What if the case were "many citizen's see officer do bad thing X but officer's camera doesn't show this clearly".
Then that would be different from what happened here. Because in this case, they didn't decide that the camera didn't clearly show what happened so they have to go with what the officer said. They decided that the camera showed one thing, the officer said another, and they went with the officer's testimony.
I am saying that the fact that the person was over the BAL suports not the stopping of the citizen, but the officer's assertion that he saw a reason to stop the citizen.
No, it doesn't support that at all. That is exactly justifying the stop based on what the search later found. If an officer pulls someone over because he's black, and finds illegal drugs and guns in the trunk, that doesn't make the stop justified. Maybe this officer had a good reason to pull her over and maybe he didn't, but whether she later turned out to be drunk has no bearing on that question.
To your defense the headline and comments on this story DO read AS THOUGH that's the ruling.
I'm not going to try to sum up the comments, but I disagree about the headline. I think it says exactly what happened: an officer's testimony was deemed more reliable than video evidence.
it is entirely reasonable that the fixed camera angle in the car WAS inferior to the officer'smovable perspective
Camera angle is not at issue. If it had been a bad angle, the argument would have been that the video doesn't show what's at question. What was determined is that the video showed one thing, and the officer said something conflicting, and the officer's testimony is more reliable.
The officer was factually correct in his suspicions , which supports 1 above
"The person turned out to be guilty" can never be a post facto justification for a search.
3- the Indiana SC did NOT render a decision anything like your headline.
"The trial court found, as a matter of fact, that to the extent Deputy Claeys’s testimony conflicted with the video, the former was more reliable than the latter."
The 5th amendment states in part, "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." Why did this case go to trial at the Supreme Court?
"Jeopardy does not attach in a retrial of a conviction that was reversed on appeal on procedural grounds (as opposed to evidentiary insufficiency grounds), in a retrial for which "manifest necessity" has been shown following a mistrial, and in the seating of a second grand jury if the first refuses to return an indictment."
Sounds like this was probably the first one.
Unless she was in danger of being punished by execution or amputation of a limb, how would that provision apply?
The double jeopardy provision doesn't only apply to execution and amputation.
No, the street performer was the subject (of the old headline, it's changed now). There was an action, and he was the one who took the action.
"From a functional perspective, a subject is a phrase that conflates nominative case with the topic."
"The nominative case (abbreviated NOM) is one of the grammatical cases of a noun or other part of speech, which generally marks the subject of a verb or the predicate noun or predicate adjective, as opposed to its object or other verb arguments. Generally, the noun "that is doing something" is in the nominative, and the nominative is the dictionary form of the noun."
So reverse the question: If tomorrow the TSA stopped checking your person, stopped checking carry on bags (except for a cursor run though a metal detector) and let people carry on almost anything, would you feel safe to fly?
I would, because I don't see any evidence that all this no-liquids-take-off-your-shoes-nude-scanner stuff is actually stopping anything. And it's been proven that it's still quite possible, perhaps even easy, to get weapons past security. And security issues on planes before 9/11 were a microscopically tiny problem. The only reason people are so freaked out about it now is because 9/11 was so horrible, not because it's so much more likely now. Reinforce and lock the cockpit door, use air marshals and metal detectors, and leave it at that.
Do you remember what it was like when people could walk with you right to the gate
Yeah, that was nice. Too bad we won't ever see that again. Remember how people could walk their kid to the gate, and grandma and grandpa could pick them up at the gate at the other end? No more of that.
Well, no, I don't, but then again I'm not the type to get a full head of steam over a headline that might have confused 2% of the population before they bothered to read a couple lines of the post....
It's not an issue of confusion, the issue is that the headline doesn't match the story (or reality). I find it strange that you think it's not a problem for the headline to say one thing and the story something else, just because it will all be clear after reading the story.
At the risk of a bad analogy, if some news organization ran the headline "Chris Christie shuts down traffic on GW Bridge" and the story was about how somebody who isn't Chris Christie shut down the GW Bridge, would you think that was no problem that the headline describes something that didn't actually happen, because all the right info is in the story?
I fail to see how he's mentioned in the headline which implies that he was responsible for taking the video down.
The headline is a simple subject-verb-object construction. The subject is the street performer. The action is getting something taken down. The object is the video. I don't know how you can miss it. It clearly states that the performer took an action that resulted in the video going down.
Which is kind of depressing - such a ridiculous story, and the only thing we can find to question is the wording of a headline?
You're making the classic mistake of assuming that the thing I mentioned is the only thing I'm thinking about the issue. I don't need to point out every single thing that's noteworthy about the story in order to make a comment about one issue. I don't even have to comment on the part of it I think is most important.
The headline is completely disingenuous. The street performer had nothing to do with getting the video taken down. I don't think this is consistent with TD's usually high standards and I hope you'll change it.