A police officer’s exaggerated testimony can still be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last week. The justices overruled a three-judge panel of state Court of Appeals that had previously tossed the evidence gathered by Bloomfield Police Sergeant George Rascon, whose description of events of November 11, 2008, failed to match what the judges saw from dashboard camera footage. Sergeant Rascon said motorist Jennifer Martinez raced to the intersection of Sycamore and North Third.
“And at the four-way stop sign the vehicle just went past the stop sign completely into the lane of traffic, southbound lane of traffic,” he testified. “She stepped on her brakes completely and she made a complete stop, but it was in the middle, in the lane of traffic.”
At trial, the lower court judge expressed surprise when comparing the officer’s version of events to the dashcam video.
“Alright, well you know after hearing Sergeant Rascon’s testimony I was certainly confused as to why the defendant would file the motion to suppress because he made it sound very clear why, why he stopped and that there was reasonable suspicion, but I think it just goes to show you really need to review the video in every case,” the trial judge observed. “And in this case after reviewing the video, I truly find the truth somewhere in between both positions. I certainly didn’t see Sergeant Rascon’s testimony that there was, she stopped in the middle of the intersection, I don’t think that was the case.”
The Court of Appeals found that the officer’s stretching of the truth made his testimony unreliable, and the video itself made it impossible to determine whether there was a legitimate violation of law. Motorist Jennifer Martinez came to a full stop at that intersection, but there were no lines painted on the ground. From the angle of the video, the three-judge panel simply could not tell whether she stopped too far into the intersection, or not, so they threw out the case. The Supreme Court justices disagreed last week, insisting that the bar for reasonable suspicion was so low that it justified a traffic stop in this case and that the appellate court should have deferred to the trial judge.
“The district court resolved the parties’ factual dispute in favor of the state, finding that defendant drove too far into the intersection before slamming on her brakes and coming to a stop,” Justice Barbara J. Vigil wrote for the high court. “We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred by reweighing the evidence on appeal and failing to view the facts in the manner most favorable to the prevailing party.”
A copy of the decision is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1/4/2018)
Poster Comment:
A police officer’s exaggerated testimony can still be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last week.
Huh? What - isn't that called "perjury"? Apparently when a cop lies on the stand it's simply "exaggeration". When a serf does it - he charged with a felony.
#1: rlk To: Deckard (#0)
rlk posted on 2018-01-12 18:03:15 Reply Private Reply
#2: Gatlin To: Deckard (#0)
Here is a listing of the other cop-hating fabrications on the same blog:
All cop-hating yellow journalism articles. No, that’s not what the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court on 1/4/2018).The Supreme Court justices ruled that a police officer’s testimony can be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense and that running the stop sign “justified a traffic stop in this case and that the appellate court should have deferred to the trial judge.”
Huh...No, that’s called TRYING to inject your PERSONAL OPINION into three court rulings. That’s called a ruling with the officer testifying as to what he saw. No. Obviously the law is the same for all. You can find cases where police officers and “serfs” were convicted of perjury as well you can find cases where police officers and “serfs” were not charged with perjury when some felt they should be....all equally under the same laws.Apparently you are attempting to inject a biased opinion to serve your cop-hating agenda and it is not working. A police officer can charged with perjury if it is discovered that they have lied. There was absolutely no proof the police officer lied on the stand in the case here and therefore perjury was never any consideration except in some reporters cop-hating mind.
You have a right to your opinion, as warped as as wrong as it is....however you cannot negate a court ruling because YOU personally believe a police officer testified in a manner you consider untruthful (exaggeration) and self-declare that the police officer committed perjury. You cannot do this simply because you did not agree with the verdict. It is a repeatedly proven scientific fact many people can have many different interpretations of the same event. That does not make them all perjurers.
Uh, BTW....I find nowhere in the yellow journalism article is the fact mentioned that the woman stopped was definitely DRUNK when she ran the stop sign and she was found guilty of DUI. Why do you suppose the cop-hating so called “reporter” conveniently left that bit of important information out of the article....huh?
It must really suck for you to find court decisions involving the conduct by police officers which you disagree with.
Oh, you poor baby ...
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-12 18:08:32 Reply Private Reply
#3: Deckard To: Gatlin (#2)
A copy of the decision is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1/4/2018)
Deckard posted on 2018-01-12 20:08:42 Reply Private Reply
#4: Gatlin To: Deckard (#3)
The BIG LIE was the one told by the blogger who tries to imitate a “reporter” in his trashy blog he calls The Newspaper when he wrote:
The New Mexico Supreme Court did not uphold “exaggerating cop” testimony. That was NOT a charge. What the Supreme Court justices actually did was that they ruled that a police officer’s testimony can be used to convict a motorist of a traffic offense and that running the stop sign “justified a traffic stop in this case and that the appellate court should have deferred to the trial judge.”A copy of the decision is available at New Mexico v. Martinez (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1/4/2018) for you to try to understand and comprehend the ruling and its true meaning.
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-12 20:34:55 Reply Private Reply
#5: Deckard To: Gatlin (#4)
A more accurate title would have been "New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Perjurious Cop Testimony"
After all - he did provide false testimony that was shown to be a lie by the video.
Oh wait - maybe the camera lied.
Yeah - that must be it.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-12 20:48:26 Reply Private Reply
#6: Gatlin To: Deckard (#5)
“Accurate” is the KEY word....and both hose titles are fictitious titles designed to implant a hidden assumption so readers can consider it a recognition of reality....it is prejudice.
That’s simply not true and you know that. Read the decisions. Cameras don’t lie....those who post yellow journalism definitely do lie. Videos must be interpreted. and the district court viewed the dash dash-cam video and concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop.Yeah – that WAS it.
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-12 21:22:09 Reply Private Reply
#7: GrandIsland To: Deckard (#0)
Just like when cops get shot or ambushed... and they knew the dangers of the job when they started... it is what it is. When the highest courts rule in favor of the officer... it is what it is.
Suck it up, you whiney bitch.
GrandIsland posted on 2018-01-12 21:46:17 Reply Private Reply
#8: buckeroo To: GrandIsland (#7)
Isn't that kinda' like gettin' an "Outta Jail Free Card?" Isn't that embarrassing to society and set precedence for social class grief?
buckeroo posted on 2018-01-12 21:52:36 Reply Private Reply
#9: GrandIsland To: buckeroo (#8)
You play monopoly too much, Belize ball sniffer.
GrandIsland posted on 2018-01-12 21:58:03 Reply Private Reply
#10: buckeroo To: GrandIsland, yukon's best bud (#9)
buckeroo posted on 2018-01-12 22:09:26 Reply Private Reply
#11: Gatlin To: Deckard (#6)
The woman was drunk and ran a stop sign.
She was tried for DUI....she lost, she was convicted.
She challenged running the stop sign charge all the way up to the New Mexico Supreme Court...she lost there too.
Whine away all you want to....but this is the end of the story.
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-12 22:22:49 Reply Private Reply
#12: GrandIsland To: Gatlin (#11)
DickTard likes to lick the boots of a criminal.
GrandIsland posted on 2018-01-12 22:39:18 Reply Private Reply
#13: Gatlin To: GrandIsland (#12)
Jail birds of a feather flock together.
I wonder what DickTard’s rap sheet really looks like.
People that have the same morals often tend to group.
That is no doubt why he is so protective of criminals.
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-13 00:32:30 Reply Private Reply
#14: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
Wait a minute. The cop was actually there. He saw her come to a stop in the intersection. He issued a ticket.
Along comes a three-judge panel which reviews the video and says, "Geez. From this angle we can't tell. So toss the case."
Take a lesson from football instant replay --if the video is insufficient to overturm the ruling on the field, the play stands.
misterwhite posted on 2018-01-14 08:39:34 Reply Private Reply
#15: misterwhite To: Gatlin (#11)
Gosh. The article never said that. Now the whole story makes more sense.
misterwhite posted on 2018-01-14 08:41:27 Reply Private Reply