I wanted to make a note of an issue that I was not aware of previously. Recently I used a service to do a background check on myself. Unfortunately with this specific service it does not make note of the status of the actual charges shown, a big problem in my opinion. For instance, even though the misdemeanor charges were not prosecuted as part of the plea deal, the service I used made no distinction between the specifics of the felony and the misdemeanors. In turn it makes it appear as though those charges were applied to me along with the felony when they were not. See the problem?
Now this isn't the issue that prompted me to make this post. I knew the nolle prossed misdemeanors would appear in some form on a background check and was unconcerned. A felony is far worse to have so who cares if the misdemeanors look like convictions on a specific service. The reason for making this post is that there was another note on my record showing a "failure to yield" ticket back around 2004 - one that was actually thrown out. Now if you've followed my blog you'll remember I mentioned that I had a clean record and never received so much as a speeding ticket. If someone did a check on me they would think I was lying. They would also be completely wrong.
It is a sign of just how screwed up our legal system is that things you haven't been convicted of will still remain on your record unless you go to court to remove it. Doesn't matter if the system screwed up or you were found not guilty - why should they be bothered to wipe your record clean on their own when it is your fault for even getting blamed in the first place, right? That's essentially what we are dealing with when it comes to this ticket. I'm not going to go into a detailed story here, just touch on a few points to explain the situation.
The ticket was given to me during an accident I was involved with back in 2004. I was struck while turning left at an intersection. Even though a witness to the accident stated the other driver was going faster than the speed limit, and the extent of damage showed the other party was going well above the speed limit of 25mph, the cop on the scene ignored this.
It appears that I had a police officer handling the case who was about to go off shift. He was blatantly bored and rushed to fill out paperwork. He decided to go the easy route and just hand me a ticket for "failure to yield the right of way". He did this because I had a green light but not the arrow. He was so unobservant that he actually asked me if I was able to drive the (totaled) truck home, while he's standing next to the right front tire that was folded under my truck. Yeah sure officer I can get it back on just three wheels and a bent frame.
Well courtroom time came for the ticket. One witness was present and repeated that he believed the other driver was speeding (though to be fair he also said I took too long to clear the intersection). The witness also pointed out that the other driver made no attempt to avoid me or slow down when I stopped, and he further stated that she had more than enough time and room to do so.
The judge took a long look at the photos of the damage and asked the other driver just how fast she was going. She hesitated and then added "25 maybe 30". The judge looked at her, then back at the pictures, then stared at the police officer. He set the photos aside and stated that he felt there was more to this and that obviously it would be dealt with as a civil matter. He found me not guilty of the ticket, citing that when I stopped immediately upon seeing the other driver (backed up by the witness) that I thus yielded the right of way, and that the other driver was then obligated to have made an attempt to avoid me. It didn't have any bearing on the civil side of it of course, which I had to deal in with in 2006 - the next day after getting out of jail from the damage done by Ms. Manweiler.
Even if someone did a background check on me and it was indicated that the ticket was a "not guilty", they might assume that a failure to yield the right of way was a standard traffic offense that I had been pulled over for. As you can see this isn't the case. The first and only time I've ever been pulled over by a cop happened as a result of the legal issues brought by Ms. Manweiler/Dickerman in 2006 - when two Hampton police cars came out behind me from a side street while I was on my way home after work.
So now you know the reason for the ticket on the record, and again I was found not guilty. Even my pre-sentencing report did not show the ticket because it was thrown out. So if anyone saw it on a background check and believed I was lying about a clean record or my claim of having never been pulled over before, you were wrong. Just because the court system doesn't automatically clear things someone was found not guilty of doesn't mean I had a criminal record. I shouldn't have been given the ticket in the first place and the judge agreed. I just wanted to make a statement on this, as I could see someone like Ms. Manweiler grasping at straws claiming I was lying because of my claim of not even having a speeding ticket.
It is interesting however how things worked out for me in regards to police. My father is a retired Newport News police officer with 21 years under his belt. He was a SWAT team member and later a detective. I had always been a big supporter of law enforcement and had seriously considered becoming a police officer at one point in time. Yet on three separate occasions when I needed a cop to do their job - they failed.
The first was in 2000 with John Coleman of the William and Mary campus police. He visited my home to arrest me, and informed my family and I that he had been told by Ms. Manweiler that she saw me driving a vehicle around the W&M campus to follow her. He discovered this was a lie by Ms. Manweiler after my mother informed him I didn't have a drivers license let alone a vehicle. Coleman covered for Ms. Manweiler instead of taking action, and continued to treat me like the bad guy even when I showed him evidence of what was going on.
The second was 2004 with this accident - an officer who just wanted to get out of there instead of paying attention to the facts. I almost got taken to civil court thanks to him.
The third time is 2006 and is the situation that gave rise to this blog - where Detective Nicolas Rudman allowed himself to be tricked by a woman fresh out of law school. Forget saying he did a bad investigation, because frankly he conducted no investigation whatsoever. He basically took the claims and the bits of paper Ms. Manweiler handed him at face value without any attempt to verify a single thing. This entire case was based on nothing more than Ms. Manweiler pointing a finger and saying "He did this". Rudman, along with the rest of C'ville law enforcement, was then all too willing to allow me to get thrown under the bus to cover up for their own screw ups. Very honorable.
All three times I was harmed in some way, the third time of course being the worst of the damages. It is pretty bad when the son of a former police officer gets screwed over three times in his life by police who didn't do their job - officers who couldn't care less if they got it right or not so long as they kept getting a paycheck. I've gotten to the point where I don't even trust police anymore unless I personally know the officer. It's a shame, but then so far I've never been shown that I should trust law enforcement in this day and age.
