So that officer with the 628 page personnel file has been suspended 3 times in 14 years...

[Gravitycollapse]

The brief backstory:

I was pulled over for speeding early on a Sunday morning, May 26, as I was on my way to work. I was late. Anyway, I showed the officer my license, registration and insurance card. The insurance card was a digital version on my phone which is allowed in Arizona.

Arizona Revised Statutes 28-4131-3: "A display on a wireless communication device" is proof of insurance.

Officer Christopher Romero told me that a digital copy is not legal in Arizona. I told him that I believed he was incorrect in his claim. He paused, took a deep angered breath and said "Where do you work?" I responded by telling him where I worked...

"Well, you work at _______. I work for the Department of Public Safety. I'm a 20 year veteran. I think I know what I'm talking about."
"Are you sure of that?"
"Absolutely."


I was written a ticket for speeding and not having proper insurance documentation (The latter carries a fine of over 1000 dollars).

I decided to go to court and demand that the violations be thrown out due to the officers harassment and lack of knowledge of essential law.

I filed a public records request of his personnel file. After 20 days, I had all 628 pages placed on a CD. I have been reviewing them for the last couple hours. And finally got through all of the files related to his misconduct.

Here's some interesting information:

Officer Christopher Romero has been suspended without pay 3 times since 1998.

1998: Officer Romero was off duty and clocked by another officer traveling 70 mph in a 40 mph zone. Officer gave him a citation for 60 in a 40. When asked why he was speeding, Romero reported to another officer that he was following a loaded truck with "2 to 12 kilos" of cocaine onboard and that he was undercover at the time. Officer Romero expressed anger that the drugs were now "hot" on the street because the other officer pulled him over. After investigation, it was found that Romero was lying and that he was neither on duty nor following anyone with drugs in their vehicle.

-Suspension without pay for 16 hours because of “Dishonesty”-

1999: Officer Romero lied to his department upon transfer to another position when he failed to turn in his previous equipment, including three work credit cards, on time. He stated in an interview that he turned the equipment in several days before he actually did.

-Suspension without pay for 40 hours because of “Insubordination”-


2011: Officer Romero was subject to a “Professional Standards Investigation” for improperly using another officer’s sign on authorization to access jobs on multiple computers on multiple occasions. Officer Romero would use the other officers information, without permission, to sign up for jobs and then do them himself. That officer became suspicious and reported Officer Romero, and two other officers, to the department. After the investigation, the department recommended 120 hours suspension without pay.

-Suspension without pay for 40 hours because of “Improper Procedure”-

Despite all of this, Officer Christopher Romero has been promoted multiple times from his initial position as an Officer Cadet in 1989 to his current position as a Sergeant.

[TheDebbieDee]

1. So, this scumbag is an Arizona State Trooper?

Are you by any chance tan, brown or black? Just asking cause I need it to complete my profile of taser-happy, control freaks that have infiltrated law enforcement.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. I'm white.

[Gravitycollapse]

4. Also, he's Highway Patrol.

[DevonRex]

3. Good job. Just imagine all the

things he has done that he either got away with or that didn't rise to the level of an official action. Many times, slimy stuff involving actual cases doesn't go in a file anywhere. They're afraid to jeopardize convictions.

ETA I know this from experience.

[Gravitycollapse]

5. He was accused of excessive force in 2009 against a minor.

[DevonRex]

6. Jesus. I'm glad you got out of there

without something bad happening to you, then. You'll be OK in your court case. And the judge may know this goon from way back.

[Gravitycollapse]

8. He also caused a "preventable car accident". I'm trying to find that report right now.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to find anything in a 628 page document.

[loli phabay]

12. preventable car accident is a phrase that covers a multitude, it could be he backed into something

Or hit febris on the roadway all the way to reckless.

[loli phabay]

7. you should win on the insurance ticket but you will probuably lose on the speed

Just out of interest how fast were you going.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. I'm not actually sure as I was not looking at my speedometer.

I changed from the 202 to the 143 and the speed limit went from 65 to 55. I believe I was going somewhere around 70. He claimed that his VASCAR calculated my speed at 82. A VASCAR is basically a stop watch that the officer clicks using fixed markers on the freeway. Click it on as the vehicle passes the first marker and click it off when the vehicle passes the second. The computer calculates the time over the given distance and spits out a speed.

I requested calibration documentation for the specific VASCAR machine and was told that none existed because there is no legal requirement that VASCAR machines be tested for accuracy.

[loli phabay]

11. if your honest when you go to court, the judge will drop the insurance ticket

And probuably amend the speed to 70, as you admit to that. I would just stick to the facts of the stop rather than try to bring personalities into it. He may be a jerk and the judge may know hes a jerk but judges in general dont like it when you go grom the facts of the stop into other areas. Hope it works out for you.

[Gravitycollapse]

13. I am not so optimistic about the judge amending the speed to 70.

The police "brotherhood" mentality tends to win the judges favor. Especially in civil cases where there only needs to be a preponderance of the evidence.

[loli phabay]

14. from experience if you just use facts the judge should drop the insurance ticket

If you are respectful and just state the facts there is a good chance he will reduce it. Especially if he has had issues with the officer before. Worth a try, just dont annoy the judge and keep personal feelings out of it.

[Boom Sound 416]

10. Nice work citizen! Sincerely.

I wonder what his union standing is?

[Savannahmann]

15. I'm going to go against the grain here

I've read the thread to date. I've read everyone congratulating you for your diligence, your efforts, and even astounded that this bugger is a police man. I've even read the predictions of your getting the charges dropped re: Proof of insurance.

I'm going to go the other way. I bet the Judge takes the Cops word, no matter how worthless it is, over yours and finds you guilty of both charges. With a lawyer, you have a slightly better chance, but to prove that you showed him your card on the phone, you'll need the tape from the car, presuming that there is one. To get that, and get it introduced to evidence, assuming the Judge will view it, will take some legal maneuvering.

It isn't enough that the cop is a lying bastard, and the record shows it. The Judges automatically believe the cops over the citizens, no matter how many citizens all swear they saw the same thing.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. There was no audio, video or officer notes.

I attempted to retrieve all of those but they do not exist.

[Savannahmann]

18. Then it comes down to your word versus his.

Proving that he lied before isn't going to prove that he is lying this time. I'd bet money the Judge sides with him. I don't like telling you this, but it's my experience from watching court from time to time. The Judges all act like the Police would rather eat a raw turd than tell a lie.

[Gravitycollapse]

20. I've been to court before. I know I will probably lose on the speeding ticket.

The insurance ticket is a slam dunk. And I hope the judge says something to the officer.

[grantcart]

21. I have a good friend who is a judge and when his daughter was cited with a speeding ticket

he appeared and had a few questions for the officer.

He asked the officer about the radar gun that was being used and asked about the calibration schedule and certification, ie when was the last time the gun was calibrated and certified and was beyond the manufacturers recommendation period of time had the read on the gun thrown out and the ticket dismissed.

Don't know if you have enough time to investigate what instrument was being used and so on but you seem industrious so I share it with you.

My guess is that the officer went back and checked on the rule found out that he was wrong and will be a no show at the hearing.

After the hearing you should make an official complaint to the police review board, especially regarding his badgering you about "where you work". He should have stuck to the issues at hand.

edited to add never mind: I see from the thread above that you already covered calibration.

I think it is fair to get the cop on the stand and point out that he was angry that you challenged him on the law and that he has a history of anger problems and that is why he added X number of MPHs to the ticket. You can ask him if he still thinks he is correct about the insurance part of the law and if he is wrong about that then it is also possible he is wrong about the exact speed. Ask him what the tolerance is in the watch he uses and if he says none then you can undermine that point because there is always some tolerance.

I disagree with the comments about the judges siding with police officers. They do have sympathy for good police officers but they are very pissed at lazy prosecutors and sloppy policeman (unless they are a lazy judge) and generally like it when citizens stand up.

One more point: they are bored. They see the same ole thing over and over again. If you show them something unusual you will make their morning, and always show maximum respect for the court.

Good luck.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. It was VASCAR. It is not required to undergo calibration testing.

I already investigated.

[grantcart]

23. I edited while you responded and added some more comments as well - good luck

[apnu]

17. Did you get the tickets dismissed? (nt)

[Gravitycollapse]

19. I have court on Monday.