Both cases are marked for 9:30am. You can go here and search for 'Sullivan' and they will all pull up (the officer has a listed AKA as 'sullivan')
http://wasdmz2.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/MainMenu.do
thanks. you beat me by a couple minutes. ;-)
Both cases are marked for 9:30am. You can go here and search for 'Sullivan' and they will all pull up (the officer has a listed AKA as 'sullivan')
http://wasdmz2.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/MainMenu.do
Interesting reading. Two similar variations on what happened... with decidedly different details.
I'm glad I'm not the one who has to sort all this out... :uhoh:
I've been on a shoot for an insurance company all afternoon. Was bail granted?
Result: Defendant was admitted to bail, bond set at one hundred thousand dollars. Probably be lots of stuff on TV news this evening and print media this afternoon and tomorrow; a gaggle of newsfaces interrogated me after the hearing. It'll be interesting to see what little bits of what I said get used for the entertainment of the masses.
After listening to Dan's comments, if you look at the case in a strict legal sense, not looking at the officer's previous behavior, not looking at his past, and just looking at the exigent circumstances, I'm leaning toward it being a lawful action. The presence of the sun shield makes a huge difference, imo.
Sometimes it's difficult for the layperson to understand the legal issues and that is why we have legal representation. It does not matter that the officer had his hand in the window against policy (if so), it matters that she started to roll up the window.
I don't know if they can prove all the facts that are presented as truth, such as her cutting the wheels, resisting giving up her license, but those parts are pretty crucial.
To me the only damning fact is the LEO saying 'I'm going to lose my f-ing job'. That seems to indicate he felt he did something wrong.
FWIW.
Or that he had gut feelings about repercussions - he has been suspended W/O pay, not just taken off the street and put behind a desk.
....
Commonwealth's Memo in Opposition to Bond Motion - removed due to inclusion of statutorily prohibited information that should have been redacted out prior to filing
...
Is that merely an "Oopsie" or is it indicative of other problems with the prosecution's case?...
Is that merely an "Oopsie" or is it indicative of other problems with the prosecution's case?
stay safe.