Indiana Supreme Court: Policeman's Eyes are Special

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • cardio1

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Nov 5, 2012
    128
    16
    South of Paradise
    The trial court noted, however, that it was “quite possible that
    the officer’s actual visual observation of the defendant’s vehicle was superior to the video
    camera in his car.” App. at 33

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03251401mm.pdf



    So a car video cam displaying one side of a story is less believable than a law enforcement officer? Really? Supreme court reincarnates 1897 Indiana legislature attempt to legislate Pi and squaring a circle. :):

    Indiana Pi Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    For the jury trial I sat on, what the officer saw and the dash cam showed were clearly different things.
     

    ModernGunner

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 29, 2010
    4,749
    63
    NWI
    I concur with the affirmation.

    "What you see depends on where you stand, in both time and distance" - ModernGunner.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I've seen plenty of dash cam footage and am a big fan of LEOs having them. But, they aren't always the perfect rendition of history that people expect. Plus, that case is more about the legal idea of deference to a trial court than about the facts.

    As even Justice Massa (a former prosecutor and excellent attorney) notes, this was a close case. In cases like that, the trial court gets the benefit of the doubt.

    IMHO.
     

    Bunnykid68

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Mar 2, 2010
    23,515
    83
    Cave of Caerbannog
    I've seen plenty of dash cam footage and am a big fan of LEOs having them. But, they aren't always the perfect rendition of history that people expect. Plus, that case is more about the legal idea of deference to a trial court than about the facts.

    As even Justice Massa (a former prosecutor and excellent attorney) notes, this was a close case. In cases like that, the trial court gets the benefit of the doubt.

    IMHO.

    Shouldnt the person on trial get the benefit of the doubt instead of the court?
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    I've seen plenty of dash cam footage and am a big fan of LEOs having them. But, they aren't always the perfect rendition of history that people expect. Plus, that case is more about the legal idea of deference to a trial court than about the facts.

    As even Justice Massa (a former prosecutor and excellent attorney) notes, this was a close case. In cases like that, the trial court gets the benefit of the doubt.

    IMHO.

    You have just addressed the principal failure of our so-called justice system. Facts have become irrelevant. It brings to mind a situation I vaguely remember in which an appeal was denied on the grounds that a technical error was necessary for an appeal and proof of innocence was not an acceptable reason for an appeal. This as an acceptable standard stands in evidence that we need to do some serious house cleaning.



    Shouldnt the person on trial get the benefit of the doubt instead of the court?

    Exactly. If it is that 'close' it would appear that significantly less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt exists, although our legal scholars would tell us that at the point in question only RAS is necessary (even if manufactured from thin air) which, again, is a construct of a corrupt system to allow rummaging through the pockets of those who are not within the Fourth Amendment limits accepted for generations.

    Oh, and one other thing:

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bunnykid68 again.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Shouldnt the person on trial get the benefit of the doubt instead of the court?
    Sure, right up to the time there's reasonable articulable suspicion.

    When you see someone swerve, even within their own lane, what do you think? After "WTF is that lady doing?" you probable wonder if the person has an issue - either inattention or intoxication. For an officer, that's basically enough to figure out the answer to that question.

    For the purpose of clarity, I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just describing the current situation.

    You have just addressed the principal failure of our so-called justice system. Facts have become irrelevant. It brings to mind a situation I vaguely remember in which an appeal was denied on the grounds that a technical error was necessary for an appeal and proof of innocence was not an acceptable reason for an appeal. This as an acceptable standard stands in evidence that we need to do some serious house cleaning.
    Actually, the case stands for the proposition that facts are absolutely important. The trial court found as a fact that the officer had enough suspicion to initiate the stop.

    Interesting, there was a companion case that had a similar fact pattern that the court supported the trial judge's opposite conclusion.

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03251402mm.pdf

    To "toss the bums out" might upset that apple cart, too.

    Also, on your point about "innocence" not being a good enough reason, you may be thinking of habeas corpus? Once a state has reached a decision, the federal courts are supposed to give deference to that decision (same idea as above case, in a different context - federalism). There are many (MANY) procedural hurdles for habeas. Most of them can be sidestepped if there is proof of actual innocence - but it has to be REALLY strong proof. Like DNA evidence saying the guy in prison could not have been the rapist.
     
    Last edited:

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    Sure, right up to the time there's reasonable articulable suspicion.

    When you see someone swerve, even within their own lane, what do you think? After "WTF is that lady doing?" you probable wonder if the person has an issue - either inattention or intoxication. For an officer, that's basically enough to figure out the answer to that question.

    For the purpose of clarity, I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just describing the current situation.


    Actually, the case stands for the proposition that facts are absolutely important. The trial court found as a fact that the officer had enough suspicion to initiate the stop.

    Interesting, there was a companion case that had a similar fact pattern that the court supported the trial judge's opposite conclusion.

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03251402mm.pdf

    To "toss the bums out" might upset that apple cart, too.

    Also, on your point about "innocence" not being a good enough reason, you may be thinking of habeas corpus? Once a state has reached a decision, the federal courts are supposed to give deference to that decision (same idea as above case, in a different context - federalism). There are many (MANY) procedural hurdles for habeas. Most of them can be sidestepped if there is proof of actual innocence - but it has to be REALLY strong proof. Like DNA evidence saying the guy in prison could not have been the rapist.

    Starting with the acknowledgement that you are addressing what does in fact happen and not necessarily endorsing it, the practices in question are still full of fail. Most outstanding in my reckoning is that federalizing my life is de rigueur when it works to my disadvantage, but when I (hypothetically) actually need federal intervention, they start screaming, "STOP, FEDERALISM, FEDERALISM!" Second, again, is that deference to another court trumps the truth, especially when a large chunk of someone's life is at stake. So far as I am concerned, the highest priority of the federal government should be protecting the rights of the citizens, not superintending the infringement thereof, which, unfortunately, has become standard. While the RAS bar may have been met in this case, I find it highly disturbing that the court would declare the subjective opinion of an officer with his personal integrity considered above reproach to trump objective evidence. I understand that electronic devices are limited, but the principle at hand is scary.

    Now, on to finishing up my taxes and dealing with the ticket I got last week for an expired registration which the prosecutor declined to address pending further review in spite of my presentation of a valid registration contradicting the ticket.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    While the RAS bar may have been met in this case, I find it highly disturbing that the court would declare the subjective opinion of an officer with his personal integrity considered above reproach to trump objective evidence. I understand that electronic devices are limited, but the principle at hand is scary.
    Well, we need to be clear: neither court said the officer's subjective opinion trumped objective evidence. Rather, the trial court said that the objective evidence was basically unclear - the video sufficiently supported the officer's testimonial observation that the car swerved.

    As far as the principle goes, I'll raise your federalism with constitutionalism. :) The 4th amendment bars unreasonable search and seizure; it allows the reasonable kind.

    Now, on to finishing up my taxes and dealing with the ticket I got last week for an expired registration which the prosecutor declined to address pending further review in spite of my presentation of a valid registration contradicting the ticket.
    Ouch. Most of the prosecutors I've worked with will dismiss that kind of thing once they understand what the problem was. If it was a computer mixup or something, it shouldn't be a problem. The problem will be getting enough of their attention outside of court. They have alot of cases. Good luck!
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    Actually nothing in either case says anyone's eyes are special, or superior to video. The trial court said even if the officer was wrong, what is shown on the video is sufficient for an investigative stop. The appeals court refused to reweigh the evidence. The dissent was about if bumping the fog line is sufficient for an investigatory stop or not.

    Of course, that's less likely to provoke comment and outrage, so carry on.
     

    Destro

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 10, 2011
    3,890
    83
    The Khyber Pass

    Gabby_Johnson_Blazing_Saddles.JPG
     

    drillsgt

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    108   0   0
    Nov 29, 2009
    9,627
    149
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Actually nothing in either case says anyone's eyes are special, or superior to video. The trial court said even if the officer was wrong, what is shown on the video is sufficient for an investigative stop. The appeals court refused to reweigh the evidence. The dissent was about if bumping the fog line is sufficient for an investigatory stop or not.

    Of course, that's less likely to provoke comment and outrage, so carry on.

    I'd still be outraged!
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Well, we need to be clear: neither court said the officer's subjective opinion trumped objective evidence. Rather, the trial court said that the objective evidence was basically unclear - the video sufficiently supported the officer's testimonial observation that the car swerved.

    How dare you reason with INGO.

    More outrage!
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,614
    149
    Valparaiso
    Shouldnt the person on trial get the benefit of the doubt instead of the court?

    This wasn't the trial. It was a motion to suppress. In such a motion, the moving party has the burden to show the evidence was illegally obtained. The trial court weighed the evidence for the purpose of the motion and found it was not. The appellate courts (normally) look for legal error and do not re-weigh the evidence.

    The defendant still has an opportunity to make his argument at trial where the state has the burden of proof.
     
    Top Bottom