Truck driver would never have an attorney that good or expensive. So, we'll probably never know.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
drunk officer kills motorcyclist
- Thread starter Brandon
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Truck driver would never have an attorney that good or expensive. So, we'll probably never know.
- Sep 3, 2009
- 7,726
- 38
You are right Frank I read it wrong
Might be true but there are several "better" DUI attorneys in the city that cost more than this guy. They specialize in DUI's and are VERY good, they go around the country teaching other lawyers about DUI's. This ruling has much broader implications than this case alone. Usually we have lots of PC before we give a blood draw, the person exibits signs of intox, SFSTs are performed at the scene. That means that even if the BAC is thrown out, there is still a solid case for DUI. In fact, many times the prosecutor will plea a case by dismissing the BAC if they plead guilty to the OWI. In this case there is no DUI without the BAC. It is unusual indeed.
Ballard talking out his arse again. It is becoming a habit.
there are plenty of owner opperator truckers out there that make some serious money. just because they are a trucker doesnt mean much. they own their own business and rigs which cost more then most peoples homes... sorry, had to say it (dont get mad at me, im not trying to start a debate over this one 
)
so heres a question im not sure if it has been asked. could another prosocuter re-charge the officer and bring back the blood tests at a later time... if so what is the statue of limitations on this?
)so heres a question im not sure if it has been asked. could another prosocuter re-charge the officer and bring back the blood tests at a later time... if so what is the statue of limitations on this?
Liberty Sanders
Master
Years ago during my law enforcement career in Cincinnati we had a similar type of fatal accident involving an off-duty officer coming home from a night of partying at downtown bars, and a newspaper man delivering papers to homes.
The off-duty officer was a member of the traffic unit tasked to investigate the accident and the aftermath was a nightmare. As in this case, no investigating officer detected alcohol impairment at the scene (I wasn't there, thank god) nor did a nurse who sat with the involved officer after the accident.
The officer was taken to the hospital for minor injuries and someone "leaked" his BAC, which was alleged to be in excess of the legal limit. Whether this information was accurate could not be determined.
The traffic unit determined that the newspaperman had been left of center throwing newspapers into front yards (a common practice of those in the profession during the wee hours and routinely ignored by LEO's on the beat) and that he had caused the head-on accident. But who was listening? Just the appearance of impropriety in the investigation rendered the facts irrelevant.
The moral is this: an accident like this, in which innocent motorists are killed and injured by a public safety worker, are incredibly traumatic and stressful, and such an accident should NEVER be investigated by that worker's own organization.
It should be standard procedure to have an outside agency, such as the Indiana State Police, to investigate such an incident. Unfortunately, government bureaucracies stubbornly cling to the "we clean our own laundry" approach. The problem is that the higher-ups who enforce this aren't the ones out in the trenches who have to conduct the investigations.
Had our accident in Cincinnati been investigated by the Ohio State Highway Patrol instead of the Cincinnati Police Traffic Bureau, there would have been no questions concerning the outcome and no resulting public relations nightmare.
The same holds here. Another law enforcement organization should have been called automatically to investigate this accident. If an organization investigates their own man and throws the book at him, there will always be people who will say, "Look at that...they threw him to the wolves to cover their asses." If they defend him, people will say, "Look at that...they sure take their of their own, don't they?"
Having been in the profession myself, I seriously doubt that anyone involved in this investigation has deliberately covered anything up. What what does it matter? The investigation was doomed, public-relations-wise, as soon as it started.
A hands-off approach removes the appearance of impropriety.
Has anyone noticed that the safety director and police chief have NOT proposed this as a future response in such situations?
The off-duty officer was a member of the traffic unit tasked to investigate the accident and the aftermath was a nightmare. As in this case, no investigating officer detected alcohol impairment at the scene (I wasn't there, thank god) nor did a nurse who sat with the involved officer after the accident.
The officer was taken to the hospital for minor injuries and someone "leaked" his BAC, which was alleged to be in excess of the legal limit. Whether this information was accurate could not be determined.
The traffic unit determined that the newspaperman had been left of center throwing newspapers into front yards (a common practice of those in the profession during the wee hours and routinely ignored by LEO's on the beat) and that he had caused the head-on accident. But who was listening? Just the appearance of impropriety in the investigation rendered the facts irrelevant.
The moral is this: an accident like this, in which innocent motorists are killed and injured by a public safety worker, are incredibly traumatic and stressful, and such an accident should NEVER be investigated by that worker's own organization.
It should be standard procedure to have an outside agency, such as the Indiana State Police, to investigate such an incident. Unfortunately, government bureaucracies stubbornly cling to the "we clean our own laundry" approach. The problem is that the higher-ups who enforce this aren't the ones out in the trenches who have to conduct the investigations.
Had our accident in Cincinnati been investigated by the Ohio State Highway Patrol instead of the Cincinnati Police Traffic Bureau, there would have been no questions concerning the outcome and no resulting public relations nightmare.
The same holds here. Another law enforcement organization should have been called automatically to investigate this accident. If an organization investigates their own man and throws the book at him, there will always be people who will say, "Look at that...they threw him to the wolves to cover their asses." If they defend him, people will say, "Look at that...they sure take their of their own, don't they?"
Having been in the profession myself, I seriously doubt that anyone involved in this investigation has deliberately covered anything up. What what does it matter? The investigation was doomed, public-relations-wise, as soon as it started.
A hands-off approach removes the appearance of impropriety.
Has anyone noticed that the safety director and police chief have NOT proposed this as a future response in such situations?
IMPD officers have arrested their own for DUI. Other cops have arrested other cops from other agencies for DUI. Granted, maybe if there is a conspiracy, it was because they didn't want him to "do time" or something. Tell you what, for a conspiracy to be this large, involving so many people, this guy must be the most well liked guy on the department. If this is a conspiracy, then we have lost all control in this country. Such a vast conspiracy would show that the non-government/non-LE citizens have basically rolled over to the point that the government and/or LE think they can do whatever they want, and the people won't do anything about it.
My suggestion, a new policy that mandates field sobriety tests for every personal injury crash involving any government vehicle in addition to whatever chemical tests are performed now.
Frank_N_Stein
Grandmaster
To make a long story short, no the blood cannot be re-introduced as evidence. In Indiana only certain qualified people may draw blood from someone to be used as evidence of operating while intoxicated. Apparently the person that drew Bisard's blood was not in a position recognized by the state as being qualified to draw blood that is to be used as evidence. Therefore, the blood was drawn contrary to statute. The prosecutor could have chosen to let the charges stand but they would more than likely have been thrown out by the judge because the blood evidence was obtained contrary to statute. If the judge had dismissed the charges, the prosecutor could have appealed the dismissal to a higher court. Since the prosecutor dropped the charges there is no appeal. The blood cannot be re-introduced later because of the way it was obtained.
E5RANGER375
Shooter
I suggest mandatory breath test before each shift. if they dont agree to it then see ya, thanks but no thanks. make it a job requirement. its not a right violation, its a job requirement.
Frank_N_Stein
Grandmaster
Aren't you one of the ones on INGO that is always preaching "innocent until proven guilty" and are a staunch supporter of the rights afforded to you under the 4th Amendment? If so, then you saying that mandatory breath tests before each shift violate both of those principles. Let me remind you:
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If no one has probable cause to believe that I have been drinking and then drove a motor vehicle, they don't have the authority to offer me a breath test. You want it as a condition of employment, change the statute.
serpicostraight
Shooter
- Aug 14, 2009
- 1,951
- 36
you are right frank however leo violate these rules on a regular basis. i was not driving a vehicle and was offered a breath test. i was arrested spent the night in jail and cost me my job and alot of money. i went to court and was found not guilty because i wasnt and the leo that arrested me looked like the jackass he was in front of the judge. but how many before and how many after did the jackass do it to again? point being if leo acted like they had a brain cell and obeyed the law the people who pay them would get along with them. win/win for everybody.
E5RANGER375
Shooter
yes your right I am. thats why I said to make it a job requirement. you agree to it or you dont work there. theres no search done if you dont consent, but you will lose your job. just like if a civilian employer wants to search your car and you dont let them they will fire you. it should be equal for all right? in that line of work, and with the incident that just happened, and with the known high numbers of cops who have been Caught drinking and driving, wouldnt PBT's make good sense and be a great safety measure, and you would think if people had nothing to hide they would agree!! right?? or does that just apply to civilians when cops wanna search my car and I tell them no?
This case could have implications in others as well. Now we have a mass media frenzy on our hands. I can see many defense attorney's pulling a "Bisard Defense." Basically it would consist of trying to get three goals during the trial:
#1: Making the cops look so stupid, that nothing they say can be trusted. Make people recall how they botched this incident.
#2: Make people really think "Can these test results really be trusted?" If Bisard's test was wrong, maybe he wasn't really drunk, these tests are bogus!
#3: Make people recall this case, and **** them off as to let other drunk drivers go just on principle.
Not just LEO. The Garrity applies to all public employees. I have heard of cases where lawyers of defendants tried to get this ruling to apply to all. The argument would be that the threat of loosing a job would be so great, so stressful, that it amounts to coercion. Not exactly sure if this is true, as I read this, but never read any actual case briefs.
The consensus is wrong, somewhat. For starters, every DUI fatality I know has had a bail. Yea, it may or may not be high, but they have one. You also need to read the story of drunk driver Paige Grable. She was a high school senior who got drunk, twice the legal limit. She killed a classmate. She ended up with a very short sentence, but things were made even worse when she got all these credits. She got her GED in prison, which knocked of a lot of time. Then you get a day for every day you behave, plus she had some time served days as well. Anyways, she gets out within two years, if that. She ends up going to college out west, and red shirts as a soccer player. She comes back to Indiana, and Purdue lets this killer into their school. To make matters worse, she got on the soccer team at Purdue. The parents of the kid she killed found out and raised hell about it. The roster don't show her as a player anymore, though there is a player page with her info. I read on a sports blog she was kicked off the team.
This is why we need truth in sentencing laws. Paige Grable wasn't an LEO. Her family likely had money, and if Eric had money, he could easily have gotten a similar deal. So, the answer to your questions is: It all depends on money, and various other factors. Remember the teen who ran from the Carmel cops, killing two of his friends. Caused two deaths, TWO DEATHS...he got probation.
#1: Making the cops look so stupid, that nothing they say can be trusted. Make people recall how they botched this incident.
#2: Make people really think "Can these test results really be trusted?" If Bisard's test was wrong, maybe he wasn't really drunk, these tests are bogus!
#3: Make people recall this case, and **** them off as to let other drunk drivers go just on principle.
Not just LEO. The Garrity applies to all public employees. I have heard of cases where lawyers of defendants tried to get this ruling to apply to all. The argument would be that the threat of loosing a job would be so great, so stressful, that it amounts to coercion. Not exactly sure if this is true, as I read this, but never read any actual case briefs.
The consensus is wrong, somewhat. For starters, every DUI fatality I know has had a bail. Yea, it may or may not be high, but they have one. You also need to read the story of drunk driver Paige Grable. She was a high school senior who got drunk, twice the legal limit. She killed a classmate. She ended up with a very short sentence, but things were made even worse when she got all these credits. She got her GED in prison, which knocked of a lot of time. Then you get a day for every day you behave, plus she had some time served days as well. Anyways, she gets out within two years, if that. She ends up going to college out west, and red shirts as a soccer player. She comes back to Indiana, and Purdue lets this killer into their school. To make matters worse, she got on the soccer team at Purdue. The parents of the kid she killed found out and raised hell about it. The roster don't show her as a player anymore, though there is a player page with her info. I read on a sports blog she was kicked off the team.
This is why we need truth in sentencing laws. Paige Grable wasn't an LEO. Her family likely had money, and if Eric had money, he could easily have gotten a similar deal. So, the answer to your questions is: It all depends on money, and various other factors. Remember the teen who ran from the Carmel cops, killing two of his friends. Caused two deaths, TWO DEATHS...he got probation.
Frank_N_Stein
Grandmaster
So basically what you are saying is the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to cops. Sure we can't violate when it comes to non-LEOs, but we also can't rely on it to keep ourselves from having illegal actions taken against us. Double standard much? Of course not, at least not in your mind.
High number of cops caught drinking and driving? IMPD has right around 1600 sworn officers. What do you consider a "high number"? 5, 10? That would be .003125 and .00625 percent of the department. Back up your statements with facts, not opinion.
I know that there are rigid timelines, and procedures, for handling DUI suspects and all of the associated tests. If an officer makes a mistake anywhere in that handling, what sort of discipline do they face?
I ask because being fired or going to jail as you suggest seems outlandish for making a single mistake in a single DUI stop, whether the suspect is a police officer or not.
Frank_N_Stein
Grandmaster
If the mistake is made completely by accident and without malice, then there usually wouldn't be any type of punishment. Unless you consider the case being thrown out or being admonished by a prosecutor or judge a "punishment." If the "mistake" was made with complete knowledge and pre-planning then it was going to be made, there could be a whole mess of punishment involved. Starting with administrative punishment of verbal counseling to termination, criminal punishment consisting of charges being filed for Obstruction of Justice among other things.
I totally agree. My statement was in response to a statement made.
Last edited:
I realize you put "mistake" in parenthesis, but that is clearly no longer a mistake and I really hope to G** that isn't the case...One bad apple(if he was actually drunk) is one thing, but a whole group of them covering up for him is a completely different monster.
After hearing multiple accounts of how good of a guy he is, I honestly don't want to believe he was drunk. I just don't understand how a .19% mistake could have happened if he was stone cold sober. I've never drawn blood or tested results, so I have idea how it works though.
Joe Williams
Shooter
- Jun 26, 2008
- 10,431
- 38
Remember, for this to be a cover up, it would have to involve a LOT of people not affiliated with the police department. No one, not a whole bunch of cops, not the medics, not the doctors, not one person, detected any hint of impairment. As much as many cops hate drunk drivers, getting all the cops to keep their yaps shut would be a huge undertaking. Getting all those other people to do so? I don't see it happening.
Wonder if the blood sample got swapped with someone else's? There are supposed to be safeguards against just this, but with all the other mistakes made, it's hardly impossible.
- Status
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here -
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- Herstal
- tom1025
- d.kaufman
- BR8818
- JRR85
- Firehawk
- KG1
- bwframe
- bloodandgutsmurphy
- 2tonic
- XDdreams
- Joniki
- ROOTS54454
- drgnrobo
- gpasp101
- den57
- ditcherman
- CheeseRat
- 2AmendTom
- Sloshooter
- Glock22
- billybob44
- jtmiller951
- Cameramonkey
- Alamo
- hammerd13
- Indiana Ed
- kjdoski
- ECS686
- steelhead
- tjones
- 223 Gunner
- Simon6101
- Magyars
- printcraft
- shootersix
- blainepoe
- Smith& W
- Dog1
- erasure
- outnumbered
- indykid
- wtburnette
- tv1217
- jsx1043
- Guffey
- Brandon
- DDadams
- Steel and wood
- Toole