A California police cover-up case, where sworn police officers implanted the incriminatory evidence (tire-marks) in order to be able to frame-up innocent minors involved in a car accident. All just to protect city officials from criminal-negligence for not posting a left-turn signal, which was the primary cause of an accident that killed 4 teenage kids.\n\nMore details can be read at: http://DirtyCops.Biz\n\nHelp is seeked to expose this highly-criminal police case, and help bring this case to justice.\n\n\nThank You.
205416
Since you are on the internet, it is probably someone you know. But the person in jail knows, and you should also know, that the police have a complete disrespect for the law, and break more laws than any criminal ever thought of; and they do it every day. They get away with this because they know how the system works, what they can get away with, and they all stick together.\n\nSo you should also know that this case is going to be almost impossible to win. You will be lucking if you can find a lawyer who will even take the case, because they too are part of the system, and they too stick together. Nobody wants to be alienated or become an outcast or outsider. \n\nThey're all dirty, they all break the law, so who would be willing to prosecute one of their own and risk prosecution themselves for one or many of their own misdeeds?\n\nSorry, but I would say you are SOL. I just got off of a 10-yr bit, and I've been studying the law every day of that time, and I've seen some pretty trumped up charges, and some obvious framework, but the judge loses the evidence, or a key witness disappears, or they just wear you down with delays and filings and court costs and wrong filings and starting all over again, and you'd be surprised how they can procrastinate legally, but if you miss a court date or filing date, it's over. \n\nYou can't even imagine how the system is stacked against you. You just think you have a good idea. I'm trying to get you to see reality. You can waste all you mney and resources and time and effort -- your entire life -- and you don't even have a 1% chance of winning anything. \n\nI'm very sorry, but don't waste everything on a fight you cannot win.
125949
In CA , if the police officer can develop probable cause, he can search your car. This was put in place due to the mobility of vehicles. They can simply drive away before you can get a search warrant.\n\nThe simplest example is the smell of pot. If the officer smells it, he can search anywhere in the car where the pot might be. Anywhere. \n\nAnother example is the plain sight rule. If the officer sees contraband in plain sight he can seize it and search your car for more. Anything else reasonably found during the search is also legally obtained.\n\nI don't know where the other posters got their information, but whether or not you are a minor has no bearing.\n\nAs for the cocaine issue, what crime did the driver get charged with? What are you talking about? If a passenger has drugs on them, it is possible that the driver could be charged for transportation of drugs. As for claiming they didn't know about the drugs, would it surprise you to know that people lie to the police??
590333
Sorry, but I do not think you have a case, but check with an attorney.  Police still have to practice traffic safety laws.
535526
An officer has the right to clear a path of people that obstruct a crime scene, or pose a potential threat to him and could argue you  failed to comply with his lawful order to remove yourself from his proximity\nwhich is why he would resort to using non lethal force if all else failed.  And depending on the situation, hed probably win his arguement.\nBut this is more an argueable hypothetical, for in real life, people know when they might be a threat to an officers duty.\n\nBest illustration I could use, is when my nephew purchased a  used vehicle from someone.  We drove behind him on the freeway because there was no license plate and w tried to cover the fact.\nWell police stopped him anyways\n\nWe pulled over some way past them, and walked back to try to help explain, while the officer conducted his checks on the vehicle and my nephew.\nWhen the officer saw us walking towards him, his hand reached for his weapon, and he ordered us to keep away -- for his own safety.  which makes sense nowadays, because people are killing police officers in the streets when theyre being pulled over for silly reasons\n\nHad we decided tostay and present a 'potential' threat to him, he would have been justified in tazing us, or drawing his weapon at us.  Not shooting us, because we kept distance and showed no weapons.  But use of non lethal force would be justified, and no one could really argue that.\n\nI hope that illustration helps some.
404158
I think that if the police report says one thing, and he another, that they will go with the police report.  Just be calm and truthful in court (no matter what bull he tries to pull) and you should come out okay.  There seem to be witnesses that saw what really happened (police, ambulance, etc.).\n\nI had a situation when a lady ran 2 red lights and head-onned me, then she tried to say later that it was my fault.  Since she had already told the police what really happened (at the time of the accident), they knew she was lying so she wouldn't have to pay for it.  She lost.\n\nGood luck.
51225
First, it's really predicated upon whether the crash occurs in a "no-fault" jurisdiction, in which case each indivudal motorist would have to file their own claim with their own insurance company.  In all other situations, it would depend on the police investigation, and ultimately to whom the police assign blame in the accident report.
657980
I very much doubt the police would make available to the public records of a negative/positive nature. It's against the law.You did nothing wrong. Someone misinformed(probably anonimously) them of a false situation.They investigated,satisfied,end of story
470159
Hahahah that reminds me of one of those camera cop shows I saw.. some man was going crazy when the cop pulled him over, yelling screaming, and carrying on. When the cop gave him his ticket and told him how much it was he started yelling and screaming and carrying on some more... then the guy ripped up the ticket and threw it out of the car window.. the cop told him if he didn't pick it up he would write him a ticket for littering.. the guy yelled and screamed and carried on again... but did end up getting out of his car to pick it up.. when he got in the cop saw where he left some and made him get back out of his car to get the rest and then the guy cussed some more and then sped off.. it was so funny- oh yeah sorry but to answer your question.. I guess depending on where you littered.. I'm sure he's not going to make you get out on the interstate and pick something up, or it is was miles back-probally just write you a ticket and let you go on your way
16089
I would disagree with the paranoid among the crowd ("the police will get you if you complain about one of them") but to each his own...and I'm sure it has happened in some places.  \n\nCertainly you can file a complaint with the officer's agency.\n\nYou can probably also file a complaint with the prosecutor's office.\n\nYou can hire a lawyer and pursue a 1983 action.  Hope you've got buckets of money, or a generous lawyer.\n\nWhat's more important to me, and what would really make the whole issue moot, is the issue of whether or not the officer "made up false charges."  Is this your opinion?  You may not know the law well enough to make that determination.  If it's an incident that you have no personal knowledge of, you may not even have all the facts.  \n\nIt's also entirely possible that the officer relied on information given to him/her by a witness or a victim.  If someone comes to me and claims to be a rape victim, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt and begin an investigation.  Given enough probable cause to make an arrest based on my investigation, I may arrest the suspect...even though he may eventually be proven to be factually innocent.  That doesn't mean I made anything up, it simply means there was enough information to justify making an arrest...and nobody will ever tell you (nobody that knows what they're talking about) that just because an arrest was made and the suspect was later proven to be innocent, that the officer absolutely had to be wrong about the arrest.  Sometimes things come to light after the arrest that shows the suspect didn't commit the crime after all...but that does not necessarily mean the officer made anything up.\n\nDo cops lie?  Sure...I hate to think so, but I know they do, just like doctors, lawyers, judges, auto mechanics, plumbers, dope dealers and garbage collectors.  I'd like to think we take steps to weed out liars, but I'm not about to say we (as a group) never do it...just as I would never say any one particular group of people does anything.  \n\nIf this is something you'd like to talk more about in email, I'm happy to help shed some different light on it for you or help point you in the direction you might want to go (though I'm not suggesting you should only listen to what *I* say).  If you'd like to talk about it, you can send an email to my nickname at yahoo.com.\n\nNo way will I say the officer in whatever case you're talking is not lying, but I don't know what the facts are and I'm certainly hoping there's another explanation for what you seem to be claiming is dishonesty.
340648
I agree....I DIDN'T sue when an 18 yr. old 8 1/2 mo. pregnant girl made a left in fron of me. I had an eye witness who pulled over and told the cop it wasn't my fault, I could not have avioded it. \n\nThe girl told the cop that the truck in front of her turned left so she did too- duh! The cop asked her if she knew that she should not turn unless the intersection was clear - she said yes -  double duh!\n\nI spent months going for physical therapy for  bulging disk. I'll always have to do phys. ter. exercises. Totaled my car. But I felt it was the right thing to do....am I stupid or what?
338555
If it can be disclosed to the public then it can be talked about.  Even if it isn't "public information" there are many reasons why they would talk about case information with people that are not law enforcement.  You talk about being in school, are you even 18?  If you are not then I don't think you will be taking any officers to court.
634072
The term "victim" refers to her injuries, not her legal standing.  Sounds like your g.f. made a left turn in front of a car that struck her car.\n\nIf that's the case, then the other driver had the right of way and your g.f. is at fault.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~\n\nWicked Magnet below wrote: "BUT...if neither saw the other, and the other party was "clearly going faster..."\n\nIf neither party saw the other, then how do you determine which party was "clearly going faster"?  As far as these two drivers were concerned, the other driver was invisible.  How can you say an invisible driver was speeding?
429894
The other guy says police officers cant make any comments, but when u r a cops daughter u can......... Years ago my father was trying to catch this man who had been eluding police for quite some time.... see, he wife died 2 weeks before my dad and other officers caught him.  U may not find anything wrong with this story so far.  But when my dad finally arrested him, guess who was buckled up in the front seat???? The mans dead wife.
124239
Just state the facts.  Don't elaborate, be as brief as possible. \n\nDo not mention anything such as "i saw so-and-so and he did not run the red light that he got the ticket for..." or, "the cop is wrong," or "he shouldn't have gotten a ticket."\n\nDon't give a hint to your opinion state ~only~ what you observed.  No more, no less.\n\n"Just the facts ma'am." ;)
594683
i live in maine and washington state, and ive been everywhere inbetween, in my opinion most police dont have the capability to deter or detect anything smarter and more dangerous than a jelly donut,  this is just a general biased observation.
119440
Ouch! When no void comes to a settlement with insurance, your best best would get a injury lawyer.  In most case you will WIN and don't have to pay a lawyer one cents.  Check with the law bar in San Fransico and ask the clerk to find you good rate lawyer who wins win.  Hopefully they will have someone contact you.  Good luck, i would file, because I had to in the past when I was in a car accient and it was the cop fault.  Had to sue the city!
470652
You need to do a little research and think about these incidents for yourself instead of letting the media spoon feed you their bias ideas. \n\n1. I trust the words of the police more than i do some scum bag drug addict informant who could be lying about it being a cover up. Even if it was a lie, the woman began SHOOTING AT POLICE when they started up her porch. The police RETURNED FIRE. \n\n2. The boy in the school weighs 200 pounds and was in the process of violently attacking a female school mate. The policewoman weighed about 125 pounds and was about 5'2. The boy would not comply with verbal commands to stop. Would you rather the boy be striked with a baton? Or maced? Tazing is much safer than those. Or would you prefer the officer just watch this 200 lb boy beat a fellow female student (and by the way he was not 6 years old, he was in 6th grade.)\n\n3. The man in NY infered that he had a gun to 2 undercover NYPD officers. He then stormed to his car saying that he was going to get his gun. The NYPD officers then identified themselves as police officers and told them to turn off the engine. The man inside the car ran hit one of the NYPD officers with his car, and struck a NYPD vehicle. He was clearly trying to run the officer down. So the NYPD officers used deadly force against a deadly threat ( the person in control of a 2000 pound moving object). THAT is why.