FL cops caught on tape fabricating report in DUI case

I'm kinda pissed off at them just from reading this thread.

According to the Code Book in front of me (admittedly, a 2006 edition) the commentary on Section 32-6-9:

In the commentary section (which is the official Attorney General's Opinion) it cites that case. It says that the Supreme Court threw out that particular case, but SCOTUS cited prior precedent set when SCOTUS ruled that random spot checks by the Border Patrol were entirely legal and constitutional. The court admits in the ruling that it did not stop Delaware, or any other state, from taking such administrative measures that would be required to bring the random stops into the realm of the constitutional by complying with the directions SCOTUS itself handed down the ruling.

The solution that completely invalidated the SCOTUS ruling? When I was at the courthouse on personal business today, I was renewing my driver's license.

In big bold letters at the top, it says that you agree to be stopped and show this license to any peace officer any time you are operating a motor vehicle or the officer has reasonable suspicion that you have been operating a motor vehicle. What do you want to bet other states changed their procedures to say the same?

But, that's not really the point. Do you really want to put everything in and on your car up to my test? I'd bet my next two paychecks that if I look long enough, I'll find at least one thing that would have made it legal in your mind for me to stop you.

My vehicle is in pristine condition, but I know of at least three things that are seldomnly enforced but totally legal that I could write myself a ticket for.

#1 - In pristine factory condition, per the Code, my headlights exceed the maximum height allowed by law and I certainly don't have a lift kit on it.

#2 - The "Rear Entertainment System" (DVD Player) has optional control and playback from the front unit. If the driver can see it at all, it's a ticketable offense.

#3 - My windows are tinted well beyond the state standard as measured by a court approved testing device.

They had probable cause. Even though technically the accident was the officers fault because he hit her in the rear it was her actions of swerving into his lane that truly caused the accident.

She was drunk. She failed the field tests. The only reason she still is not facing charges is because of these idiot cops trying to cover up him hitting her. Turns out he is not a good driver and has had previous accidents.

Nothing in there even remotely implies that you're allowed to stop a guy just because you want to look at his driver's license.

This bit is a mess, and I don't see any kind of link to back up what you're talking about, or what case you're referring to that threw out Delaware vs. Prouse.

That's great for your state, but I assume when you originally made your comment you weren't talking about Alabama Peace Officer's per se but the Country at large, especially since you cited some elusive SCOTUS ruling that you haven't been able to name a case for.

As for MY state, I can't find any evidence that any such caveat applies, so there's no guarantee that any other state does either. Nevertheless, if my state DOES have such a clause, I'm just not able to find it.

So now you're going from, "I don't need a reason to pull you over if I want" to "I need a reason but that's ok because everyone's probably breaking the law anyway"? Pick an argument, stick to it, and back it up.

She didn't swerve into his lane. The cops made that part up. She wasn't even in the car when it happened. She had pulled over and was outside looking for the cat. She didn't even know that there had been a collision when the cops approached her.

Holy fucking shit. You mean she actually wasn't driving intoxicated?!?!


If this is true than the cop and every single person that helped him cover it up needs to go to jail for a long LONG time.

"The incident happened last February when officers pulled over 23-year-old Alexandra Gabriela Torrensvilas in the 2800 block of Sheridan Street for suspicion of drunk driving. Officer Joel Francisco, 36, allegedly rear-ended Torrensvilas's car when he pulled in behind her."

http://cbs4.com/local/hollywood.police.dui.2.1109194.html

She was driving drunk. According to the evidence she was twice the legal limit. Where the cops went wrong was covering up the officer hitting her car as he pulled in behind her.

If a cop pulled me over for no reason whatsovever, I would seriously consider sugaring a cop gas tank, slashing all four tires, or egging the shit out of the paint job of the next unattended cop car I encountered.

You're much nicer than I am. If I'm arrested and cops just start making up charges I'm going to start memorizing the names of dead mother fuckers when I get out.

Let me say first and foremost that this is business and not pleasure.

Can you not read?

"Every licensee shall have his license in his immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle and shall display the same, upon demand...of a peace officer..."

Is that not clear? I can ask you to see your driver's license any time you're operating a motor vehicle.

I do not know how to make that more clear. Have you finished kindergarten level reading comprehension?

I would ask that you read the entire ruling, and all of it's verbage.

I have nothing to go on except for what's written in the book. And, I'm sorry, but if it comes down to you and the book, I'm going to believe the book.

So you assume I'm wrong 'cause you've failed to find evidence to the contrary. I'm sorry, but my book says what SCOTUS and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama says. I'm sorry if I believe my book is greater than Google.

No. Read it again. I'm saying I don't need a reason 'cause SCOTUS has said I don't need a reason. But, if you really do want a reason, I'll give you one.

Fact: I've sent thousands of people to jail over more than a decade without even so much as an appeal court even looking at the ruling.

You've done? A google search.

Yeah. About that...

Just because a state has a law doesn't mean that law is legal.

You seem to take a certain amount of glee in the fact that you're above the average man lately, so I'm going to take your comment above with a grain of salt.

Go fuck yourself.

Who said anything about Google?

BTW, sanctimony duly noted. Remind me never to drive through Alabama. All I really need is to be stopped by Buford T. Justice.

The best part is that even if Buford T. Justice gives you a completely BS ticket. One so outrageous the Judge is screaming bloody murder and agreeing with you that it was complete BS, you're still gonna have to pay $125 in Court Costs.

Woo-hoo!