drunk officer kills motorcyclist

[Fargo]

Here's the statute you claim he violated:


Might want to read the bold text more carefully, there.

I'd start with this:



It appears to me that you would charge him with the wrong statute, and that if the facts are as stated in the report, he's guilty of a class C felony unless he satisfies the latter part of the statute.

I also think you're wrong about not charging him with more. Being drunk while on duty as a police officer AND causing death by driving under the influence should be separate crimes.

It also seems that he satisfies the involuntary manslaughter statute, which makes him guilty of another felony:
.

There are probably a number of other charges that should result from this as well.

I hope to God that nobody here tries to defend this conduct, either. This is beyond atrocious.

No, FPD is absolutely correct. You need to look at how the statute is broken up. (b) operates independently of (a).

IC 9-30-5-5
Classification of offense; death; death of law enforcement animal
Sec. 5. (a) A person who causes the death of another person when operating a motor vehicle:
(1) with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least eight-hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol per:
(A) one hundred (100) milliliters of the person's blood; or
(B) two hundred ten (210) liters of the person's breath;
(2) with a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II of IC 35-48-2 or its metabolite in the person's blood; or
(3) while intoxicated;
commits a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if the person has a previous conviction of operating while intoxicated within the five (5) years preceding the commission of the offense, or if the person operated the motor vehicle when the person knew that the person's driver's license, driving privilege, or permit is suspended or revoked for a previous conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
(b) A person at least twenty-one (21) years of age who causes the death of another person when operating a motor vehicle:
(1) with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least fifteen-hundredths (0.15) gram of alcohol per:
(A) one hundred (100) milliliters of the person's blood; or
(B) two hundred ten (210) liters of the person's breath; or
(2) with a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II of IC 35-48-2 or its metabolite in the person's blood;
commits a Class B felony.
(c) A person who causes the death of a law enforcement animal (as defined in IC 35-46-3-4.5) when operating a motor vehicle:
(1) with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least eight-hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol per:
(A) one hundred (100) milliliters of the person's blood; or
(B) two hundred ten (210) liters of the person's breath; or
(2) with a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II of IC 35-48-2 or its metabolite in the person's blood;
commits a Class D felony.
(d) A person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) commits a separate offense for each person or law enforcement animal whose death is caused by the violation of subsection (a), (b), or (c).
(e) It is a defense under subsection (a)(2), (b)(2), or (c)(2) that the accused person consumed the controlled substance under a valid prescription or order of a practitioner (as defined in IC 35-48-1) who acted in the course of the practitioner's professional practice.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.18. Amended by P.L.53-1994, SEC.6; P.L.97-1996, SEC.4; P.L.96-1996, SEC.4; P.L.33-1997, SEC.9; P.L.1-2000, SEC.9; P.L.120-2000, SEC.1; P.L.175-2001, SEC.9; P.L.82-2004, SEC.2; P.L.76-2004, SEC.4; P.L.2-2005, SEC.36; P.L.102-2010, SEC.1.

Each color represents the element of a separate offense/enhancement. Italics represents severability and defenses.

Also, it is a principle of Indiana's constitutional jurisprudence that where there is a specific statute, it generally must be used in place of a general statute. As such, Invol Manslaughter probably isn't the appropriate charge. The section you bolded ( and I shaded red below) corresponds to the death of a fetus, not to the death of a born person.

IC 35-42-1-4
Involuntary manslaughter
Sec. 4. (a) As used in this section, "child care provider" means a person who provides child care in or on behalf of:
(1) a child care center (as defined in IC 12-7-2-28.4); or
(2) a child care home (as defined in IC 12-7-2-28.6);
regardless of whether the child care center or child care home is licensed.
(b) As used in this section, "fetus" means a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365).
(c) A person who kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit: (1) a Class C or Class D felony that inherently poses a risk of serious bodily injury;
(2) a Class A misdemeanor that inherently poses a risk of serious bodily injury; or
(3) battery;
commits involuntary manslaughter, a Class C felony. However, if the killing results from the operation of a vehicle, the offense is a Class D felony.
(d) A person who kills a fetus while committing or attempting to commit:
(1) a Class C or Class D felony that inherently poses a risk of serious bodily injury;
(2) a Class A misdemeanor that inherently poses a risk of serious bodily injury;
(3) battery; or
(4) a violation of IC 9-30-5-1 through IC 9-30-5-5 (operating a vehicle while intoxicated);
commits involuntary manslaughter, a Class C felony. However, if the killing results from the operation of a vehicle, the offense is a Class D felony.
(e) If:
(1) a child care provider recklessly supervises a child; and
(2) the child dies as a result of the child care provider's reckless supervision;
the child care provider commits involuntary manslaughter, a Class D felony.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.28; P.L.261-1997, SEC.5; P.L.133-2002, SEC.65; P.L.7-2010, SEC.1.

I do not know of any successful prosecution in Indiana for manslaughter based upon someone committing OWI causing death. It has been done once or twice in NY, but their statutory scheme is different from ours.

Best,


Joe

 

[IndyMonkey]

I've seen guys as high as .5 still ambulatory (albeit not very) and one .7 and still conscious. .19 may seem "insanely high" to some people, but many are still nearly 100% functional... because they live that way.

I agree,.19 and still coherent is an Alcoholic (or a life choice).

 

[JetGirl]

Was there an "un-funny drunk stories" thread that I missed?

I wouldn't say you missed it.

 

[1032JBT]

Here's the statute you claim he violated:


Might want to read the bold text more carefully, there.

I'd start with this:



It appears to me that you would charge him with the wrong statute, and that if the facts are as stated in the report, he's guilty of a class C felony unless he satisfies the latter part of the statute.

I also think you're wrong about not charging him with more. Being drunk while on duty as a police officer AND causing death by driving under the influence should be separate crimes.

It also seems that he satisfies the involuntary manslaughter statute, which makes him guilty of another felony:
.

There are probably a number of other charges that should result from this as well.

I hope to God that nobody here tries to defend this conduct, either. This is beyond atrocious.

Fargo has already responded to the first part you claimed I was wrong. I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong..........I wasn't but thank you for your concern.


As far as the last part..........have you seen anyone post anything in support of this guy??? I haven't..........so why on earth would you insinuate someone would???

 

[hornadylnl]

I wonder how many dui's he wrote up while drunk himself. If he was .19 during this accident, I'd find it hard to believe that this was his first time drunk on duty.

 

[Benny]

I wouldn't say you missed it.

Ohh, you're talking about the thread Debbie came in and on...Gotcha.

 

[hornadylnl]

When it requires a team of lawyers to write code and another team of lawyers to interpret that code, I think we are long past tyranny.

If a law is directed to the people, the people should be able to read and comprehend it.

No, FPD is absolutely correct. You need to look at how the statute is broken up. (b) operates independently of (a).
Each color represents the element of a separate offense/enhancement. Italics represents severability and defenses.

Also, it is a principle of Indiana's constitutional jurisprudence that where there is a specific statute, it generally must be used in place of a general statute. As such, Invol Manslaughter probably isn't the appropriate charge. The section you bolded ( and I shaded red below) corresponds to the death of a fetus, not to the death of a born person.
I do not know of any successful prosecution in Indiana for manslaughter based upon someone committing OWI causing death. It has been done once or twice in NY, but their statutory scheme is different from ours.

Best,


Joe

 

[E5RANGER375]

When it requires a team of lawyers to write code and another team of lawyers to interpret that code, I think we are long past tyranny.

If a law is directed to the people, the people should be able to read and comprehend it.

i agree with that post!!! I've often thought the same thing. sorry for the thread jack, but it was a great post he had.

 

[Que]

The news (WISH) just reported that he has been involved in five crashes! There was nothing said that alcohol was involved, though.

 

[IndyMonkey]

The news (WISH) just reported that he has been involved in five crashes! There was nothing said that alcohol was involved, though.

Three of them were running into private property, two of them were running into people he was chasing.

 

[downzero]

As far as the last part..........have you seen anyone post anything in support of this guy??? I haven't..........so why on earth would you insinuate someone would???

I just hope nobody would even try. The fact that his blood showed that he was drunk on duty is inexcusable. There's nothing else I even need to know as long as that fact is verified.

If I read the statutes incorrectly, I apologize. I do think it's awfully strange that one's conduct could violate multiple statutes, and they're only prosecuted under one. If that's the case, that's really a shame.

 

[Fargo]

I do think it's awfully strange that one's conduct could violate multiple statutes, and they're only prosecuted under one. If that's the case, that's really a shame.

That isn't really how it works. It is just that if there is a statute to deal with a particular circumstance, for example failing to buckle your kid's seatbelt, then it isn't appropriate to try to use another general statute, like neglect of a dependent, to try and make it a worse offense than the legislature intended.

There are all sorts of behaviors that violate multiple statutes and can result in multiple charges. Using OWI death to get to manslaughter just isn't one of them.


Joe

 

[jontheturboguy]

You know, I read crap like this about officers pulling stupid s!T@$#%.

Glad to know IMPD didn't hire me because I didn't have "potential officer qualities."

I know some real A+ guys and gals on IMPD, some of them are on here (ingo).

Crap like this though is just unacceptable. Hope the guy is banned from being an officer for life.

 

[serpicostraight]

I just hope nobody would even try. The fact that his blood showed that he was drunk on duty is inexcusable. There's nothing else I even need to know as long as that fact is verified.

If I read the statutes incorrectly, I apologize. I do think it's awfully strange that one's conduct could violate multiple statutes, and they're only prosecuted under one. If that's the case, that's really a shame.

i was arrested for owi while sitting in a parking lot which btw i was found not guilty but i was charged with a class c and a class b 2 charges for same offense. and i was told by the judge the prosecutor can charge you with anything they want. so im guessing its up to the prosecutor as to how many charges and what they are.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

well it will be fun to see how the spin doctors will twist the facts on this . he had a bad childhood ,or he was an abused boy scout ,or his dog was in heat .

I'm not a spin doctor and you won't hear any apologetic b.s. for his behavior from me.

Hope he gets all he deserves and more.

For once you and I agree, to an extent. I think he should get exactly what the law says he should get as far as statutory punishment goes. He also needs to lose his job.

Doesn't matter what his childhood was like, who he was abused by, or what was going on with his dog. He is a disgrace to my profession and I hope he gets what he deserves.

Negative.........I hope he gets the same as anyone else would, nothing more nothing less.

Couldn't agree more.

no leniency should be given to that police officer.

Im pro police, but there is no excuse for what he did.

Totally agree.

He was drunk?!? On duty? That is ridiculous. Unacceptable, I'm sorry.

It would also be unacceptable had it happened off-duty.

Crap like this though is just unacceptable. Hope the guy is banned from being an officer for life.

I'm sure he will be.

For the record, Officer Bisard is a friend of mine. I have known him for the past 8 years. We don't hang out, but when we see each other at work we take time to "catch up." That being said, he will not get any defense from me and it pains me to say that whatever punishment he gets, he deserves.

 

[jd4320t]

I wanted to give him some benefit of doubt until I heard this. Now he is nothing more to me than all the other pieces of crap who drink and drive and kill innocent people.

 

[vitamink]

should the other guy die, he'll likely be charged with 2 class b's and a class d. A class b is mandatory 6-20.

Reference his other crashes, they happen all the time in police work. Keep in mind that police cars are in motion at least 5 hours a shift where as most people maybe drive 45 minutes a day. One a year is not an uncommonly high accident rate.

 

[downzero]

I just keep hoping that the facts here don't end up panning out, and that someone has made a serious mistake.

As much as it pains me to say it, it's hard for me to take this seriously. Some cops do some seriously shady things, but even I have more confidence in the badge than to believe one of our police officers is drunk on duty. If this turns out to be true, it just makes me wonder how many others might be doing it. We place an awful lot of public trust in police officers, and the fact that one of them is doing something like this borderlines on the unbelievable.

The fact that he is responsible for at least one death is a sad consequence to something that never should have happened.

 

[JetGirl]

Bazooka Joe71, you might think that the snarky name calling thing makes you look cute...but all it does in reality is make you look dickish (from my vantage point, anyhow). As for the funny (or lack of it) in another thread with the same sub-theme as this one ("stupid crap people do while drunk"), not everyone thinks a drunk is laughable under any circumstances/conditions... so I guess you can start calling me names, too. o_0
Hey, whatever works.

 

[schafe]

I wonder how many dui's he wrote up while drunk himself. If he was .19 during this accident, I'd find it hard to believe that this was his first time drunk on duty.

You took the words right out of my mouth(keyboard). It's ironic that he probably lectured many of his DUI arrestees about the evils of mixing alcohol and driving. At least he has the rest of his life to think about the victims of this situation. I hope he thinks about it often.