North Royalton “Prosecutorial Discretion” Letter Falls Apart (Line by Line)
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
North Royalton “Prosecutorial Discretion” Letter Falls Apart (Line by Line)
-
ナレーター：
-
著者：
概要
Send a text
All my lawyers in the house—this one’s for you. You already know what you’re about to see, because the moment you put body camera, the police report, and the law director’s letter side-by-side, the argument collapses. ⚖️📄🎥
Today we’re walking through North Royalton’s justification for altering a police report using the phrase everyone loves to throw around: “prosecutorial discretion.” The problem? The way it’s being used here has nothing to do with what prosecutorial discretion actually means.
Here’s what we’re covering:
The traffic stop and the officer’s documented observations supporting an OVI investigation
The discovery of firearms and why that fact matters in the historical record
The controversy over an edited incident report (and what’s missing)
Why the Sundance audit log is the key public record—and why I’m suing for it
The law director’s two core legal errors:
confusing prosecutorial discretion with authority to rewrite investigative records
treating suppression as if evidence never existed
This isn’t about whether a prosecutor should file a charge. That decision belongs to the prosecutor. This is about record integrity—because once the factual record becomes negotiable, the system stops documenting truth and starts managing narrative.
D
rop your thoughts in the comments: If “nothing improper happened,” why fight the audit log so hard?
#NorthRoyalton #PublicRecords #PoliceAccountability #FourthAmendment #OVI #GovernmentTransparency #TheInfamousExChief
https://www.theinfamousexchief.com
Support the show
Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief