DUI BLOG

So what happens when a cop drives drunk?

Ex-Cop Charged with DUI

STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL TOOK OVER CRASH CASE

 

San Jose, CA.  July 4  -  More than three months after San Jose police failed to test a former cop for intoxication or cite her after a serious multi-car accident, the state attorney general has charged Sandra Woodall with felony drunken driving.

Woodall, 39, now an investigator with the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, is expected in court Thursday.

The charge raises a larger and so far unanswered question: Did police officers at the scene of the March 25 nighttime collision intentionally do an incomplete job while trying to protect Woodall from criminal charges?

Soon after realizing one of their own was involved, both police and the district attorney’s office agreed to ask the state prosecutor to look into the case, realizing there was a potential conflict of interest.

And there were private worries by officials about whether Woodall was given favorable treatment by fellow cops.

Woodall’s husband, Jason, is a sergeant in the department; her father-in-law is Jack Woodall, a former lieutenant in the police department and also a district attorney’s investigator.

Officers did not conduct either a field sobriety test or take Woodall’s blood, although they had a statement from a witness who claimed to have overheard Woodall talking about drinking. In car-crash cases, it is common practice to ask for a blood sample if there is probable cause that the driver may be intoxicated…

The Escalade drove over the median and hit an oncoming 1995 Volkswagen Jetta. The Jetta hit a parked car and the Escalade ended up partially on the sidewalk. All three drivers – including Woodall – complained of minor injuries and were taken to a local hospital, police said.

The case might simply have disappeared had not an outraged victim called top police officials to complain that nothing was being done.

“Who will guard the guardians?”

According to police, prosecutors and MADD those breathalyzers are deadly accurate…unless it contradicts a cop’s opinion.

Sober, and Now Outraged as Well

DUI Case Was Dropped, But Driver Wants to Sue

Bredenton, FL.  July 3  -  If there is a lucky four-digit lottery number in DUI cases, it is this: a 0.000 on the blood-alcohol breath test.

Gary Shuchat hit quadruple zeros, but that was not enough to win his freedom after a traffic stop in May.

A Manatee County sheriff’s deputy said Shuchat failed field sobriety tests, even though Shuchat showed no obvious signs of impairment. He was not slurring words. His eyes were fine. There was no odor of alcohol.

Authorities got a urine sample from Shuchat, which came back clean a few weeks ago. No drugs. No alcohol. A state prosecutor dropped the case…

Shuchat, 54, an executive at a lumber company in Canada, will not let his arrest slide as a mere inconvenience or a story to tell about American police. He wants to sue the Sheriff’s Office, calling his arrest in Bradenton a terrifying experience…

“This was the most degrading and dehumanizing thing I have ever been through,” Shuchat said. “This was crazy. I was not drunk.”

Apparently, Canadians don’t fully appreciate our uniquely American “War on Drunk Driving”.

(See Field Sobriety Tests: Designed for Failure? and DUI Eye Test a Fraud?)

(Thanks to David Baker)

I think the following typical news story speaks for itself:

DUI Checkpoint Nets 2 Citations, No Arrests Made

Costa Mesa, CA.  June 27  -  The Costa Mesa police ran a sobriety checkpoint Thursday at Santa Ana Avenue and 18th Street, citing two drivers and impounding two vehicles.

One driver was cited for driving on a suspended license. The other was cited for having vehicle registration that had expired more than six months ago.

During the process, 469 vehicles passed through and 410 drivers were screened. Twelve drivers were investigated for driving under the influence, but no arrests were made.

The Costa Mesa Police Department will join forces with Mothers Against Drunk Driving to conduct another checkpoint Aug. 15 at Wilson Street and Pomona Avenue. Patrolling officers will be set up on surrounding streets to stop impaired drivers from avoiding the sobriety screening.

The California Office of Traffic Safety funds the program through a grant as part of a national enforcement campaign.

See: Are DUI Roadblocks Effective?, Do DUI Roadblocks Work (Part II), DUI Sobriety Checkpoints for Fun and Profit, DUI Sobriety Checkpoints: Unconstitutional? and Police using DUI Roadblocks Illegally.   

In the who-will-guard-the-guardians department:

Ex-Detective Gets More Jail Time in Alcohol Cases

Seattle, WA.  June 27  -  A former Seattle police detective who set a breath-test record was sentenced to more than a year in jail and three months in home detention for a series of alcohol-related driving cases, two of which involved minor crashes…

Last year, Jarrett briefly held the unenviable record of the highest blood-alcohol concentration in state history when she measured 0.47 on a State Patrol breath test…

Jarrett has already served more than 300 days in home detention and about 60 days in jail. She spent the past two weeks in jail after she apparently relapsed, breaking a court order to stay away from alcohol.

She now must serve 440 more days in jail, though she could get time off for good behavior and will be allowed to serve most of that time in a work-release program.

“I think she struggles with a disease that has been winning,” (Judge David Steiner) said…

Hmmm…At least three DUIs involving two car crashes, two probation violations and a record 0.47% blood-alcohol level.  What do you think your sentences would have been?  Home detentions and work release programs?  Or very long stretches of hard time?

Funny how prosecutors and judges suddenly see it as a “disease” when the drunk driver is a cop.  Of course it’s a disease (see The DUI Problem and Time for a Change), but where is that compassion when the defendant isn’t a cop?

I’ve written repeated posts in the past about the highly unreliable ignition interlock devices (IIDs) which have been widely publicized by MADD as the way to “eliminate drunk driving once and for all”.  See, for example, The Truth About Ignition Interlock Devices, Ignition Interlock Devices: Dangerous but Profitable and New MADD Goal: All Cars Equipped with Breathalyzers. 

Although these crude in-car breathalyzers are now required in many states for repeat offenders, MADD is promoting them as mandatory equipment for all future vehicles.   Toyota, GM and Saab already have these devices near completion for installation at the factories.  See, Toyota Announces DUI-Proof Cars,  All U.S. Cars to Have Ignition Interlock Devices? and The Car in Your Future.

Technical deficiencies aside, the following editorial from the National Motorists Association offers thoughts about the ramifications of this latest mandatory “safety feature”:

Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?

If you’re not a convicted drunk driver, should you still be required to have an in-car breathalyzer fitted (at your expense, ‘natch) to your next new vehicle?

Apparently, some automakers — including GM and Toyota — think so. They and a few others are working together under the auspices of something called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, which is a $10 million federal “research program” that is trying to develop just such technology for mass introduction a few years from now.

At the moment, the only people who have to deal with (and pay for) in-car Breathalyzers are convicted drunks; the devices are basically ignition locks that prevent the vehicle’s engine from being started until the would-be driver blows into the tube and the system determines he’s not liquored up.

But by 2012 or so, in-car breath sniffers could be standard equipment in every new vehicle sold, force-fed to you by the tag team of Washington, Detroit and, of course, the ever-busy Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

No conviction necessary…

I dislike drunk drivers as much as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (is anyone actually for drunk driving)? But I certainly do object to policies and regulations that impose cost and hassle and arguably, petit tyranny, on people who have done absolutely nothing to warrant it.

This isn’t about nannyism so much as it is about upending a few basic bedrock Western ideas about criminal justice, rights and responsibilities. Chief among these being that each of us gets treated as a specific individual.

If we do something wrong, we get specifically held accountable for it;  the guy next door who had nothing to do with it isn’t dragged along for the ride. But that’s just what is happening here — indeed, has already happened — from those so-called “sobriety checkpoints” (which mostly “check”  perfectly sober drivers) to the growing kudzu of “primary enforcement” seat belts laws that pester (and ticket) people for not wearing a seat belt, an action that may not be especially smart on an individual level but which has very little to do with the safety or well-being of others…

People used to get that; today, most don’t seem to. It’s the only way to explain the tsunami-like effectiveness of the word, “safety” — which doesn’t have to be specifically defined, quantified, subjected to cost-benefit analysis or throttled back by the once-superior claim of the individual’s “personal bubble of authority” — where he or she formerly reigned supreme, free of the suffocating and endless edicts of others who claim their evaluation of a perceived risk trumps your personal right to choose.

Just say “safety” (and for added emphasis, include “our children”) and no objection can be sustained…

To more fully appreciate how obtrusive these devices are — and how many things can go wrong — see a Japanese TV newscast (English language) on YouTube about Toyota’s IID.

(Thanks to Andre)

American citizens are considered to be innocent until proven guilty – unless it involves  drunk driving, in which case a MADD-inspired hysteria takes over. Consider the following news story..

Larchmont, NY.  June 10 - Mike Mezansky, a former star Mamaroneck High School baseball player accused of driving drunk and hitting a child, said his legal problems took a back seat to the more immediate concerns of the 9-year-old victim.

“My heart goes out to the family,” Mezansky said yesterday, when he answered the door to his home just down the street from Friday’s crash site. “I’ll deal with the legalities of everything, but the main thing is the kid being OK. That’s all I can say.”

The boy, William Powers, suffered a head injury, broken legs, bruised lungs and other wounds. He is at Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla and has been breathing with the help of a ventilator…

He is accused of striking the child on Magnolia Avenue at 7:45 a.m. The boy had just seen his sister onto a Bee-Line bus, then crossed in front of it to head home. That’s when the white Lexus pulled out from behind the bus and struck the boy, police said.

Police detected alcohol and arrested the teen after he failed a series of field sobriety tests. He refused a Breathalyzer test, police said, and they asked for a court order to test his blood.

The results of that test are not yet known, police said today…

Here are some of the letters to the editor that followed:

Who gives a 19 year-old a Lexus? How did the 19 year-old get alcohol? Why is a 19 year-old drunk at 7:30 in the morning?  What the hell kind of parenting goes on in the Mezansky household?!?

OK MAYBE I AM NUTS BUT IS THIS ARTICLE SAYING THAT THIS LOW LIFE ISNT IN JAIL? UN REAL AND HIS HEART GOES OUT TO THE FAMILY….PLEASE IF I WAS THAT KIDS FATHER OUR LITTLE DRUNK DRIVING LOW LIFE WHO COMES FROM A GOOD FAMILY WOULDNT MAKE IT TO COURT…IT MAKES ME SICK HOW WEAK THE DWI LAWS ARE….SO NO PITTY FOR THIS LOW LIFE SHOULD OF CALLED A CAB…..

Sounds like a punk who’s parents give him everything he wants and thought he was immune to the world, on his way to making millions in baseball and thought he was untouchable. Drunk or not, he learned one hell of a life lesson right now and maybe mommy and daddy will wise up and not give a 19 year old punk Lexus.

Was the driver drunk? Yes. I don’t want to hear about the bus driver, or anything else. The reason this boy is in critical condition with injuries that he will never totally heal from, IF he lives… is because this moron drove drunk…at 7:45 in the morning.

We need to get our political representatives to take control of these horrendous happenings by enacting laws which are meaningful and punitive.

He refused a breathalizer test? Seems like a great guy huh? By the way, where was he drinking? Who was he drinking with? If at a house, the parents should be arrested as well. If at a bar, the bartender arrested.

I really don’t care if he was an alter boy all his life. You don’t get a pass on this one buddy. You may have murdered a child due to your reckless behavior, you at least injured him for life. It is Mezanskys fault that this child is on life support instead of going to the pool this summer. Instead of going to summer camp with his twin brother, he will be in the hospital or dead.

Before everyone passes judgement on the driver, lets all wait till the blood alcohol test comes back… 

And now for the follow-up news story:

Larchmont, NY, June 18 -  A drunken-driving charge against a Larchmont teen accused of running over a 9-year-old boy with his car last week was reduced after a blood test came back showing that the teen’s blood-alcohol level after the accident was zero…

Did that stop the hysterical letters?  Following are a few written after news of the .00% blood test was made public:

You hit a child, put him in a coma, and its a traffic violation. A real poster child for responsible driving. Someone got paid off to make this go away; and he will do it again because he got away with it. Nothing but a non remorseful punk!

Daddy or mommy got this kid off, it’s not what you know it’s who you know.

How fast was this kid going anyway to do the damage that he did to the boy – it was 7:45am in the morning, was the sun not out? Ask the little boy if knowing that his assailant will remember this day always if that makes him feel better…

The man is a drunk hick with a lil bit of money..that’s whats keepin him outta prison..bottom line..point blank

This punk kid who at the age of 18 was as they say “driving while ability impaired” in my book that’s DRUNK sorry kid. No sympathy for you or your parents, who probably know that you’ve done this before.

Why did he refuse a breath test? and a field sobriety test? We all know why… sue, sue, sue!!!… he might beat the DWI, but he should have his pockets emptied.

Let’s just remember something…the legal drinking age is 21! This kid is 18…any amount of alcohol is too much!!!! He still needs to face the music.

Obviously this kid has some good connections….you don’t fail sobriety tests when your sober.

Fortunately, there are still a few who give me hope:

Regarding the recent accident in Larchmont in which 18-year-old driver Mike Mezansky hit a 9-year-old boy, now that we know the young driver’s blood alcohol level was 0.00, we would do well to remember that persons accused of a crime are presumed innocent until proven guilty…The young driver was therefore as entitled to the presumption of innocence as any other defendant. Unfortunately, some had all but convicted him before he had even been arraigned, let alone tried. Amazingly, the attacks are continuing even as I write this letter.

(Thanks to David Baker)

As I’ve posted repeatedly in the past, MADD’s prohibitionist zealots are fond of twisting statistics to justify their expansion of unfair laws, Draconian penalties and unconstitutional procedures.  See, for example, A Closer Look at DUI Fatality Statistics, MADDness and Lies, Damned Lies and MADD Statistics.

The truth is finally beginning to emerge:

A Reality Check on DUI Claims 

Groups purposely misstate fatalities

to further an anti-drinking agenda

The Tennessean, June 22 – Drunken-driving stories, like last week’s op-ed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving representative Alexanderia Honeycutt, make headlines every day.

Groups like MADD relentlessly remind Americans that the abuse of alcohol continues to be a huge problem on our roadways and, as a result, the most drastic measures are needed. Though truly “drunken” driving is a serious issue, much of the reported problem is little more than PR.

 Consider fatality statistics. The number of deaths that activist groups attribute to drunken driving is grossly exaggerated.

Last year, federal statisticians classified almost 18,000 deaths as “alcohol-related.” However, alcohol-related does not mean alcohol-caused. In fact, that figure includes anyone killed in a crash in which at least one person (driver, pedestrian, cyclist, etc.) was estimated to have any alcohol. (If a sober driver recklessly crashes into and kills a family whose driver had enjoyed a glass of wine, statistics reflect all their deaths as “alcohol-related.”)

In reality, the figure reflects a much broader spectrum of casualties: people under the legal limit, drunken pedestrians, impaired cyclists and others. After accounting for those people, actual innocent victims only make up 12 percent of the widely reported statistic — a considerably smaller amount than activists have led us to believe.

The anti-alcohol lobby has also invented fantastical talking points to bolster their bunk traffic stats. Honeycutt uses one of its favorites (“first offenders drive drunk on average 87 times before they are caught”), going so far as to accuse individuals of criminal acts with absolutely no proof to back up the claim.

The truth is that this widely publicized figure comes from rough estimates of self-reported data — commonly criticized as unreliable. Collected from a small sample almost 13 years ago, even the study’s own authors admit the estimates are “crude.”

As I posted a couple of years ago, an independent study by the Los Angeles Times  found that despite federal figures claiming nearly 18,000 deaths caused by drunk driving in 2002, only about 5,000 of these actually involved a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger or pedestrian.

MADD has used the same altered statistics to get all 50 states – with some federal coercion – to lower the legal limit to .08% and to expand the use of roadblocks:

In the 1990s, these groups used another “crude” statistic to convince the public that reducing the legal blood-alcohol content limit from 0.10 to 0.08 percent would save 600-800 lives annually. Today, research proves it didn’t work.

Their 0.08 push failed to have any measurable effects on traffic fatality rates. It only lowered the threshold for qualifying as a “drunken” driver, ignoring the fact that the majority of “drunks” wreaking havoc on our roads drive while more than double the 0.08 limit. One study in Contemporary Economic Policy concluded that 0.08 efforts would have been better spent encouraging effective measures against chronic drunken drivers.

Tennessee’s anti-alcohol groups aren’t heeding that warning. Instead, they’re demanding more funding, more legislation and more manpower for other misguided measures, like sobriety checkpoints.

These roadblocks are based on the idea that it’s more important to look “tough on drunken driving” than to actually go after the drunks. Checkpoints don’t catch many (if any) drunken drivers. In the largest program ever studied, Tennessee ran almost 900 checkpoints over the course of a year, stopping almost 150,000 of the state’s drivers. The result: a mere 773 DUI arrests — less than one arrest per checkpoint. Compare that to the impact of roving police patrols — a tactic that catches 10 times more drunken drivers than roadblocks.

But you won’t hear anti-alcohol activists like Honeycutt repeat that stat. Their groups no longer target “drunken” drivers, aiming instead to eliminate any drinking before driving.

Right now, the 176 million responsible Americans who drink in moderation can still safely (and legally) drive home after enjoying a drink. Furthermore, research shows that drivers who talk on cell phones, drive drowsy, or travel 7 mph above the speed limit pose a larger threat than those who enjoy a few drinks (and stay below 0.08) before driving home.

Disregarding the evidence, the anti-alcohol movement’s invented, inflated and distorted “facts” would have the public believe that there should be no legal limit except zero. This is the reason we all think one thing when the reality is another.

It is an unfortunate fact that law and politics repeatedly trump science when it comes to prosecuting citizens accused of drunk driving…..  

In People v. Bransford, to cite one notable example, the California Supreme Court was confronted with a defendant who was challenging his DUI conviction on the grounds that he was not permitted to offer scientific evidence to the jury. Specifically, he was not permitted to offer the testimony of recognized experts that the breath machine’s computer was programmed to assume that there were 2100 parts of alcohol in his blood for every 1 part it measured in his breath.

He was also prevented by the trial judge from offering further evidence that this 2100:1 ratio was only an average — and that the actual ratio varied widely from person to person, and within one person from moment to moment.  If, for example, a suspect’s ratio had been 1500:1 at the time he blew a .10% on the machine, his true blood-alcohol would have actually been .07% — that is, he would have been innocent.

The Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction, however, ruling that such scientific facts are irrelevant: the law was written in a way that concerned the amount of alcohol in the blood ”as measured on the breath”. In a display of either twisted logic or ignorance of the scientific facts involved, the Court simply said that the crime consisted of the amount of alcohol in the blood — but only as measured on the breath. In other words, although the crime is having .08% alcohol in the blood, you can’t offer evidence about the amount of alcohol actually in the blood!

An amazing decision. More interesting, perhaps, is language in the opinion — an opinion which gives us a window into the justices’ minds. In what must have been a complete failure to appreciate the significance of what they were writing, the Court justified its ruling in a rather frank — and incredible — admission of its hidden agenda:

It will increase the likelihood of convicting such a driver, because the prosecution need not prove actual impairment…Adjudication of such criminal charges will also require fewer legal resources, because fewer legal issues will arise. And individuals prosecuted under such a statute will be less likely to contest the charges.  People v. Bransford, 8 Cal.4th 894 (1994).

In other words, preventing an accused from defending himself with scientific truth serves justice by making it easier to get convictions!

Are all judges oblivious to the truth? Not entirely. One judge, Justice Joyce Kennard, dissented from the majority opinion. Recognizing the truth, she wrote in a separate opinion:

The majority…has on its own created the new crime of driving with alcohol in one’s breath.

My post last week concerning a California High School’s efforts with MADD to traumatize their students, drew quite a reaction from readers.  The following is an update:

School Defends Drunken Driving Hoax

Oceanside, CA.  AP, June 12 – School officials in Oceanside, California, are defending a scared-straight exercise that sent some El Camino High School students into hysterics.

One Monday last month, California Highway Patrol officers went to 20 classrooms and delivered the grim news that several students had been killed in drunken-driving car crashes over the weekend.

The news devastated Michelle de Gracia, who says she was nauseated and too stunned to cry. Others in her physics class were so upset that the teacher had to tell them it was all staged. Then they became angry. Michelle says says “they got the shock they wanted.”

A 15-year-old student says, while she feels “betrayed” by her teachers and school administrators, she also feels that “if it saves one life, it’s worth it.” Others disagree. During assemblies after the hoax, some students held up posters reading “Death is real. Don’t play with our emotions.”

Camino High guidance counselor Lori Tauber says “we wanted them to be traumatized.”

“We wanted them to be traumatized.”  One wonders where the MADDness is going next….

The single most important factor in whether an individual will be arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) is not the evidence. It is the individual human differences of the officer himself.

A study by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration [U.S. Department of Transportation Report No. H5-801-230] points out the effect of these differences on an officer’s observations and conduct in the field:

The officer’s age and experience play a role in his alcohol-related arrest decisions. Younger officers, and those with relatively few years of seniority, tend to have a more positive attitude toward alcohol-related enforcement and make more arrests on that charge than do older officers. This result was found to hold true regardless of the type of department in which the officer serves or the specific type of duty to which he is assigned.

The officer’s personal use of alcohol is inversely related to his level of alcohol-related enforcement. Patrolmen who drink make significantly fewer arrests than those who do not, and those who drink frequently make significantly fewer arrests than those who use alcohol only occasionally.

Lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between alcohol and intoxication is widespread among police officers and imparts a negative influence on alcohol-related enforcement. Most officers underestimate—often by a wide margin—the amount of alcohol a suspect would have to consume in order to achieve the statutory limit of blood-alcohol concentration.

Specialized training has a strong positive influence on alcohol-related arrests. Patrolmen who have received instruction in the operation of breath testing devices and/or in alcohol-related enforcement—particularly in municipal departments—were found to lack this specialized training.

Specialization in duty assignment can also enhance alcohol-related enforcement. Patrolmen assigned to traffic divisions, in particular, produce higher arrest rates than those charged with general patrol duties.

Near the end of the duty shift, alcohol-related investigations decrease substantially. This is particularly true in departments that have adopted relatively time-consuming procedures for processing alcohol-related arrests.

Weather conditions also affect alcohol-related arrests. There is encouraging evidence that foul weather has a positive influence on the attitude of many officers; they are more appreciative of the risk posed by an alcohol-related suspect when driving conditions are hazardous, and are less likely to avoid the arrest when those conditions prevail.

The suspect’s attitude can have a strong influence on the arrest/no arrest decision. If the suspect proves uncooperative or argumentative, a positive influence for arrest results. Conversely, the likelihood of arrest decreases when the suspect seems cooperative.

The suspect’s race is a key distinguishing characteristic in alcohol-related cases. The officers surveyed—the overwhelming majority of whom were white—reported releasing significantly more nonwhite suspects than they arrested. The data do not suggest that this reflects a greater tendency to exercise discretion when dealing with nonwhite drivers. Rather, the officers seem more willing to initiate an investigation when the suspect is not of their own race.

Suspect’s age is another distinguishing characteristic of these cases, and patrolmen reported releasing significantly more young suspects than they arrested. This appears to stem from two distinct causes. First, young officers exhibit more sympathy for young suspects, i.e., seem less disposed to arrest a driver of their own age group. Second, older officers seem more willing to stop young suspects, i.e., are more likely to conduct an investigation when the driver is young, even if the evidence of alcohol-related violation is not clear.

Suspect’s sex also plays a role in the arrest/no arrest decision. Patrolmen seem more reluctant to arrest a woman for alcohol-related violations, largely because processing of a female arrestee is generally more complex and time consuming.”

Most DUI cases depend largely upon two variables: the officer and the machine. As has been discussed repeatedly in past posts, the machine is an unknown and unreliable variable. As the federal study indicates, so is the officer.