[dayglored]

Granted that this was over the line, no argument. But...

> "... the people you think are there to help you and assist you are not..."

Well, that's an erroneous assumption.

With all respect to the many great cops out there, and my friends who serve behind the badge, the policeman is not there to "help and assist you". The policeman is there to enforce the law. Helping and assisting happen if there's nobody breaking the law at that moment.

At the beginning, that cop had every reason to believe he was dealing with a drunk (or otherwise impaired) driver. She was arrested for refusing a field sobriety test, while driving at night without headlights, with a car-full of drunks.

"Help and assist" was not on the menu.

Nevertheless -- they should have straightened it out immediately.

[elkfersupper]

the policeman is not there to "help and assist you". The policeman is there to enforce the law.

Gad, I miss "Peace Officers".

[eggman]

Sorry, but the officer escalated the situation from a simple traffic stop into an arrest when it was not warranted. When the other officers arrived at the scene no attempt was made gather any additional evidence with a Breathalyzer test. Now the City of Mesa is facing a lawsuit they will likely have to settle for a large sum of taxpayer money.

When the officer goes in with a confrontational approach it becomes much more difficult to get the cooperation of even an innocent driver. Without the driver's cooperation he cannot gather the evidence required to make the case and he is forced to either back down or arrest the driver and fudge the evidence to prove his case. That's probably why he lost the prior case.

[JSteff]

“Well, that's an erroneous assumption. “

Nor are they there to protect or serve. Every cop probably knows that it has been held in court, including SCOTUS time and again, police are under no duty to protect citizens.

Even if they know a crime is being committed against a citizen. So the only duty most respect is holding on to their government jobs.