Posts
812
Joined
5/31/2010
Location
West Hills, CA
US
Edited Date/Time
1/26/2012 6:56pm
A good legal team has a lot to work with to get at least reduced charges or a plea:
The 911 call made by the off duty officer seems to indicate that he may have passed the
truck at a high speed, or maybe unsafely. He said he "slowed down" and when they got up
next to him, he flashed his badge.
There is no question that using blue/red lights is illegal. But, it would not be the first time
other drivers on the road made a attempt to get the attention of someone who was driving dangerously,
It would be interesting to get some info from other drivers who may have witnessed the off duty officers
speeding or passing other vehicles. I find it hard to believe that James & friend just randomly decided to
target a vehicle to try out the lights.
It can be argued, that while use of the blue/red light bar is illegal, its not unheard of for a driver to flash
their headlights or otherwise signal a driver who has the potential to endanger others. And, FHP or not,
they were off duty and had no reason to be speeding. In fact, they should know better. There is no proof,
other then the off duty officer's claim, that James was intending for them to pull over.
One report said the passenger rolled down the window and told the officer to slow down. Nothing was
said about motioning them to pull over. There has been no mention of either James or his passenger
using a badge, a uniform or otherwise identifying themselves as officers. As far as I can tell, no other
law enforcent gear was found in the vehicle to allow them to complete the whole cop look. Ideally, there
will be some logical explanation of why he even had a light bar in the first place-like volunteer, etc.-so at
least he can offer another explanation for it being in the truck.
The question is of intent and I think there is enough evidence (or lack of it) to show that neither of them
were attempting to represent themselves as law enforcement. Use of the light bar was bad judgement.
Best case he gets the whole thing dismissed. Next best is to plea to reduced charge of misdemeanor
use of the lights.
The 911 call made by the off duty officer seems to indicate that he may have passed the
truck at a high speed, or maybe unsafely. He said he "slowed down" and when they got up
next to him, he flashed his badge.
There is no question that using blue/red lights is illegal. But, it would not be the first time
other drivers on the road made a attempt to get the attention of someone who was driving dangerously,
It would be interesting to get some info from other drivers who may have witnessed the off duty officers
speeding or passing other vehicles. I find it hard to believe that James & friend just randomly decided to
target a vehicle to try out the lights.
It can be argued, that while use of the blue/red light bar is illegal, its not unheard of for a driver to flash
their headlights or otherwise signal a driver who has the potential to endanger others. And, FHP or not,
they were off duty and had no reason to be speeding. In fact, they should know better. There is no proof,
other then the off duty officer's claim, that James was intending for them to pull over.
One report said the passenger rolled down the window and told the officer to slow down. Nothing was
said about motioning them to pull over. There has been no mention of either James or his passenger
using a badge, a uniform or otherwise identifying themselves as officers. As far as I can tell, no other
law enforcent gear was found in the vehicle to allow them to complete the whole cop look. Ideally, there
will be some logical explanation of why he even had a light bar in the first place-like volunteer, etc.-so at
least he can offer another explanation for it being in the truck.
The question is of intent and I think there is enough evidence (or lack of it) to show that neither of them
were attempting to represent themselves as law enforcement. Use of the light bar was bad judgement.
Best case he gets the whole thing dismissed. Next best is to plea to reduced charge of misdemeanor
use of the lights.
least he can offer another explanation for it being in the truck."
The only logical reason would be...being a LEO.
Just having those lights on your dash down here is enough to get you charged & convicted if they want you bad enough.
Using them,then trying to hide them just makes it worse.
Also what other drivers do to slow people down is irrelevant in this case.....and has nothing to do with the facts.
If it goes to a jury trial....
The judge will read the law to the Jury and say if there is any evidence that law.21312blah.blah was broken you must convict them (without a reasonable doubt).
The prosecutor will start opening statements telling a little story and saying if James admitted to it etc....
Then his defense will get up there and give an opening statement.
The prosecutor will call the arresting officer first and go step by step though the police report and also show that the truck was registered to James and that the lights were in the truck (may even use finger prints as proof on the lights).
Then so on & so on...
They will stick directly to the facts of the case (not like the crap you see on tv).
As I said in your other thread.
"All they have to do is prove he used the lights and Rado hid them.
Even if the cops were going down the freeway at 90mph smoking weed,banging hookers & doing blow ,James still had no right within the law to flash red & blue lights at them.He should have called 911 and let the real police handle it.
That is the way the courts & State will see it."
Also,if the cops asked Rado about the lights and he lied about not having any,then they found them,that is tampering with evidence,regardless if James was charged or not.Reason being is because they were investigating an allege crime.
Also how did the cops know he had the lights in his truck,did they have X-ray vision?
As for getting other witnesses/drivers involved,they would have to find them first.
Then both the prosecutor & James defense would meet with them at the same time for a deposition.
That could hurt James if one guy/witness seen the lights....
That deposition could be used in court as hard evidence against him ,even if they didn't call the guy as a witness on the day of the trial.Regardless of how the off duty cops were driving or what they were doing.
If you had some sort of facts/solid evidence James was not in that truck or there were no blue & red lights in that truck.Or they never displayed the lights, you would have an argument..... Based on the law.
I'm certain the charges will more then likely be reduced/an offer made and I stated the reason in your other thread.
Someone without his financial resources would be sitting in jail right now waiting on a felony trial.
The Shop
Nothing in the original post has shit to do with the law and what James did. I'm not a lawyer nor a legal expert...but, I know that your arguments are 100% stupid.
It doesn't matter if the cops were going 200 mph or swerving in and out of traffic, they didn't get caught. JS isn't the law, so he made the decision to use the lights, for what reason, only he knows.
Actual facts:
Used blue/red lights to slow someone down
Hid lights in luggage (hiding the evidence)
(and as far as i know... this is all they are charged for)
To me... I really don't care what happens from all this. But hiding the lights is evidence to me that they knew what they did was very wrong and it won't matter what their "intent" was.
He got caught after pulling this stunt right in front off 2 parked sheriffs cars. All he got was a year probation, and a fine..
So worst case should just be probation for JS?
1. FALSELY PERSONATING OFFICER 843.08 Third Degree - Felony 03/28/2011
OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
03/29/2011 Complaint
03/29/2011 Bond Filed
04/01/2011 Notice of Appearance; Waiver of Arraignment
04/01/2011 Motion for Statement of Particulars
04/01/2011 Written Plea of Not Guilty
04/01/2011 Request
for Discovery
04/01/2011 Motion to Produce
Police Reports
It's even possible they could just defer the case for a year and if he is on good behavior for a year ,dismiss it.
The possibilities are endless.....
But if for some reason it went to trial, where the case can be argued.
IMO there is no way ,going by at least the media reports we have seen
so far that he would get an acquittal.
We seen the truck & the lights.
Once the judge read the law and the prosecutor was sitting there
with a set of big red & blue police lights in front of them with an evidence tag on
them,that jury is gonna think to themselves...."hmmmmmmm GUILTY!!!".
That is just how a lot of people are/think.
Maybe that is what Jame's attorney's are aiming for.
All of the stuff listed are ordinary steps in the process.
At the end of the day, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that he used light he wasn't authorized to and that the lights weren't used to engage in a more serious crime. If no one goes overboard, it will get resolved sensibly, as is the case in most proceedings whether a famous person is involved or not. There's not a lot more drama to be milked out of this.
Pit Row
God help us all.
Charges: JEHRROD, QUINAULT THAMES
Date
1. CR-TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE 918.13 Second Degree - Felony 03/28/2011
Docket List
OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
03/29/2011 Complaint
03/29/2011 Bond Filed
04/01/2011 Notice of Appearance; Waiver of Arraignment
04/01/2011 Motion for Statement of Particulars
04/01/2011 Demand for Discovery
04/01/2011 Motion to Produce Police Reports
I thought a Miranda warning was to let you know anything you say from that point can be used as evidence, at the point he's packing the lights to take on his trip he doesn't really even know what the cops want or if the off duty badge is real.
It seems like fleeing a badge without ovassive driving and tampering charge may not be so clear cut.
They were stopped by real on duty cops at the airport.
I'm sure the cops asked them about the lights and more then likely they were like.... "WTF are you talking about"?
Doesn't sound like they offered them up willingly at first,since they were hidden in luggage.
Cops prolly searched everything,just as they would have if someone was shooting a gun out the car.
Someone saying they seen it is normally enough evidence to give them probable cause to search (especially if it 3 off duty cops).
Anything you say before or after your rights are read is evidence and valid in court etc...
That would be like saying.....making a verbal threat to a cop doesn't count ,because I was not read my rights yet.
That would also be the reason they stopped you,due to seeing a joint (just as they did with the light).
They aren't that stupid....
You would more then likely be charged with destroying evidence after swallowing it,they may even try to choke it out of you lol.
If you didn't fess up to it,it would go to trial and if they drug tested you for THC to help prove you ate it,you would more then likely get convicted.
It also doesn't matter how many people have ate joints,irrelevant to you eating one.
Post a reply to: James Bubba Stewart "Just the (legal) facts"