Me: The defendant maintains he did not commit the alleged offense, and never lost controll of the vehicle or drove in a manner that was careless or prohibited, or inattentive. The prosecution has failed to prove it's allegation. The officer followed me for over a mile and a half to my residence an made no attempt to pull me over or make a traffic stop in any way, and was intent on writing me a citation before an offense had even occurred. The officer testifies that the alleged violation occured on a street that wasn't even traveled by the defendant at the time of the alleged violation. The officer further testifies that the reason he was following me was speeding, however he followed me for over a mile, I find it hard to believe that an officer would allow a person to drive in such a manner, endangering the safety of persons and property, and I believe the officer had no probable cause to follow me, and the stop in it's self was illegal. Defendant deserves the benefit where reasonable doubt has been presented and a verdict of not guilty should be entered.
There is a reason you were found guilty, you had no idea what you were talking about. Because he followed you and watched the violations doest mean he has to stop you right away, he did not testify that you were drunk, and even though you were driving irresposibly it wasnt so bad that it was an emergency. Secondly last time I knew you dont need probable cause to drive behind somone in the same direction, that is just silly. How is driving behind or following you a restrction on your 4th amendment right, its not. Are you saying that if I am driving down the street and a xar pulls in front of me I cant drive behind it. An officer can even run your license plate randomly and at anytime he or she wants so that argument is moot. It is so funny funny how people think they are smart enough to actualy go to court and try cases, I personaly live to see it. |