From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: ***Police intimidation ???
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:52:59 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: hasch@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu's message of 10 Nov 92 22:42:46 -0400

[I thought rec.autos.driving was inappropriate, so I modified your
followup.  Please note.]

In article <1992Nov11.024246.20735@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
hasch@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Veljko Roskar) writes:
>An ugly incident with the Baltimore's "finest" happened
>to me on an early Sunday afternoon while looking for
>parking before an Orioles game.

The following is not legal advice (that would be *wrong*), but
informal advice meant to get you to look at your options a little more
closely.

[Tale of possibly drunk-with-power Baltimore cop acting arrogantly and
rudely, culminating in a ticket for "Disobeying a lawful and direct
order of a police officer."]

First, you should do the following research:

   (1) Find out the "elements of the offense," and try to determine
       whether there are any obvious holes in the State's case as to
       whether they are all satisfied.  If you can defend against 
       *any* of these elements, you win (in theory; see below).

   (2) [This is really related to #1]  Find out what *exactly* 
       constitutes a "lawful" order on the part of the cop.  "Turn
       your car around and go back where you came from" probably
       isn't (but again, see below).

>Going to court involves a catch 22 -- 
>a) plead NOT guilty: tell your story and the judge finds
>you GUILTY. You then pay the FULL fine and get points.
>
>b) plead guilty, (feel cheated), but it's likely the
>judge will fine you a smaller amount and probation (no
>points), if you have a clean driving record (I do).

Here's the good news: you may have a third option (sorry, more
research): "Guilty with an explanation."  If your research on count
(1), above, is sadly in the negative, and if you have this option, you
may get the benefits of being able to say "this isn't really a fair
ticket" without claiming total innocence.  Look into it.

Here's the bad news: with the exception of Rhode Island, Maryland is
the most corrupt state in the Union.  (All you people from New York
and New Jersey can just keep your comments to yourselves.)  Part of
that corruption is a strong disposition of judges and the like to take
the word of police officers at face value, even in the face of
less-than- incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.  To these
people, upholding the credibility and authority of the police is far
more important than giving the odd citizen a fair shake.  You can just
check all that "reasonable doubt" and "presumption of innocence"
hogwash at the courthouse door.

The cop will almost certainly lie.  Well, whether its a "lie" or not
to say "I then requested that the citizen place his vehicle in
reverse, in order to clear the intersection," when what he said was
"Turn around and go back where you came from," is a subject for
sci.philosophy, but this is basically what you can expect.

What you need is *witnesses*.  I'm sure you don't have one (except
your wife, who is better than nothing; bring her).  Take heed that the
cop in question is quite sure of this also.

I'm sorry, but the best summary I can give you is:  Good luck, you're
going to need it.  (An example of "good luck":  the cop doesn't show
and the case is dismissed.)
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: misc.legal