[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Personal Injury Attorney San Diego

obama daughter has white boyfriend -- people are pissed

Rex Tillerson at Hoover (Sec. of State Extravaganza with Condoleezza Rice)

Trump backs 'limited amnesty' for illegal immigrants

Police union slashes number of ‘get out of jail free’ cards issued

I think people should understand how jobs for illegal immgrants works

Democrats roll over and pee on their bellies like the submissive dogs they are

Claim: Hawaii Charter Boat Group Witnessed Explosion In The Sky On The Morning Of False Ballistic Missile Alert

Trump Signs Bill Renewing Warrantless NSA Surveillance

Cops Tase, Assault Handicapped VetThen Arrest Him For Half a Gram of Cannabis

Innocent Man Records Cops Stalking His House, Disabling His Cameras

Meeting Netanyahu, Pence receives welcome reserved for heads of stat

Scientists worry brain-wasting zombie deer disease could spread to humans

NSA "Sincerely Regrets" Deleting All Bush-Era Surveillance Data It Was Ordered To Preserve

Top Ten Reasons to Celebrate Trumps First Year

Up to 3.6 million Dreamers in line for citizenship under DACA replacement

The Republican Rally

Trump ad: Democrats complicit for every murder committed by illegal immigrants.

Flu outbreak: 100 people a week dying in US as virus continues to spread

UH-OH: Democrats Panic After Mainstream Media Sources Blame THEM For Government Shutdown

FEDS: Surge In DACA Recipients Losing Protections For Crimes, Thousands Convicted Or Charged

Oh, by the way...Turkey just invaded Syria

Why India is falling in love with a movie about toilets

5 million Ghanaians defecate openly daily, 1.1bn globally

Why isn't there chaos in the streets?

The Heart of the Constitution

Rand Paul Pushes Marijuana Amendments On Funding Bill

Congressional leaders refuse to budge on shutdown's first day, but negotiations continue

Some African Countries Are Excrement Holes, So Is Haiti

Can Cannabis Oil Really Treat Seizures?

Britons in Jamaica's Montego Bay urged to stay in resorts

Tom Petty died of accidental drug overdose, coroner and family say [opioids, fetanyl]

Fact Check: Is the 'FBI Investigating Whether Russian Went to NRA to Help Trump'?

Reversing the Damage Done by Chairman Barack

Republican Congressman Admits Drug War HELPS Cartels, Slams Weed Witch Hunt

Elizabeth Warrens Native American problem goes beyond politics

In 2018 The US Government Will Spend Nearly $2 Billion a Day on War

Question Concerning Government Shutdown

Neighbor accused of breaking Rand Pauls ribs will plead guilty to felony assault (on a member of congress, resulting in personal injury)

The rise of the cannabis cult: dont believe the hype about medical marijuana Health ..

Happiness

Tim Ogle: This Guys Device Got 100 Miles Per Gallon Then He Had An Attempt On His Life & Later Mysteriously Died

Real Federalists Need to Step Up to Fight Jeff Sessions' War on Weed

Government-Approved Workouts? The Fight Against Fitness Licensing.

Tennessee's Haircut Cops Bust Barbers Who Lack High School Diplomas

Dashcam Recording Instantly Undercuts Officers' Concocted Reason For A Traffic Stop

Medical Marijuana Isnt a Miracle Drug

'Shoot black kids' smoking weed, police chief advises recruit

Putin's Master Plan to Install a Pawn In the White House Who Would Greatly Amp Up Energy Production and Thereby Decimate the Russian Oil-Based Economy Is Nearly Complete

Gas tax should rise 25 cents to fund road repair: US Chamber of Commerce (Communists)


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Exaggerating Cop Testimony
Source: From The Trenches
URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... pholds-exaggerating-cop/216062
Published: Jan 12, 2018
Author: The Newspaper
Post Date: 2018-01-12 15:27:58 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 117
Comments: 15

The Newspaper

A police officer’s exaggerated testimony can still be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last week. The justices overruled a three-judge panel of state Court of Appeals that had previously tossed the evidence gathered by Bloomfield Police Sergeant George Rascon, whose description of events of November 11, 2008, failed to match what the judges saw from dashboard camera footage. Sergeant Rascon said motorist Jennifer Martinez raced to the intersection of Sycamore and North Third.  

“And at the four-way stop sign the vehicle just went past the stop sign completely into the lane of traffic, southbound lane of traffic,” he testified. “She stepped on her brakes completely and she made a complete stop, but it was in the middle, in the lane of traffic.”

At trial, the lower court judge expressed surprise when comparing the officer’s version of events to the dashcam video.

“Alright, well you know after hearing Sergeant Rascon’s testimony I was certainly confused as to why the defendant would file the motion to suppress because he made it sound very clear why, why he stopped and that there was reasonable suspicion, but I think it just goes to show you really need to review the video in every case,” the trial judge observed. “And in this case after reviewing the video, I truly find the truth somewhere in between both positions. I certainly didn’t see Sergeant Rascon’s testimony that there was, she stopped in the middle of the intersection, I don’t think that was the case.”

The Court of Appeals found that the officer’s stretching of the truth made his testimony unreliable, and the video itself made it impossible to determine whether there was a legitimate violation of law. Motorist Jennifer Martinez came to a full stop at that intersection, but there were no lines painted on the ground. From the angle of the video, the three-judge panel simply could not tell whether she stopped too far into the intersection, or not, so they threw out the case. The Supreme Court justices disagreed last week, insisting that the bar for reasonable suspicion was so low that it justified a traffic stop in this case and that the appellate court should have deferred to the trial judge.

“The district court resolved the parties’ factual dispute in favor of the state, finding that defendant drove too far into the intersection before slamming on her brakes and coming to a stop,” Justice Barbara J. Vigil wrote for the high court. “We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred by reweighing the evidence on appeal and failing to view the facts in the manner most favorable to the prevailing party.”

A copy of the decision is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:   New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1/4/2018)


Poster Comment:

A police officer’s exaggerated testimony can still be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last week.

Huh? What - isn't that called "perjury"? Apparently when a cop lies on the stand it's simply "exaggeration". When a serf does it - he charged with a felony.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

Justice Barbara J. Vigil should be expelled from the bench for deliberate erosion of law.

rlk  posted on  2018-01-12   18:03:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0)

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Exaggerating Cop Testimony
Another headline....another bold face lie.
Author: The Newspaper
Another bold face lie. The author is not “The Newspaper.” The author is a “BLOGGER” writing for a blog that calls itself “TheNewspaper.com.”

Here is a listing of the other cop-hating fabrications on the same blog:

  • New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Exaggerating Cop
  • Utah: Cop Cannot Provoke A Violation To Justify A Traffic Stop
  • Tasered Motorist Sues Ohio Town
  • Pennsylvania Cops Settle After Sober Man Jailed For DUI
  • National Motorists Association Takes On Ride Sharing Privacy
All cop-hating yellow journalism articles.
A police officer’s exaggerated testimony can still be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last week.
No, that’s not what the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court on 1/4/2018).

The Supreme Court justices ruled that a police officer’s testimony can be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense and that running the stop sign “justified a traffic stop in this case and that the appellate court should have deferred to the trial judge.”

A police officer’s exaggerated testimony can still be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last week.

Huh? What - isn't that called "perjury"?

Huh...No, that’s called TRYING to inject your PERSONAL OPINION into three court rulings.
A police officer’s exaggerated testimony can still be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last week.
That’s called a ruling with the officer testifying as to what he saw.
Apparently when a cop lies on the stand it's simply "exaggeration". When a serf does it - he charged with a felony.
No. Obviously the law is the same for all. You can find cases where police officers and “serfs” were convicted of perjury as well you can find cases where police officers and “serfs” were not charged with perjury when some felt they should be....all equally under the same laws.

Apparently you are attempting to inject a biased opinion to serve your cop-hating agenda and it is not working. A police officer can charged with perjury if it is discovered that they have lied. There was absolutely no proof the police officer lied on the stand in the case here and therefore perjury was never any consideration except in some reporters cop-hating mind.

You have a right to your opinion, as warped as as wrong as it is....however you cannot negate a court ruling because YOU personally believe a police officer testified in a manner you consider untruthful (exaggeration) and self-declare that the police officer committed perjury. You cannot do this simply because you did not agree with the verdict. It is a repeatedly proven scientific fact many people can have many different interpretations of the same event. That does not make them all perjurers.

Uh, BTW....I find nowhere in the yellow journalism article is the fact mentioned that the woman stopped was definitely DRUNK when she ran the stop sign and she was found guilty of DUI. Why do you suppose the cop-hating so called “reporter” conveniently left that bit of important information out of the article....huh?

It must really suck for you to find court decisions involving the conduct by police officers which you disagree with.

Oh, you poor baby ...

Gatlin  posted on  2018-01-12   18:08:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Gatlin (#2)

Another bold face lie.

A copy of the decision is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:   New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1/4/2018)

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2018-01-12   20:08:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Deckard (#3) (Edited)

Another bold face lie.

A copy of the decision is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1/4/2018)

i read the decision, thank you. The decision is not “the” bold face lie. The decision is the proper administration of the law and insured there was fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law. It was not the kangaroo court system you try repeatedly and fail to invoke on this forum. It was fairness and moral rightness in a system of law in which every person receives his/her due process from the system.

The BIG LIE was the one told by the blogger who tries to imitate a “reporter” in his trashy blog he calls The Newspaper when he wrote:

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Exaggerating Cop Testimony
The New Mexico Supreme Court did not uphold “exaggerating cop” testimony. That was NOT a charge. What the Supreme Court justices actually did was that they ruled that a police officer’s testimony can be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense and that running the stop sign “justified a traffic stop in this case and that the appellate court should have deferred to the trial judge.”

A copy of the decision is available at New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1/4/2018) for you to try to understand and comprehend the ruling and its true meaning.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-01-12   20:34:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Gatlin (#4)

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Exaggerating Cop Testimony

A more accurate title would have been "New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Perjurious Cop Testimony"

After all - he did provide false testimony that was shown to be a lie by the video.

Oh wait - maybe the camera lied.

Yeah - that must be it.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2018-01-12   20:48:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Deckard (#5) (Edited)

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Exaggerating Cop Testimony

A more accurate title would have been "New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Perjurious Cop Testimony"

“Accurate” is the KEY word....and both hose titles are fictitious titles designed to implant a hidden assumption so readers can consider it a recognition of reality....it is prejudice.

After all - he did provide false testimony that was shown to be a lie by the video.
That’s simply not true and you know that. Read the decisions.
Oh wait - maybe the camera lied.
Cameras don’t lie....those who post yellow journalism definitely do lie.
Yeah - that must be it.
Videos must be interpreted. and the district court viewed the dash dash-cam video and concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop.

Yeah – that WAS it.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-01-12   21:22:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Deckard (#0)

The Supreme Court justices disagreed last week, insisting that the bar for reasonable suspicion was so low that it justified a traffic stop

Just like when cops get shot or ambushed... and they knew the dangers of the job when they started... it is what it is. When the highest courts rule in favor of the officer... it is what it is.

Suck it up, you whiney bitch.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2018-01-12   21:46:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: GrandIsland (#7)

When the highest courts rule in favor of the officer... it is what it is.

Isn't that kinda' like gettin' an "Outta Jail Free Card?" Isn't that embarrassing to society and set precedence for social class grief?

buckeroo  posted on  2018-01-12   21:52:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: buckeroo (#8)

gettin' an "Outta Jail Free Card

You play monopoly too much, Belize ball sniffer.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2018-01-12   21:58:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: GrandIsland, yukon's best bud (#9)

buckeroo  posted on  2018-01-12   22:09:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Deckard (#6)

Here is the end of this story.

The woman was drunk and ran a stop sign.

She was tried for DUI....she lost, she was convicted.

She challenged running the stop sign charge all the way up to the New Mexico Supreme Court...she lost there too.

Whine away all you want to....but this is the end of the story.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-01-12   22:22:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Gatlin (#11)

The woman was drunk and ran a stop sign.

She was tried for DUI....she lost, she was convicted.

DickTard likes to lick the boots of a criminal.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2018-01-12   22:39:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: GrandIsland (#12)

The woman was drunk and ran a stop sign.
She was tried for DUI....she lost, she was convicted.
DickTard likes to lick the boots of a criminal.
Good one....yes, he does.
Jail birds of a feather flock together.
I wonder what DickTard’s rap sheet really looks like.
People that have the same morals often tend to group.
That is no doubt why he is so protective of criminals.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-01-13   0:32:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Deckard (#0)

From the angle of the video, the three-judge panel simply could not tell whether she stopped too far into the intersection, or not,

Wait a minute. The cop was actually there. He saw her come to a stop in the intersection. He issued a ticket.

Along comes a three-judge panel which reviews the video and says, "Geez. From this angle we can't tell. So toss the case."

Take a lesson from football instant replay --if the video is insufficient to overturm the ruling on the field, the play stands.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-01-14   8:39:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Gatlin (#11)

The woman was drunk and ran a stop sign.

Gosh. The article never said that. Now the whole story makes more sense.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-01-14   8:41:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com