It was established that NONE of the citations were correct. She had a valid license, registration, and insurance at the time of the illegal stop. The second appeal makes this crystal clear. (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1693755.html)
Nothing about the situation was valid. Not the stop, not the citations. There's a reason why she was willing to fight a traffic stop for 6 years, and why an attorney would take on such a penny-ante case: because it was pure injustice, top to bottom.
Perpetuating the notion that the victim had legitimate charges dismissed on the technicality of an illegal stop is wrong practically unto libelous. Don't do that.
By that reckoning, the police should be pulling everyone over and demanding that they show papers proving they're legally allowed to drive. After all, how do the police know that any driver has a license and registration?
No. The police officer had no reason to pull the driver over, and no reason to suspect she wasn't driving legally, so he should not have stopped her.
The stop was illegal, no question there. But the post I responded to said this:
> Perpetuating the notion that the victim had legitimate charges dismissed on the technicality of an illegal stop is wrong practically unto libelous. Don't do that.
I did miss that she had the documentation that her license is valid with her. (Though why did she need more time to prove that in court?) But the citation on the registration seems ok, but it should have been thrown out as soon as she provided the paperwork
For the license, it sounded like she had the paperwork to prove it was valid, but the officer refused to consider it. It sounds like the registration may have been the opposite case, where she had outdated paperwork but it would have been up to date in whatever system holds the data.
I missed the part about her having the paperwork to prove the license is valid. I may have been confused by the fact she asked the court for more time to prove she had a valid license.
She had documentation proving that her license had been reinstated. A record of the registration would be available on the officer's computer. And they shouldn't have been pulled over in the first place.
> She had documentation proving that her license had been reinstated.
It doesn't even matter that her license had at one point been revoked, may have currently been revoked, or might be revoked in the future. There was no legal basis for pulling her over, end of story.
It was established that NONE of the citations were correct. She had a valid license, registration, and insurance at the time of the illegal stop. The second appeal makes this crystal clear. (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1693755.html)
Nothing about the situation was valid. Not the stop, not the citations. There's a reason why she was willing to fight a traffic stop for 6 years, and why an attorney would take on such a penny-ante case: because it was pure injustice, top to bottom.
Perpetuating the notion that the victim had legitimate charges dismissed on the technicality of an illegal stop is wrong practically unto libelous. Don't do that.