpoena for the tape.

But, this isn't a murder trial.

Don't be surprised if the court denies your request.

If your license is suspended in one state, you are not legally allowed to hold a license in another state.

Traffic courts aren't patient with pro se defendants.

They want your money.

I gave you my considered legal opinion.

Who knows, you could get lucky.

Good luck.

 

[thai1]

I know they want my $. If i have to ask the court to do this i will, so it will be on record. all this to establish my "good faith" in the end.

Maybe threa, er tell the soliciter that if he does not allow me ample time to view the video that i will sobpoena the court.

Thanks, and I appreciate it.

 

[mightymoose]

Wait a minute, are you saying that if i can prove the stop was unlawful, then i cannot move to dismiss? suppress the arresting officer's testimony and therfore move to dismiss for lack of evidence?

The stop was not unlawful, regardless of what the video shows. As said above, your best case scenario is to have the lane change violation tossed, but you have no defense for driving without a license, and that will stick.

The cop pulled me over because he misread my license plate.

That is still a valid stop, even though it was the officer's error.

He then continued to ask me questions, where i was going, had been, etc. He then asked me to get out of the vehicle. After exiting my vehicle, I asked "have i commited any crime", he THEN said i had crossed the fog line as well and began to run my lic info. He followed me for over 3 miles, so if/when/or where this occured is anyones guess. I had a valid FL lic, but a suspended GA lic. So then was the arrest. What will be interesting to note is if the audio portion of this video exists, which I wouldn't be supriesed at all if it somehow does not.

None of this is unusual. Police do not always stop you at the exact location of the offense. Frequently they will follow a short distance (a few miles) waiting for a good location to make the stop, meanwhile running your license plate information through dispatchers. Your citation, if you actually received one for the fog line/lane change, would show the location. If you didn't get the citation, which I don't think you did, then that argument is pointless anyway. The audio of the tape will not help you. You can not produce any defense for driving while your license was suspended.

That cop is on tape admitting he pulled me an on his error, and then asking me to exit the vehicle with no prob. cause WITHOUT notifying me of my freedome to leave. (search siezure)

His error does not make it an unlawful stop. The officer is within his rights to remove you from the vehicle. The officer did not notify you that you were free to leave because you were not- you were being detained while he investigated during the traffic stop.

If for any reason the audio portion of that tape is not available, I plan to motion to supress his testimony because he's already lying on the police report (i motioned to preserve this evidence long ago)

If you are serious about all this you should hire an attorney, who will likely talk you out of it and explain all the reasons why. Audio may not even exist. Heck, many patrol cars still don't have video.

With the information you give here, there really doesn't seem to be any way for you to get out of this. You might be able to work with them and minimize the damage, but you won't get it all dismissed. If you proceed on your current course you will just make people angry and are more likely to get the full penalty.

 

[thai1]

Beat Driving on Suspended License, Failure to Maintain Lane, Fog Line. Case Ticket

UPDATE:

All charges I mentioned here were dropped, including driving on a suspended license. I negotiated a new plea of "wrong class license" 285$ ticket and it was done.
Here are some things I'll mention for the record:
I got a copy of the stop on DVD without paying a cent for it, through emailing the solicitor constantly, and informing her that it was my right to see/have copies of it (at the same time establishing my good faith for alter records if needed)

The recorded stop DID matter in my final negotiations with the state. There was no footage of me hitting any fog line, and I would have beat that charge and the solicitor knew it. At the point when the officer realized he had "misread my license plate" he should have informed me of his mistake and let me go, NOT seized my license and detain me for making up a bogus charge which he did (I've got cases to support this). At the point in which he did this, it was an illegal seizure (cases to support) and I had motions in hand ready to file, which I showed the solicitor at my time of negation. This illegality of course would be subsequent to my challenging of the occurrence of the fog line incident, which I would have challenged in writing. This leads to my defense of driving on a suspended license, which you CAN do BTW. (never listen to someone who tells you something like this "You can not produce any defense for driving while your license was suspended" NOTHING can't be defended in court). All evidence seized due the illegal seizure and excessive detainment were suppressible due to the exclusionary rule or "fruits from a poisonous tree" , yes even identity related evidence. I also let the solicitor know that should I lose in a motions hearing for ANY reason, I'd be back for blood ASAP.

To anyone reading this looking for info on forums like this, my advice is beware. I've looked through thread after thread of nothing but negative advice of what pro se defendants won't be able to do. All the scare tactics and negativity of "don't try it" this and "hire an attorney" that, I'm pretty sure now is cointelpro bullshit. After beating my dui pro se by avoiding bad advice on forums like this, and now beating this charge from research on my own I'll most likely never hire an attorney again should I ever need one. Do the research yourself, have balls of steel in court, and don't be intimidated.

 

[mightymoose]

UPDATE:

All charges I mentioned here were dropped, including driving on a suspended license. I negotiated a new plea of "wrong class license" 285$ ticket and it was done.

This is common. If they get you to agree to a lesser offense it is better for everyone. You feel like you won, and they don't have the expense of running you through court and appeals. You did plea to a lesser offense, so you didn't exactly "beat" it!

Congrats though... you were more successful than most people would have been.

The recorded stop DID matter in my final negotiations with the state. There was no footage of me hitting any fog line, and I would have beat that charge and the solicitor knew it.

That was about the only value the video could have had for you.

At the point when the officer realized he had "misread my license plate" he should have informed me of his mistake and let me go...

No. It was still a valid stop. Traffic stops are a common way to catch people with active warrants for other offenses. He was right to check your information despite his initial error.

At the point in which he did this, it was an illegal seizure (cases to support)

No it wasn't. Cite your cases. I am curious what you dug up.

This leads to my defense of driving on a suspended license, which you CAN do BTW.

About the only defense you have is if you were not legally noticed of the suspension, or if the court recognizes some emergency circumstance. You caused enough of a headache for them that they were satisfied to let you plea to the lesser offense and make it go away.

All evidence seized due the illegal seizure and excessive detainment were suppressible due to the exclusionary rule or "fruits from a poisonous tree" , yes even identity related evidence.

You have this quite wrong. I believe the prosecutor took the easy way out rather than go rounds with you for months.

You were still convicted of a traffic offense and paid a fine. The prosecutor won.

 

[thai1]

The initial stop was only legal up and until the officer realized his "error" when reading my plate. Even if he had me on tape hitting the fog line, that is still not enough for a legal stop there are loads of cases to support this out there and I could have proved it at my evidentiary hearing. There must be more to indicate I was a harm to myself or others on the road, there are loads of cases to support this on the internet.

The extended excessive detainment of me in the seizing of my DL by the cop AT THE POINT IN WHICH HE REALIZED IS ERROR, BEFORE HE EXITED HIS OWN VEHICLE was not legal.

There are conditions under which ID related evidence is suppressible as well, so here you go. Some of these are state cases, some are federal. Hopefully this will help someone.

Since Officer Toth harbored no suspicion of wrong-doing within the totality of the circumstances to justify further investigation by the time he had pulled the Appellants over on the highway, we conclude that there existed no legal reason for him to conduct the stop and question the Appellants about the ownership of the car or their reasons for being on the road that night. Therefore, we hold that all evidence gathered as a result of the stop must be suppressed. Because we remand on the basis that the investigative stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion, we do not address the other issues raised by the Appellants.

Further, in Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the Supreme Court stated that, absent articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable

The courts have regularly recognized that law enforcement officers almost
invariably effect a Fourth Amendment seizure of a citizen when they hold a driver's
license, an identification card, a vehicle registration, or similarly important papers
belonging to the individual. Guerrero-Espinoza, 462 F.3d at 1309 n.8 (collecting cases);
United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149, 1158 (10th Cir. 2005); Pollman, 286 Kan. at
889 (An officer's retention of a person's driver's license, absent some "offsetting
circumstances," probably effects a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes.).

For example, federal agents seized an individual when they accosted him in an airport
parking lot, asked for and retained his driver's license, and then interrogated him about
his activities. Lambert, 46 F.3d at 1068 ("[W]hat began as a consensual encounter
quickly became an investigatory detention once the agents received Mr. Lambert's
driver's license and did not return it to him."). Simply put, a reasonable person would not
feel free to break off an encounter with a police officer and, in doing so, leave behind
vital personal documents. Indeed, that reasonable person likely would have a difficult
time going about his or her business without a driver's license or other identification. 46
F.3d at 1068. See also United States v. Lopez, 443 F.3d 1280, 1285 (10th Cir. 2006) (A
police officer effects a seizure of an individual by retaining his or her driver's license for
5 minutes to run a warrant check.); State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 427 (Tenn. 2000) (In
finding police seized a young man outside a convenience store when they took his
identification, the court states: "Abandoning one's identification is simply not a practical
or realistic option for a reasonable person in modern society.") (cases cited).


US v. Edgerton, 438 F. 3d 1043
The detention of a driver, however brief, during the course of a routine traffic stop constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir.2005). The standards by which we measure the legality of such stop and resulting detention under the Fourth Amendment are well established. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Where the historical facts giving rise to the stop and detention are undisputed, the only question is one of law, namely, whether the stop and detention, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, were reasonable. See United States v. Dennison, 410 F.3d 1203, 1207 (10th Cir.2005). A traffic stop is reasonable at its inception if the detaining officer, at the very least, reasonably suspects the driver has violated the law. In United States v. Callarman, 273 F.3d 1284, 1286-87 (10th Cir.2001), we explained that while either probable cause or reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify a traffic stop, only the lesser requirement of reasonable suspicion is necessary. See United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783, 787 (10th Cir.1995) (en banc). Unless the officer has an objectively reasonable suspicion that illegal activity unrelated to the stop has occurred or the driver otherwise consents to the encounter, the resulting detention is reasonable only so long as the officer's subsequent conduct is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the initial stop. See United States v. Williams, 403 F.3d 1203, 1206 (10th Cir.2005). In other words, once the purpose of the stop is satisfied and any underlying reasonable suspicion dispelled, the driver's detention generally must end without undue delay. See United States v. Millan-Diaz, 975 F.2d 720, 721-22 (10th Cir.1992).

1050 In People v. Redinger, 906 P.2d 81 (Colo.1995), the Colorado Supreme Court recognized the legality of posting a temporary registration tag in a vehicle's rear window during nighttime hours on facts indistinguishable from the present.[8] Around 2:00 a.m., a Colorado State Trooper stopped defendant's vehicle on I-25 "because he did not see a license plate or temporary sticker on the rear of Redinger's vehicle." Id. at 82. The trooper suspected a violation of a state law requiring license plates to be "clearly visible." Id. at 82 & n. 1 (interpreting a prior version of § 42-3-202 then located at § 42-3-113). As he walked towards the vehicle, the trooper "observed a valid temporary registration plate properly displayed in the rear window on the driver's side thereof." Id. at 82. When defendant reached for his license at the trooper's behest, a bag of white powder fell from his wallet. Relying extensively on McSwain's rationale, the court suppressed the evidence. . The court held a trooper who properly initiates an investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion that the driver has violated a motor vehicle law may not, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, detain and interrogate the driver after the trooper learns the initial suspicion is "ill-founded." Id. at 84.

We decline to require optimal viewing conditions before compliance with a statute requiring an otherwise unremarkable license plate to be "clearly visible" is assured. Fourth Amendment reasonableness does not depend on external conditions, but on a reasonable suspicion that a driver has violated the law. The notion that an unobscured, wholly unremarkable Colorado temporary registration tag posted in the rear window of Defendant's vehicle consistent with Colorado law was not "clearly legible" within the meaning of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-133 because "it was dark out" proves too much for us. Every temporary tag is more difficult to read in the dark when a car is traveling 70 mph on the interstate. But that does not make every vehicle displaying such a tag fair game for an extended Fourth Amendment seizure.

Once Trooper Dean was able to read the Colorado tag and deem it unremarkable, any suspicion that Defendant had violated § 8-133 dissipated because the tag was in "in a place and position to be clearly visible." At that point, McSwain instructs us for better or worse that Trooper Dean, as a matter of courtesy, should have explained to Defendant the reason for the initial stop and then allowed her to continue on her way without requiring her to produce her license and registration. See McSwain, 29 F.3d at 562. Of course, we do not discount the possibility in similar circumstances that the brief encounter between an officer and driver authorized by McSwain might independently give rise to facts creating reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, thus warranting further investigation. For instance, at the commencement of his encounter with Defendant in this case, Trooper Dean noted Defendant's nervousness, an air freshener hanging from the rear console, and "energy drinks" inside the vehicle. The district court, however, made no finding in this case that the facts which Trooper Dean observed independently gave rise to reasonable suspicion and the Government makes no such argument on appeal. See United States v. Cervini, 379 F.3d 987, 994 n. 5 (10th Cir.2004) (noting arguments not raised may be deemed waived). We therefore end our analysis here

The government asserts that not allowing an officer to request a driver's license and registration in this type of case will require the officer to "stop a vehicle, approach the vehicle on foot, observe it, then walk away, get in his police car, drive away and wave, leaving the stopped citizen to wonder what had just occurred." Our holding does not require such absurd conduct by police officers. As a matter of courtesy, the officer could explain to drivers in Mr. McSwain's circumstances the reason for the initial detention and then allow them to continue on their way without asking them to produce their driver's license and registration. See Ohio v. Chatton, 11 Ohio St.3d 59, 62-63, 463 N.E.2d 1237, 1240 (1984).

State v. Chatton, 11 Ohio St. 3d 59

Consequently, where a police officer stops a motor vehicle which displays neither front nor rear license plates, but upon approaching the stopped vehicle observes a temporary tag which is visible through the rear windshield, the driver of the vehicle may not be detained further to determine the validity of his driver's license absent some specific and articulable facts that the detention was reasonable. As a result, any evidence seized upon a subsequent search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle is inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

[thai1]

part 2 drivers license suspended, exclusionary rule, 4th amendment, DUI, suppression

In our view, because the police officer no longer maintained a reasonable suspicion that appellee's vehicle was not properly licensed or registered, to further detain appellee and demand that he produce his driver's license is akin to the random detentions struck down by the Supreme Court in Delaware v. Prouse, supra. Although the police officer, as a matter of courtesy, could have explained to appellee the reason he was initially detained, the police officer could not unite the search to this detention, and appellee should have been free to continue on his way without having to produce his driver's license. Cf. United States v. Place (1983), 77 L. Ed. 2d 110 (prolonged detention unreasonable under Terry).


Regarding the suppression of ID related evidence and the exclusionary rule:

There are, however, three commonly advanced exceptions to this general this rule -- the independent source, inevitable discovery, and attenuation doctrines (see, United States v Crews, 445 US 463, 470).

"The exclusionary rule mandates the suppression of evidence gathered through
unconstitutional means." State v. Garvin, 166 Wn.2d 242, 254,
207 P.3d 1266 (2009); Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 485.

State v. Kaufman, 2002 MT 294, 313 Mont. 1, 59 P.3d 1166, 2002
Mont. LEXIS 574. Montana Supreme Court held that a law enforcement
officer's mistake about condition of brake lights was insufficient reason to stop
vehicle (the right tail lamp was brighter than the left tail lamp). Drug evidence
obtained during stop ordered suppressed.

The Montana Supreme Court held that the officer had
no reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain and
interrogate Kaufman once he discovered that the vehicle's taillamps were not defective.

Instead, we agree with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Court that "[a]s a matter of courtesy, [an] officer could explain to drivers in [Waldrip's] circumstances the reason for the initial detention and then allow them to continue on their way without asking them to produce their driver's license and registration."6

 

[mightymoose]

Your reasoning is flawed.

In your case, the officer did ticket you for a violation. Had he not issued the citation for the initial violation there may be a better argument that he did not reasonably believe you had committed the violation. Whether or not the officer was correct about the violation is beside the point- the officer's actions were reasonable based upon the circumstances and his belief that you had committed a violation. You were able to produce evidence that the officer had made an error regarding the fog line citation, but that does not invalidate his subsequent discovery of your suspended license.

Just because the video showed you did not commit the initial violation does not at all mean that the officer did not reasonably believe that you had. If you could have proven that the officer deliberately stopped you with full knowledge that you had not committed a violation then you may have a better argument since there would have been no basis for his subsequent actions.

This is why the violation for the fog line is easy to dismiss, but you still ended up pleading guilty to an offense regarding the license.

Again, it is quite likely that the prosecutor anticipated the fight you were going to bring, so you were offered an easy way out that satisfied all parties.

I'm not arguing the validity of the cases you cite above- just suggesting that they do not apply to your circumstances since the officer's actions were reasonable at the time even if he was later proven mistaken.

 

[thai1]

Drivers License Siezure, 4th Ammendment, Excusionary Rule, Motions

In all the cases and information I have read, I read nothing of the significance of a citation being issued one way or another in determining of the legitimacy of a stop.

"the officer's actions were reasonable based upon the circumstances and his belief that you had committed a violation"

Oh yea? Says who? And what circumstances were those? I think that's what this whole thing is about right? Did you read all the cases above? Maybe you should. I have, and feel very strongly that I could have proved there was NOT reasonable suspicion for the stop. And even if for some reason there was, there was absolutely no reason for the DL seizure once the officer realized his error. There was absolutely nothing reasonable about seizing my DL. Read the bold text above.

"If you could have proven that the officer deliberately stopped you with full knowledge that you had not committed a violation then you may have a better argument since there would have been no basis for his subsequent actions."

I feel about confident that I could have done this. I would challenge in writing the very occurrence of me hitting the fog line anyway (which was done in a couple of the above cases). Regardless, case after case of incedents of cops making stops due to fog line incedents have proved just that. They have proved that cops HAVE made the MISTAKE OF LAW, not the MISTAKE OF FACT. And, as I hope you would know, the mistake of law is no excuse for the "good faith" doctrine.

"but you still ended up pleading guilty to an offense regarding the license."

So what. With that logic you could say I lose even if I was found not guilty on every charge, since they wasted hours and days of my time.

I was driving on a suspended license. They charged me with driving on a suspended license. I forced them to drop the charge and punishment which goes along with the crime I was committing. I win.

 

[army judge]

You only win if they get none of your money and none of your time.

You made a deal and copped a plea.

Call it a win if you wish.

The only time you ever win is if they never become involved in your life.

 

[thai1]

You only win if they get none of your money and none of your time.

You made a deal and copped a plea.

Call it a win if you wish.

The only time you ever win is if they never become involved in your life.

Yea I hear you. It was either take the plea now, force the full dropping of all charges later, or beat them in court much later. Considering the 40 mile drive each time, I chose this alternative.

 

[army judge]

Yea I hear you. It was either take the plea now, force the full dropping of all charges later, or beat them in court much later. Considering the 40 mile drive each time, I chose this alternative.

Those babies win even when they lose.

They have better odds than a casino.

They make the rules and hire the judges.

No one wins but the king!!!