Armed robbery

[TheBrain]

You know, these little personal jabs at the end of many of your posts only make you look bad. They aren't necessary.

In fact, you remind me an awful lot of this flaming asshole who used to post here but who got banned for being precisely that - a flaming asshole. The consensus here is, however, that in addition to being a flaming asshole, this jerk also had some serious mental problems. His name was ConHog. Ever hear of him?

Really George, you're going to claim that I took a personal jab at you and then take a HUGE jab at me? How hypocritical.

The fact is I took no jab at you. I merely pointed out that it was unlikely that a defense attorney would admit that most of his clients are liars. That's just logical.

Why, sure, ConHog. Whatever you say.

More jabs at me after you called me out for supposedly taking a jab at you? How mature.

 

[FA_Q2]

If only people knew their rights and had the guts to look a cop in the eye and insist on them.

"You got anything illegal in your car here?"

"No."

"Mind if we take a look?"

Proper answer: "Yes, I do mind. If you want to get a search warrant, then you can search my car. Until then, you cannot." In order to get a search warrant, the cop is going to have to convince a judge that probable cause exists to issue the search warrant. If the only reason for the traffic stop was a traffic violation, with nothing more, the cop is either going to have to lie in the search warrant affidavit, or not get the warrant. If he lies, the search warrant affidavit is subject to extreme scrutiny once the case gets to court and if he is caught lying, his ass is grass.

Answer usually given (or answer which the police often claim is given): "Sure, go ahead."

Don't even get me started on police agencies confiscating "drug money" that ends up in their own coffers.

Exactly right. Amazes me the number of people who give permission and then get arrested because something was found THEN they want to sue b/c a warrant wasn't obtained. HEY IDIOT YOUR PERMISSION WAIVES THE REQUIREMENT.

of course it also amazes me the number of criminals who get busted with drugs or stolen property or whatever in their vehicle because they were pulled over for speeding, or a broken tail light or something. SHEESH if your hauling 2 tons of pot around you might want to obey the traffic laws DUH.

Good thing for cops that criminals are stupid. Guess it's a good thing for people like George to, or he wouldn't have a job.

I'll tell you what amazes me - the number of guys who (allegedly) give the cops permission to search, knowing they have meth in their pocket or a gun under the seat of the car. My clients don't always have the best judgment, but they can't be THAT stupid. And then toss in how many times I have heard, "He never asked permission to do shit. He just sat me on the curb and searched the damn car."

Kinda makes one wonder what goes on out there in the field where there are no witnesses except the cops and the crooks . . . .

The truth is quite different though. Cops NEVER ask to search the vehicle. They STATE “I am going to search your car now, all right” and then look at you. The cursory “whatever” is usually said because most people do not even realize that it was a question in the first place. If you say no, they are likely to lie anyway. I used to get arrested DAILY because I drove home from work at 2am. Every day I would get a bullshit excuse like my lights are not working when we are both looking at them while they are on. I would get cuffed, jammed in the back of the police car and not one word was said to me until after the search turned up nothing. They did not ask or even try and justify their position. It was not the same cops all the time so I do not think they were targeting me because it was me but rather because the time. It was almost like it was against the law to be out past 11pm. I have been robbed, lied to and cheated by the police FAR more than not. I give them credit for the job they do and the fith they need to deal with on a daily basis but I give them ZERO trust as it has been violated FAR to many times.

All this and I have NEVER been convicted of any crime whatsoever outside of some traffic violations. I did dumb things as a teenager but never anything to warrant the attention I had received even if they knew about it.

My god, where are all the totalitarians coming from.

You're joking, right? This is USMB, for God's sake.

Well, YOU see totalitarianism EVERYWHERE George and called me a racists among other things so, no, I am not joking. Most here are quite reasonable. An iota more reasonable to me than I have been treated by you before as a matter of fact

Why, sure, ConHog. Whatever you say.

Is that really the claim? Brain seems FAR more reasonable than conhog ever was though I didn’t even realize he had been banned. Been awhile since I was on. All I have seen is people attack him, not the other way around. Though, I have only seen the posts from the last week. Maybe this stems from earlier drama….

 

[TheBrain]

Exactly right. Amazes me the number of people who give permission and then get arrested because something was found THEN they want to sue b/c a warrant wasn't obtained. HEY IDIOT YOUR PERMISSION WAIVES THE REQUIREMENT.

of course it also amazes me the number of criminals who get busted with drugs or stolen property or whatever in their vehicle because they were pulled over for speeding, or a broken tail light or something. SHEESH if your hauling 2 tons of pot around you might want to obey the traffic laws DUH.

Good thing for cops that criminals are stupid. Guess it's a good thing for people like George to, or he wouldn't have a job.

I'll tell you what amazes me - the number of guys who (allegedly) give the cops permission to search, knowing they have meth in their pocket or a gun under the seat of the car. My clients don't always have the best judgment, but they can't be THAT stupid. And then toss in how many times I have heard, "He never asked permission to do shit. He just sat me on the curb and searched the damn car."

Kinda makes one wonder what goes on out there in the field where there are no witnesses except the cops and the crooks . . . .

The truth is quite different though. Cops NEVER ask to search the vehicle. They STATE “I am going to search your car now, all right” and then look at you. The cursory “whatever” is usually said because most people do not even realize that it was a question in the first place. If you say no, they are likely to lie anyway. I used to get arrested DAILY because I drove home from work at 2am. Every day I would get a bullshit excuse like my lights are not working when we are both looking at them while they are on. I would get cuffed, jammed in the back of the police car and not one word was said to me until after the search turned up nothing. They did not ask or even try and justify their position. It was not the same cops all the time so I do not think they were targeting me because it was me but rather because the time. It was almost like it was against the law to be out past 11pm. I have been robbed, lied to and cheated by the police FAR more than not. I give them credit for the job they do and the fith they need to deal with on a daily basis but I give them ZERO trust as it has been violated FAR to many times.

All this and I have NEVER been convicted of any crime whatsoever outside of some traffic violations. I did dumb things as a teenager but never anything to warrant the attention I had received even if they knew about it.

You're joking, right? This is USMB, for God's sake.

Well, YOU see totalitarianism EVERYWHERE George and called me a racists among other things so, no, I am not joking. Most here are quite reasonable. An iota more reasonable to me than I have been treated by you before as a matter of fact

Why, sure, ConHog. Whatever you say.

Is that really the claim? Brain seems FAR more reasonable than conhog ever was though I didn’t even realize he had been banned. Been awhile since I was on. All I have seen is people attack him, not the other way around. Though, I have only seen the posts from the last week. Maybe this stems from earlier drama….

That is simply a lie. I'm sure SOME LEOs do that, but ALL? Not hardly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are times you sound a lot like ConHog.

 

[TheBrain]

There are times you sound a lot like ConHog.

and that has exactly WHAT to do with the topic at hand?

 

[FA_Q2]

I'll tell you what amazes me - the number of guys who (allegedly) give the cops permission to search, knowing they have meth in their pocket or a gun under the seat of the car. My clients don't always have the best judgment, but they can't be THAT stupid. And then toss in how many times I have heard, "He never asked permission to do shit. He just sat me on the curb and searched the damn car."

Kinda makes one wonder what goes on out there in the field where there are no witnesses except the cops and the crooks . . . .

The truth is quite different though. Cops NEVER ask to search the vehicle. They STATE “I am going to search your car now, all right” and then look at you. The cursory “whatever” is usually said because most people do not even realize that it was a question in the first place. If you say no, they are likely to lie anyway. I used to get arrested DAILY because I drove home from work at 2am. Every day I would get a bullshit excuse like my lights are not working when we are both looking at them while they are on. I would get cuffed, jammed in the back of the police car and not one word was said to me until after the search turned up nothing. They did not ask or even try and justify their position. It was not the same cops all the time so I do not think they were targeting me because it was me but rather because the time. It was almost like it was against the law to be out past 11pm. I have been robbed, lied to and cheated by the police FAR more than not. I give them credit for the job they do and the fith they need to deal with on a daily basis but I give them ZERO trust as it has been violated FAR to many times.

All this and I have NEVER been convicted of any crime whatsoever outside of some traffic violations. I did dumb things as a teenager but never anything to warrant the attention I had received even if they knew about it.


Well, YOU see totalitarianism EVERYWHERE George and called me a racists among other things so, no, I am not joking. Most here are quite reasonable. An iota more reasonable to me than I have been treated by you before as a matter of fact

Why, sure, ConHog. Whatever you say.

Is that really the claim? Brain seems FAR more reasonable than conhog ever was though I didn’t even realize he had been banned. Been awhile since I was on. All I have seen is people attack him, not the other way around. Though, I have only seen the posts from the last week. Maybe this stems from earlier drama….

That is simply a lie. I'm sure SOME LEOs do that, but ALL? Not hardly.

Maybe all is a bit extreme but it was not a lie. The VAST majority ask that question in that way precisely because it reads like a statement yet is legally a question. I have been asked to be searched MANY times and 100% of the time that is how it was asked. Believe what you will but it is common practice. Cops are not prove to make their job more difficult by making you aware that you have rights. That is not their job anyway. It is yours to know your rights.

Of course, I disagree with the cops being able to legally act in this way though as it is inherently dishonest. Dishonesty is not something that I would encourage in a peace officer. This is somewhat similar to the fact that they can lie to get a confession. Dishonesty does not breed good.

 

[TheBrain]

The truth is quite different though. Cops NEVER ask to search the vehicle. They STATE “I am going to search your car now, all right” and then look at you. The cursory “whatever” is usually said because most people do not even realize that it was a question in the first place. If you say no, they are likely to lie anyway. I used to get arrested DAILY because I drove home from work at 2am. Every day I would get a bullshit excuse like my lights are not working when we are both looking at them while they are on. I would get cuffed, jammed in the back of the police car and not one word was said to me until after the search turned up nothing. They did not ask or even try and justify their position. It was not the same cops all the time so I do not think they were targeting me because it was me but rather because the time. It was almost like it was against the law to be out past 11pm. I have been robbed, lied to and cheated by the police FAR more than not. I give them credit for the job they do and the fith they need to deal with on a daily basis but I give them ZERO trust as it has been violated FAR to many times.

All this and I have NEVER been convicted of any crime whatsoever outside of some traffic violations. I did dumb things as a teenager but never anything to warrant the attention I had received even if they knew about it.


Well, YOU see totalitarianism EVERYWHERE George and called me a racists among other things so, no, I am not joking. Most here are quite reasonable. An iota more reasonable to me than I have been treated by you before as a matter of fact

Is that really the claim? Brain seems FAR more reasonable than conhog ever was though I didn’t even realize he had been banned. Been awhile since I was on. All I have seen is people attack him, not the other way around. Though, I have only seen the posts from the last week. Maybe this stems from earlier drama….

That is simply a lie. I'm sure SOME LEOs do that, but ALL? Not hardly.

Maybe all is a bit extreme but it was not a lie. The VAST majority ask that question in that way precisely because it reads like a statement yet is legally a question. I have been asked to be searched MANY times and 100% of the time that is how it was asked. Believe what you will but it is common practice. Cops are not prove to make their job more difficult by making you aware that you have rights. That is not their job anyway. It is yours to know your rights.

Of course, I disagree with the cops being able to legally act in this way though as it is inherently dishonest. Dishonesty is not something that I would encourage in a peace officer. This is somewhat similar to the fact that they can lie to get a confession. Dishonesty does not breed good.

The reason it usually comes out a certain way is because they are trained to say it a certain way and not to deviate at all, lest they screw up and leave a department open to lawsuits by the George's of the world aka scumbag lawyers who jump all over even the most innocent of mistakes made by LEOs in order to try make a buck.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is simply a lie. I'm sure SOME LEOs do that, but ALL? Not hardly.

Maybe all is a bit extreme but it was not a lie. The VAST majority ask that question in that way precisely because it reads like a statement yet is legally a question. I have been asked to be searched MANY times and 100% of the time that is how it was asked. Believe what you will but it is common practice. Cops are not prove to make their job more difficult by making you aware that you have rights. That is not their job anyway. It is yours to know your rights.

Of course, I disagree with the cops being able to legally act in this way though as it is inherently dishonest. Dishonesty is not something that I would encourage in a peace officer. This is somewhat similar to the fact that they can lie to get a confession. Dishonesty does not breed good.

The reason it usually comes out a certain way is because they are trained to say it a certain way and not to deviate at all, lest they screw up and leave a department open to lawsuits by the George's of the world aka scumbag lawyers who jump all over even the most innocent of mistakes made by LEOs in order to try make a buck.

If that was their goal they would get a warrant instead.

 

[TheBrain]

Maybe all is a bit extreme but it was not a lie. The VAST majority ask that question in that way precisely because it reads like a statement yet is legally a question. I have been asked to be searched MANY times and 100% of the time that is how it was asked. Believe what you will but it is common practice. Cops are not prove to make their job more difficult by making you aware that you have rights. That is not their job anyway. It is yours to know your rights.

Of course, I disagree with the cops being able to legally act in this way though as it is inherently dishonest. Dishonesty is not something that I would encourage in a peace officer. This is somewhat similar to the fact that they can lie to get a confession. Dishonesty does not breed good.

The reason it usually comes out a certain way is because they are trained to say it a certain way and not to deviate at all, lest they screw up and leave a department open to lawsuits by the George's of the world aka scumbag lawyers who jump all over even the most innocent of mistakes made by LEOs in order to try make a buck.

If that was their goal they would get a warrant instead.

Oh come on QW then you would be bitching about them detaining motorists for the length of time it took to receive a warrant.

Not to mention that LEOs don't have to have probable cause to ask you if they can search your vehicle. They DO have to have probable cause to get a warrant.

You don't have to say yes.

 

[George Costanza]

Cops are not prove to make their job more difficult by making you aware that you have rights. That is not their job anyway. It is yours to know your rights.

The Miranda decision is based entierly on the concept that it IS the job of the police to advise a suspect they are about to question, of his rights.

 

[TheBrain]

Cops are not prove to make their job more difficult by making you aware that you have rights. That is not their job anyway. It is yours to know your rights.

The Miranda decision is based entierly on the concept that it IS the job of the police to advise a suspect they are about to question, of his rights.

And Miranda is totally unrelated to the question of searches. LEOs are NOT required to inform you that you have a right to tell them no if they ask if they can search your property.

 

[FA_Q2]

Cops are not prove to make their job more difficult by making you aware that you have rights. That is not their job anyway. It is yours to know your rights.

The Miranda decision is based entierly on the concept that it IS the job of the police to advise a suspect they are about to question, of his rights.

Point taken and agreed with but it seems that is not the cases in reality when it comes to searches.

The reason it usually comes out a certain way is because they are trained to say it a certain way and not to deviate at all, lest they screw up and leave a department open to lawsuits by the George's of the world aka scumbag lawyers who jump all over even the most innocent of mistakes made by LEOs in order to try make a buck.

Yes and no. It comes out like that because they are trained but it has NOTHING to do with lawyers. If that were the case then the question would be CLEAR not hidden as a statement. It is clear that you agree with the tactics of the police but why must you lie about the dishonesty inherent of those tactics. I can understand believing that the cops must act a certain way in order to do their job even if I disagree but it is asinine to refuse to admit the cover in the first place.

 

[George Costanza]

Cops are not prove to make their job more difficult by making you aware that you have rights. That is not their job anyway. It is yours to know your rights.

The Miranda decision is based entierly on the concept that it IS the job of the police to advise a suspect they are about to question, of his rights.

And Miranda is totally unrelated to the question of searches. LEOs are NOT required to inform you that you have a right to tell them no if they ask if they can search your property.

Correct. I see now that FA_Q2 was talking in the context of searches, rather than confessions - had overlooked that in my post.

 

[TheBrain]

Cops are not prove to make their job more difficult by making you aware that you have rights. That is not their job anyway. It is yours to know your rights.

The Miranda decision is based entierly on the concept that it IS the job of the police to advise a suspect they are about to question, of his rights.

Point taken and agreed with but it seems that is not the cases in reality when it comes to searches.

The reason it usually comes out a certain way is because they are trained to say it a certain way and not to deviate at all, lest they screw up and leave a department open to lawsuits by the George's of the world aka scumbag lawyers who jump all over even the most innocent of mistakes made by LEOs in order to try make a buck.

Yes and no. It comes out like that because they are trained but it has NOTHING to do with lawyers. If that were the case then the question would be CLEAR not hidden as a statement. It is clear that you agree with the tactics of the police but why must you lie about the dishonesty inherent of those tactics. I can understand believing that the cops must act a certain way in order to do their job even if I disagree but it is asinine to refuse to admit the cover in the first place.

The dishonesty is on YOUR part when you claim most LEO tell you they are searching your property. That is a lie. They MUST ask. Not tell.

 

[TheBrain]

The Miranda decision is based entierly on the concept that it IS the job of the police to advise a suspect they are about to question, of his rights.

And Miranda is totally unrelated to the question of searches. LEOs are NOT required to inform you that you have a right to tell them no if they ask if they can search your property.

Correct. I see now that FA_Q2 was talking in the context of searches, rather than confessions - had overlooked that in my post.

No problem, I figured you no doubt knew the difference between a search and questioning.

 

[Missourian]

I did not say it has happened, I just pointed out the logical conclusion of your support of a stupid law that allows the government to claim your property is guilty of a crime.

BS, it was hyperbole and scare tactics. If you really want to come to a logical conclusion, here is the question...You, a law enforcement officer, find five ziplock bags containing 200 thousand dollars being smuggled in the back of a loaded semi tractor trailer...the logical conclussion is _____________?

This law is smart...take what you can use against your enemy...fund his defeat with his own money.

If it actually becomes corrupt, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you fighting against it...but based on what I saw in the video, which I'm sure was editted to put the police in the worst possible light, I didn't see that at all, despite the "reporters" best efforts. I saw a common sense seizure of $200,000.

My impression from the video is that the owner of the truck in question IS involved in something dishonest most likely drug trafficking.

On the other hand, the report states that the cops are pulling drivers over indiscriminately and confiscating any large amount of cash they find. This could just be a couple of grand that people are using for vacation money. I have a major problem with that! This appears to be nothing less than the county governments shaking down tourists. Hell, it is something I would expect when driving through Mexico not the USA.

Immie

They insinuate that...but provide not a stitch of proof...no tourists interviewed who had their $1500 seized with crying children in the background whose Disney trip was ruined.

Why? Because that doesn't happen...the reports have an agenda that is furthered by making you believe it happened without providing any evidence.

If those tourists existed, the would have been featured front and center in this report.

 

[Missourian]

I did not say it has happened, I just pointed out the logical conclusion of your support of a stupid law that allows the government to claim your property is guilty of a crime.

BS, it was hyperbole and scare tactics. If you really want to come to a logical conclusion, here is the question...You, a law enforcement officer, find five ziplock bags containing 200 thousand dollars being smuggled in the back of a loaded semi tractor trailer...the logical conclussion is _____________?

This law is smart...take what you can use against your enemy...fund his defeat with his own money.

If it actually becomes corrupt, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you fighting against it...but based on what I saw in the video, which I'm sure was editted to put the police in the worst possible light, I didn't see that at all, despite the "reporters" best efforts. I saw a common sense seizure of $200,000.

The logical conclusion is irrelevant. If said LEO cannot take the owner of those bags to court and convict him of a criminal act, he gets to drive away with them. Period.

What is to stop the police from pulling you over, find the $5,500 you just got paid back from all the years you loaned your deadbeat brother money, conclude there is no reason for any non drug dealer to be carrying that amount of cash, and confiscate it? Any policy which allows the police to confiscate money simply because you have it will inevitably catch someone who is innocent.

Due process is not something that applies only when you think the facts make a person look innocent, it applies all the time. Don't let your belief that this particular instance caught someone who is a drug dealer cause you to support a policy that is wring. This is not about the one instance in the video, it is about civil asset forfeiture in general.

We're not talking about $5,500 and never were.

We're discussing YOUR video of a $200,000 seizure.

When a cop actually seizes $2000 from tourists or the $5500 my deadbeat brother paid me back, we'll discuss it and I'll agree with you that that is crossing the line.

But seizing $200,000 smuggled in the back if a semi tractor trailer is NOT crossing the line. It's good police work.

 

[Missourian]

If only people knew their rights and had the guts to look a cop in the eye and insist on them.

"You got anything illegal in your car here?"

"No."

"Mind if we take a look?"

Proper answer: "Yes, I do mind. If you want to get a search warrant, then you can search my car. Until then, you cannot." In order to get a search warrant, the cop is going to have to convince a judge that probable cause exists to issue the search warrant. If the only reason for the traffic stop was a traffic violation, with nothing more, the cop is either going to have to lie in the search warrant affidavit, or not get the warrant. If he lies, the search warrant affidavit is subject to extreme scrutiny once the case gets to court and if he is caught lying, his ass is grass.

Answer usually given (or answer which the police often claim is given): "Sure, go ahead."

Don't even get me started on police agencies confiscating "drug money" that ends up in their own coffers.

I agree George, if you want to search my car or house or person, get a warrant.

 

[Missourian]

If only people knew their rights and had the guts to look a cop in the eye and insist on them.

"You got anything illegal in your car here?"

"No."

"Mind if we take a look?"

Proper answer: "Yes, I do mind. If you want to get a search warrant, then you can search my car. Until then, you cannot." In order to get a search warrant, the cop is going to have to convince a judge that probable cause exists to issue the search warrant. If the only reason for the traffic stop was a traffic violation, with nothing more, the cop is either going to have to lie in the search warrant affidavit, or not get the warrant. If he lies, the search warrant affidavit is subject to extreme scrutiny once the case gets to court and if he is caught lying, his ass is grass.

Answer usually given (or answer which the police often claim is given): "Sure, go ahead."

Don't even get me started on police agencies confiscating "drug money" that ends up in their own coffers.

Exactly right. Amazes me the number of people who give permission and then get arrested because something was found THEN they want to sue b/c a warrant wasn't obtained. HEY IDIOT YOUR PERMISSION WAIVES THE REQUIREMENT.

of course it also amazes me the number of criminals who get busted with drugs or stolen property or whatever in their vehicle because they were pulled over for speeding, or a broken tail light or something. SHEESH if your hauling 2 tons of pot around you might want to obey the traffic laws DUH.

Good thing for cops that criminals are stupid. Guess it's a good thing for people like George to, or he wouldn't have a job.

I'll tell you what amazes me - the number of guys who (allegedly) give the cops permission to search, knowing they have meth in their pocket or a gun under the seat of the car. My clients don't always have the best judgment, but they can't be THAT stupid. And then toss in how many times I have heard, "He never asked permission to do shit. He just sat me on the curb and searched the damn car."

Kinda makes one wonder what goes on out there in the field where there are no witnesses except the cops and the crooks . . . .

I like the idea some police departments have adopted that requires officers to wear video cameras on their uniform. Then there is a visual record of all conversations between the officer and the suspect.

States like Maryland, where filming a police officer is a crime, need to be taken to task.

 

[Missourian]

Exactly right. Amazes me the number of people who give permission and then get arrested because something was found THEN they want to sue b/c a warrant wasn't obtained. HEY IDIOT YOUR PERMISSION WAIVES THE REQUIREMENT.

of course it also amazes me the number of criminals who get busted with drugs or stolen property or whatever in their vehicle because they were pulled over for speeding, or a broken tail light or something. SHEESH if your hauling 2 tons of pot around you might want to obey the traffic laws DUH.

Good thing for cops that criminals are stupid. Guess it's a good thing for people like George to, or he wouldn't have a job.

I'll tell you what amazes me - the number of guys who (allegedly) give the cops permission to search, knowing they have meth in their pocket or a gun under the seat of the car. My clients don't always have the best judgment, but they can't be THAT stupid. And then toss in how many times I have heard, "He never asked permission to do shit. He just sat me on the curb and searched the damn car."

Kinda makes one wonder what goes on out there in the field where there are no witnesses except the cops and the crooks . . . .

The truth is quite different though. Cops NEVER ask to search the vehicle. They STATE “I am going to search your car now, all right” and then look at you. The cursory “whatever” is usually said because most people do not even realize that it was a question in the first place. If you say no, they are likely to lie anyway. I used to get arrested DAILY because I drove home from work at 2am. Every day I would get a bullshit excuse like my lights are not working when we are both looking at them while they are on. I would get cuffed, jammed in the back of the police car and not one word was said to me until after the search turned up nothing. They did not ask or even try and justify their position. It was not the same cops all the time so I do not think they were targeting me because it was me but rather because the time. It was almost like it was against the law to be out past 11pm. I have been robbed, lied to and cheated by the police FAR more than not. I give them credit for the job they do and the fith they need to deal with on a daily basis but I give them ZERO trust as it has been violated FAR to many times.

All this and I have NEVER been convicted of any crime whatsoever outside of some traffic violations. I did dumb things as a teenager but never anything to warrant the attention I had received even if they knew about it.

Happen to me as well..."You drove over the double yellow line back there".

How do you prove you didn't?

And that wasn't in the city either, it was a little town with a population of 600...two police officers comprised the entire department.