Thank you for taking the time to reply using more FACTS then previous replies however your opinions are still your opinions!!! AGAIN Lets go with fact not conclusions not inferences just FACT!!! I have an inference that most cops do this crap all the time and with out a high profile lawyer like I paid he would have gotten away with it!!! Thats exactly what I mean its not a provable statement so lets get back to the FACTS!!!

I do want to point out that the initial reason the officer had interest in my car was the dark window tint which in the state of Minnesota its a "petty misdemeanor" which is not an arrest able offense. Also note that the window tint on my car is for a medical reason from a previous cornea transplant so I possessed a properly written medical waiver. This is the main focus of this encounter with the officer because had he been more experienced in law and understood what a petty misdemeanor for window tint was and thats only a fix it ticket not something you can arrest someone for. Also your comment "the officer made some conclusions based upon experience". This was later covered by the judge "The officer's erroneous "inference"". ALL HE HAD WAS WINDOW TINT!!! NOTHING MORE!!

The window tint under MN state law would not allow him to come remove me from a locked bathroom door and arrest me for dui! His ability to have me submit to a sobriety test was not present because there was NO traffic stop conducted!