Quote Quoting bam!
View Post
$6k is the amount he paid counsel.

You got lucky. Don't push your luck next time. I agree the reason for pulling you over was shady. The report was also shady based on how he wrote it. Your actions were shady. You look like an arrogant jackass on the video.

The cop was wrong. But so were you. Than your lucky stars the cop didn't wait for you exit and then pull you over. He looked young and impatient and it backfired on him.

Don't drive drunk.

he was not pulled over. It would have come to that if the OP kept driving instead of dodging into the quickie mart but that is irrelevant. A cop can make contact with an individual outside of his vehicle and it not invoke the rules required to make a traffic stop since, well, it isn't a traffic stop.



and yes, I figured the money was for his lawyer. If he wants that, he is going to have to pay another lawyer and sue the cop. If the OP wasn't actually guilty of the DUI, he might find assistance in places like the ACLU or some similar entity but I suspect they would not be all excited about defending the OP in such an issue due to his actual guilt. It makes it look like they are defending guilty people.

The thing I find odd is that there was no mention of the cop obtaining key to the stall and unlocking it. I would have thought that would be the basis for the rights violation and not simply overhearing a conversation that, to me, was not covered under their right to privacy as it was hear outside of the stall. Anybody that walked into the apparent multiple user facility could have heard that. Like I said before, I disagree with the decision.

I also do not see why all evidence was suppressed. Since the cop was intending on making contact with the OP, even with the statement suppressed, the cop would have independently discovered the intoxication, or at least reasonable suspicion to continue an investigation once he was aware of the fact the OP had been drinking due to the odor emanating from the OP and quite possibly his lack of stability.