drunk officer kills motorcyclist

[Denny347]

Good call and noted, but he responded to the quote directly after mine.



1. Drunk, or "drunk at that level?"

2. Yeah, unless there is an extensive study done, it'd be really hard to say exactly how much it affects it, but I have a hard time believing it would bring it up .14%(since you can get a DUI at .05%)

3. They noticed the person used alcohol to swab, knew that wasn't proper protocol, but didn't bring it up until after the test results were back?***Skeptical face***



Edit: I just realized you said "a" drunk at that level(ie. that big of a drunk)...I thought you said "no reason to believe he was drunk at that level(BAC).

I meant that he was a "professional drunk"
I do not know what it can do to the sample just that it can invalidate a sample per case law.
They wiped it with alcohol...noticed that they messed up, they then wiped it off and drew from the same site. If it was me (knowing the argument is forthcoming) I would have opted to switch arms so as to prevent this from even coming up.

 

[Benny]

Uh, I haven't talked to Dave since this occurred. Yes for medical blood draws that is fine. However, for DUI cases, a test sample can get thrown out if using anything other than a betadine prep. It has been like that for many years. It is one of the first questions asked at trial or a depo. I am not saying it is right...just how it is. A DUI arrest properly done is more technical than any murder arrest I've made. For that reason I have always included in my PC a statement that I witnesses the blood draw and the nurse used a betadine prep. I am not a medical professional so I am ignorant of that aspect. I only know what I did as a DUI car for so long and the laws regarding that. Come from years of trials against DUI attorneys getting paid 10-20 grand to defend a DUI arrest.

Yeah, but if the alcohol is evaporated from the skin before the needle is inserted, it sure as hell isn't going to throw off the test by .19%. If your buddy blew a .05-.06% he MAY have a case to get off of the criminal charges and should only be fired, never to have a badge again.

 

[E5RANGER375]

3. They noticed the person used alcohol to swab, knew that wasn't proper protocol, but didn't bring it up until after the test results were back?***Skeptical face***

its like you read my mind. but surely no one would do that. just like cops have never drove drunk before and been on the news, and everyone is soooo shocked to see a police officer involved in this

maybe its rare for a cop to cause death while drunk driving, but cops drinking and driving their cruisers is no new thing. no i dont think the majority of them do it, but there is a lot of it thats covered up, and why would we expect to see anything different in this case. I still wanna see an outside investigation done. I think its very bad form for IMPD to keep this in house.

my wife said that when she was on an ambulance if they got in a wreck they were under the same code under DOT that the cop would have been under. she said that immediately following an accident according to DOT, they have to be given a breathalizer test and a urine test from what she recalls. I still have no idea why this wasnt done even if no one suspected anything, isnt it protocal under DOT still??

 

[Benny]

I meant that he was a "professional drunk"
I do not know what it can do to the sample just that it can invalidate a sample per case law.
They wiped it with alcohol...noticed that they messed up, they then wiped it off and drew from the same site. If it was me (knowing the argument is forthcoming) I would have opted to switch arms so as to prevent this from even coming up.

I agree that if it were me I would have used a different arm, but not only did the alcohol evaporate, they wiped it off as well.

He probably has a case to get off on a technicality(hurray for our legal system!), but if he does I sure hope that criminal gets what's coming to him.

I understand that he is your friend/acquaintance and your judgement is skewed, but that guy is guilty. I really just don't see how there is an argument against it.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I agree that if it were me I would have used a different arm, but not only did the alcohol evaporate, they wiped it off as well.

He probably has a case to get off on a technicality(hurray for our legal system!), but if he does I sure hope that criminal gets what's coming to him.

I understand that he is your friend/acquaintance and your judgement is skewed, but that guy is guilty. I really just don't see how there is an argument against it.

YIPPY SKIPPY!! some people dont take kindly to a family member being murdered and the murderer getting off.

 

[public servant]

Yeah, but if the alcohol is evaporated from the skin before the needle is inserted, it sure as hell isn't going to throw off the test by .19%. If your buddy blew a .05-.06% he MAY have a case to get off of the criminal charges and should only be fired, never to have a badge again.

DUI Tests: DUI Chemical Test - DUI Urine Tests - DUI Breath Tests - DUI Blood Tests

Illinois DUI Law Brief on Alcohol Swabs in Blood Testing is Improper

 

[E5RANGER375]

circle the waggons.

cant believe a good case will be possibly lost on this.

 

[Benny]

DUI Tests: DUI Chemical Test - DUI Urine Tests - DUI Breath Tests - DUI Blood Tests

Illinois DUI Law Brief on Alcohol Swabs in Blood Testing is Improper

C'mon buddy, I'm too tired to read all that to find the answer...Cliff Notes?



I'm not in the medical field, nor do I know a whole lot about it, but I'll just say this...

When you get your arm swabbed with anything(alcohol included, which evaporates), that liquid isn't dripping off of your arm. That tiny, tiny needle tip, that doesn't start drawing until after inserted in the arm, isn't going to skew the blood alcohol level by ~.19% in accordance to how much blood they take.

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

Yeah, but if the alcohol is evaporated from the skin before the needle is inserted, it sure as hell isn't going to throw off the test by .19%. If your buddy blew a .05-.06% he MAY have a case to get off of the criminal charges and should only be fired, never to have a badge again.

(He's not your buddy, but you get the point)

 

[antsi]

However, for DUI cases, a test sample can get thrown out if using anything other than a betadine prep.

I just googled "contamination of blood alcohol test"
Apparently using an alcohol prep can make a 0.01 to 0.03 difference in the result. This is according to lawyers who make a living from challenging blood alcohol tests, mind you. They're certainly not going to under-state the effect.
So, maybe the guy was actually .16, not .19

In any case, I do not see an alcohol swab running you from stone cold sober to .19

I am not amazed that a hard core alcoholic can have a BAC that high and still not show obvious signs of intoxication. It's called 'tolerance' and it's part of what makes a person an alcoholic.

They wiped it with alcohol...noticed that they messed up, they then wiped it off and drew from the same site. If it was me (knowing the argument is forthcoming) I would have opted to switch arms so as to prevent this from even coming up.

Unless you were hoping that the evidence from the sample would be thrown out...

 

[loony1]

out on OR,WTF

 

[Benny]

circle the waggons.

cant believe a good case will be possibly lost on this.

Hopefully it won't:

I just googled "contamination of blood alcohol test"
Apparently using an alcohol prep can make a 0.01 to 0.03 difference in the result. This is according to lawyers who make a living from challenging blood alcohol tests, mind you. They're certainly not going to under-state the effect.
So, maybe the guy was actually .16, not .19

In any case, I do not see an alcohol swab running you from stone cold sober to .19

I am not amazed that a hard core alcoholic can have a BAC that high and still not show obvious signs of intoxication. It's called 'tolerance' and it's part of what makes a person an alcoholic.



Unless you were hoping that the evidence from the sample would be thrown out...

I knew this was the case without any prior knowledge on the subject...It just seems like common sense.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware using an alcohol swab is going to throw it off closer to .001% than .01%, but considering he was tested at .19%, that's neither here nor there.



BTW, can you provide a valid link to these test results? It's best to remove all doubt so all arguments in favor of this guy can cease.

 

[Pull Trigger Goes Bang]

The nurse swabbed Dave's arm for the blood draw with ALCOHOL, not Betadine . BIG NO NO. Why? Because the alcohol in the swab affects the blood sample.

In the probable cause affidavit that I downloaded from the IndyStar site (link in this story), Sgt. Heustis claims that Lt. Stephens watched the medical assistant use a Betadine prep to clean Officer Bisard's arm just prior to the blood draw.

Officer Bisard is to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and he's perfectly entitled to attack the accuracy of that affidavit. If it can be shown that the affidavit was wrong and the blood draw was tainted, I want those facts to come out. I don't want anyone convicted on bad evidence, or innocent people convicted ever.

However, so far the only document on public display says Betadine, not alcohol.

 

[Benny]

In the probable cause affidavit that I downloaded from the IndyStar site (link in this story), Sgt. Heustis claims that Lt. Stephens watched the medical assistant use a Betadine prep to clean Officer Bisard's arm just prior to the blood draw.

Officer Bisard is to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and he's perfectly entitled to attack the accuracy of that affidavit. If it can be shown that the affidavit was wrong and the blood draw was tainted, I want those facts to come out. I don't want anyone convicted on bad evidence, or innocent people convicted ever.

However, so far the only document on public display says Betadine, not alcohol.

Even though I think Officer Bisard is COMPLETELY GUILTY I don't have a dog in this fight, so I will quote Denny from a post you missed:

I meant that he was a "professional drunk"
I do not know what it can do to the sample just that it can invalidate a sample per case law.
They wiped it with alcohol...noticed that they messed up, they then wiped it off and drew from the same site. If it was me (knowing the argument is forthcoming) I would have opted to switch arms so as to prevent this from even coming up.

That is the so-called argument right now. It sure as heck isn't a good one, but it's an argument.

 

[theweakerbrother]

You know, you'd think that if the police has a special BAC/DUI task force and they worked with a dude for several years, they would know who was drunk on the job and who wasn't. Wouldn't they?

Alcohol to those who aren't drinking is easy to detect. It should be easier to do when it is your living...

To the non-smokers in the room; you know how easy it is to tell when someone is a smoker and how strong the aroma is when someone stepped out for a quick coffin nail?

Yes, office worker, when you had a bloody mary with your lunch, I can smell it on your breath when you come back from your hour binge.

To the medic team that showed up administering care for those who arrived to the scene of the crash; how easy is it to tell if someone is drunk or not? What about at the levels reported in the story?

Paging Bill of Rights...

What is the chain of command for reporting an officer who is drunk and on the scene? What would you do with an obviously upset fatality wreck and the man is drunk... and he has a gun on his hip?

Those that know him... if he is not-guilty, I hope he is found so.

If he was truly drunk, I hope that those who noticed it on the job but never spoke up previously will speak up now if this kind of thing starts to happen with someone else on the police department.

Alocholism is a disease, from what I'm told. It is bad enough that the disease ruins the life of the person who suffers from it. It's a whole lot worse if it takes a life of someone else because no one spoke up to someone else if someone was drunk and on the job.

 

[Benny]

Alocholism is a disease, from what I'm told. It is bad enough that the disease ruins the life of the person who suffers from it. It's a whole lot worse if it takes a life of someone else because no one spoke up to someone else if someone was drunk and on the job.

This reminds me of the South Park Episode when Randy(Stan's Dad) gets a DUI while taking the 4 kids home from Karate and alcoholism gets brought up. His AA class beats it into his head that he has a "disease" at the same time the "miracle" Virgin Mary statue is spewing blood out of her butt...

Hundreds of people line up to get blessed and Randy walks up to a kid and asks him what's wrong:

Kid: "I have terminal brain cancer."

Randy: "You know, me and you are a lot alike. We both have diseases"

 

[Denny347]

I dispise alcohol personally for all the trouble is causes (used in excess of course) and do not drink as a result. What doesn't get reported is all the people that dealt with Dave that day that thought all was normal. Came to work and took his car to the garage for his ABS not working (they refused to fix them hence the skid marks at the scene) and they said he acted/looked normal. At the scene of the crash assistant chiefs were in the same car as he, inches away and all looked normal. EMS was there and checked him out for injury...they even checked his eyes for crying out loud. They did not see any nystagmus. I don't care how good of a drunk you are, your eyes will show VERY obvious nystagmus at .19, it is involuntary. Even non-leo's at the scene said he was not acting intoxicated. The nurse for the blood draw did not detect anything wrong when taking the blood. Dave had enough wits to pull the bike off the guy and administer CPR. Watch the video on TV. He is out walking with his dog, they have more video than they show, and he again is not showing signs of intoxication. I am not ready to pronounce him guilty yet...not yet. Not until these are explained to me.

 

[Protest]

I dispise alcohol personally for all the trouble is causes (used in excess of course) and do not drink as a result. What doesn't get reported is all the people that dealt with Dave that day that thought all was normal. Came to work and took his car to the garage for his ABS not working (they refused to fix them hence the skid marks at the scene) and they said he acted/looked normal. At the scene of the crash assistant chiefs were in the same car as he, inches away and all looked normal. EMS was there and checked him out for injury...they even checked his eyes for crying out loud. They did not see any nystagmus. I don't care how good of a drunk you are, your eyes will show VERY obvious nystagmus at .19, it is involuntary. Even non-leo's at the scene said he was not acting intoxicated. The nurse for the blood draw did not detect anything wrong when taking the blood. Dave had enough wits to pull the bike off the guy and administer CPR. Watch the video on TV. He is out walking with his dog, they have more video than they show, and he again is not showing signs of intoxication. I am not ready to pronounce him guilty yet...not yet. Not until these are explained to me.

Thanks for the post.

 

[j706]

my wife is a nurse and does blood draws every day. i just asked her about your post and she says that alcohol is always used for these test anymore. she told me that the test comes like this:

1 box that contains;
1 sealed package with a vacume sealed grey top tube in a seperate sealed package

1 sealed package with a barrel, needle, ALCOHOL SWAB, gauze, tourniquet, bandaid, etc.

if the tube has been tampered with in any way then it will not draw blood because of the vacume seal. also she said the alcohol is lightly wiped and evaporates before the needle is inserted. but it does not contaminate the sample.

his argument holds no water. hes a lying drunk and a criminal murderer still in denial of his problems if he's feeding you this crap. I was pretty sure of it before but i wanted to confirm this stuff before i commented fully. shure he deserves a jury trial, but the only way he will get off is if his lawyer pulls a miracle technicality out of his behind.

my wifes testimony would count as expert testimony in court and she would swear to it under oath. until i hear from an expert with higher certification than her with proof that it affects a blood draw, then i will conclude he's a guilty liar

Kinda hate to tell you but your wife is wrong. I read your post and did not ever recall any kind of swab being in the kits. SO I went out to my trunk and got one out and opened it up. There is NO type of swab in the kits.
The kit contains a urine bottle, two gray topped tubes,a plastic bag used to seal the completed test,one evidence seal,three biohazard labels and a IU school of toxicology Drug analysis form. Nothing more. No needles or needle kits. Alcohol swabs MAY NOT be used on ISP blood draw kits. The ISP blood draw kit contains detailed instructions for both the officer and the person drawing the sample. It clearly states on line 1 "Clean Skin with non-alcohol disinfectant (i.e. Betadine" And then line 2 says Draw blood with a clean (Alcohol free) needle or syringe".

It appears that prosecution could have a big problem with their case. You will have a multitude of eye whiteness who will have to say they did not notice or suspect any impairment. And in addition to a botched blood draw.

As denny said, OWI is a technical arrest. The defense lawyers have made it that way. They are generally one silly lawyer game after the other. That is the reason I avoid OWI arrests if at all possible. I see a sweet plea agreement coming up.

 

[MinuteMan47]

I dispise alcohol personally for all the trouble is causes (used in excess of course) and do not drink as a result. What doesn't get reported is all the people that dealt with Dave that day that thought all was normal. Came to work and took his car to the garage for his ABS not working (they refused to fix them hence the skid marks at the scene) and they said he acted/looked normal. At the scene of the crash assistant chiefs were in the same car as he, inches away and all looked normal. EMS was there and checked him out for injury...they even checked his eyes for crying out loud. They did not see any nystagmus. I don't care how good of a drunk you are, your eyes will show VERY obvious nystagmus at .19, it is involuntary. Even non-leo's at the scene said he was not acting intoxicated. The nurse for the blood draw did not detect anything wrong when taking the blood. Dave had enough wits to pull the bike off the guy and administer CPR. Watch the video on TV. He is out walking with his dog, they have more video than they show, and he again is not showing signs of intoxication. I am not ready to pronounce him guilty yet...not yet. Not until these are explained to me.

Denny, that's great that he had the "wits" to pull the bike off the guy and administer CPR. However, he DID NOT have the "wits" to go around them, use the turning lane, and not PLOW THEM OVER. And of course the OBVIOUS "wit" he didn't have was NOT getting behind the wheel to begin with.

 

[Eddie]

A comment on the alchohol prep issue: The reason they don't use alcohol preps for an OWI blood draw really has nothing to do with science or chemistry but rather the fact that a jury might have to decide the facts of the case. It really doesn't matter very much that the prosecution has some doctor stand up in the courtroom and carefully explain why the alcohol prep doesn't affect the test. The defense attorney can still say "Duh, they want you to believe that alcohol doesn't affect a test that is supposed to detect alcohol? " And the jury is free to disregard all of that scientific evidence and disregard the test results.

As for the guys saying the cop is already guilty, he's not guilty until a jury or a judge says he is guilty or until he chooses to plead guilty. I know that makes a lot of people mad but to me the sixth amendment is just as important as the second. Before you condemn someone you should consider that if you wake up tomorrow to the police kicking down your front door and you end up hogtied, hauled off to jail and charged with a crime that you didn't commit then you will be glad that we have this protection built into our system.