Crime?
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Passing a School Bus - Lesson Learned
- Thread starter tdi_g
- Start date
Did you ever get to see the dash cam ?
The one the cop and solicitor said they didn't have but we're watching it when they spoke to you on the phone ?
The one the cop and solicitor said they didn't have but we're watching it when they spoke to you on the phone ?
I never did get to see the dash cam video. I submitted an open records request for the video and was told there was no video, so I pressed them and asked if they simply did not have the video yet or if it didn't exist period. They came back and said that the officer's patrol car was not equipped with a dash cam and that there was no video for my traffic stop. I took their word for it. I had that email exchange printed and had it with me when I went to court. I wish now that I would have shown it to the judge. If they would have simply told me back in November that they didn't have the video yet but to check back with them I would have been fine with it, but they blatantly lied to me.
as someone who does open records request and medical records request for a living......never take no for an answer.
you would be surprised at how hard it is to get people to do their job, especially those who work in government or records
Probably had one on the bus.
probably, but if that were the case they would still need to release the video if they had it in their possession or would have it in their possession
the idea of an ORR is to give both sides ample time to prepare for court. so if video evidence exists of an incident it needs to be released to both parties
As to the solicitor reviewing the OP and Facebook.
The OP accused the LEO and the school bus driver of breaking the law. (Entrapment)
The solicitor can and will bring charges just like an LEO. If it was brought to his attention that a crime was committed he was duty bound to review it. Also to see if the posts had anything that might exonerate the OP, not just to look and try to bury him. As it was even with the OP and extensive Facebook posts the solicitor gave the OP a large break, as Georgia law has it written as a Zero Tolerance law, with more points than a DUI.
I really think the OP honestly screwed up. But imagine if the officer did nothing, and some other "driver" saw that and thought he'd get away with it if he did the same. After a child is hurt or killed, the driver explained what he had seen and based his decision on there would be just as much or more out cry that the officer did wrong.
Y'all get over it, the OP made a serious mistake and paid a small price, under the circumstances. There is no malfeasance or conspiracy, not even a slight level of sneakiness.
No one was hurt... this time.
The OP accused the LEO and the school bus driver of breaking the law. (Entrapment)
The solicitor can and will bring charges just like an LEO. If it was brought to his attention that a crime was committed he was duty bound to review it. Also to see if the posts had anything that might exonerate the OP, not just to look and try to bury him. As it was even with the OP and extensive Facebook posts the solicitor gave the OP a large break, as Georgia law has it written as a Zero Tolerance law, with more points than a DUI.
I really think the OP honestly screwed up. But imagine if the officer did nothing, and some other "driver" saw that and thought he'd get away with it if he did the same. After a child is hurt or killed, the driver explained what he had seen and based his decision on there would be just as much or more out cry that the officer did wrong.
Y'all get over it, the OP made a serious mistake and paid a small price, under the circumstances. There is no malfeasance or conspiracy, not even a slight level of sneakiness.
No one was hurt... this time.
For someone that works in the court, you keep forgetting things.
The school is not part of the legal system, and the tape wouldn't have been requested from the bus until the OP signaled he wanted to dispute this case. AND a ORA request MUST be specific and not broad in nature.
huh? when i make an ORR im not specific at all, i am very broad to include ALL types of documents because i know alot of folks have this mind set about technicalities; for instance "you didnt request cad logs with your 911 requests, only audio recordings". or another neat trick alot of departments like to do is give you like 2 months of video from their dash cam and essentially make you go through it all (even though you specifically request the time frame and date so the additional footage is just irrelevant).
so i ask for everything, that way when they balk or down the line someone "discovers" it, i can use my prior ORR to show make a case they were stubborn or unwilling to cooperate (either because they were intentionally resistant or inept, but either way it makes them look bad)
alot of departments (the smaller ones) cut right to the chase and will call you to know exactly what you want, and 99% of the time the ORR is a nonissue.
hell, i could argue that the ORR doesnt have a time limitation (or make it known in my request that this is a standing request) and that when the office, firm, or whoever was made aware of a document that falls under 50-18-70 disclosure rules, then they have a duty to inform and produce it
but its the government. you will get 4 or 5 conflicting answers, opinions, or reasons for any one thing.
You have to be specific as to who what when, and mostly what department you want the evidence to come from.
Yes I know some what defence attorneys ask for, but I also know what the courts allow. You ask for the wrong thing you get the wrong thing.
Yes you can argue anything, doesn't mean that is what the court will except. And the dance continues... LOL
