If Indiana == freest state, we're in trouble. Yup... we're in trouble.

[osan]

My head is within angstroms and pico-seconds of exploding.

Seriously, armed insurrection is the only avenue back from this razor's edge on which we now teeter, the abyss so eagerly awaiting our fall.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ind...ideo-evidence/

from the apparently,-LISTENING-is-believing dept

April 11, 2014by Tim CushingTech DirtSeeing how often official reports by law enforcement are contradicted by video recordings, you’d think judges would have become a bit more skeptical about the supposed “superiority” of officers’ recall powers. But that’s apparently not the case, at least not in Indiana, where the state’s Supreme Court has ruled that officer memory trumps video recordings.

Videotape evidence can be overruled by the testimony and after-the-fact interpretation of a police officer, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled last week. In a 6 to 1 decision, justices overruled the state Court of Appeals which reviewed dashcam footage of Joanna S. Robinson driving her Chrysler PT Cruiser at around 1am on October 15, 2011 in Elkhart County and found no evidence of a crime.

In the case being discussed, the officer following Robinson’s car observed it veering over the fog line twice, which gave him the reasonable suspicion he needed to pull her over. Once pulled over, Robinson blew a .09 BAC (.01 over the legal limit) and volunteered to the officer that she was also in possession of a small amount of marijuana. During her trial, she attempted to have the evidence suppressed on the basis that the officer did not have the reasonable suspicion needed to pull her over.


The Supreme Court reviewed the dashboard cam recording, concluding that while it may have not showed exactly what the officer claimed (or indeed, any solid evidence that Robinson’s driving was impaired), it was clearly inferior to the officer’s observational skills and experience.

Deputy Claeys, as he drove down County Road 4 on that October night, was observing Robinson’s vehicle through the lens of his experience and expertise. And when Deputy Claeys testified at the suppression hearing, the trial judge heard his testimony—along with the other witness testimony and evidence, including the video—through the lens of his experience and expertise. Ultimately, that experience and expertise led the trial judge to weigh Deputy Claeys’s testimony more heavily than the video evidence, and we decline Robinson’s invitation to substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court and rebalance the scales in her favor.

This conclusion was reached despite Claeys’ “superior” observational skills observing things that didn’t actually happen.

Deputy Claeys testified “both passenger side tires were over the fog line” and “completely off the roadway” “twice.”

As the single dissenting opinion notes, the previous court found Claeys’ recall of the events suspect.


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ind...heq9mveYIc2.99

[Weston White]

Does becoming a LEO involve some magical transformational metamorphosis or something? Proving them with superhuman abilities that all others entirely lack? Exactly, what sort of “experience and expertise” is entailed in the human power of visual observation? Really I would like to know, what makes police such experts on human sensory and perception, such as seeing?

Why are LEO’ automatically deemed expert witnesses in a court of law? Even attorneys, certified specialists, and professors have to show to the court they are actually knowledgeable experts in their specific field that they are to testify upon. However, LEO’ just walk in and they are like Emerald, “Bam!” expert witnesses.

Oh to be a LEO, six-months of school certification, a few months of in-field instructor training, perhaps a BCJ, and congratulations, you become a golden god.

[aGameOfThrones]

This has already been posted here, but yeah, Indiana=copsucker

[oyarde]

The Supreme Court is very bad .

[oyarde]

The minimum requirements are , practiced law for ten years , a lower court judge for five years , that in itself means the pickings are probably not too good .....