VT: Man beats ticket, takes town to court

[HotD]

.........pulled over and cited for running a red light, despite the officer's dashcam video clearly shown that he hadn't. When the matter went to court, the judge, after viewing the footage, threw the case out and dressed down the officer.......

With his day in court scheduled......neither the officer, his sergeant nor a department administrator were to be found.........(they were across the street at a coffee shop – insert donut jokes in three, two, one...)......

Click on the link and watch the video of both the dash cam and court proceedings.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/30/man- ... =webmail17

[DaRoller]

I don't really think you can tell if he ran the red (or rather, didn't) via that video, though. There's a pause between red and green (i.e. both ways are red for a second), and the quality/angle of the video doesn't let you see if he had a momentary red or not.
Presumably the officer had a different angle and thought otherwise.

[HotD]

I don't really think you can tell if he ran the red (or rather, didn't) via that video, though. There's a pause between red and green (i.e. both ways are red for a second), and the quality/angle of the video doesn't let you see if he had a momentary red or not.
Presumably the officer had a different angle and thought otherwise.

It is likely that he proceeded through a stale yellow light.

As a solid yellow means stop, unless you are so close you can not do so safely, it is an precursor to red and not that of an extension of green.

Could he have stopped safely? I'm not in a position to answer that question.

[dorminWS]

Point is, you are not presumed guilty. There is no offense called "probably ran a red light". If the cop merely MIGHT have seen an offense, he shouldn't write a ticket; PERIOD.

And if I had been that judge and found out the witnesses were hiding out at a diner across the street, I'd have found them guilty of contempt and sanctioned the lawyer. I think that conduct was OUTRAGEOUS.













, he shouldn't charge; PERIOD.

[HotD]

Point is, you are not presumed guilty. There is no offense called "probably ran a red light". If the cop merely MIGHT have seen an offense, he shouldn't write a ticket; PERIOD.

And if I had been that judge and found out the witnesses were hiding out at a diner across the street, I'd have found them guilty of contempt and sanctioned the lawyer. I think that conduct was OUTRAGEOUS.

I agree that the LEO shouldn't have written the citation, much less stopped that guy. That is, unless he had an inkling that there was something else going on and could articulate probable cause to do so.

If If had been that judge and discovered that the witnesses were hiding out at the diner across the street, I wouldn't have held them in contempt, but rather compelled them by judicial order to appear......having courtroom security to go secure them and bring them back, in custody if so required to do so.

For the town attorney....an officer of the court........to advise those three individuals to hide out across the street instead of appearing, slaps of disrespect for not only the court, but for the judicial process.

What strikes me just as irritating, is that Law Enforcement is supposed to not only hold up the letter of the law, but the spirit of it as well. If they can't be trusted to appear before the bench in this matter, I don't hold a lot of trust for something more serious.

[gunderwood]

I don't really think you can tell if he ran the red (or rather, didn't) via that video, though. There's a pause between red and green (i.e. both ways are red for a second), and the quality/angle of the video doesn't let you see if he had a momentary red or not.
Presumably the officer had a different angle and thought otherwise.

It is likely that he proceeded through a stale yellow light.

As a solid yellow means stop, unless you are so close you can not do so safely, it is an precursor to red and not that of an extension of green.

Could he have stopped safely? I'm not in a position to answer that question.

The law in many states, including VA, is not written this way. Yellow does NOT mean stop, nor is there a legal requirement to do so. However, once it turns red if you have not entered the intersection (most red light cameras give you 0.5s in addition), then you're violating the law. Look it up.

Now it always wise to stop on a yellow if you can do so safely. It's just not illegal to not do so.

[DaRoller]

It is likely that he proceeded through a stale yellow light.

As a solid yellow means stop, unless you are so close you can not do so safely, it is an precursor to red and not that of an extension of green.

Could he have stopped safely? I'm not in a position to answer that question.

The law in many states, including VA, is not written this way. Yellow does NOT mean stop, nor is there a legal requirement to do so. However, once it turns red if you have not entered the intersection (most red light cameras give you 0.5s in addition), then you're violating the law. Look it up.

Now it always wise to stop on a yellow if you can do so safely. It's just not illegal to not do so.

True in Vermont as well:

(A) Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is thereby warned that the related green signal is being terminated or that a red signal will be exhibited immediately thereafter, when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection.

(http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/ful ... hapter=013)

[HotD]

I don't really think you can tell if he ran the red (or rather, didn't) via that video, though. There's a pause between red and green (i.e. both ways are red for a second), and the quality/angle of the video doesn't let you see if he had a momentary red or not.
Presumably the officer had a different angle and thought otherwise.

It is likely that he proceeded through a stale yellow light.

As a solid yellow means stop, unless you are so close you can not do so safely, it is an precursor to red and not that of an extension of green.

Could he have stopped safely? I'm not in a position to answer that question.

The law in many states, including VA, is not written this way. Yellow does NOT mean stop, nor is there a legal requirement to do so. However, once it turns red if you have not entered the intersection (most red light cameras give you 0.5s in addition), then you're violating the law. Look it up.

Now it always wise to stop on a yellow if you can do so safely. It's just not illegal to not do so.

I don't require to "look up" anything. I am already familiar with the law as written, and if you would look at my subsequent post to the one you quoted, you would see that I agree with you. I was merely bringing to light the possibility of wisdom or in this case, the lack of wisdom in not stopping.

Had I been a LEO and believed that this driver acted in a manner unbecoming of vehicle operation, I would have cited him for any number of other things that met the elements of the statute to be used. A good example could be Virginia's §46.2-861: Driving too fast for highway and traffic conditions.

[Reverenddel]

Doesn't matter. The cop lied, the Sergeant condoned it, and the court official suggested contempt.

At this point? If I were the judge? I would give the man his judgement for the plantiff, and roll out the news that Po-Po is gonna have a HARD time in his court after that!

[HotD]

Doesn't matter. The cop lied, the Sergeant condoned it, and the court official suggested contempt.

At this point? If I were the judge? I would give the man his judgement for the plantiff, and roll out the news that Po-Po is gonna have a HARD time in his court after that!

The court could have simply ruled a judgement by default, but I believe that it was the intent of the judge to make those 3 absent individuals squirm a bit on camera.

As far as having a hard time in one's court, the individual on the bench is an acting judge. His time left on the bench may not be much longer to give anyone a hard time.