The dashcam video of defendant\u2019s alleged failure to come to a full stop doesn\u2019t contradict the officer\u2019s testimony that defendant didn\u2019t stop. \u201cWhether the driver actually committed the violation is beside the point.\u201d United States v. Sanders, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183073 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2020)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The circumstances here are similar to those in Muriel: the court has video evidence where it is a “close question whether [the defendant] was [committing a traffic violation],” but it cannot definitively see a traffic violation or the absence of one. Id. In fact, this court examined the videotape dozens of times and never once was confident the vehicle made a full stop, albeit a close call. Thus, the court must look to the rest of the record, specifically the testimony of Officer Brinkman. The court found him credible given his detailed recollection and proximity to the vehicle. He testified that the Dodge Charger slowed down “but didn’t come to a complete stop before entering the intersection.” Tr. 11. He saw that its brake lights came on. Tr. 11-12. “Even though the vehicle slowed it did not come to a complete stop at the stop sign like you are supposed to.” Tr. 39. According to Officer Brinkman, a complete stop occurs when “there’s no forward momentum on the vehicle.” Tr. 39. He said he saw the Dodge Charger maintain forward momentum. Id.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The dashcam video of defendant\u2019s alleged failure to come to a full stop doesn\u2019t contradict the officer\u2019s testimony that defendant didn\u2019t stop. \u201cWhether the driver actually committed the violation is beside the point.\u201d United States v. Sanders, 2020 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading