It was a case of the officers word against his. If he had gone to trial he could well have been convicted and have a sex crime on his record. What defense can a person offer up? The judge - and many juries - will most likely take the officers word as gospel.
FReegards,
David
You seem to be a little hostile towards LEO's -- likely stemming from your experience in 1968 as stated in post#37
Sorry.. just not the case.. most juries really look at the evidence.. I have LOST some cases.. not because the jury didn't think the guy was guilty.. but because the jury just did not think "The State" presented a strong enough case... Juries are a LOT tougher on the prosecution (and RIGHTLY so) than most people think.... PROBABLE CAUSE <-- required for an arrest -- is a FAR CRY from BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT <--- required for CONVICTION... again if I was in Mr. Craigs sitution....
I would assure the arresting officer that his "probable cause" was VALID... this let's the officer know that you are NOT questioning his integrity and judgement... and that he was doing his job just a little too aggressively.. and as such misinterpreted my actions.. had he done this even if he WAS guilty. the PUBLIC would likely be sympathetic......
I'd want to know a whole lot more about the particular officer and his background.
Do you have any idea how bad a cop has to screw up to get put on the airport restroom fruit patrol? I know one state cop, in his state's top 5 for writing speeding tickets, the happiest little highway cruiser in the world in his state-issued unmarked Mustang, until he gave his state's Secretary of State's wife a ticket for running 90. Within the week he was back in a blue-and-white marked cruiser, with the new duty of counting the doors on the highway rest area toilets to make sure the stall doors hadn't been stolen.