So, I went to court today, and once again, I was bullied by the prosecutor. Let me explain.
Original ticket, excuse me, tickets, was careless driving, illegal crossing of a median, failure to provide insurance on one ticket and resisting arrest and obstructing an officer on the other ticket. The prosecutor said he would drop the careless driving on the one ticket and the resisting arrest on the other ticket. No jail time, but 8 points on my license, fine and probation. Yes, they want to put me on probation. And he said, if I didn't agree today, then he would fine the charge for leaving the scene of an accident, and add it. That would be a 12 point fine. So, for having a bout of viral meningitis, I am facing 24 points on my license. I have not had so much as a parking ticket in over 7 years.
Now the main reason the prosecutor did not want to drop the obstruction was because he didn't think I was sick, and because I have a criminal history. My criminal history is over 19 years old. So, how does that have an effect. So I came home and looked up the statute for obstructing an officer. It reads, and this is for Westminster, "6-5-5: OBSTRUCTING A POLICE OFFICER:
(A) It shall be unlawful for any person, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or obstacle, to knowingly obstruct, impair or hinder the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace, or the placement or attempted placement of a person into custody for purposes of his own safety and welfare or the safety and welfare of others, by a police officer, or any person duly empowered with police authority. (1224 2001 2031)
(B) It is no defense to a prosecution under this Section that the police officer, or any person duly empowered with police authority, was acting in an illegal manner, if he was acting in the regular course of assigned duties and in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances. (1224)
(C) It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse to reveal their correct name, address and date of birth when requested to do so by a police officer, or any person duly empowered with police authority, engaged in the investigation of any violation of law, traffic accident, disaster or other event. (1224)
(D) Obstructing a police officer is a criminal offense, punishable by a fine or imprisonment, or both, as provided in Section 1-8-1 of this Code. (2001)"
There was no violence, there was no lieing to the officer, as a matter of fact, I could not even speak intelligently, so I don't see how I could have withheld evidence. So, where exactly do I fit in the obstruction statute. And the fact that I had viral meningitis should have some bearing. And if I wasn't sick, then why was I put in the back of an ambulance and not the back of a police car? Yes, I feel like I am being bullied to get his win ratio up. Oh, and I also found this in the Westminster statutes...
6-2-13: OBSTRUCTION OF THE SEEKING OF EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE: (3119)
(A) It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly obstruct or otherwise interfere with anyone who is seeking medical, police, fire or other emergency assistance from any person or agency, public or private.
(B) Obstruction of the seeking of emergency assistance is a criminal offense, punishable by a fine or imprisonment, or both, as provided in section 1-8-1 of this code.
So, if I was seeking emergency care, then why isn't the officer charged with obstructing me seeking emergency care. Oh wait, he is a police officer, and he doesn't have any reason to help me seek emergency care. All he needs to do is arrest me, and get his ratio up.
Am I little biased here? Well probably. But I hate being rail roaded into a guilty verdict when I am not guilty. There is something in the legal industry called mens rea. It means the guilty mind, or the ability to form a criminal intent. Since I could not even speak intelligently, how the hell could I form the criminal intent. The Officer says that all I said to him was "I can't get in trouble, I can't get in trouble" Now, you have been reading my blog for a while now, so I ask you.... Do I seem like the type of person that when talking to an officer would only tell him "I can't get in trouble" As a matter of fact, I asked the prosecutor that same question, and all he could tell me is he is no judge of normal. If he is no judge of normal, then why the hell is he a prosecutor. If most of our law is based on the presumptions of what would a normal person do, then shouldn't he be a judge of what is normal or not normal. Or at least that is how I see it now....