Plano Cops Make Bitter Divorce Even Worse

This is news only because he filed suit.

Many times the spouse of one side or the other gets to the police. On a higher scale, Illinois, Bolingbrook Police Department knew Drew Peterson was targeting the one fianc smart enough to break up with him; (of Drew's four wives, one is dead due to strange circumstances and the last one is missing), and wouldn't allow her to press charges against him for his illegal arrests.

Details at www.FamilyLawCourts.com/badcop.html

Or the state of Texas, at www.FamilyLawCourts.com/statetexas.html

But newspapers refuse to cover the one court used most often, and for the longest period of time. Time to demand a beat reporter for family court.

Hardly the first time the Plano Police have been involved in this sort of strangeness.

These cops should be fired, prohibited from ever holding any type of law enforment work. They should have to pay this guys attorney fees, and each should be made to pay the man $50,000 restitution. His X should be denied any child support or alimony, she should lose her rights to the kids and she should have to pay him $100K in restitution. The chief of police should be fired as well as all the supervising officiers who were on duty when this took place.

What a cunt whore bitch she is.

No wonder there is a drug problem in Plano, the cops are too busy doing favors for friends instead of doing their job.

I do want to point out that the writer of the story, Jesse Hyde, was wrong on one main point and should correct this. In the story, he wrote a quoate, from Phillip Linder, a Dallas attorney who defended Boswell on the DWI charge, which says..."Typically, because probable cause can be challenged in court, an officer will turn on the camera on the dash to establish that the guy is speeding, or that the car was all over the road. But in this case—and the video shows this—they didn't turn the camera on until they had pulled him over."

This statement about officers failing to turn on the camera to record a possible DWI, while the possible DWI is driving down the road. This is normally, incorrect.

Why? An officer observes a traffic violation, then turns the lights on. In most normal departments, the camera is activated when the lights are turned on. Therefore, the camera never catches the actual offense.

It would be bad business for an officer to follow a DWI around the city, allowing the DWI to drive on a public street, just so he can record a bunch of bad driving.

A violator is stopped for a traffic violation. Once contact is made with the driver and observations are made by the officer, it then turns into a possible DWI, or a warning or a citation, etc....

Would you truly want the officers, where ever it is that you drive, to allow a DWI to drive around so they can be recorded?

You may be the other driver, crossing the next intersection...All the officer has now, is an accident he filmed. No telling how the accident may turn out.

While reading this story (and many involving DPD and the surrounding counties), I'm reminded of a line from Blade Runner - "If you're not cop, you're little people."

*note to columnist: Better watch out!

Cops are paid off pigs these days and lazy, in the old days I would have chased him across half a dozen states.