• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Quick court update

DeadCenter

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
718
Location
The Lower End of NoVa, Virginia, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
glockfan wrote:
That's it, I suppose, the policeman is not going to show up and it will be dismissed.

Were it all worth the trouble?

I think, NOT.
Didn't you use to be taurusfan, the troll who made a special effort to troll all the danbus threads?


Oh please not more trolls.



Good for you Dan. I just thought of this yesterday and intended to PM you. Please let me know what the end result is. I think you got em on the run.

DC
 

PackininVB

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
285
Location
Back on the beach, , USA

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

§ 18.2-460. Obstructing justice; penalty.

A. If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness or any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duties as such or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or law-enforcement officer, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. Except as provided in subsection C, any person who, by threats or force, knowingly attempts to intimidate or impede a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or any law-enforcement officer, lawfully engaged in his duties as such, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

C. If any person by threats of bodily harm or force knowingly attempts to intimidate or impede a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or any law-enforcement officer, lawfully engaged in the discharge of his duty, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court relating to a violation of or conspiracy to violate § 18.2-248 or subdivision (a) (3), (b) or (c) of § 18.2-248.1, or § 18.2-46.2 or § 18.2-46.3, or relating to the violation of or conspiracy to violate any violent felony offense listed in subsection C of § 17.1-805, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

D. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

Re: OP

Jeez, what a bunch of jerks. Ah well, this might be good for you in the long run. Maybe they are hoping you'll forget/get tired of this.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
D. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
ChinChin wrote:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"

I question this courts definition of "speedy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_trial

Only federal jurisdictions are effectively bound by speedy trial requirements. Cases are often kept in local jurisdiction to allow for better more lengthy development that feds aren't allowed.

The case of a meth chemist in my old neighborhood hadn't been adjudicated when I moved away five years later. He still lived in the neighborhood, harassed the old ladies and caused me to frequently keep a marked unit parked in front of my residence and to OC discretely off my curtilage for the old ladies' benefit and his.
§ 19.2-243. Limitation on prosecution of felony due to lapse of time after finding of probable cause; misdemeanors; exceptions.


[SNIP]
Where a case is before a circuit court on appeal from a conviction of a misdemeanor or traffic infraction in a district court, the accused shall be forever discharged from prosecution for such offense if the trial de novo in the circuit court is not commenced (i) within five months from the date of the conviction if the accused has been held continuously in custody or (ii) within nine months of the date of the conviction if the accused has been recognized for his appearance in the circuit court to answer for such offense.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

It's not over yet. I doubt the officer is coming back and it is curious that he left when he did.

Ay any rate I expect the Commonwealth will try to Noll Pross the case instead of dismissing it. This is where having a lawyer would pay off. You will need to insist that the Commonwealth either produce the witness, or Dismiss the charge.

Unless the Commonwealth had a good excuse, you should have insisted on the dismissal this past date.

Noll Pross is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick...but it ain't absolution!

Now after a year, they won't be able to bring it back up....but it will still appear that the Commonwealth was letting you off with a warning.

One of the members brought up the statute of limitations in Virginia at the last VCDL meeting. He said that there is no statute of limitation in Va. This isn't correct.

In misdemeanors the limitation is generally a year.
One notable exception is petit larceny. That is 5 years. In the BMWAG case, I'm pretty sure it is a year.

Foster vs Commonwealth Case number o50510 January 13, 2006
Supreme Court
of Va
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Dismissing the charge would be done only if there was some compelling reason to believe he did not commit the crime he was alleged to have done.

If the officer cannot appear for some reason it does not mean the charges against Dan should deleted. The officer may want to returnand go forward with the charges later. This is why you get a year from the date of the crime.

Dismissing the charge would prevent the officer from doing that. The officer is the "victim" in this case and dismissing them would violate the victims rights for justice to be served.

We have no idea why the officer is out of state or if he plans to return. The charges will likely NOT be dismissed in this case.... The courts will often times continue it or nolle pros it so it can be heard again in the future.

Nolle Pros simply means that the state is not going to prosecute at this time. Just because the officer cannot be there would be valid reason to drop the charges outright.

Sorry Danbus.. this is going to stay on your record. :p
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

There is yet another route that the Commonwealth can take, although I doubt the Commonwealth wants him that badly.

The Officer is the Victim, however the crime was against the Commonwealth. The Officer could submit an affidavit and not appear.

The affidavit wouldn't carry the same weight as personal testimony, but then again, that would be a technical objection that Danbus would need to make.

The Commonwealth could subpoena the recording Danbus made to support his case.
There isn't any argument that Danbus was there, armed and speaking to the Officer. The arguable issues are concerning whether that encounter was Obstructing the Officer.

This could be one of those instances where the recorder can bite you in the a$$.

Again, I doubt it's worth the trouble to the CA....but you never know.
 

jack

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
228
Location
Clayton, North Carolina, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Dismissing the charge would be done only if there was some compelling reason to believe he did not commit the crime he was alleged to have done.

If the officer cannot appear for some reason it does not mean the charges against Dan should deleted. The officer may want to returnand go forward with the charges later. This is why you get a year from the date of the crime.

Dismissing the charge would prevent the officer from doing that. The officer is the "victim" in this case and dismissing them would violate the victims rights for justice to be served.

We have no idea why the officer is out of state or if he plans to return. The charges will likely NOT be dismissed in this case.... The courts will often times continue it or nolle pros it so it can be heard again in the future.

Nolle Pros simply means that the state is not going to prosecute at this time. Just because the officer cannot be there would be valid reason to drop the charges outright.

Sorry Danbus.. this is going to stay on your record. :p


Not True. I had a case once that was dismissed without a compelling reason. In fact it was quite obvious I was guilty as hell. The Commonwealth didn't want to prosecute because we were going for a jury trial ,and I had a well known attorney that regularly kicks their ass at trial. He specializes in exposing cops as the liars theyoften are, and humiliating young prosecutors (there are a bunch of novices inmost DAoffices as the pay sucks compared to private industry/practice. The DA's officedoesn't get the A & B talent, they get the C,D, & F talent.)Charges get dismissed all the time without "compelling reason" . Only a cop or ex-cop could come up with such bullshit. Most ofcops are D & F talent and operate on intimidation their whole career, until someone stands up to them for the bullies they are.

When a prosecutorNolle pross a case it's is essentially dismissed. They can recharge you but it is extremely rare. The original charge is gone and will not appear in a criminal record check .

Our friend in Ohio will not be prosecuted, you watch. Our friend in Virginia, he should never have been charged with his current case, regardless of how crazy he is, THERE WAS NO OFFENSE COMMITTED.

Both cases just demonstrate why the Police are no friend of freedom and the Constitution, but rather brainless government drones doing the will of the STATE. Just like Hitler's SS, many are jackboot thugs. They are the enemy of freedom and a friend of Tyranny.

Never trust, cooperate with or talk to a cop.
 

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
imported post

peter nap wrote:
This is where having a lawyer would pay off.

Danbus,

I may have missed this but ... you do have an attorney don't you?
 

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
imported post

Most of cops are D & F talent and operate on intimidation their whole career, until someone stands up to them for the bullies they are.
...
Both cases just demonstrate why the Police are no friend of freedom and the Constitution, but rather brainless government drones doing the will of the STATE. Just like Hitler's SS, many are jackboot thugs. They are the enemy of freedom and a friend of Tyranny.
Jack. Please do not over-generalize when making these kind of statements.

Some officers are good and some are bad, just like humanity as a whole.

We should work to make sure that the laws in our states do not allow or require officers to act in ways that are anathema to our freedoms.

The secret formula is ... Lobby your legislature, write letters to the editor and get involved!
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

jack wrote:

Not True. I had a case once that was dismissed without a compelling reason. In fact it was quite obvious I was guilty as hell. ...... snipped.... When a prosecutorNolle pross a case it's is essentially dismissed. They can recharge you but it is extremely rare. The original charge is gone and will not appear in a criminal record check .

....SNIPPED!!

May I ask.... where did you get your information on this?

I have bad news for you.....

It DOES stay on you record and I have seen it time and time again when I do criminal record checks. I provide this information as I get it first hand from the computer.

As you openly admitted.. you were guilty of the charge in your case but it was dropped.

This entry is useful for officers in the futureso they will know that it is not the first time you have been accused of such a charge.
 
Top