1. 5

  2. 2

    There’s one or two things bothering me about this case…. smacking me in the back of the head bothering me and one of things really stands out as a massive splattered bug on the windshield.

    It’s a long read and it’s complicated because everyone involved from the initiator L.E.O. and defendant to their attorneys all the way up to the SCOTUS justices are assuming intent, parsing words and maybe even disecting punctuation (like the comma in 2A), all to the eleventy-teen-billionth degree. What’s left of my hair hurts from reading.

    The bug on the windshield thing - the real stand-out that’s repeatedly pounding my face into the pavement….. The L.E.O. “had not witnessed any traffic violations”……. So why did the L.E.O. run the vehicle’s tag in the first place ? What was the probable cause to do so ? Does the L.E.O. in the case do that on a regular basis ? Is this commonplace amongst L.E.O.’s in that department ? The county ? State ? Nationally ?

    Something’s telling me this case is much bigger than it appears.

    1. 1

      This is exactly the point that stood out fore as well.
      Maybe this would have been asked if the officer had testified?