![]() 33-2 at PageID 634.) As they approached the intersection, the light changed from red to green, and once they got through the intersection, he saw more marked violations. 32-1 at PageID 156.)ĭeputy Hatfield proceeded to travel north on State Route 128 two to three car lengths behind Gray's vehicle, and he observed marked lane violations between where Gray turned and the upcoming intersection. at 633.) The turn was approximately 60 feet away from Major Leagues bar. at 632-33.) Gray was not traveling at a high rate of speed, and Deputy Hatfield was traveling 50 miles an hour and approaching him quickly, so he had to apply the brakes to avoid rear-ending him. at 632.) Deputy Hatfield was "150, 200 yards" away from the car when it was closest to him and had to apply the brakes on his car. He actually turned into the curb lane of State Route 128 and then back into the lane of travel that I was in. at PageID 631.)Īt state court trial on the subsequent charges, Deputy Hatfield described: "What drew my attention to him with the turn was when he made the turn it was actually a wide turn. 33-2 at PageID 632 (Hatfield testimony).) State Route 128 is a four-lane highway with a physical divider between the north and south lanes. As he approached the intersection of New London Road and State Route 128, he observed Plaintiff Kevin Gray's vehicle make a turn onto State Route 128. On December 12, 2014, Jasen Hatfield, then a Deputy Sheriff with the Butler County Sheriff's Office, was working third-shift road patrol and traveling north on State Route 128 from the Ross Township area to the City of Hamilton, Ohio. Account of Deputy Hatfield, Corporal Brockman, and Deputy Brown Because the accounts of the stop and subsequent arrest vary, the Court will begin with the officers' version of events and next turn to Plaintiff's version. ![]() § 1983 civil rights action arises from a late-night police stop of a driver on purported reasonable suspicion of drunk driving. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 36), to which Plaintiff responded in opposition (Doc. This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |