Jessie Thornton sleeps during the day and runs errands and works out during the night.
"My wife, she's an ER nurse and works three 12-hour shifts, so I adjusted my schedule to be like her schedule," said Thornton.
The 64-year-old retired firefighter moved to a Surprise retirement community from Ohio.
Jessie says his late hours have put him in the police spotlight.
"I've been stopped 10 times in Surprise and given four tickets, it's amazing," said Thornton.
His latest incident with Surprise police officers prompted Thornton to hire a lawyer with plans to sue the department.
Around 11 p.m. Thornton, according to Surprise Police Department paperwork, was pulled over for crossing the white line in his lane.
"He (the officer) walked up and he said 'I can tell you're driving DUI by looking in your eyes,'" said Thornton.
The 64-year-old says his eyes could have been red because he had just left LA Fitness where he was in the pool swimming.
"I take my glasses off and he says, 'You've got bloodshot eyes.' I said, 'I've been swimming at LA Fitness,' and he says, 'I think you're DUI,'" said Thornton. "He (the officer) goes, 'Well we're going to do a sobriety test.' I said, 'OK, but I got bad knees and a bad hip with surgery in two days.'"
Medical documents show Thornton was scheduled to have hip replacement surgery two days after the incident.
According to the police report, the officer notes that Thornton does have a hip and knee problem.
Thornton said two other officers arrived and he conducted the sobriety test.
"At one point, one of the officers shined the light in my eye and said, 'Oh, sorry,' and asked the other officer if he was doing it right,'" said Thornton.
Thornton said he was then placed in handcuffs and told to sit on the curb.
"I couldn't even sit on the ground like that and they knew it and I was like laying on the ground, then they put me in the back of an SUV and when I asked the officer to move her seat up 'cause my hip hurt she told me to stop whining," said Thornton.
According to documents provided to ABC15 from the City of Surprise, Thornton was taken to police headquarters where he took a breathalyzer test.
The test, according to the police documents came back with a blood alcohol level of 0.000.
"Yes, I do the breathalyzer and it comes back zero, zero, zero," said Thornton.
While in custody, a "DRE" or drug recognition expert is called to test Thornton.
"After he did all the tests, he says, 'I would never have arrested you, you show no signs of impairment,'" said Thornton.
The Surprise resident is right. The police documents show the drug recognition officer wrote, "I conducted an evaluation of Jessie, in my opinion Jessie was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol."
According the documents from the Surprise Police Department, the blood analysis showed no drugs were detected in Thornton's blood.
Jessie's car had been impounded and the MVD notified of the DUI charge.
"I then get this message that my license is being suspended and I have to take some sort of drinking class or something," said Thornton.
According to the police documents, Thornton was later released to his wife.
"She was at work and had to come get me, it was a mess, I couldn't believe it," said Thornton. "On top of that my car was impounded on a Friday night and they said I couldn't get it until Monday.."
Thornton now claims this wasn't DUI.
"It was driving while black," said Thornton.
"This is a case of D-W-B, driving while black," said Thornton's attorney Marc Victor.
Victor's office has filed a notice of claim against the City of Surprise seeking $500,000.
"It's not totally about the money, although I'm already out more than $5,000, that's $5,000 that I don't have," said Thornton.
"This is not the way American citizens ought to be treated by officers or treated by anybody for that matter," said Victor.
To be clear, ABC15 provided the Surprise Police Department an opportunity to talk about Thornton's incident, however, due to standard policy, the Department was unable to comment due to pending legal action.
The DUI charge was recently dropped, but Victor's office claims it's not enough.
"Here he (Jessie) is being harassed for no other reason than the color of his skin," said Attorney Charity Clark. "It's frustrating that somebody had to go through this type of experience, they poke and prod him and arrest him for nothing."
Thornton said his daughter, who is in law enforcement, has filed an official complaint with the City of Surprise.
"Listen, I was a firefighter and firefighters work hand in hand with police officers, I have nothing against police officers, this just wasn't right."
As for Jessie's hip, medical documents show he did have hip replacement surgery days after the arrest.
"I just don't want any of this to happen to somebody else," said Thornton.
I almost got arrested because my eyes were red; got asked out of car and my 9 year old girl was inside while the bitch second cop asked her questions which is completely illegal.
ReplyDeleteYou people in the usa have a serious problem with out of control police and government. Sue their ass off while you still can - at every opportunity.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I don't understand... can anyone tell me.... why is it that there only seem to be cowards in the US? Nobody is standing up to fight this corrupt system. I bet the same happened in Germany in the late 30's... Nobody courageous enough to tell them STOP.
ReplyDeleteThis is what you call "Home of the brave"? Who is brave? Where are the brave people? All I see is scared sheepish slaves. And don't get me started on "Land of the free"... I know you Americans have been brainwashed into believing you are the best country in the world, but come on... It's like the tooth fairy, one day you've got to stop believing that nonsense.
In-personam jurisdiction derives from due process. Substantive due process is found in the fourth article in amendment to the constitution which states ” no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation” Procedural due process was promulgated in furtherance of substantive due process and guarantees substantive due process if followed faithfully. There are only four instruments which confer in-personam jurisdiction to the court over a specific individual, the warrant, the summons, the indictment and the civil summons.
ReplyDeleteOn the criminal side:the warrant,the summons, and the indictment
all satisfy the substantive requirement of a finding of probable cause supported by an oath, (complaint). In most states the traffic ticket qualifies as the oath, as it is signed by the complaining LEO (law enforcement officer), but where is the probable cause hearing and subsequent finding of probable cause? Many people refer to a traffic ticket as a summons, but does it meet the procedural requirements for a summons? Criminal rules of procedure require that a summons be signed by the issuing magistrate, but the only signatures on your ticket are yours and the LEO. Likewise, a warrant must be signed by the issuing magistrate and an indictment must be read in open court by the foreman of the grand jury in the presence of the prosecutor. Obviously that did not happen.
So what if the ticket is styled as a civil matter? Does it meet the procedural requirements for a civil summons? A civil summons must be signed by the clerk of court. No matter which way you turn that ticket, you’re not going to find the signature of the clerk, so it cannot be a civil summons.
This all begs the question, what is this traffic ticket? If you look above your signature you’ll see a promise to appear, and that it all the ticket is, a promise to appear.
Typically, what happens is this. You take your ticket to the court and the clerk at the window asks you “how do you plead?” If you plead not guilty you have implicitly recognized the jurisdiction of the court over your person and waived your right to the procedural due process necessary to confer in-personam jurisdiction to the court over your person.
So how do you appear without waiving your rights?
You must appear specially and not generally for the sole purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
The rules of traffic court are brief. The rule governing entry of plea does not require an entry of plea. It reads you “may enter a plea of responsible” and in the following part reads you “may enter a plea of not responsible”. The term “may” is discretionary. The term “shall” is mandatory. A brief survey of the rules reveals that there is no provision for the court to enter a plea on your behalf should you refuse to do so. This rule exists in the criminal rules but not in the traffic rules and this fact is most revealing. If you are being charged under the criminal rules of procedure, you are appearing in court on the basis of a warrant, summons or indictment and in-personam jurisdiction has been conferred upon the court in accordance with substantive and procedural due process. With jurisdiction secured, the court is at liberty to enter a plea on your behalf should you refuse to do so. In traffic, the court has not secured jurisdiction and must depend on you to waive your substantive and procedural rights, thus, does not possess the ability to enter a plea on your behalf should you refuse to do so.
I can tell the officer is a beastiality loving sex addict by the lack of brains and look in his eyes.
ReplyDelete