What happened is that the woman first said (probably when asked) is that she takes Xanax. This is not recorded. But cops think abuse when they hear Xanax, and they think DUI.
Then she refused to drive on her rims to get out of the road. Fair enough. She refused a police tow because she thought she would save money with a tow through her insurance, the police wanted the police tow to save time.
She spent an ungodly long time on the phone with the insurance rep who was slooooow and kept asking for the same information instead of entering it when she first got it.
Miss Mait was asked for her driver’s license several times and kept waving off the officer - “Can’t you see I’m on the phone?” in a brassy blaring voice. She also insisted on arranging a rental car then instead of waiting until later.
So you have a self-centered, rude woman keeping officers in traffic, not giving up her license, not thinking about all the other drivers stuck behind her. She’d annoy pretty much anyone.
When the female officer got annoyed, she used the f-word and the s-word. Then Miss Mait instead of thinking, hmm, I have seriously annoyed this police officer, I had better defuse the situation and complain later, she starts yelling, I want your supervisor, I want your supervisor right!
No excuse for perjury and filing a false official statement on the police officer’s part. No excuse for not warning Mait that she was going to be arrested if she didn’t hang up and hand over her license right now - but it would have been a valid arrest if she hadn’t co-operated at that point.
I just thought it was interesting how even a middle-aged white woman in a Lexus can seriously tick off the police if she goes about it the right way.
The audio tape, made public this week, depicts a starkly different exchange than what Stasnek and Fernandes described in their reports and during questioning under oath.
The tape is contradictory to the cops BS statement under oath.
Yep, but she isn't on the government payroll, carrying a gun and badge, or given special credibility while on the witness stand.
Then Miss Mait instead of thinking, hmm, I have seriously annoyed this police officer, I had better defuse the situation...
She's not trained or paid to know how to diffuse situations. The cops...well, they should be.
did you even read the article you posted ???
Mait spent a night in jail, charged with felony obstruction and — because officers believed she was impaired by drugs — DUI. The latter charge was dropped when a toxicology test came back positive for only Wellbutrin...
seems the criminals decided to tack on a charge to intimidate her, hoping to make her an instant criminal with the DUI laws if she had anything in her system...
their *report* is a proven lie, therefore the burden of proof is a bit higher than your sayso of what she might or might not have said...
it would be nice if her lawyer would file a *Deprivation of Rights* suit to bankrupt and jail these two for conspiring to harm a citizen that they should have been SERVING...
I do not tolerate my employees and servants (yes, the category "servants" most definitely includes police officers) directing foul language at me.
You know all of what you allege could be true, but the two officers should still be fired and tried for their crimes. If you or I lied like them we would face criminal charges, so should they.