Leave a Comment below!
Go get 'em Pat! You too Loy!
I love cops in general (really), but got no room in my heart for this prick.
Wow. [stunned silence]
I can only take the recount of events as a version of the story (not that it's untrue). However, I would think that the the word "Corruption" in the title might be a little inflamatory rather than accurate.
The one thing that confuses me. Wouldn't the police know who the former chief of police was?? Wouldn't he be telling the police that himself?? I don't get the whole thing about the wife allegedly going on and on about that.
Bill, I know Patrick personally, and know him to be an extremely trustworthy person and a reliable source of information when it comes to recounting events that he witnessed personally. (Otherwise I wouldn't have posted this.) Of course it's his "version of the story," but based on his personal credibility, I have absolute faith that his account is fair and accurate.
There's more to this story.
As it turns out, the man was not the former chief of police, but a retired chief of a particular department within the Police Department. Big difference, I suppose.
A reporter from WNDU was read a copy of the police report, which completely butchered the facts. The report said that the man veered right because the sun got in his eyes and he couldn't see the road. First of all, it was raining all day on Saturday and the skies were persistently overcast. Secondly, according to the Weather Channel, the sun set at 5:54 on Saturday. The accident occurred at 6:30 (I know this because my friends' train was leaving at 6:40 and we were running late). Third, the man was driving east, and the sun sets in the West.
Falsified police report? Apparently so. THAT is a criminal offense.
The report also omitted the witness' statement as well as the fact that there even WAS a third party witness. Fortunately, I can obtain the witness' name because her phone call to SBPD is a public record.
If these crooked cops think they can pull a fast one on me, they have another thing coming.
Give em hell Patrick!
This story remined me of Darryl Gunn, although it obviously wasn't Gunn with this incident:
http://www.wndu.com/news/081999/...99/
news_405.php
http://www.wndu.com/news/092001/...1/
news_9581.php
[hands 'or mouth]---hairs on my desk. Get'em Pat!!!
I don't doubt Patrick. One of my professors has told us in class that the SBPD is awful. He's said they are known for being corrupt and violent. My one dealing with them was OK, but I think the cop felt sorry for me.
I appreciate the work cops do most of the time, but I've had too many encounters where they were total jerks just because they had a badge and a gun. And if you criticize anything they do, suddenly you're "anti-cop." Good luck, Patrick!
You go Patrick. Don't stop until that crooked cop is off the force!!
Roach? Is that you, my good man? Long time no see.
Get 'em!
The worst part about the SBPD, its one of the lowest paying in the State of Indiana.
If they're letting drunk drivers off the hook as part of some misguided "boys club" mentality, I don't think their salary is the "worst thing" about them.
Were the passengers also drunk?
Besides the wife, were the teenagers (ie underage drinkers)?
--SBPD isn't too lenient when busting Boat Club.
--The reason I ask if the passengers were drunk is because if my dad or spouse was driving on the wrong side of the road for several blocks, the oncoming cars would be able to hear me yelling at him.
SBPD isn't too lenient when busting Boat Club.
Indeed not, which is why Boat Club no longer exists.
"...SBPD, its one of the lowest paying in the State of Indiana."
"...I don't think their salary is the 'worst thing' about them..."
No; but it could account, in Part, for recruitment from a murky Pool of applicants.
This guy is driving Sloshed on the Wrong side of the street with his kids in the car??? Get Him Off The Roads.
Hang tough, Patrick. / But while you're At it: watch your Back. Take very good care. No rolling "Hollywood stops" :>. Breaketh not the Littlest law. If you even Bend one you could go South. (Ahem :) You have some Enemies now. In Uniforms. :|
you should always make sure your registration is current.
You're the man, Patrick! Keep us updated!
To answer your question, squid, No, the kids in the car were not drunk. They had been at the football game and seemed perfectly well behaved.
mystified,
My registration actually was currently. My father purchased the new tags in July before the expiration date. I simply forgot to put the new stickers on the plate. In all likelihood, the officer ran the plate, discovered that it was updated, and dropped the issue knowing that he couldn't cite me.
For once it looks like an ND student is 100% justified in allegations against the SBPD and not just trying to use Papa's pocketbook to get him/her out of another minor consumption ticket.
Patrick, I'm confused. If you were heading north on Ironwood and took a right turn onto McKinley, wouldn't you be heading east on McKinley and the oncoming driver west?
Mystified, you read that whole post, and that is what you got out of it and thought was significant enough to comment on? Now I'm mystified.
Ricardo, I think Patrick must have meant that he turned left on McKiney. Going east from Ironwood would not get you to the train station. Am I right, Patrick?
Ricardo,
It would have to be south on Ironwood and West on McKinley. Heading North on Ironwood is obviously toward and not away from the stadium.
Scherzo,
My mistake, I was headed SOUTH. I turned right onto Ironwood from Edison and headed SOUTH toward McKinley.
Thanks, Patrick... I'll fix the post to clarify that.
Brendan,
If he was heading south on Ironwood instead of north (the misprint) and he turned right (west), he would be heading toward the airport, and the setting sun story would be false.
Patrick,
I wonder if any of this is on camera. Have you checked with the Marathon gas station on that corner? Don't gas stations monitor the pumps? Or was it further down the street, like outside the fire station?
Thanks for the clarification Patrick. I hope you get that corrupt officer in serious trouble.
Better get those facts straight before you're depo'd, m'boy. ;-)
The "setting sun" story is false, Scherzo -- that's the whole point. Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say...
Andrew,
I know it's false, but it would have been true if the uncorrected directions were right. My point was that Patrick made a misprint on the directions, and the only thing that could set his story straight would be to correct Ironwood NORTH to Ironwood SOUTH. There's also a misprint on the follow-up. The report read to the reporter at WNDU should have said that the man veered LEFT because of the sun, unless the report is just wrong. Otherwise Patrick got it wrong in his follow-up.
I meant "Brendan" not "Andrew."
Scherzo,
Again, you are correct. From his vantage point, the driver veered left. From my vantage point, he veered right. His vantage point, however, is the one that is accurate here.
Patrick,
So was that a problem with the report, or with your summary?
Scherzo,
I have not seen the report, so I don't know if it specifically says "right" or "left." All I know is that the report states that the man veered left-of-center because the sun got in his eyes.
I'm still pushing for you to check to see if this is on camera. On that one block stretch of McKinley, there's a gas station, a middle school and a fire station, all possibilities for camera footage (if not of the accident, at least of the drunk-driving).
Scherzo,
That's a great point. I'll look into it. Thanks.
I think that's actually a two-block stretch. My bad. Where on the road was the accident?
Scherzo,
It took place about 40 to 50 meters from the intersection. It was just beyond the gas station on the opposite side of the road.
I can not tell you how angry this makes me. Brendan, you stay on top of this one and don't let up. Let us all know what happens. Link to every story that is written about this. That police department needs some serious changes.
Patrick, unbeleivable. Less unbelievable, but nevertheless noteworthy: you've become a total limey after studying in London this summer--meters?
Another update...
I spoke with the WNDU reporter again earlier this evening. He said that he's not sure when or how WNDU is going to tackle this story, but that he'd keep me posted. He said he needed to do a bit more investigating before a story could break.
I've yet to hear back from the Tribune. However, the Observer, of all media sources, will be the first to print a story on this in tomorrow's edition. The reporter and the editor-in-chief, additionally, interned at the Tribune and know the reporter who interviewed me. They plan on discussing how the Tribune will tackle this story directly with that reporter, and will get back with me.
In the meantime, I'm meeting with the head of NDSP tomorrow and am in contact with the local president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They have a wealth of experience in this sort of thing.
For all of you eager to see this properly resolved, rest assured that I will NOT sit on this and will most certainly keep you updated.
Beef,
I'm only a partial limey. I still weigh myself in pounds, and not the British type.
I don't mean to take away from the seriousness of this obvious abuse of power, but wow, the level of outrage in this comment thread is pretty amusing. My question is: So when is South (Central?) Bend going to break out in LA style riots?
"But if you look at the streets it wasn't about Rodney King (Patrick Roach?),
It's bout this f**ked up situation and these f**ked up police....
(Please don't give me some sort of rundown of the Rodney King case. I know he wasn't exactly John Q. Law-Abider.)
Brian,
You raise a valid point. In the grand scheme of corruption in law enforcement, this ranks pretty low. The police didn't intimidate, threaten, or assault anyone. This didn't involve extortion, drug trade, bribery or any of the other more serious examples of police corruption.
We should keep this in perspective. I'll grant you that. However, that doesn't mean we should let a lesser example of police corruption slide. This is unacceptable from the individuals who have sworn to serve and protect us. They allowed a drunk driver with a car full of children to get off scot-free after hitting another motorist. This man poses a danger to the public, and the police did nothing to thwart this danger. My goal here is only to expose the corruption and prevent this type of cavalier disregard for public safety from happening again.
Hey, you got my support. We've been having a problem with the NDW police physically threatening us gentle-tempered engineers, so I sympathize. Just wondering when someone is going to break out in some impromptu Ice-T karioke.
Another update...
I just heard from the Observer reporter covering the incident. She wants to include information about the allegedly falsified police report in her coverage, but cannot obtain a copy of it until tommorow. For the sake of fair and accurate journalism, she cannot publish the story until she has the report in hand. Accordingly, the Observer's story will not appear until Wednesday.
It looks like we've got a few to many wannabe Ben Matlocks on this page.
"My goal here is only to expose the corruption and prevent this type of cavalier disregard for public safety from happening again."
Listen to yourself. You sound like second year law.
I meant "too" not "to." No lawyers' tricks.
Patrick, if you need any help, let me know. I have lots of free time. :)
Your outrage is entirely justified. That stupid guy could have killed you and he might kill the next person who has the misfortune to drive on the same road. Grrr.
The parents of a good friend of mine were hit by a drunk driver and they almost died. Of course, they were on a motorcycle, so that made everything worse, but fact still stands that some assmunch decided to drive wasted. Really. I've spent way too much money on cabs to not be pissed off when people decide to drive drunk.
Octopus,
You obviously don't know me. I would have done the same thing three years ago, BEFORE I started law school. I never tolerate what I perceive to be injustice without a fight. Call me melodramatic all you want. I don't care. I'm just wired this way. If you don't believe me, ask my parents why they called me their "little lawyer" when I was 5 years-old.
I am very grateful that Patrick was not hurt and that a minor fender bender haulted the potentially lethal progress of someone driving quite improperly, After reading these posts I recommend that for the rest of his stay at ND Law all Patrick's concerned friends arrange to give him rides everywhere he needs to go and shield him from any suspicious strangers who would attempt to rile his Irish temper. He MUST avoid any risk of moving violations in South Bend as well as any charges of disrupting the peace. His poor little '95 Prizm is probably totaled anyway and he can't afford another one. After barely missing the London subway attack and catching pneumonia in Chicago at the Bears/Bengals game, it is obvious that he is a lightening rod for trouble. Just stay in your apartment, Patrick. Only venture outside to go to class and the library. Listen to your mother.
I agree that your claim is justified. Just don't take the morally outraged-capital "J" Justice seeking -obviously second year law student-attitude into this. For one, it won't help your cause a bit in court.
Yeah, seeking justice is for losers.
(???)
I wish to clarify, especially a) as the night winds down and my caffeine level drops, and b) Becky's mini-story reminded me of my own family.
About four years ago, my uncle, his wife, and two of their friends were driving back from dinner. A drunk driver -- one who had been stopped more than once before for that offense, who had lost his license, and had no insurance to boot -- crossed the divider into oncoming traffic; that is, into my uncle's Ford Explorer at highway speed.
The crash threw them into another lane. They then tried to move to avoid an oncoming truck, but were hit by a third car, which sent them into the guard rail. The guard rail passed through the side of the door and severed my uncle's left leg at the knee, and dislocated the driver's seat such that it crushed the foot of his passenger behind him (it had to be amputated). A piece of debris also cut into his head, and he permanently lost sight in his left eye.
My uncle spent months in the hospital and has essentially been forced into an early retirement; the drunk driver spent 60 days in jail, and was ordered to pay restitution. I'm not sure he will ever be able to do so.
So I certainly believe drunk drivers should be prosecuted, and I recognize that Patrick's goal here is noble.
Just wanted to clear that up.
You're well on your way to that law degree, Brendan, given your effective use of "straw-man" tactics. Seeking justice is not in any way for losers. Seek justice, but do it in a pragmatic way, not with the air of absolute moral superiority, saying things like ""My goal here is only to expose the corruption and prevent this type of cavalier disregard for public safety from happening again."
I agree that the actions of the officer were wrong, but as you've said, Patrick, it should be put in the proper perspective. Perhaps drumming it up on the blogosphere like it's some kind of civil rights movement is not the proper perspective.
Whatever, I think your attitude about this is lame, octopus, but to each his own.
Octopus,
Please tell me how my attitude is that of a "morally outraged-capital 'J' Justice seeking -obviously second year law student" when I would have taken the same action before I started law school.
Brian,
Thank you for your thoughtful words.
"To each his own." Now there's a lame attitude.
Patrick,
You're right that I don't know your particular situation, and in that sense my comments were uncalled for since, as you've pointed out, you would have done the same before law school.
As a lifetime South Bend resident and a Notre Dame alumnus, I have a unique perspective on "town and gown" relations. From what I've read here it seems to me that you're completely in the right, but you will come off as a nose-in-the-air second year law student with a percieved air of moral superiority. I really don't want this to be the case since, as I've mentioned, I think you're in the right. This is what I mean when I say that blowing this thing up on the blogosphere filling people with moral indignation is not an effective tactic.
Octopus,
You castigate us for lacking pragmatism and tact in our dealings with this situation. Far be it from me to label you a hypocrite, but I wouldn't exactly characterize your approach to challenging us as abounding in pragmatism and tack.
YOU'RE a lame attitude.
[sticks out tongue]
;)
That should read "tact" not "tack."
Well, Patrick, I guess I'd rather be hypocritical than wrong then.
Again, octopus, I'm not calling you a hypocrite. I'm stating, more or less, to practice what you preach. If you think we need a softer approach, try one adopting one yourself first.
Whatever you end up doing to the police department, the NHC better be issuing advisories on it ;)
How I argue is hardly relevant to your case, wereas how you're percieved is of high importance.
Corruption is a lot different than incompetence and I'm not sure which of them we have here.
Both, of course, are damning for a police force.
Hmm. I don't know, Benjamin, I'm not a very cynical person, but I find it hard to believe that the events Patrick describes represent anything other than corruption. I mean, do you think the police are really incompetent enough that they -- what, forgot to give the guy a sobriety check? Hell, that's not even possible, since Patrick specifically requested it. They had an eyewitness report from the victim of the accident that the other driver had been acting like a drunk, and yet they actively chose not to test him. What would the "innocent yet incompetent" explanation for their actions be? I struggle to think of a plausible one.
P.S. On a more conceptual level... what would be the downside to having a standard, universally applied policy of checking for sobriety at every traffic accident for which police are called to the scene? Or AT LEAST having a policy that, if either victim requests a sobriety test, it will automatically be performed? It's not like Patrick was asking for a DNA test or something. I don't see what privacy or other interest is invaded by simply checking to see if a driver is drunk after he gets into an accident, and it's not like a breathalyzer test is so expensive that the city has to ration them or something. (Is it?) Besides, often times you don't even need the breathalyzer -- just make the guy walk the line, for heaven's sake. That costs nothing! I just don't see the justification for the officer's attitude, which seems to be that the presumption is against administering a test, i.e. the officer needs to be convinced the person is drunk before testing him. I don't see what harm it could possibly do to administer sobriety tests more liberally or even universally in that situation -- except, of course, the "harm" to a drunk driver who doesn't want to get caught. Am I forgetting about some vital constitutional right to not have a police officer check your sobriety after you get into an accident?
Frankly Octopus, if more of us had the attitude Patrick did, if more of us spoke out, maybe the world would be a better place. I'd rather have him being proactive than lazy like most Americans seem to be.
Drunk drivers kill people. And they get away with an amazing amount of second chances before they do, and sometimes after they do. Can you imagine if this guy had been waving a gun at Patrick instead??
I imagine your view on this might be different if your life had been impacted by a drunk driver. No one should have to go through that though.
P.P.S. Is it a probable cause issue? And if so, in cases where probable cause doesn't exist, couldn't the police at least request that the driver voluntarily submit to a test? You never need probable cause if you have consent... and you'd be surprised how often you get it... criminals are dumb, especially drunk criminals. :)
Granted I'm not taking Con Crim Pro this semester, but I have to think that 1) an accident involving 2) head-on collision and 3) swerving over the yellow line by 4) a man 5) reported to be confused as to whether or not he had in fact just caused an accident, 6) reported to be wandering around aimlessly, 7) reported to be chewing gum to cover his breath, 8) reported to be intoxicated on the statements of at least two witnesses, and 9) in the immediate vicinity of a major sporting/tailgating event, might conceivably add up to probable cause.
"How I argue is hardly relevant to your case, wereas how you're percieved is of high importance."
Speaking of straw men ...
Heh. Yeah, Brian, I would agree with that. I'm just saying that, even in a case where there isn't probable cause, what harm would it really do to perform a voluntary test if you can... it was more of a conceptual question, as I said.
Just ignore octopus. The guy's an insufferable prick on ndtoday.
Good lord, why is it that all the jerks are coming from your ND audience Brendan? I mean there are great people like Patrick, Brooke, etc. Then there are these guys.
They talk about how classless USC is, yet I don't think any of the people who visited your site from that school come even close to the level of jerkishness these guys are exhibiting. What gives?
Hey, we're not all bad. Take me, I'm great.
BTW, is this the guy who hit you? Go to the last paragraph. There is a history of this sort of thing, apparently.
http://www.wndu.com/news/082002/.../
news_15784.php
Talk about chutzpah:
http://nbcin.wndu.com/news/09200...1/
news_9581.php
Police Chief Larry Bennett took the position in South Bend during a turbulent time for the department. In June of 1999, then Chief Darryl Gunn resigned after an alleged drunk driving incident.
A Breathalyzer test taken at a hospital following an accident involving the chief was ruled to be inadmissible in court and the prosecutor's office dropped the charges. Following the incident, Police Captain Brett Hemmerlein was promoted to acting chief. He soon, however, became the subject of a criminal investigation for allegedly giving false information during the investigation into Gunn's accident.
....
Three months later however, the charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence. Gunn argued that he was never convicted of any wrongdoing, therefore he never should have been deprived of his salary.
But how dare you get all uppity with your 2L claims that this is about JUSTICE!!!!!!
Front page story in my morning paper yesterday reports some drunk driving the wrong way on I-40 for over eight miles Sunday, ultimately smashing into a minivan, killing a five year old girl.
You stick with this, Patrick.
It is outrageous.
Smart to team up with MADD.
You go guy!
Uh, Brian, even if you were taking Con Crim Pro this semester, you wouldn't necessarily know what adds up to probable cause. Just sayin'.
these officers sound like New York's finest out of the 73rd preceint in Brooklyn.
Keep fighting these guys Patrick and Brendan keep us informed.
Wow Pat. I'm glad to hear you are safe.
My uncle was killed by a drunk driver when I was a baby, and the driver got off with a slap on the wrist (his uncle was a local politician). Your case exposes the unfortunate leeway often allotted in drunk driving cases.
Fight on, Pat.
It's important that you push to get this story out, but also important that you come across with dignity. This is obviously an outrageous story, and by presenting "Just the facts, Ma'am" (Sgt Joe Friday), it only emphasizes the lack of proper action on the part of the officer at the scene. Whatever the substance that impaired the driver's judgement, it is important that it go on record that he was driving impaired!!!
Patrick,
Way to go, most people would have just gone home and been more pissed off at getting their car fixed than anything else. I think you should collect all the facts yourself also, requesting a copy of the police report, and getting together with that witness and having her statement noterized, etc etc etc. Although I am sure that MADD is going to take good care of you. Hell hath no fury like a mother losing a child.
On that note, being amother myself all I can say to you is "Thank You" I wish you were in Minnesota near me and my family, I'd feel a whole lot safer. You should be very proud for having the balls to do this, some of the others on here (oct) should check their own.
It is equally implausible to me that they are purposefully corrupt; what benefit is in it for them? Definitionally, isn't there a "dishonest gain" requirement to have corruption? They aren't getting "paid off" and certainly don't appreciate the trouble your friend is, rightfully, in my opinion, causing.
Rather, what you're witnessing is the unfortunate ramifications of an unprofessional police department that puts the "good ol' boy" network above all else. As sad as it may be, this is not uncommon.
To be sure, I'm struggling to figure out what to call it, although we can all certainly agree that SBPD's awful behavior is worthy of confrontation. But I feel it is both more common, to all of our detriment, and less heinous, in terms of intent, than what the word "corruption" implies.
Good debate, regardless. I wish you luck, Pat.
I have seen accidents where exactly those symptoms were present in the driver and they were caused by hypoglycemia (insulin shock). What was this guy's name? Surely you wrote it down.
It's in the police report, which I'll have my hands on by the end of the day.
If it was hypoglycemia, why did his family give him gum to cover his breath?
And why did his wife feel the need to repeatedly point out his status as a former police official, rather than, oh I don't know, repeatedly saying "I'm so sorry, my husband was suffering from insulin shock"? (Seriously, does the whole "my husband is a police officer" line NOT set off alarm bells in your head that she was trying to hide something?)
And why did they blatantly falsify the police report? (I.e., saying that a guy driving east a half-hour after sunset on a cloudy day had the sun in his eyes.)
Most importantly, regardless of all this, WHY WASN'T A SOBRIETY TEST ADMINISTERED AT THE SCENE? There is absolutely rational justification for not testing him. Even if he claimed "oh it was hypoglycemia" or "oh the sun was in my eyes" or whatever, there was still oodles and oodles of probable cause to test him. If the test was negative, then we could argue about whether it was hypoglycemia. But clearly he should he been tested. Obviously.
Benjamin, I guess I consider "corruption" to include "good ol' boy" networks, but perhaps that imprecise. Perhaps "crooked" is a better term.
I went to hear a lecture at Miami University last night. The guest speaker, Mikhail Gorbechev, glibly stated in his well prepared speech, that the reason he was motivated to
begin 'Peristroika' in his country was the country's engrained beaurocratic corruption, which had been stifling the living standards in an otherwise technologically advanced nation, and was creating a divide between the powerful and powerless as wide as that beteen the classes in 1917 that had started their govermental revolution in the first place.
How many times have I been beaten by police bimpos in my life for insisting on justice in the US of A....LOTS... idealism dies a slow death.
dan is 60
sorry to say it, but I agree with the above poster who said this strikes as a little (paraphrase) too precious.
A police officer uses a totality of cirumstances approach to detemining whether to infringe on a person's rights - as in by making them blow in a tube or take a test.
If the officer didn't personally observe anythnig out of sorts, than the witnesses statements are factors, but they are free to disregard them. And they SHOULD - I'm sure MANY people who have been hit would initially think the other person was so dumb in their driving they must have been intoxicated, and that goes for passers by as well - the officer HAS to go by their own observations, and its appropriate to allow those to trump other people's observations.
Regardless, this is all worthless - you can't prove anything here unless you showed that no reasonable officer would have acted differently. You can't. And this thing about the report is nothing until you see it, and the officer is alwyas free to revise it up until trial.
So chill out, noon was injured and this is not corruption - just a difference of opinion,
Brad, if all of the fundamental, crucial facts asserted by Patrick are true, it is NOT a "difference of opinion." It's a difference of FACTS.
"chill out"?? Tell that to the person who is injured -- or to the family of the person who is killed -- the NEXT time this guy drives drunk because nobody stopped him when they had the chance due to the corrupt influence of a good old boys network.
Unbelieveable.
P.S. All it takes for evil [or drunk drivers] to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
Congrats on being willing to bend over and let evil win without a fight. Hope that works out for you. But don't expect people to take you seriously when you encourage them to do the same.
P.P.S. "infringe on a person's rights"? I'm sorry, I think the person whose rights were infringed here was Patrick, who had someone SWERVE INTO HIS LANE AND HIT HIM HEAD-ON.
Jesus Christ.
I am infuriated by your comment. Absolutely infuriated.
P.P.P.S. Based on Patrick's account, if you don't think the "totality of the circumstances" clearly and objectively supported the need for a sobriety test, you're either a f***ing moron, or you're calling Patrick a liar (which is totally implausible if you know Patrick).
P.P.P.P.S. Sorry about taking the Lord's name in vain, Patrick, I know you wouldn't want me to do that in your defense. ;)
Brendan,
You sure are pulling out the blue language today for someone who is working on his PR. Or am I misreading you, just like I'm misreading Patrick? Must be that you are working on the tv and newsprint stuff because you want to educate people, huh?
I am neither f**ing moron nor bending over for evil. I'm pointing out that all of Patrick's "facts" devolve into statements to the police by him and another witness.
The officer was entitled and required to use his own eyes to assess the situation - a man (middle aged?) in a car with his WIFE and KIDS acting sober and not exhibiting signs of intoxication to a police officer who is TRAINED to recognize signs of intoxication, who crossed a traffic lane and caused an accident.
Versus statements of a VICTIM MOTORIST and a witness, netiher of whom was an officer or trained to recognize intoxication.
He OBJECTIVELY decided, apparently, that the man was not drunk, probably taking into account that its unlikely that the wife would let him drive with the kids in that state, but bottom line - he apparently didn't see enough evidence of intoxication. And it would be inappropriate to allow other peopel's opinions to trump his own professional judgment.
Totality of circs is subjective -from the officer's point of view. He made a call which you disagree with, apparantly.
Despite your effort to minimize it, a police officer subjecting someone to a sobriety test is a legitimate impingement on their personal privacy and rights; and an officer has to justify that impingement on his own observations, not a witnesses.
brad
I forgive you Brendan.
Sorry Brad, but I don't by the infringement of rights argument. This guy was involved in an accident and witnesses described behavior that clearly warrented a breathalyzer test. He gave up ANY rights to privacy when he drove in the manner he did, for whatever reason.
Patricks (and anyone elses) right to life, trumps some jerk-offs right to be a bad driver any day of the week.
As far as I can tell, Patrick is totally in the right. But one thing that does bother me is that all of Patrick's actions immediately following the event were under the false assumption that this was the former chief of police getting off the hook. I'm curious, Patrick, if you think you would have done anything different if you had known that it was just a former officer and not the chief. I know that I personally would be much more infuriated if I thought that this was the former chief than just some officer. Now this doesn't have an impact anything concerning the illegality of drunk driving, but doesn't it impact your charges of corruption?
Kevin-
Come again? How do officers giving a drunk driving "professional courtesy" to a regular cop compared to a chief make the situation any less corrupt? Am I missing something here?
Long John,
Again, let me restate that I think Patrick is doing the right thing here. I'm not in Brad's camp. I'm just curious about whether he rethought anything in light of his finding out that this wasn't the former chief of police, and hence that the police officer probably didn't know the guy. I know from my own experience (and maybe it's different in Patrick's case) that when I review a situation in light of new evidence, my view on what's happening changes (like watching "The Sixth Sense" the second time rather than the first). In a case like this when something happens so fast it's easy for all parties to come to quick conclusions and then use evidence to back it up. Now let me be clear that I doubt any kind of revision could change the substantial charge of Patrick's claim, but I'm sure it could change pieces of it.
To those minimizing the "corruption" and/or "incompetance" factor....you forget the killing of the student along Douglas road by a drunk. Due to screw-ups by the police, the driver evaded conviction.
In my time in SB, I have personally witnessed at least five occasions where a cop utterly refused to do his job when a drunk driver was stopped. I have also witnessed numerous occasions where those who were under protective orders from drunks were denied the protection of the police when the man appeared at the protected domicile. The cops shrugged and said the best they would do is drive the felon to a different part of town.
The county prosecutor was removed because of his ineffective policies in re drunks.
Finally, in determining the truth of the statements by Patrick, I see an entirely consistent pattern of behavior by one in his position. He has put himself out in the public fearlessly and proclaimed his story, without variation, each time. The cops respond with "no comment" and threats (see license plate comment.
In a court of law, a jury could and would be instructed that such behavior is a valid way of determing the veracity of any witness.
God bless you, Patick.
Brad, the witness apparantly overheard the officers stating that the driver was in fact drunk. So they did in fact recognize the he was drunk in their professional judgement regardless of the statements made by the witness and Patrick. They just refused to conduct a sobriety test for an unknown reason.
Patrick,
As you may know, I've grown up around the police my entire life and have nothing but respect for those who serve and protect. These guys obviously don't. This is an injustice, Pat, and you should definitely stand up for what you believe in. Just remember not to take yourself too seriously and leave yourself time for fun while you expose your injustices!
Becky
bah.. I to know many officers and have the utmost respect and love for them. I actually asked the one that lives next door to us( a North mpls officer) and he said. ABSOLUTELY without a doubt he would have given a breathalizer, just based on the witness's statement alone. He also said that the officer that confronted Patrick was way out of line and he cant imagine what would happen to him if he pulled that. Exact words were "wow, that is completely unacceptable" And Brad there are reasons for your "rights" to be infringed upon, like when you break the law or cause a threat or harm to others. Please look it up before you post anything else. I also still stand by that if they had done the breathilizer then they would have realized something else was going on and could have gotten him medical attention. Oh and also Brad reread the post the wife wasnt in the car...(shakes her head)
Before I believe he wasn't drunk I'm afraid I would have to see the medical report.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
