[ad_1]
Justice has never been so good.
The decision of a Connecticut judge solved a legal dilemma that stunned some and left others hungry: could a policeman confuse a McDonald's hash brown with a cell phone?
In the case of Jason Stiber, the answer is "yes". He was found not guilty Friday after successfully challenging the $ 300 distracted conduct quote received last year.
"That was the case of the century," said laughing Stiber's lawyer, John Thygerson. "He was pretty happy, obviously he was pretty happy."
Stiber's victory came nearly 13 months after his arrest by a Westport police officer who claimed to have seen him use his mobile phone the morning of April 11, 2018. year, but refused to give up – in telling the Washington Post on Friday that he had distributed a "substantial" sum to hire Thygerson to prove that he was not talking at all on his phone.
His willingness to bear the legal fees – which exceeded the cost of the ticket – was a matter of principle, he added.
"Distracted driving offenses are recorded in your file and they never go away," Stiber said in an interview. "Plus, many people do not realize that your insurance premiums are going up."
In February, the cap. Shawn Wong Won testified that he had "clearly" seen Stiber speak in a black cell phone while driving that morning, Hour newspaper reported at that time. Wong Won said in court seeing Stiber hold a bright object the size of a cell phone while stirring his lips.
[Cops say it was a cellphone. But this driver hired a lawyer to prove it was a hash brown.]
Thygerson refuted this assertion, explaining that Stiber's lip movement was "chewing-compatible" with the hash brown that he had ordered from McDonald's a few moments earlier. The phone records show that Stiber did not have a conversation when he was intercepted, Thygerson said. His client's car also has Bluetooth capabilities that allow him to talk without holding his phone.
To reinforce his defense, Stiber said he had asked for documents showing that Wong Won was at the 15th hour of a 16-hour double shift when he intercepted Stiber; offering another reason why the agent may have confused the fried potato for a cell phone.
In the end, the judge concluded Friday that the state was not able to meet its burden of proof, citing a lack of evidence showing that Stiber was in fact on the phone at all. when he was intercepted. The Post examined a copy of the decision, in which the judge cited a court case involving another Connecticut driver who had been found not guilty in 2016 after being intercepted for using his phone.
"It's just the evidence that the police – there's nothing bad here – but that the police are human and make mistakes, that's all," Thygerson said.
The Westport police did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday night.
Stiber is relieved by the verdict, but said the efforts he has made to defend himself illustrate a more serious problem in the justice system. He had to go through two trials, miss four days of work and pay a lawyer to get the right result. Difficult steps, according to him, should not force others.
"That's why I did it, because I would not want anyone else to go through there," he said. "The others do not have the means to defend themselves in the same way."
It remains to be seen whether the case of Stiber will set a new precedent in future business. He acknowledged, however, that his tribulations had made him think twice before eating hash browns.
"I certainly have not eaten as much as before, but I always go to McDonald's for other things," he said. "It has been a long ordeal, but I would prefer to avoid trouble in the future."
[ad_2]
Source link