[untrained skeptic]

It's next to the third paragraph under "Related links." Whether she was guilty or not is irrelevant.

What is relavant is that the jury heard the whole story and convicted her on all counts.

You appear to consider her lawyer's version of the event to be more credible than the police's version. The jury disagreed and they would likely have had much more information to base their opinions on and would have been able to listen to the people involved explain their sides of the event.

To me, that's a lot more relavant than what the person who is trying to sue the police department's lawyer says.

[JTN]

You appear to consider her lawyer's version of the event to be more credible than the police's version. The jury disagreed and they would likely have had much more information to base their opinions on and would have been able to listen to the people involved explain their sides of the event.

The jury was considering the evidence that the woman committed a crime, not whether or not the police actions were appropriate. It's not that I consider the lawyer's version of events more trustworthy than that of the police. I consider the video more trustworthy.

[School of Rational Thought]

"What is relavant is that the jury heard the whole story and convicted her on all counts."

No it is not relevant. The the roadside cops did have this information, nor were they judges, nor after she passed the roadside tests have probable cause.

You cannot mix after the fact information with what the cops knew at the time or had reason to believe at the time of the incident.