Officer said [paraphrased ] “I don’t know anything about no supreme court case or anything like that, I stopped you because you made an improper hand signal [that was quick diversionary thinking, IMO BTW]....”
He then goes onto say [paraphrased] “...the real reason we stopped you was because the young woman looked like she was giving you a BJ....”
Which one is it?
The extended inquiry should be: “Are either actions and/or ‘hand-signals’ a violation of the local municipal code, officer?”
But, that would require the driver taking time off from work, appearing in court and successfully arguing on his own behalf (or have a lawyer).
That is why I would advocate requesting the judge find in the plaintiff’s favor “with prejudice” such that the plaintiff can then request court-censure of the officer and damages from the municipality for time and expenses.
Granted, over-worked judges would not grant it but there is no other way to reign in these SpecOps wannabees. Each such request should make them shiver in their skivvies.
Neither! It was a Lewinsky!