It’s the “I-can-ignore-cops-with-impunity-because-I-heard-as-much-on-FR-rule.” Its corollary is “I-can-mouth-off-as-much-as-I-want-because-you-are-just-a-revenue-agent-rule.”
Hi.
I am reading all the posts and see that the same closed-minded individuals have surrounded you again.
Here are their rules:
I can make personal attacks, you can’t.
I can call into play hypothetical situations, and ancient history, you can’t.
Law, procedure, common courtesy, and common sense only apply where it benefits my side of the argument, not yours.
I wonder what would happen if they could hear the parts of the conversation between the officer and driver that are partially obscured by the traffic noise.
I have been trying to filter the noise out, and parts of it are pretty damning.
The most damning evidence though, is visual, and subject to interpretation, and that is why there seems to be so much difference of opinion.
The officer says, “turn around and put your hands behind your back”, and the driver looks back at the officer, with a look on his face (IMHO) that says “SCREW YOU”, and starts heading back to his vehicle.
The indication given by this act is that the driver is going to get in his vehicle and drive off, because he does not want, nor will accept being given a ticket.
He has the right to feel he did nothing wrong. The place to deal with that is in the courtroom, not on the side of the road. The officer made that exact statement and it is on tape.
IMHO, during the traffic noise, the officer told the driver he would take him to jail if he didn’t sign, and I very clearly heard the driver respond “NO YOU WON’T”.
I also heard him say something to his wife about “I’ll get us out of this.”
So, bottom line really is that the officer said, “Turn around and put your hands behind your back”, and the driver ignored the officer, and headed back towards his vehicle.
This is on the tape, and is glaringly obvious. Those who don’t see that, have chosen not to.
Those who believe the driver has a right to say, or do anything he wants while under arrest, and that believe the officer is required to explain, over and over, and over, why the driver is under arrest, do not understand the laws.
The UTAH code that states the driver who does not sign the ticket, has that option, is clear.
What is not being made clear is that the officer also has an option, based on the behavior of said driver.