drunk officer kills motorcyclist

[E5RANGER375]

Nope does not apply. They are there for show only.

they were there for show at ruby ridge and waco too. SHO did make a big mess.

feds are never there just for show unless its on the border.

they just want you to think its for show so you will talk to them. im sure they will find something. reasigning that one higher up cop, shows there is some stink in all of this.

 

[Knife Lady]

I had to have blodd drawn today for my annual. the tech who drew my blood said the LEO and all people involved knew where he should have went to draw blood and how to draw blood correctly. She said she was convinced it was being covered up. Even if the media has exploited this I would like to know in which way. He was not tested for alcohol till at least 2 hours after the accident and still was over the limit. Please explain this to me and or correct me if I am wrong. Again if he was not drunk or over the alcohol limit then what made him run over those guys. Now another excuse the brakes.??? Come on this guy needs to be accountable in all ways. If he knew he had faulty brrakes then why drive that car? why not get them fixed. I always thought safety first. This is not right and that is why the FBI is involved and I sure hope they help get this figured out. A dirty police force is not what we want or need. If you cant trust who is supposed to protect you then who can you?? Why is that they can speed and we cant ?? They can break the law everyday in some way or another. They should practice what they are supposed to enforce.
If anyone should have to obide the laws it should be any LEO for sure.
This is one messed up accident and this guy is still getting paid.
Like I said let him stand before the dead guys family and answer to them face to face and go the hospital and talk to the guys he put in there face to face.

 

[Dogman]

Don't know if the IMPD officer was drunk or not. But what I do know is that just because someone becomes a cop, they don't give up their rights. The same as anyone else in America the man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Anyone on this board could find themselves in a legal battle for their life and I have no doubt that everyone here would want the benefit of the doubt given to them.
If he is found guilty, there is a good chance he'll do time, if innocent his career in LE is over, and the civil suits will begin either way.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I had to have blodd drawn today for my annual. the tech who drew my blood said the LEO and all people involved knew where he should have went to draw blood and how to draw blood correctly. She said she was convinced it was being covered up.

I had to have the tires on my van rotated today so I took it to Walmart Tire & Lube express. The guy doing the work told me I was paying too much for car insurance and that I only needed liability, so I dropped my full coverage.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

Wow, I'm late to this party..

Frank, while the 4A prohibits legal action taken on the basis of such things as a PBT or even a "real"... what is it, Breathmaster?...it does not prohibit employment-related action on that basis, IMHO.

That is, if, as per Garrity, you were given immunity from prosecution but told that you either do the PBT or you turn in your badge (for the day?) I don't think I would consider that unConstitutional, any more than I would for any other person at his/her job. The key here is that you guys have that item there and can put it to use quickly, easily, and non-intrusively. Further, if the guy blows a .10, one of his buddies can drive him home and keep a drunk off the streets. No prosecution involved, so the 4A doesn't, again IMHO, come into play.

Hypothetical: If this happens once, the guy goes home and misses a day's pay.
If it happens a second time, he goes home and is off without pay for a week.
If it happens a third time, he turns in his badge and gun and goes looking for work. All of the above within, say, a rotating 365 day period, meaning he has 365 days from the first charge before he gets only a day off without pay again. If his third offense is, say, 11 months after his second, but 13 months after his first, it's treated as another "second": a week without pay.

I don't like the idea of doing something like this, but if it's a job requirement and not a legal matter, I don't think the law figures into it: You do, after all, have the choice to work there or not, and this is the same thing I would say of any job, including mine.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MinuteMan47]

Wow, I'm late to this party..

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fargo]

Nope does not apply. They are there for show only.

Really? Sez who? Unless you happen to the SA in Charge, you will have to forgive me if I question your ability to speak with such authority for the FBI.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Wow, I'm late to this party..

Frank, while the 4A prohibits legal action taken on the basis of such things as a PBT or even a "real"... what is it, Breathmaster?...it does not prohibit employment-related action on that basis, IMHO.

That is, if, as per Garrity, you were given immunity from prosecution but told that you either do the PBT or you turn in your badge (for the day?) I don't think I would consider that unConstitutional, any more than I would for any other person at his/her job. The key here is that you guys have that item there and can put it to use quickly, easily, and non-intrusively. Further, if the guy blows a .10, one of his buddies can drive him home and keep a drunk off the streets. No prosecution involved, so the 4A doesn't, again IMHO, come into play.

Hypothetical: If this happens once, the guy goes home and misses a day's pay.
If it happens a second time, he goes home and is off without pay for a week.
If it happens a third time, he turns in his badge and gun and goes looking for work. All of the above within, say, a rotating 365 day period, meaning he has 365 days from the first charge before he gets only a day off without pay again. If his third offense is, say, 11 months after his second, but 13 months after his first, it's treated as another "second": a week without pay.

I don't like the idea of doing something like this, but if it's a job requirement and not a legal matter, I don't think the law figures into it: You do, after all, have the choice to work there or not, and this is the same thing I would say of any job, including mine.

Blessings,
Bill

So you would gladly give up one of your rights because someone else did something wrong? Giving the average Joe a breath test without having probable cause to believe they were operating while intoxicated is contrary to Indiana code. Why should it be any different for an on-duty officer? You going to have someone come to my house and breathalyze me before I leave the house for roll call? We take our cars home so in order for me to comply you are going to have to come to me, otherwise I am going to break the law by driving in to work and then getting tested. I have never drank while at or before work so I shouldn't have to be given a breath test just to drive my car. Just because one officer did it doesn't mean the other 1599 of us have or are going to.

And by the way, your hypothetical punishments pale in comparison to what goes on at IMPD. First offense of any measureable amount of alcohol is 15 days minimum. People who think punishments at IMPD are just a slap on the hand are uninformed.

 

[E5RANGER375]

So you would gladly give up one of your rights because someone else did something wrong? Giving the average Joe a breath test without having probable cause to believe they were operating while intoxicated is contrary to Indiana code. Why should it be any different for an on-duty officer? You going to have someone come to my house and breathalyze me before I leave the house for roll call? We take our cars home so in order for me to comply you are going to have to come to me, otherwise I am going to break the law by driving in to work and then getting tested. I have never drank while at or before work so I shouldn't have to be given a breath test just to drive my car. Just because one officer did it doesn't mean the other 1599 of us have or are going to.

And by the way, your hypothetical punishments pale in comparison to what goes on at IMPD. First offense of any measureable amount of alcohol is 15 days minimum. People who think punishments at IMPD are just a slap on the hand are uninformed.

i dont think your comprehending the: WORK REQUIREMENT thing here. dont look at it as a cop testing you to arrest you. look at it as a employer testing you as a job requirement.

ok then, since your right you would have to drive possibly drunk to go to get the test, then lets just install the PBT's in the car, and rig a camera to them so it records who is blowing in it. kinda like the cameras on atms.

only 15 days suspension for alcohol related discipline??? (probly paid 15 days too?) you guys realy dont live in the real job world do you? any normal persons job would more than not FIRE the person on the first alcohol related incident. cops gets WAY too many second chances for the serious nature of their jobs.

 

[PatriotPride]

i dont think your comprehending the: WORK REQUIREMENT thing here. dont look at it as a cop testing you to arrest you. look at it as a employer testing you as a job requirement.

ok then, since your right you would have to drive possibly drunk to go to get the test, then lets just install the PBT's in the car, and rig a camera to them so it records who is blowing in it. kinda like the cameras on atms.

only 15 days suspension for alcohol related discipline??? (probly paid 15 days too?) you guys realy dont live in the real job world do you? any normal persons job would more than not FIRE the person on the first alcohol related incident. cops gets WAY too many second chances for the serious nature of their jobs.

and 7th, and 8th, and 9th chances

 

[hornadylnl]

Now I have the utmost faith that if I ever have an interaction with IMPD, it will be handled with the utmost professionalism and competence. I will have no fear that evidence will be improperly obtained or handled.

At best, IMPD is guilty of railroading an innocent man (Officer Bisard if he was indeed stone cold sober). If Bisard was indeed drunk, IMPD is guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal at the minimum. Can anyone reasonable argue that not one single officer or higher up present for Bisard's blood draw knew that they weren't using proper procedure? It seems that every officer posting in this thread knows the proper procedure for an admissable blood draw. We are being told that countless officers and brass had interacted with Bisard after this wreck but none of them knew this investigation was being handled improperly?

This is stuff we can expect from dictatorships and 3rd world countries, not the leader of the free world.

Are any of you IMPD officers on here reconsidering working for an organization that would railroad an innocent officer? Stuff like this is one of the many reasons I'm glad I got out of the military. Why should I risk my life for an organization that will break one off in my arse if it will save them from looking bad?

 

[serpicostraight]

i dont know who that is but shes looking like a good candidate for my next ex wife

 

[ihateiraq]

someone forgets a man died.judge ruger says think about his family.frank & berry ha ha.sure are some smart caring computer nerds on here

have you forgotten that thousands of people die every day? if i sat around thinking about all their families id probably kill myself. i appreciate you taking all the grief of the world on yourself though. kudos. im gonna play cod now. keep the imaginary families of all the video game characters im about to kill in your thoughts and prayers.

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't necessarily think the mishandling of Bisard's blood draw was a willful attempt at covering up a crime. I think that Bisard's blood draw was handled the way it was is because he was given a presumption of innocence due to the fact that he was a cop, he was a buddy to those in charge of the after-the-crash investigation, followed through with the blood draw because it was a formality, etc. Now let's replace Bisard with Joe Blow citizen. Would Joe Blow be given the same presumption of innocence in this same accident that Bisard? I highly doubt it.

If an officer has probable cause to pull over a suspected drunk driver, he'll pull him over and administer pbt, field sobriety, etc. If those tests pull up a positive and place the driver over the legal limit, I'm sure they will dot every i and cross every t to make sure the arrest sticks. The officers in charge of investigating this crash involving Bisard appear to have made almost zero effort to dot and i's or cross any t's. As I've said, their lack of effort to properly investigate this may solely be do to presumption of innocence and zero malice. Even if that's the case here, are Bisard and Joe Blow citizen equal under the law? I would say no.

 

[Indy317]

It seems that every officer posting in this thread knows the proper procedure for an admissable blood draw.

I didn't know things were so technical. From reading the code, I don't think they were supposed to be technical. I always was under the impression that anyone who was trained to take blood would be someone who could draw the blood. The Brown ruling seems to be a case where a court basically said the last portion of the blood draw law applies to the entire section/statue. That means the person has to fit into a defined category of licensed worker. I personally am glad this has come to light. Now I know the person taking the blood must meet a certain criteria.

Here is what I am talking about:

IC 9-30-6-6 is broken down into various sub-sections. Some of them make it sound like anyone can draw the blood:

Sec. 6.
(a) A physician or a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples and acting under the direction of or under a protocol prepared by a physician, who:
(1) obtains a blood, urine, or other bodily substance sample from a person, regardless of whether the sample is taken for diagnostic purposes or at the request of a law enforcement officer under this section; or
(2) performs a chemical test on blood, urine, or other bodily substance obtained from a person;
shall deliver the sample or disclose the results of the test to a law enforcement officer who requests the sample or results as a part of a criminal investigation. Samples and test results shall be provided to a law enforcement officer even if the person has not consented to or otherwise authorized their release.

(f) This section does not require a physician or a person under the direction of a physician to perform a chemical test.

(g) A physician or a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples and acting under the direction of or under a protocol prepared by a physician shall obtain a blood, urine, or other bodily substance sample if the following exist:
(1) A law enforcement officer requests that the sample be obtained.
(2) The law enforcement officer has certified in writing the following:
(A) That the officer has probable cause to believe the person from whom the sample is to be obtained has violated IC 9-30-5.
(B) That the person from whom the sample is to be obtained has been involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the serious bodily injury or death of another.
(C) That the accident that caused the serious bodily injury or death of another occurred not more than three (3) hours before the time the sample is requested.
(3) Not more than the use of reasonable force is necessary to obtain the sample.

(h) If the person:
(1) from whom the bodily substance sample is to be obtained under this section does not consent; and
(2) resists the taking of a sample;
the law enforcement officer may use reasonable force to assist an individual, who must be authorized under this section to obtain a sample, in the taking of the sample.

(i) The person authorized under this section to obtain a bodily substance sample shall take the sample in a medically accepted manner.


(j) This subsection does not apply to a bodily substance sample taken at a licensed hospital (as defined in IC 16-18-2-179(a) and IC 16-18-2-179(b)). A law enforcement officer may transport the person to a place where the sample may be obtained by any of the following persons who are trained in obtaining bodily substance samples and who have been engaged to obtain samples under this section:
(1) A physician holding an unlimited license to practice medicine or osteopathy.
(2) A registered nurse.
(3) A licensed practical nurse.
(4) An emergency medical technician-basic advanced (as defined in IC 16-18-2-112.5).
(5) An emergency medical technician-intermediate (as defined in IC 16-18-2-112.7).
(6) A paramedic (as defined in IC 16-18-2-266).


Now the last subsection, j, appears to be the issue. Notice that no where in the law, that I can find, is "a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples" defined. Subsection j appears to just name a few people who can, but there is nothing that says the list of people in (j) must be those used in subsection (a) and (g). However, that Brown ruling makes it sound like the court just made this part of the requirement. The court ruled: "Brown contends that Zook, as a certified lab technician, is not a person who is “trained in obtaining bodily substance samples” for purposes of this statute.2 We agree."

I think the public would want Brizzi to at least make some sort of argument that the ruling in Brown was wrong. There is nothing that ties all those subsections together, and to me, a medtech trained to draw blood would fit the definition of a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples. There is a very good chance one or more cops investigating this situation pulled up this law on the internet, or read it in a book. Maybe they didn't, but if they did, I could see the confusion. If they didn't know about the Brown ruling, they likely figured they didn't need anyone listed in (j) if they were drawing blood under (a) and/or (g).

 

[Bill of Rights]

So you would gladly give up one of your rights because someone else did something wrong? Giving the average Joe a breath test without having probable cause to believe they were operating while intoxicated is contrary to Indiana code. Why should it be any different for an on-duty officer? You going to have someone come to my house and breathalyze me before I leave the house for roll call? We take our cars home so in order for me to comply you are going to have to come to me, otherwise I am going to break the law by driving in to work and then getting tested. I have never drank while at or before work so I shouldn't have to be given a breath test just to drive my car. Just because one officer did it doesn't mean the other 1599 of us have or are going to.

And by the way, your hypothetical punishments pale in comparison to what goes on at IMPD. First offense of any measureable amount of alcohol is 15 days minimum. People who think punishments at IMPD are just a slap on the hand are uninformed.

No, I wouldn't. I don't think you guys should have to do this any more than I or anyone else should. I'm addressing only the legality of it and the fact that I don't think it violates the Constitution. There are many, many things that happen that are wrong but are not unConstitutional. Please accept my apology for not being more clear on that.

Is it a violation of statute to PBT someone without PC for OWI? For example, if you were going out with friends, off duty, and wanted to ensure that you didn't drive drunk, could you take your PBT with you and test yourself prior to driving, without violating the law? By the same token, if I was out with friends and approached you, on duty, could I request with impunity a PBT prior to getting in my car? (I'm basing my question here on the officer discretion aspect of the law on public intox... that is, if a polite, well-mannered person was to ask your assistance in avoiding a violation of law, but was technically in violation of another, I'm considering it a given that you would look the other way on the PI because he was not causing a disturbance and because he was trying to be a responsible adult.)

I do believe that if Officer Bisard does remain on the department AND if it is shown (not in court, that's already off the table) that he had an alcohol-related problem, *he* should possibly have to do so. Maybe an ignition interlock, maybe an on-duty officer in the area, I don't know, but I believe, as my posts should bear out, in the guilty party paying for his crimes. If that means that a specific officer has to do something like that for a specific, limited period of time, (six months, maybe as much as a year), to demonstrate to his shift command or chief or IA or whoever that he can be trusted to be sober, I don't think that's unreasonable. To punish all for the misdeed of one is another matter entirely.

As to the issue of the hypothetical responses I suggested, they were meant more for illustration than to be taken literally. The idea I wanted to illustrate was an incrementally worse, "three strikes" type of response to a violation of department protocol, however, one that did not involve the courts.

I think you probably know I'm not one to agree to voluntarily give up the free and lawful exercise of my rights and by the same token, I will NOT give that up for anyone else, either, save as a consequence of a conviction. I have said many times that even that goes too far under our current system. I also think I've been very clear in my support of LEOs who respect their oath and do their jobs accordingly, which echoes your, Denny's, FPD's, and public servant's thoughts on this case when it was first brought out.

If Officer Bisard can be shown to have NOT been drinking and if the collision can be shown to be the fault of the shop that pronounced his brakes to be in good order when they were not, I would expect him to be restored to duty with back pay and the full weight and force of the law descend upon the mechanic who did not do the job for which he was hired.

I would also expect that Officer Bisard would have one hell of a civil case against said mechanic as well.

Hopefully, this will clear up the unfortunate misunderstanding from my earlier post. If not, I will be happy to discuss it with you in further detail either openly or by PM.

Stay safe out there.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fargo]

I didn't know things were so technical. From reading the code, I don't think they were supposed to be technical. I always was under the impression that anyone who was trained to take blood would be someone who could draw the blood. The Brown ruling seems to be a case where a court basically said the last portion of the blood draw law applies to the entire section/statue. That means the person has to fit into a defined category of licensed worker. I personally am glad this has come to light. Now I know the person taking the blood must meet a certain criteria.

Here is what I am talking about:

IC 9-30-6-6 is broken down into various sub-sections. Some of them make it sound like anyone can draw the blood:

Sec. 6.
(a) A physician or a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples and acting under the direction of or under a protocol prepared by a physician, who:
(1) obtains a blood, urine, or other bodily substance sample from a person, regardless of whether the sample is taken for diagnostic purposes or at the request of a law enforcement officer under this section; or
(2) performs a chemical test on blood, urine, or other bodily substance obtained from a person;
shall deliver the sample or disclose the results of the test to a law enforcement officer who requests the sample or results as a part of a criminal investigation. Samples and test results shall be provided to a law enforcement officer even if the person has not consented to or otherwise authorized their release.

(f) This section does not require a physician or a person under the direction of a physician to perform a chemical test.

(g) A physician or a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples and acting under the direction of or under a protocol prepared by a physician shall obtain a blood, urine, or other bodily substance sample if the following exist:
(1) A law enforcement officer requests that the sample be obtained.
(2) The law enforcement officer has certified in writing the following:
(A) That the officer has probable cause to believe the person from whom the sample is to be obtained has violated IC 9-30-5.
(B) That the person from whom the sample is to be obtained has been involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the serious bodily injury or death of another.
(C) That the accident that caused the serious bodily injury or death of another occurred not more than three (3) hours before the time the sample is requested.
(3) Not more than the use of reasonable force is necessary to obtain the sample.

(h) If the person:
(1) from whom the bodily substance sample is to be obtained under this section does not consent; and
(2) resists the taking of a sample;
the law enforcement officer may use reasonable force to assist an individual, who must be authorized under this section to obtain a sample, in the taking of the sample.

(i) The person authorized under this section to obtain a bodily substance sample shall take the sample in a medically accepted manner.


(j) This subsection does not apply to a bodily substance sample taken at a licensed hospital (as defined in IC 16-18-2-179(a) and IC 16-18-2-179(b)). A law enforcement officer may transport the person to a place where the sample may be obtained by any of the following persons who are trained in obtaining bodily substance samples and who have been engaged to obtain samples under this section:
(1) A physician holding an unlimited license to practice medicine or osteopathy.
(2) A registered nurse.
(3) A licensed practical nurse.
(4) An emergency medical technician-basic advanced (as defined in IC 16-18-2-112.5).
(5) An emergency medical technician-intermediate (as defined in IC 16-18-2-112.7).
(6) A paramedic (as defined in IC 16-18-2-266).


Now the last subsection, j, appears to be the issue. Notice that no where in the law, that I can find, is "a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples" defined. Subsection j appears to just name a few people who can, but there is nothing that says the list of people in (j) must be those used in subsection (a) and (g). However, that Brown ruling makes it sound like the court just made this part of the requirement. The court ruled: "Brown contends that Zook, as a certified lab technician, is not a person who is “trained in obtaining bodily substance samples” for purposes of this statute.2 We agree."

I think the public would want Brizzi to at least make some sort of argument that the ruling in Brown was wrong. There is nothing that ties all those subsections together, and to me, a medtech trained to draw blood would fit the definition of a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples. There is a very good chance one or more cops investigating this situation pulled up this law on the internet, or read it in a book. Maybe they didn't, but if they did, I could see the confusion. If they didn't know about the Brown ruling, they likely figured they didn't need anyone listed in (j) if they were drawing blood under (a) and/or (g).

The statute has been changed by the legislature since the Brown ruling so that hospital blood draws drawn under protocol are OK and it no longer has to be by someone listed in sub(j). Also, the category "licensed phlebotomist" has been removed from sub(j) since there is no such thing in Indiana. The statute as it reads today is not the same as it was in Brown.

The list of people in sub (j) now only applies to non-hospital blood draws. That is what screws the pooch in this case. The blood was drawn at a free-standing clinic by someone NOT listed in sub (j).

Had the blood been drawn at a hospital* per the hospitals protocol, it would be admissible. If it was drawn by a person listed in sub(j) it would be admissible. Since it was neither, the pooch is screwed.

Best,


Joe

*as defined in the Indiana code.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Letter questions alcohol purchase by IMPD officer - 13 WTHR


I am hearing that IMPD is giving him a chance to resign..... that is pretty bad.

They also showed the area the wreck happend and the location of Med clinic, to me it looks like the hospital is just as far if not closer.

A WHOLE lot of people think there is a good chance that it is a cover up, part of me thinks that......

MOST places of buisness send you straight to the hospital or whatever for a drug/alcohol test if you are in a wreck..... This guy's buddies and everyone around him thought he looked "fine", that has been said on here even... It was also said that IMPD does make you get tested for that when you are involved in a wreck..... this guy was said to be "fine" and then taken to med clinic...... no need for the blood draw I guess.... then he does get blood drawn yet nobody said we need to go to the hospital for this then ta da can't use the blood because it was not done by someone who could.

So really the policy was ignoored from what I can tell......

You would even think that the FACT guys would know better?

I try and be as pro cop as I can be on here but it just looks really bad.

If it comes to light that there was a cover up there will be one or two sig quotes from this thread in my sig..... you can count on that.


I am hearing there is a big protest/hang out on the circle tonight and tomorrow for anyone that wants to go........ we all know that at night not to mention the weekends when the circle gets to busy IMPD shuts it down..... I have no problem with this but with what all that has happend I will be deeply saddend if they do shut it down.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I didn't know things were so technical. From reading the code, I don't think they were supposed to be technical. I always was under the impression that anyone who was trained to take blood would be someone who could draw the blood. The Brown ruling seems to be a case where a court basically said the last portion of the blood draw law applies to the entire section/statue. That means the person has to fit into a defined category of licensed worker. I personally am glad this has come to light. Now I know the person taking the blood must meet a certain criteria.

Here is what I am talking about:

IC 9-30-6-6 is broken down into various sub-sections. Some of them make it sound like anyone can draw the blood:

Sec. 6.
(a) A physician or a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples and acting under the direction of or under a protocol prepared by a physician, who:
(1) obtains a blood, urine, or other bodily substance sample from a person, regardless of whether the sample is taken for diagnostic purposes or at the request of a law enforcement officer under this section; or
(2) performs a chemical test on blood, urine, or other bodily substance obtained from a person;
shall deliver the sample or disclose the results of the test to a law enforcement officer who requests the sample or results as a part of a criminal investigation. Samples and test results shall be provided to a law enforcement officer even if the person has not consented to or otherwise authorized their release.

(f) This section does not require a physician or a person under the direction of a physician to perform a chemical test.

(g) A physician or a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples and acting under the direction of or under a protocol prepared by a physician shall obtain a blood, urine, or other bodily substance sample if the following exist:
(1) A law enforcement officer requests that the sample be obtained.
(2) The law enforcement officer has certified in writing the following:
(A) That the officer has probable cause to believe the person from whom the sample is to be obtained has violated IC 9-30-5.
(B) That the person from whom the sample is to be obtained has been involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the serious bodily injury or death of another.
(C) That the accident that caused the serious bodily injury or death of another occurred not more than three (3) hours before the time the sample is requested.
(3) Not more than the use of reasonable force is necessary to obtain the sample.

(h) If the person:
(1) from whom the bodily substance sample is to be obtained under this section does not consent; and
(2) resists the taking of a sample;
the law enforcement officer may use reasonable force to assist an individual, who must be authorized under this section to obtain a sample, in the taking of the sample.

(i) The person authorized under this section to obtain a bodily substance sample shall take the sample in a medically accepted manner.


(j) This subsection does not apply to a bodily substance sample taken at a licensed hospital (as defined in IC 16-18-2-179(a) and IC 16-18-2-179(b)). A law enforcement officer may transport the person to a place where the sample may be obtained by any of the following persons who are trained in obtaining bodily substance samples and who have been engaged to obtain samples under this section:
(1) A physician holding an unlimited license to practice medicine or osteopathy.
(2) A registered nurse.
(3) A licensed practical nurse.
(4) An emergency medical technician-basic advanced (as defined in IC 16-18-2-112.5).
(5) An emergency medical technician-intermediate (as defined in IC 16-18-2-112.7).
(6) A paramedic (as defined in IC 16-18-2-266).


Now the last subsection, j, appears to be the issue. Notice that no where in the law, that I can find, is "a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples" defined. Subsection j appears to just name a few people who can, but there is nothing that says the list of people in (j) must be those used in subsection (a) and (g). However, that Brown ruling makes it sound like the court just made this part of the requirement. The court ruled: "Brown contends that Zook, as a certified lab technician, is not a person who is “trained in obtaining bodily substance samples” for purposes of this statute.2 We agree."

I think the public would want Brizzi to at least make some sort of argument that the ruling in Brown was wrong. There is nothing that ties all those subsections together, and to me, a medtech trained to draw blood would fit the definition of a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples. There is a very good chance one or more cops investigating this situation pulled up this law on the internet, or read it in a book. Maybe they didn't, but if they did, I could see the confusion. If they didn't know about the Brown ruling, they likely figured they didn't need anyone listed in (j) if they were drawing blood under (a) and/or (g).

So any of those people AND/OR the blood draw done at a hospital would qualify. The issue here is that no one suspected he had alcohol in his system. The idea that this is a cover-up is ludicrous. It's not the thin blue line, it's not the papers and the courts and the clinic covering up for the police... It sounds to me like it was a case of ignorance (because there's no way for you guys to know every law, however that does not excuse not checking) far more than intentional misdeeds. I think it was Denny who said earlier that the reason for no ER for on the job injuries is that the dept. is "cheap". That others present who were on the street prior to the above becoming law didn't know it is perhaps excusable as they don't deal with that law regularly. For those who did know, I suspect this is a case of cutting corners that someone thought wouldn't matter because Officer Bisard's blood was going to come back 0.0 and this was simply dotting the Is. "What? Oh... yes sir, I know we should have done his blood at the hospital, but we were there and figured we'd save some time. Besides, it's 0.0, so it doesn't matter. No sir, I won't let it happen again." was probably the expected outcome, if it was even mentioned.

Would this have happened with John Q Public? Probably not, but then, JQ Public isn't required to go to a doc in the box rather than a real hospital for injuries, either, nor would he have had a whole slew of police brass around while his minor injuries were tended.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Indy317]

Letter questions alcohol purchase by IMPD officer - 13 WTHR

There is a comment posted on this thread taken from another source. That person claimed to be a friend if the officer and stated the officer doesn't drink and has sworn such. If they come out with a video from CVS of him purchasing booze, especially in uniform, all hell is gonna break loose.