Police: Trucker’s Dash Cam Video Not Enough To Bring Charges Against Motorist

[Bungus]

Police: Trucker’s Dash Cam Video Not Enough To Bring Charges Against Motorist

Posted December 30, 2016 by Ashley

Cedar Rapids police say that they have no plans to charge a motorist for an apparent road rage incident with a semi that was captured on dash cam.

In the video captured on December 22 on Highway 30 in Cedar Rapids, you can see a white car pulling directly in front of a semi and then slowing rapidly, forcing the truck driver to slam on her brakes to avoid a collision. The motorist appears to be motivated by road rage.

The video has since gone viral, garnering tens of thousands of views on YouTube and social media sites.

The Cedar Rapids Police Department says that they, too, have seen the video, but that they don’t plan on doing anything about it. They told the truck driver involved in the incident that they do not plan to press charges against the motorist because no officer was physically on the scene to witness the incident.

A representative from the city of Cedar Rapids claimed that it would be hard to justify the expenditure of the police resources that would be needed to press charges against the motorist for a mere traffic violation.

Don't know what more evidence they need to press charges. Maybe a crash?

 

[Rajagra]

Hopefully next time that trucker will plough into the car doing that. It will only be "a mere traffic violation."

 

[Sabe]

Lazy police, if a car is concidered as a deadly weapon in *some country* why this was not a dangerous stunt.

 

[randy]

Lazy police, if a car is concidered as a deadly weapon in *some country* why this was not a dangerous stunt.

*This comment is based on info I only have right now for the story...I have only read what is posted*
People are always so quick to say ignorant things about police without trying to understand why they made the decision they did.....it shows a complete lack of intelligence/open mind. In this video, you have zero evidence anyone did anything. We cannot see who is driving, we don't know if that tag belongs on that car, we cannot assume who is driving the car....they only hold the owner responsible for parking/red lights...which often doesn't work. They said motorist...was he identified? So are the police going to go hunt the registered owner down...IF they have the right address on file....who is god knows where....maybe in another jurisdiction 222 miles away? all over an infraction?? for impeding traffic? Or maybe a misd if they have some careless and wreckless law that fits this? So he/she can say my friend had my car yesterday, it was stolen, or I don't remember who was driving....that's IF he/she even answers the door or chooses to talk to police.
I'd love for the idiot to be charged, but it is easier said then done. I am sure there are a variety of reasons why they said no, and it was not because they did not want to, or were lazy, it was for LOGICAL/EXPLAINABLE reasons where they take into account things like manpower, law, policy etc....the things people don't consider. I get so tired of people offering their opinion about police with so little information.

 

[dash riposki]

There's no reason to let the car get that close after the first time they brake checked HER. (the trucker is female)

I'd be on the phone 'I think somebody is trying to hijack me....white 4 door, tag number....They are trying to get me to stop or run me off of the road...'


The cops may chase the car down, and probably the jerk behind the wheel will start screaming 'that truck cut me off/tried to kill me/got in my way/called me bad names'.
(And more likely than not do a roadside confession)

The video was posted on facebook. Supposedly the white car was angry because the truck in question took a long time to pass another truck, costing mr important brake check jerk maybe 20 seconds of his important time which he will never regain, and would probably have used to sew costumes for his 13 cats.

This reminds me of the one like this in florida, where the trucker let the jerk repeatedly brake check him....but never really did much to create much space.

 

[flank]

I would have rammed the white car off the road then delete the video.

 

[Sabe]

*This comment is based on info I only have right now for the story...I have only read what is posted*
People are always so quick to say ignorant things about police without trying to understand why they made the decision they did.....it shows a complete lack of intelligence/open mind. In this video, you have zero evidence anyone did anything. We cannot see who is driving, we don't know if that tag belongs on that car, we cannot assume who is driving the car....they only hold the owner responsible for parking/red lights...which often doesn't work. They said motorist...was he identified? So are the police going to go hunt the registered owner down...IF they have the right address on file....who is god knows where....maybe in another jurisdiction 222 miles away? all over an infraction?? for impeding traffic? Or maybe a misd if they have some careless and wreckless law that fits this? So he/she can say my friend had my car yesterday, it was stolen, or I don't remember who was driving....that's IF he/she even answers the door or chooses to talk to police.
I'd love for the idiot to be charged, but it is easier said then done. I am sure there are a variety of reasons why they said no, and it was not because they did not want to, or were lazy, it was for LOGICAL/EXPLAINABLE reasons where they take into account things like manpower, law, policy etc....the things people don't consider. I get so tired of people offering their opinion about police with so little information.

I see you think like The Police "we will never get him so why even bother."
Good police work attitude.

 

[DT MI]

I see you think like The Police "we will never get him so why even bother."
Good police work attitude.

It much more than attitude by the police - it's a matter of law. In most jurisdictions, in 'some countries', a misdemeanor office (and this indident would be categorized as a misdemeanor) must be witnessed by the LEO - there are a number of reasons for this but that's a subject for a different thread on a different forum, for the purpose of this thread it's a fact. Even the video evidence in this instance is not sufficient for law enforcement to get involved.

"For example, if a security guard tells the officer about a store theft he witnessed, or the officer’s only information comes from security videotapes, the offense didn’t happen “in the presence” of the officer. (Forgie-Buccioni v. Hannaford Bros., Inc., 413 F.3d 175 (1st Cir. 2005).)"

Cited from: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/does-officer-witness-misdemeanor-order-arrest.html

As pointed out in that link it may have been possible for the truck driver to effect a "citizen's arrest" and had the matter be resolved along that path - but again that's beyond the subject of this thread.

 

[SawMaster]

So based on this, with running a red light also being a misdemeanor, anybody getting a ticket from a red-light cam should be able to have the charges thrown out because they were not directly witnessed by an in-person LEO We KNOW the chuckles trying that will get in a courtroom as the case gets heard anyway

It's a double-standard and it's wrong both legally and morally. I wish I'd have chosen to become a Lawyer as a career because I'd be pushing these injustices all the way to the top just because I could and because that truly needs to happen before anarchy or revolution sets in

Phil

 

[DT MI]

So based on this, with running a red light also being a misdemeanor, anybody getting a ticket from a red-light cam should be able to have the charges thrown out because they were not directly witnessed by an in-person LEO ...

A quick search will show you a number of cases where exactly that has happened. Go to court and ask to have the accuser there as well as proof the the equipment was properly calibrated and certified - odds are the ticket will be dismissed.

 

[SawMaster]

It should not even get that far as it is not possible to question the camera which is the sole legal accuser- that makes it improper and any attempt at prosecution null and void before it begins. (ab Initio)

Phil

 

[kuoh]

Yup. If we make it a case where someone robs a store or shoots someone and they're caught on video, then the evidence becomes admissible?

KuoH

It's a double-standard and it's wrong both legally and morally.

 

[DT MI]

It should not even get that far as it is not possible to question the camera which is the sole legal accuser- that makes it improper and any attempt at prosecution null and void before it begins. (ab Initio)

Phil

And that is why, when these cases are challenged, they get thrown out - it's not possible to question your accuser. The problem is one of wanting to expend the time and effort it takes to make it happen versus just paying the fine and moving on.

 

[DT MI]

Yup. If we make it a case where someone robs a store or shoots someone and they're caught on video, then the evidence becomes admissible?

KuoH

No, because the provision/restriction only applies to misdemeanor offenses - that scenario (robbery or shooting) would be a felony.

 

[SawMaster]

@kuoh : In those cases it's a felony which has different rules. Plus hopefully there's a live human who was there and can provide testimony.- then the vid becomes corroborating evidence and is generally admissable. (DT MI beat me to the reply button)
@DT MI : The legal principle of "ab Initio" renders every one of those cases null and void before the charges are brought and therefore should not be allowed to be called in a courtroom but thrown straight out beforehand. Anyone guilty of knowingly pressing "ab Initio" charges can be help criminally liable for a rights violation. That is the law yet it is not being applied to the red-light-cam cases which is Judicial Malfeasance and also being not seen that way.

Nobody is seeing how our rights are being intentionally destroyed by the ones who are supposed to be protecting them. I'm not totally against red-light-cams, I just want things to be done fully within the scope of the law and for it to be applied equally in both directions as is supposed to be happening but isn't

Phil

 

[Sabe]

It much more than attitude by the police - it's a matter of law.

Here in finland we had almost identical case and the driver of that car was found and cited heavily (about 1000-1500 usd)
It was a company car and because of high publicity driver took blame without question, but of cource he might say like yes this is my car but i wasn't driving and i don't know who in my family or friend was driving, and this crime is on minor side so probably police can ask this question from him like an hour but then police must let him go, and if police can't identify driver then case is closed.
But most likely average joe will confess that he was driving.
Here is this video, internet will not forget

 

[kuoh]

Yes, I understand. The point was that the video evidence is the same, it's just the level of crime that supposedly makes the difference in admissibility. The situation may be different if there is a witness, but when there is not, they don't just ignore the video like they do for these misdemeanors.

KuoH

No, because the provision/restriction only applies to misdemeanor offenses - that scenario (robbery or shooting) would be a felony.

 

[Rajagra]

there are a number of reasons for this but that's a subject for a different thread on a different forum

I disagree. This is a dashcam forum and we are discussing if recorded video should be admissible as evidence. It is completely on topic.
Rules about a LEO personally witnessing an offence may have been reasonable once, but they are now archaic rules. Video recordings are strong evidence. You could say they are more reliable than a LEO's recollection in more ways than one. (Not bashing police, just stating fact.) Decent resolution cameras are now common. The current state of the art is that it would be difficult to fake video evidence without it being immediately obvious with the most basic checks to see if a file is consistent with what a camera would actually produce.

People trust what they see with their own eyes, especially when they can watch over and over. If the legal system isn't in line with what people trust then people won't trust the legal system. It leads to disrespect of the law and then refusal to obey the law. And frankly, I don't see why the courts should have any difficulty adapting to this availability of strong evidence.

it is not possible to question the camera which is the sole legal accuser

Sorry, but in my eyes that's sophistry. A camera is not the accuser, it is a source of information. I know that law itself is heavily based on such definitions, but when such definitions lead to absurd, abstract interpretations of fact, they should not be simply accepted in general discussion.

 

[SawMaster]

I would argue that the camera is the sole legal accuser because no human is being presented as a direct witness to the alleged act and the only evidence being offered comes from the cam. But let's not get sidetracked by this from the matter at hand In the US the Police have a legal obligation to he public as a whole which does not extend to any individual part of that whole. No individual compel them to act- they actually don't even have to answer the 911 phone line if they don't want to and nobody can make them do that There is actually a very good reason for this legally- if they were obligated to respond to every individual they would be legally compelled to protect that individual from harm and therefore would be legally liable for anything bad that happened to them because they did not adequately protect them. And they can't adequately protect everyone all of the time so you can't ask the impossible of them This is the legal grounds behind their being able to decide to not use the dashcam video and prosecute. It is allowed by law for them to choose this path without fear of recrimination.

But IMHO they should be held liable for not acting when they are presented with enough evidence to reasonably expect a conviction will result. If it were only a single unverified eyewitness report I could understand the Police not acting as eyewitness testimony is often overcome in court, but here the video evidence is rock-solid and video is nearly unassailable in court which makes a conviction almost certain, just like the reason and way they use red-light-cam videos, so why are they being allowed to 'pick-and-choose'? They are the same thing-videos-and if one is good enough to go forward with then so is the other. If one is not good enough then neither is the other. I can't recall the legal term for that but it is the current interpretation and application of US law- a standard used in every US courtroom every day

That trucker now has a free pass to call for dismissal of any charges that Police department brings against him using video evidence only; all he needs is a half-decent lawyer to do that. And that is not right either because if those grounds are upheld (and they'd legally have to be unless the Police prosecuted the road-rager) then anyone could argue similarly as the precedent would have then be set that video is not suitable for evidence The Police are not seeing the true depths of their actions here and it could result in their own undoing taking us dashcammers down the tubes along with them I hope there's enough pressure from the public to get the Police to see the light and to do the right thing if not now then in all similar future cases

Phil

 

[kamkar]

As a secondary measure to make sure i can get useful evidence when some dumbass do som stupid,,,, "stuff" in front of my car.
I will be fitting my little red car with a 12 foot hollow probe on the front so i will be able to get a DNA sample of that person., same probe will also be useful to document there is a safe distance between me and the car ahead of me