Case DISMISSED in 34 SECONDS!
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 03. 2023
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theduiguyplus
NEED TO BEAT A DUI? I CAN BE YOUR LAWYER, TOO.
Call 502-931-6788 OR
Schedule an appointment with me: http:/www.meetme.so/larryforman
Let's work to get your DUI case resolved!
Connect With the DUI Guy:
Website: www.FormanAndAssociatesLaw.com/
Facebook: / theduiguyplus
Twitter: / theduiguyplus
Linkedin: / formanlarry
#criminaldefenseattorney #duidefenselawyer #duiattorney Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theduiguyplus
NEED TO BEAT A DUI? I CAN BE YOUR LAWYER, TOO.
Call 502-931-6788 OR
Schedule an appointment with me: http:/www.meetme.so/larryforman
Let's work to get your DUI case resolved!
Connect With the DUI Guy:
Website: www.FormanAndAssociatesLaw.com/
Facebook: / theduiguyplus
Twitter: / theduiguyplus
Linkedin: / formanlarry
#criminaldefenseattorney #duidefenselawyer #duiattorney - Zábava
![Watch A DUI Attorney Flawlessly Dismantle a [Suspected] Coached Police Officer for the Prosecution](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WGpoM7Km5rg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Watch A DUI Attorney Flawlessly Dismantle a [Suspected] Coached Police Officer for the Prosecution](/img/tr.png)
I really liked the part where we didn't see the judge dismissing the case.
i didn't like that part at all
That happens in part 2
Yeah, disliking this
😂😂😂😂😂
i really like the part where i clicked "dont recommend this channel"
Didn't see the judge dismiss the case...
Right? Like wtf is this...doesn't substantiate anything.
No, but when the police are obviously lying....there is no case.
@@darrkstarg how are they obviously lying?
@@zglando6662oogle really does wonders. You should try it. I wasn't sure either but instead of asking I looked it up. In law enforcement there are 24 cues (or driver habits)that an officer may use to conduct a traffic stop for suspicion of DUI. In all of those cues, simply just speeding is not one of them. I'm guessing in his report he stated that he pulled him over for suspicion of DUI, yet the only behavior he mentioned that drew his suspicion was speeding. If that is the case, they absolutely could have it tossed out...... That's also why he starts running down the list of cues as it pertains to the law. All he needs is that cop to admit he didn't observe any of the 24 cues and it makes his DUI traffic stop an illegal stop. Now had the cop just stopped him for speeding and observed the intoxication after then I'm sure it would be a lot harder to defend. I'm just assuming how it played out based on the attorney's strategy.
@@darrkstarg this video doesn't show that tho.
still waiting for the part where the judge dismissed the case....
Case was dismissed so fast the judge didn't even get to announce it.
I hate when people use BS titles. There wasn’t any case dismissed.
That case was dismissed based on the cop's answers proving he didn't have probable cause.
All you got to do is start report news
I love how CZcams people don't understand how shorts work.
Generated all these botted comments. Dislike, don’t recommend this channel, and move on
I reported it.
Can you leave a link on these shorts to the whole trial?
This comment needs to be tagged!
Ditto
No absolutely not!! because then you would find out these clips are BS, LOL
@@usmcstasniper how are they bs? I'm sure there's more to the case and it's kinda hard to fake it too this degree
@@TimothyGod Because these 24 "visual cues" are not scientific and are antiquated. Speeding is PC for the stop. The cues he is referring to are only moving violations that were used back in the 80s-90s. These cues have a percentage chance that the driver MAY be DUI and the officer should investigate further.
Thing is, some cops don't care. They will send you to court knowing full well they were in the wrong all because they ego trip. Not to mention, the get paid to sit at the courthouse and testify.
You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.
and the court wont listen to your side if you aint got a lawyer YOUR paying NEVER take a Pub Def
Paid? No it's extortion it's sanctioned and the salaries are the fruits of the crime. Why wouldn't they violate the rights of the taxpayers who are paying their bills. Shameful and sinful.
@@tripsix263ot always true. I had a DA drop all charges including fees after about 15 seconds of explaining why I was there. She likely knew that the cop was crooked or an idiot. No lawyer needed; just a decent elected official and a precise, coherent and respectful statement. The cop was either a total moron (forgivable on his part honestly) or he trapped me in the dumbest and most obvious way possible. He basically stood in the middle of my lane while waving me through only for his partner to stop me and then him come back and then cite me driving in the opposite lane. 😂
Edit - like the badged version of see something say something...
Police don't ever have to be in court to testify. They're claimed to be always the most "credible witness, by default. Which means they can never be cross examined, & this even applies to criminal cases.
Good job Larry, loving how you “innocently” get a dig in, with “during your 40 hours training” 😂👏
Here even mall security isn't signed off for duty after just 40h ... what is USA training people for ?...
@@contytub Dude that is 40 hours of training for spotting this specific thing. Cops have a lot more extensive training in total. Don't assume so much or you will sound like these idiots praising this attorney for throwing up a smokescreen. We don't know what charge he is trying to avoid but speeding is already a primary infraction in all 50 States. (That means speeding alone is enough to justify a pull over. Unless their is something unusual going on this is all a smokescreen which makes no sense in a non jury trial, A judge is more likely to get irritated by this than entertain a motion to dismiss.
TLDR Most of these commenters don't know their ass from a hole in the ground but the people who know the least make the most noise.
@Joe Momma the full video is elsewhere. He is being charged with a DUI. I don't know much about or the areas laws but if it did get dismissed I'm going to assume if it did get dismissed then proper gathering of proof wasn't followed ( Any sobriety tests) and the lawyer is arguing that the acts witness while driving that led to the stop where not evidence for a DUI.
@@Snipergoat1 it’s not a speeding ticket though? You’re just typing for the sake of typing
@@Snipergoat1 you are correct about one thing, and it’s that last sentence. You here making the most noise while being wrong 😂
I had my charges dropped quicker than this before. I didn’t have an attorney so I had to defend myself. I was falsely arrested for public drunkenness, at court while the officer was on the stand I asked him…… “ did you perform any type of test to determine if I was under the influence of alcohol?” He said, “no”. I said that’s all the questions I had for him, charges dropped lol
This could not have happened in the USA.
@@lickinganne9239 it happens all the time in the US
@@AliciaMarchant no it does not. One, Miranda Rights. There is no possibility you could face charges and not have an attorney and have to defend yourself. Two, the case wouldn’t be dismissed if he didn’t perform any tests. As there are clues to indicate drunkenness without the necessity of tests. Or else the charge of public drunkenness or drunk and disorderly would be completely irrelevant because, surprise surprise, no one does tests for those charges and there is nothing requiring the administration of those tests for those charges.
@@lickinganne9239in Texas for example drunk in public doesn't carry jail time thus would not be required under Gideon to have an attorney paid for him. Also keep in mind if you are not poor you have to pay for your attorney. There are a number of situations I could see him end up in court for without an attorney
@@matthewpopovich3917 the way he propagated that he did not have an attorney would underline my base assumption he did not give up his right to an attorney. One would assume that if he dismissed his right to attorney that would be the statement rather than just not having one. I could be incorrect in that assumption, but based on the language I think it is safe to assume that determination.
Second, I stand corrected. I was unaware that public drunkenness did not carry a jail sentence in the state of Texas so that would be a possibility in that circumstance in that state.
However, it still doesn’t answer the fact that a judge would dismiss the charge due to the fact an officer didn’t perform a field sobriety test on a charge that doesn’t demand it. That is preposterous.
Speeding is a legit reason for a stop, not necessarily for a DUI stop, but still gets you to the window.
It gets you to the window, but they then have to find probably cause for DUI once at that window.
@@FormerRuling like a subjective wiff of anything
@@serslack6175 unfortunately
This.
I think this one might be a technicality on what the report contains. So even though he MAY have had signifiers, and MAY have tested positive, if the report is written in a defective way where probable cause wasn't reported, the entire evidence would be fruit of the poisoned tree and inadmissable.
I love how in most of those cases, judge's like "Oh..so that's what the laws are..interesting.."
Just so you know a law degree is not required to be a judge but even with a law degree too many judges either don't know the constitution or deliberately ignore the constitution.
P.S. Point of fact. Jury's across are forced to work for less than minimum wage which is a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. I haven't heard a judge yet rule against the illegal practice. They're banking on people not taking it to court because of the pain threshold. Pain threshold relates usually to lawsuits and means it would cost you more to fight in court than to simply pay the fine.
@@readhistory2023 What does the 4th amendment have to do with the minimum wage?
Of course! They’re just like cops in the sense that their understanding of laws is not relevant to how how much power they hold over you at any given point in time.
I really liked the part of watching the court room video timer go above 34 seconds
There isn't enough information in this short. We don't even get a ruling. Anyone can get pulled for speeding and should the officer smell alcohol on the driver's breath then it's reasonable to suspect them of DUI. This video doesn't go there. It doesn't even share the ruling but just states that the Case is Dismissed.
No. It’s reasonable to assume they have consumed an alcoholic beverage. Without any other cues that’s where it stops. Police are required to
@@bertellijustin6376 Your comment seems incomplete. I'm not sure what you mean by "Without any other cues that's where it stops." If he pulled this guy over for speeding and smelled alcohol on his breath, it's reasonable to suspect him of DUI.
This is why “shorts” are so toxic. You can frame anything in different contexts.
@@bertellijustin6376you do realize it's illegal to operate a vehicle after consuming alcohol, you have to wait the predetermined amount of time before driving again else be arrested for a dui... especially if you're going twice the posted speed limit.
Dont testify you smelled alcohol on the drivers breath either.. a competent lawyer will explain thats impossible because alcohol has no smell to be smelled on that breath. You need to testify you smelled what you believed to be an alcoholic beverage. They get very technical lol.
Where was the dismissal?
You don't have sense enough to know with the pig lying the case is going to be dismissed you have to hear it wow dude. 😅😅
Shhhh people are hating on police.
Most likely the cop pulled the dude over for speeding and then initiated a field sobriety test and the lawyer is trying to make the claim there wasn't enough evidence to initiate one to get his guy off or reduced sentence. So at best it is just to put pressure to reduce sentencing.
The judge tossed it out as ilegal test as no ros for sobriaty test!
@@bergthorjohannesson7819 How do you know?
@@RandyLaheySunnyvale full video is on youtube and many others from this lawyer where he shreds cops for lying and braking laws time and time again! Hes even gotten some arrested for lying on official documents and for lying on the stand while under oath!
It's really not that hard to make their ignorance of the law known🤷♂️
This has nothing to do with ignorance of the law 🙄 there is no law that spells this stuff out. There is just a basic standard they receive training on but don't always follow
You’re actually fucking retarded….. please tell me you’re not this idiotic and stupid. L I T E R A L L Y nothing to do with this case. The lawyer is trying a weak and actually stupid argument against a DWI. It all comes down to what the officer observed AFTER the driver pulled over! You’re a fucking moron.
It is, as a sui juris ive prefected law only for about 5 years, but I can say these videos you seen online where it was "allowed" to be recorded, the police lie a lot less. Most cases ive done have had the police blatantly lie, whenever possible
@@deusvult6920 it's literally law though. Talk about deus Vult 🤦
@@elliottbaker201 there is a law against speeding. Correct? So the officer had a legal right to initiate a traffic stop. Isn’t it likely that during the encounter the officer saw indicators of intoxication such as slurred speech?
But what I will almost guarantee is that the defendant failed sobriety tests, breathalyzer, and blood tests. Or any combination of those three. So in the end. After all the lawyering and blabbering….the guy was drunk….and operating a motor vehicle on the roadway. This is a crime and for good reason. He is selfishly and recklessly endangering the lives of others.
The local police must really hate you 🤣
Don't worry though, you've got all of us loving you to make up for it 🤷🏼♀️
And the judge probably hates the local police
KENTUCKY HAS THE WORST!
Bet you love how drunk drivers kill 10,000 people every year too
John Adams, defending the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre, December 1770
I am for the prisoners at the bar, and shall apologize for it only in the words of the Marquis Beccaria: “If I can but be the instrument of preserving one life, his blessing and tears of transport, shall be a sufficient consolation to me, for the contempt of all mankind.”
@Omega Riddler I hope not.
A judge with integrity shouldn't hate anybody, and give everybody a fair shake.
Innocent until proven guilty, and beyond a reasonable doubt, aren't bullshit slogans. That's exactly how a real justice system should function.
Ours in the US has been corrupted beyond repute though, and too many activist judges going by the edge of their seat to further a political agenda.
Jury nullification and things like it are extremely important factors when sitting on a trial, and should be openly spoken about during trials.
I guess this is impressive if your neither a cop or a DUI lawyer. Because both of those professions understand how difficult it is to prove DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.
Impressive for who it makes no sense based off of the video
Honestly it’s pretty easy if the person agrees to an FST and the breathes over legal.
What? It is not complicated to draw blood.
Kinda wanted to hear the verdict
LOL, heading reads "case dismissed".
Do you know what those word mean?
@@Cheepchipsable being told the chocolate cake was delicious doesn't hit the same as tasting the chocolate cake yourself.
12 ANGRY MEN..... thanks that was a really good movie👍
When police do their job properly, they are an immeasurable assert to the community.
When they abuse power or take shortcuts that defeat their authority, they damage public confidence.
I appreciate honest officers more than I can say, we have no idea how difficult the job is. The good ones deserve our respect and gratitude.
My feelings exactly, I'm not going to demonize a group of people because of the actions of some of them.
@@charlesdeblanc3386 most*
Oh, so you think your gobernment should hire law enforcement that should be upholding YOUR constitutional rights but virtually never does because you don't hire them but the Sheriff is on your ballot and you don't understand the difference.
@@Zyklon_B_still_and_know_God no some. i dont think you have a idea of how many cops there are and how many interactions they have. we mostly only get to see the bad ones so some people think thats the normal. it kinda like racism.
One of the biggest problems is that departments push the blue line brotherhood mentality. so even good cops who don't participate in unlawful behavior will not snitch on their fellow officers who do abuse their power, making all guilty by association
If the guy was stopped for speeding, no cues are needed. Once the cop approached the vehicle he would be able to see if the driver's eyes were bloodshot, smell alcohol, see open containers in the vehicle, hear slurred speech, etc. If any of those things were present, then he had probable cause to suspect a DUI driver.
So if I'm understanding this correctly the lawyer is saying that it is not legal to pull someone over for speeding...? Wtf
Speeding is not a cue for drunk driving.
You didn’t understand it correctly
So the guy was driving drunk but the lawyer proved the stop was
I need to hear more. That little bit doesn't tell me everything. Speeding alone is probable cause to initiate a stop. Once stopped, other discoveries during the stop can lead to probable cause. I didn't hear the cop say that the speeding was a "cue" for the DWI or whatever the defendant is on trial for.
How was this dismissed just because he pulled him over for speeding?
The cop performed some kind of sobriety test. In order to comply with the law, there must be a reason for this test. If there was no reason to do the test, then the result of the test cannot be used in court.
So if the only reason the cop did the sobriety test was the prior speeding, then that's an unreasonable test and the charge of DUI should be dismissed.
There's not enough in this very short clip to establish that exactly, but this seems like the part I would highlight if the rest was also in place.
This man could probably drive how ever he wants and the police would be too scared to pull him over
Aaaaaand? Sounds like the lawyer is listing all the things his client DIDN’T do, but is failing to mention what they did do to get pulled over in the first place, then apparently get a DWI.
That's what defense attorneys do
They go down a spiral to confuse the jury and never make valid points.
Which is exactly the point, the officer had no right to pull him, which was just the first mistake but a very important one.
It's a super common DUI tactic that any mediocre prosecutor will dismiss with two questions on redirect.
You don't need one or more of the possible cues for DUI to pull someone over for speeding. If you pull them over for speeding and then find out they're drunk they're still DUI.
They still need probable cause to administer a sobriety or breathalyzer test though. If they don't have probable cause, then the test is void in court. There have been cases where somebody outran the cops, got picked up at home because they got their plate, and then had the case thrown out because the cop didn't have probable cause to attempt to pull the guy over in the first place.
@madmatt2024 Thank you for thoroughly demonstrating you don't know what you're talking about. The word you're looking for is reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is needed to arrest/charge someone.
You can gain reasonable suspicion at the window upon first contact. Pretty common sense stuff.
This is a "smoke-and-mirrors" type of defense: "look over here, he didn't do these other things, so you had no reason to stop him, right?"
Seeing someone speeding is an indication of speeding and is sufficient cause to stop a driver. If after making contact with the driver the driver appears impaired or smells like alcohol or weed, it is sufficient cause to initiate an investigation to determine if the driver is legally impaired.
You cannot visually tell how fast someone is speeding without radar or laser equipment.
@@supercoach6544can’t tell the exact speed but you can definitely tell they are speeding. Usually around 15 over it’s easy to tell. Easiest way to tell is notice how they move faster than the vehicles around them lol.
I like your style. I spent 20 years in Big Law and 3 of my uncle's are judges and you just lay it down perfectly. I bet you get a lot of business through your videos. I know I'd call you.
He is quoting a training manual
You like his style? He is trying to argue that since his client was pulled over for speeding, he shouldn't be arrested for DWI because speeding is not a cue. While it's not a cue, speeding is still probable cause to be pulled over and once detained, any other infractions or crimes observed by the officer are fair game. This attorney is just playing word games and this case was not dismssed.
Back in 2016 i blacked out while driving, while blacked out at 75mph I was on the wrong lane for the interstate for about 20 miles before breaking my femur. I was given a ticket for driving with no seatbelt with that still a bruise so that ticket was dismissed, turned out i had a heart condition mixed with dehydration from having no colon so all others were dropped that day after being searched coming in on crutches. Honestly better than first waking up out if surgery
Ok so people in the comments have no idea what’s going on. I’ll explain simply. This appears to be a trial for DWI. There 24 “ques” for an intoxicated driver, that are signs of an intoxicated driver but if an officer sees enough ques, he can stop someone for possibly being drunk.
The attorney here says the officer stopped the subject for speeding. Which is illegal. The officer probably stopped them for speeding, and realized they were drunk afterwards. If he was speeding, then there’s probable cause. Nothing else matters, you don’t need ques ahead of time for a DWI.
"cues"
I love how this attorney makes these cop look stupid.
How did he do that? He merely pointed out specific things cops in his department use as cues for illegal activity. He didn't prove the guy wasn't speeding just that the cop saying he saw him speeding is not a cue they train to look for lol.
No the video vlip makes him look smart But what dose the whole video show ??! Bet its a different out come or at least not so clear cut . Show the whole video then we can Judge this properly too !
It's really not that difficult. They do it to themselves. Easy Cheesy.
They are since the police academy is way too short of a duration.
@@JohnSmith-xu7ev and they probably are not required to take supplemental law course's after the academy other than if they want to move up in rank.
Gotta love the DUI guy.. He protects us like a champion! God bless him!
Hmm. I missed the part where it was dismissed. Speeding is the reasonable suspicion for the stop, the dui investigation then continues when the driver is contacted by the officer.
The office can’t do a field sobriety test or take someone back to the station without specific probable cause for the offense of DUI. Probable cause is offense-specific. The police can’t get a warrant to search your house just because you were speeding, on the chance you might be a bad dude doing other bad things. This officer must not have been able to testify as to other signs of intoxication. Sloppy arrest.
@@StrongDreamsWaitHere You can tell someone is drunk when you are in close proximity to them.
@@DaveElectric if you are a police officer, you can’t arrest or search someone without probable cause that they have committed an offense. Just saying “they looked drunk to me“ is not probable cause. The officer must be able to testify as to specific signs and indications that match their training, or the officer must be able to testify that they performed a field sobriety test in a particular manner that is specified and trained.
@@StrongDreamsWaitHere You're right that "he looked drunk to me" isn't /Probable Cause/ for an arrest, but it IS /Reasonable Articulable Suspicion/ for an investigative detention. RAS is a MUCH lower standard than PC.
That's when you pull out the portable breath test machines, the standardised field sobriety tests (not that they aren't highly subjective anyway...), etc.
Provided the original stop wasn't invalid (and speeding is certainly a valid reason), I see no problem with cops taking a drunk driver off the road.
What I DO see a problem with is defence attorneys getting drunk drivers off on a technicality. Yes, everyone is presumed 'innocent until proven guilty', but sometimes the facts at the scene prove it straight away.
you had to really pay attention.
Never let a lawyer get under your skin. Had them yelling at me, raising their voices, making assumptions, etc....and I still never lost a case. Note...this video DOES NOT show anything get dismissed. LoL
Bingo, but idiots will always see what they want to see.
The prosecution guys hands to the face tells you all you need to know without being a lawyer
It very clearly shows the lack of proper training as well as the clear understanding that officers just show up to court expecting that they will be believed just because they say it was so despite facts completely contradicting what they state. Why in the world is it legal for them to lie but illegal for the citizen? This is why the system is so broken.
@Conquest Bingo. It's kinda like communism. Sounds great, but it's real purpose isn't to make people's lives better, or make the world a fair place. It's to make the lives of those in power better, and keep you under their control. Both shine at their true purpose.
Your comment clearly shows your ignorance. They do this with every DUI. They know their client was drunk. The only argument they have is “BuT hE dIdNt DrIvE iN tHe OpPoSiTe LaNe”
@@Tyler_Mattsonyou have no idea what "innocent until proven guilty" means
@@Opachki69420 not sure how you gathered that. I just don’t like when people try to make a video of themselves looking like a hero and then people in the comments who have absolutely no clue what’s going on pat them on the back.
What he does in the video is the equivalent of a mechanic checking your tire pressure.
@@Tyler_Mattson Check yourself bro, the entire video shows the guy was innocent and that the officer lied during his entire testimony to get a conviction against an innocent person. You literally just owned yourself and outed yourself as having no clue what you're talking about.
Anytime one of "you guys" watch anything to do with a DUI you automatically assume the driver was drunk or on something. Even when they're innocent, you end up saying some dumb 💩 like you're letting a drunk driver go to kill someone else. 🙄
A drunk driver killed my sister, and you’re protecting them. Nice!
Well this is only a snippet of the case. Never seen it before and have no idea the verdict. However, while speeding is not an indicator of DUI, it IS legal grounds for a reasonable traffic stop. Thus, opening up the rest of the investigation which could go countless ways.
Need more LAWYER S LIKE HIM.....FOR SURE!!
There around you get what you pay for and you see how he just got the cop to say that speeding is not a cue case dismissed
He didn’t absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. Literally stating facts that have no merit in a DUI case.
@@Tyler_Mattson Correct. He is trying to imply the cop had no reason to ask for the failed Breathalyzer
Why? This is so out of context. The cop eventually got cross examined by the prosecutor and the officer testified the driver was slurring words, was unsteady on their feet, had red glossy eyes and failed a field sobriety test. The driver was found guilty. You got played by an edited tik tok video! 🤣🤣🤣🤪🤣🤣🤡
@@stevecampbell1308 except he didn't. He attempted to say the reason for stop and subsequent investigation into an owi wasn't valid. Except his argument is wrong as the reason for stop was legal.
Hold them accountable!
For what? You can be pulled over for speeding and if you're drunk, you can then be arrested for DUI. That is the law. This video is ridiculously irrelevant.
The case was not dismissed because of that 34 second video. We would have to see what happened after he stopped the car. All I see here is the cop had a right to stop him.
Same
By what right?
What part of this short video shows that the cop was in the right to stop the driver?
@@pinkCEOSpeeding. Speeding is a violation and they can be stopped. DUI is a different beast and what they're fighting
Not an attorney (clue ,contradicting himself on speeding). Not a cop(clue,40 hour training)
and when I walked up to his window there was a STRONG smell of alcohol.
It’s really pathetic how our cops only need 40hrs training to get a badge and gun. That just shows how broken our law enforcement truly is.
It's not 40 hours of training overall. It's 40 hours of DUI specific. Most academies range from 3 months on the low end and 8 months on the long end. Is mommy and daddy's basement comfy?
@@johng7681 in normal countries, it is at least one year AFTER standard high school leaving exam (to make sure they are not completely dumb). Or it is specialized secondary school, full version (4y).
Then, of course, we have university for higher ranks. Or, you can choose police force as an expert with the degree in law, chemistry, ... that means Bc or more.
Most of the problems are with those with SLE and 1 year of training - and they are usually immediately fired and when they commited a crime, of course they are prosecuted. Those with longer study (like criminal police etc.) usually don't have problems at all... and if they have, usually it is a part of nepotism scheme, bribery or political machinations.
Great job. Another danger on the road. What's the point of this exactly?
Guys, I'm not shitting on the attorney but there is nothing special about what's happening here.
This cross examination technique is used every single day in courtrooms throughout this country.
Unless the witness is a station wagon full of nuns, ANY witness can be made to look foolish, dishonest, or deceitful. And it isn't hard.
This is routine cross examination.
I’ll shit on the attorney for you.
He put up this clip with no context. It makes no sense without it. He mentions that there are 24 cues, and he addresses, what, four of them?
And then a bunch of people, some of them probably “sovereign citizen” numbskulls, come in here and cheer because they want to see people get cleared of DUI, even if they’re guilty and can easily kill people.
So, yeah. I’ll take a nice shit on this for you.
perfect example of why you always keep your mouth shut and get a lawyer.
As a Police Officer of 22 years I've always appreciated a good challenging cross exam. I learned more about doing my job better by a good defense attorney then any classroom training. Also if I were to ever be charged I'd want the best damn defense attorney I could afford. So young officers out there don't get butt hurt by a good cross, learn and be better.
You dont have to have a "cue" for conducting a DUI stop. If you pull someone over for speeding and when you initiate contact with them smell alcohol or notice slurred speech something like that you can turn a traffic violation into a DUI stop.
The guy wasn't even in the car or driving lmao got a DUI so obvi he fought the ticket
True, but he already stated on the record that the stop was for a possible DUI. When he realized he had no PC, it fucked his case up and got it dismissed. Every word matters.
No you can’t. A smell is not cause but a smell ,slurring , driving slow etc is probable cause. Remember it’s legal to drink and drive but you have to be under 0.8. A person under 0.9 won’t really she signs of impairment so cops shouldn’t have probably cause anyway
I don't think people understand what's happening in this video. People are saying the officer was caught lying etc... To put it in very simple terms. The attorney is trying to argue that speeding IS NOT a cue to look for when trying to locate a DWI/DUI. While it might not be a cue in that state, Speeding is still probable cause to pull a driver over. Once the driver is detained, anything the officer observes such as slurred speech, red glassy eyes, open container of alcohol, is all evidence to then establish probable cause to arrest for DWI/DUI. If this case was dismissed, you would have seen it.
Not an attorney (clue ,contradicting himself on speeding). Not a cop(clue,40 hour training)
I loved when the judge dismissed the case after 34 seconds 😊
He stopped a car for speed turned out that driver was intoxicated. A random stop that constitutes another crime being discovered is still valid. Just cause the driver was driving normally doesn’t mean they weren’t drunk.
COP NEEDS MORE TRAINING
What did he do wrong?
@@jasonpearce6322 He became an evil pig, to start with, that is the reason they seek the job, to be arrogant, power tripping abusing arseholes.
More training would never help. Lying and cutting corners is the most effective way to accomplish their goals.
@@JohnTheRevelat0r that makes no sense. What assumptions did he make? The defense attorney was listing the possible driving cues that the training manual lists for DUI. The office simply said he didn’t pull the car over for those listed cues. The car was pulled over for speeding.
@@OnTourWithPattiSmith what specific lies did this officer tell in this video? Also what corners did he cut?
I don't see the case being discussed 😮
Well he is the duiguy so I’m guessing dui.
Everyone should just buy a dash camera that records it all, that way you have evidence
Best idea yet. 😎
He was def driving drunk, but I like how you make your clients feel good about paying you a fortune by keeping them in court all day.
If the state lost this case, the state is an awful attorney
Abolish qualified immunity.
You can not get people to take the job now
Do you know what qualified immunity is lol
Tell me you don't know what QI is without telling me
Translation: abolish all non-federal law enforcement
Special kind of slow but honestly disrespectful to the disabled to include you
"sir I'm having you incarcerated at the county jail for harassing a citizen" is the only thing that should have left the judges mouth.
This happened to me, a local tried to get me for two stop sign violations, almost in front of the court house, I requested a trial, and both were dismissed, he pulled me over again with my whole family on board for an inspection violation, and again I had it dismissed…you may indeed contest any ticket…but you had better be in the right..and I did not bring an attorney!
Police academies or schools should be dismantled, policing is a PROFFESION, AND therefor like nursing or lawyering or doctoring it should be a major course of study for 3 to 5 yrs at the college level,the additional yrs would help to thin out those who do not fit with what WE THE PEOPLE WANT
Shut up
Link to the rest?
my favorite part was when the judge dismissed the case.
Haaaaaa Richard.😮...This is the guy that does all the research for the Mandoo channel..he even help keep his channel on youtube as they were accusing it of copyright crimes.. These 2 together are unstoppable. ❤ Love u Richard.
How to get your department sued in 30 seconds.
This is why their Junk Science training on DUI/DWI indentifying is dangerous to society. All a cop has to do is pull someone over for no reason, walk up, and say "I smell (insert substance here)". After that they can do as they please, pull you out of your car, search it, tow it, have it destroyed, arrest you, and then charge you the bill for everything. One more reason Qualified Immunity needs to end.
All I see is a Karen crying she can't drive drunk here
Not really. Because you are afforded the opportunity to blow.
Qualified immunity makes and cause bad behavior by cops.
Just because you can walk the line, do your ABZs and drive between the lines, even though you just did a line, still doesn't mean you're not guilty of DUI, Mr. DUI... GUY. lawyers who defend pedophiles or drunk drivers are scum of the earth lawyers this didn't really prove anything or substantiate his case...
Like at all.
I didn’t see much of anything except a lawyer arguing with a very strong lack of context
The hand to the face on the prosecution guy speaks volumes
Shame it has to come to this time and time again..
Be more suspicious dude. Did you hear a judge dismiss anything? Do we know if his listing of cues is even relevant, We already have a reason to stop. He doesn't need anymore justification here.
Only reason we need attorneys is because the judge can't remember all the laws lol
Most judges were lawyers before judges
No human being can remember all the laws. It's literally impossible.
@@ajm5007 Considering that they're making rulings based on those laws, they should know applicable laws to the cases assigned them. If they can't remember laws that they commonly rule on, it's time to retire.
That's judge de santos. You can bet there was a prosecutor there with body cam video and his own questions for the officer. That BS was not dismissed and the officer knew it. The whole time. you could see it on his face
Idiots in the comments condemning the police. This defendant could have been stopped fkr.driving down the road with a damn 5th grader sticking half out the windshield for all we know. But nope blueman bad no matter what. By golly he wasn't speeding or turning with a wide radius so the cops must be corrupt and the dui arrest has to be unjust
Getting drunk drivers off without charges is not the flex you think it is. These cops have worked the scenes of moms killed by drunk drivers while their babies scream in the back seat - then you get them off because the drunk didn’t set off enough cues when you pulled him over.
I absolutely love lawyers putting drunks back in their car and onto the roads.
This is what cops do---LIE ALL THE TIME AND TRAINED TO DO SO.
What did he lie about in this video? This video shows a few questions with zero context.
Fuck I needed this 3 years ago. Literally had the cops VERBALLY talk about keeping their body cameras off. Got me to blow (wasn’t in my car nor was it on, and I was not planning on driving I even told the officer I was going for a morning jog) and then proceeded to blow a .07 , I was drinking the night before until like 2:30 it was 7:30, also I blew under the legal limit 3 TIMES, officer then goes to his car and it comes back somehow at .12 he shows me then pushes me on my car and arrests me. He had only a written statement and I guess the other officer there as a witness (when they both had body cams but of course they had them off because they literally made sure they were) my lawyer said I technically admitted to too much just being in that proximity of my car and blowing anything is a grey area for those officers to get a free dui charge on me. My lawyer told me when I saw the cop car I should have just ran which I now wish I did, cause I’m still paying for that shit not to mention the mental and physical till everything they put me through, basically ruined my entire life and will to live. Also spent multiple weekends in confinement (cause of Covid and I had to do weekends in jail) but there were times they literally refused people their medications (like serious medications one being insulin for diabetes) also the officers only had written testimony that they actually fucked up multiple things on but it wasn’t relevant to the specifics of my transgression (like they wrote my hair and eyes were the wrong color etc.) I mean if an officer can’t get my fucking hair color right how can he have control over my fucking life, tried killing myself from going through all that shit.
Wow I hope you didn't have to pay for such a trash defense attorney. That's ludicrous.
This lawyer is a traffic attorney beast!
Any and every1 need to hire him,because he still cares about his career, the truth, and the facts in a case.
About all traffic attorneys has stopped caring about their job duties an honor.
But want stop practicing do to the income.
We didn't see the result of the case, and the facts he mentioned aren't relevant. Not impressed yet. Maybe there's a video somewhere i am missing.
I do believe that speeding is a crime itself. Therfore, if the officer discovered other crimes while pulling over and giving a ticket, those crimes are not excused.
This is most likely a DWI arrest. The initial reason for the stop appears to be speeding. The defense attorney appears to be trying to establish that speeding is not one of the indicators that this particular police department uses to detect DWI drivers. The lawyer is likely trying to get the cop’s initial suspicion of DWI called into question. This is basic defense law 101. The cop is also answering the question 100% correctly. Short yes or no answers. There is nothing unusual or suspect going on here.
This attorney is a badass.
No he isn't. Dude lost.
That would NOT get the case dismissed. If he were speeding, that is probable cause for the stop. Probable cause for the DUI charge would come next, it's not mentioned here. This is simply normal line of questioning by a defense attorney, it is NOT a gotcha' moment.
The mark of a sub standard attorney to claim the officers always lie under oath.
40 hour training... bankers get more training.....cops are clowns 🤡
It was 40 hours of DUI specific training, not 40 hours training total. Are you really stupid enough to believe they have one week of training and are set loose? And you are calling other people clowns? Fucking moron.
any lawyer who defends a guilty rich man is guilty
They must dread you. 😂❤🇧🇻
Holy shit, you see the look on the Judge's face ??? ...SHE IS NOT HAPPY !!! lol
The judge probably was not because the questioning had really nothing to do with the case
The judges in the court system needs to start yelling and make these cops accountable for their ignorance of the law wasting time and money.
Pretty sure speeding is against the law and grounds for pulling someone over.
My man be really putting that EMPHASIS on those 40 hours of training!
A good cross exam asks how many DUIs a person has done in their career.
Nice!! This is my man if I even get a DUI or anything like that God forbid
Well hopefully you never drink and drive.
Many years ago I got an unwarranted ticket from a girl cop. I went to traffic court to contest. The judge called out about 17 names, mine being one of them. Then harshly almost mad sounding he said. “For whatever reason the arresting officer did not show up.” Your cases dismissed and free to leave. I was happy… but pissed.
It's not about convictions, it's about arrests, so the jurisdiction can keep getting federal dollars.
Bingo
I just want to know... was the guy actually speeding?
Great short. Pretty sure you completely missed the key component. Like cake without icing. Or a milkshake without the cherry on top.
"He never stopped in the middle of the road for no reason, right, without you stopping him with your equipment?" ... And the cop said "correct" to the implication that the guy was stopped for no reason.
For those who doesnt know. A police officer must have a probable cause to stop you, an unlawfull stop will often get the case thrown out and any evidence invalid.
And the probable case in this case was speeding. Lawful stop, lawful arrest...this case was not dismissed.
Right, wrong or indifferent, the question is: Is a drunk driver back out on the road?
This is why it's called a day in court, not on the sidewalk. Had the defendant handled this differently at the time of the ticket, it could have been far worse.
This may confuse people because it's a crazy concept. You can stop someone for a random
Infraction and discover they are DUI upon first contact.... mind blown!
How could you sit there and except a fair trail when a judge has a haircut like that.
"40 hour training"
Holy shit, what a joke. They have the power of life and death and the duty to protect and serve and all they get is a week's worth of training???
It was 40 hours of training for the DWI detection class. In most states, a Police academy in 6 months followed by an additional 4 months of field training. After that, they take classes like RADAR, Intoxilyzer, DWI Detection etc...