....but first, this
5:20pm
At about noon, I got a call from a woman who said Lauren had been in a car crash and told me where she was, about 10 blocks from home. She said Lauren was OK, just very upset.
Lauren was driving a truck owned by the company she's working for, headed to pick up lunch. The other driver ran a stop sign just as Lauren entered the intersection, too fast for Lauren to brake. She "T-boned" the other vehicle, but fortunately no one was in the passenger seat of the other car.
Everyone was ok. The other driver was cited. The cars have about $15,000 collective damage.
I think we may all start riding bicycles.
11:05am
In March, when Taylor was having a rough time in the hospital, Lauren and her mother were enroute back to the hospital to see him after going home to shower and change clothes. While stopped at a traffic light in Bartow, Lauren finished her makeup. The light changed, and she headed north as her mother moved the makeup and container to her side of the car.
A Bartow police officer stopped her and said putting on makeup was unlawful. He wrote "putting on makeup" on the Careless Driving citation.
Had he been telling the truth, we would have paid the ticket. He wasn't. She was not driving, she was stopped at a light. So, we set the case for a trial and Attorney Richard Mars represented her. Lauren worked for him during the school year, and he is a Client of mine. He is considered THE criminal defense attorney in the county. I felt a little sorry for the officer, considering Mars has been practicing law twice as long as the officer has been alive.
Since the citation, the officer apparently learned there was nothing unlawful about applying makup - or doing anything else - while stopped at a light. So, at trial he came up with a phantom vehicle that he claims Lauren almost rear-ended. Oddly, he admitted to Lauren's attorney that she was the first car in line at the traffic light. That begged the question "WHERE IS THE CAR SHE ALMOST REAR-ENDED if she was the first car to stop at the light?". He did a lot of studdering and stammering. It was embarassing. More importantly, he chose to say things at trial that simply were not true.
The strangest moment was when he viewed photographs I had taken of Suzie's van, showing that the window tint on the rear windows would have prevented him from seeing what she was doing while driving. He actually tried to claim that the car Lauren was driving was not the van pictured, even though the tag number was the same, and "Honda" was reflected on the citation as well. It was just bizarre.
The judge listened to Lauren and Suzie, then watched Mars pick the officer apart like a Christmas turkey. She found Lauren "Not Guilty".
We should be grinning and gloating at the outcome, but there is no joy in knowing a police officer was less than honest while sworn to tell the truth.
At about noon, I got a call from a woman who said Lauren had been in a car crash and told me where she was, about 10 blocks from home. She said Lauren was OK, just very upset.
Lauren was driving a truck owned by the company she's working for, headed to pick up lunch. The other driver ran a stop sign just as Lauren entered the intersection, too fast for Lauren to brake. She "T-boned" the other vehicle, but fortunately no one was in the passenger seat of the other car.
Everyone was ok. The other driver was cited. The cars have about $15,000 collective damage.
I think we may all start riding bicycles.
11:05am
In March, when Taylor was having a rough time in the hospital, Lauren and her mother were enroute back to the hospital to see him after going home to shower and change clothes. While stopped at a traffic light in Bartow, Lauren finished her makeup. The light changed, and she headed north as her mother moved the makeup and container to her side of the car.
A Bartow police officer stopped her and said putting on makeup was unlawful. He wrote "putting on makeup" on the Careless Driving citation.
Had he been telling the truth, we would have paid the ticket. He wasn't. She was not driving, she was stopped at a light. So, we set the case for a trial and Attorney Richard Mars represented her. Lauren worked for him during the school year, and he is a Client of mine. He is considered THE criminal defense attorney in the county. I felt a little sorry for the officer, considering Mars has been practicing law twice as long as the officer has been alive.
Since the citation, the officer apparently learned there was nothing unlawful about applying makup - or doing anything else - while stopped at a light. So, at trial he came up with a phantom vehicle that he claims Lauren almost rear-ended. Oddly, he admitted to Lauren's attorney that she was the first car in line at the traffic light. That begged the question "WHERE IS THE CAR SHE ALMOST REAR-ENDED if she was the first car to stop at the light?". He did a lot of studdering and stammering. It was embarassing. More importantly, he chose to say things at trial that simply were not true.
The strangest moment was when he viewed photographs I had taken of Suzie's van, showing that the window tint on the rear windows would have prevented him from seeing what she was doing while driving. He actually tried to claim that the car Lauren was driving was not the van pictured, even though the tag number was the same, and "Honda" was reflected on the citation as well. It was just bizarre.
The judge listened to Lauren and Suzie, then watched Mars pick the officer apart like a Christmas turkey. She found Lauren "Not Guilty".
We should be grinning and gloating at the outcome, but there is no joy in knowing a police officer was less than honest while sworn to tell the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment