Re: Charged for Driving While Suspended Based Solely on Officer's Testimony
It sounds like you're saying the officer couldn't have seen you driving on a suspended license because you were living in a different state at the time of the alleged incident. If I were you I'd be figuring out exactly what I had been doing that day and gather any and all proof that I was in a different state at the time. Then I'd beg and borrow the money to hire a lawyer to present my case.
Re: Charged for Driving While Suspended Based Solely on Officer's Testimony
He doesn't even to "run you" before you're stopped. All he needs is an articulable suspicion that a crime had been committed. He's allowed to stop you, ask for license and registration, and then confirm it. And yes his "expert witness" testimony is more than enough to convict you. You don't even have any (not overly credible) story to tell that is exculpatory.
Re: Charged for Driving While Suspended Based Solely on Officer's Testimony
Quote:
Quoting
flyingron
He doesn't even to "run you" before you're stopped. All he needs is an articulable suspicion that a crime had been committed. He's allowed to stop you, ask for license and registration, and then confirm it. And yes his "expert witness" testimony is more than enough to convict you. You don't even have any (not overly credible) story to tell that is exculpatory.
I kind of disagree. He said that he lived in a different state, and drove a different car than the car described by the officer. If he has any proof that he couldn't have been in the state the officers claims he was in, he could get this thrown out.
Re: Charged for Driving While Suspended Based Solely on Officer's Testimony
Quote:
Quoting
flyingron
He doesn't even to "run you" before you're stopped. All he needs is an articulable suspicion that a crime had been committed. He's allowed to stop you, ask for license and registration, and then confirm it. And yes his "expert witness" testimony is more than enough to convict you. You don't even have any (not overly credible) story to tell that is exculpatory.
there was no stop, no stop was made, no license/registration was ever collected or confirmed - there was zero confirmation process. he simlply says he saw me, and created this charge out of thin air and sent it on to the prosecutor.
Re: Charged for Driving While Suspended Based Solely on Officer's Testimony
If I may say so, the TV shows CSI and L&O have a lot to answer for...
Re: Charged for Driving While Suspended Based Solely on Officer's Testimony
I'd like to know where you live in Kansas.
Everyone is harping on the "living in another state" thing. You do realize that the two biggest cities in MO are St. Louis and Kansas City, right? Both metro areas straddle MO and another state, namely Kansas and Illinois.
When I lived in KC it was a common occurrence to come home from work, go out with my wife to the mall/shopping and have dinner (in KANSAS, i.e. "another state,") and return home in the evening.
In other words, it wasn't really like "going to another state!" It was more like "going 5 miles into the western suburbs." Those suburbs just happened to be in a different state.
OP: How far over the line do you live? You never stated that, but seem fixated upon it as if it's some piece of evidence.
Re: Charged for Driving While Suspended Based Solely on Officer's Testimony
Quote:
Quoting
DeputyDog
I'd like to know where you live in Kansas.
Everyone is harping on the "living in another state" thing. You do realize that the two biggest cities in MO are St. Louis and Kansas City, right? Both metro areas straddle MO and another state, namely Kansas and Illinois.
When I lived in KC it was a common occurrence to come home from work, go out with my wife to the mall/shopping and have dinner (in KANSAS, i.e. "another state,") and return home in the evening.
In other words, it wasn't really like "going to another state!" It was more like "going 5 miles into the western suburbs." Those suburbs just happened to be in a different state.
OP: How far over the line do you live? You never stated that, but seem fixated upon it as if it's some piece of evidence.
excellent point. i live in central kansas, this has taken place in central missouri. six hours to drive/eight hours to take a train. naturally i've been scouring for hard proof i was in kansas at the time to no avail. bank records show transactions in both missouri and kansas because my wife and i were one in each state at the time, i have a lease on a kansas property that started aug 1 but that doesn't PROVE i was there the last day of july, and the lessor hasn't been cooperative - doesn't want to be involved.
my biggest point i'm trying to make is that my identity was not, in any way confirmed. he says he saw me driving a vehicle which i didn't own, obviously wasn't in a situation where he made close enough contact to even pull me over to properly identify this person he thought was me - and had it even been me, question me on the status of my driver license to make a judgement call as to whether i even knew it was suspended; his filed information even says i knew i was driving on a suspended license though he didn't even stop/speak to this person he claims was me.