Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds
I wasn't saying that they did. I was saying that in order to actually make any of that stick, they need to present evidence. So op should try to find what evidence they have. Whether OP needs a lawyer to do that or not idk, but that is step 1. If they can't come up with any actual evidence supporting the officer's assertion after having arrested him, that's a serious abuse of power, and depending on what reason they give for the arrest it could be argued as a violation of OP's constitutional rights. (Shape/color of the car, for example)
It seems to me that OP is in a stronger position than he believes. I'm not a lawyer or anything (disclaimer), so maybe I'm completely wrong.  |
Don't think that the shape and colour of your car are included in your constitutional rights.
The same would apply to any arrest. The evidence will be made available before the trial but it isn't like he can just walk into the police station and ask them for it.
Pretty sure that even if the cop was mistaken it isn't "abuse of power" to arrest somebody he felt was racing. I also feel that the OP may have a strong case but that doesn't make the cop some douchbag power hungry monster. It just means that he misinterpreted what he saw. We have no idea what it appeared like to him. Was he just supposed to say "Oh OK" and walk away when the OP gave his story? Is that how law enforcement should work? If the OP is innocent and his story sways the judge he is fine. If the cop presents his version better then he will be found guilty. That is how the system works.