> read between the lines of the initial reported incident. I don't understand this reading between the lines. You're disregarding a lot of facts here. If you'

> read between the lines of the initial reported incident. I don't understand this reading between the lines. You're disregarding a lot of facts here. If you're in a road rage incident with somebody as a state employee, you'll be wanting to reduce paperwork instead of increase it. You don't want a paper record at all, or if you have a paper record, you'll want it for something like resisting arrest or something vague like that. Second, an equally valid reading is that this guy was driving erratically, the officer pulled him over because she thought that he was enough of a danger to the public that he should be stopped, and he was acting as though he was too impaired to drive. Then the DA, based on the officer's testimony, wanted to get the driver for DUI as that's a more serious crime, but settled on reckless driving based on lack of evidence. That fits the facts far better.