DUI deputy may have wrongly jailed dozens

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120843.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/15/Hillsborough/DUI_deputy_may_have_w.shtml

n one year, Brock arrested 58 people whose blood-alcohol content was below 0.08, the level at which state law presumes a driver is impaired, an internal affairs audit showed.

"I don't prescribe to the theory that somehow you have to be 0.08 to be drunk or impaired, " Brock, 38, told investigators.

A driver may be charged with DUI if the blood-alcohol level is between 0.05 and 0.08 percent, but there must be other evidence of impairment, such as a swerving vehicle.

In 43 of those 58 cases, motorists demonstrated no visible impairment behind the wheel, according to an internal affairs report made public Thursday. In 41 arrests, Brock also failed to make a case with urine samples, the report states.

Repeatedly, investigators found Brock reported failures in field sobriety tests when his patrol car video camera documented the opposite. He wrote, for instance, that a driver on Oct. 25, 2005, lost balance while turning. The video of the encounter showed that wasn't the case. The driver blew a 0.01 in the breath test but was arrested anyway.

He said drivers incorrectly recited the alphabet, used arms for balance and slurred speech - when the video showed correct alphabets, perfect balance and clear speech.

He's also not the sharpest tool in the shed:

He failed to activate his cruiser's audio and video equipment in 40 percent of his stops, instead relying on his "wrought memory" to recall important arrest details, the audit showed.

So what's MADD's reaction?

"We always felt he was a good officer, " said Becky Gage, 55, the victim advocate for Hillsborough's MADD chapter. "As long as officers are within the scope of the law, then we support their efforts to remove impaired drivers."

Not a hint of regret, eh? This is a little odd, too:

He told investigators that given the chance, he would conduct his DUI stops the same way.

Said Brock: "I mean, perfect world, we need more deputies and fewer people."

So what happens to all of those people who now have a record, paid thousands of dollars, sat through tedious alcoholism group sessions, and suffered the personal and professional repercussions of a false DUI arrest? And how many other cops are fudging the numbers due to incentive systems that reward cops who make lots of arrests?

Thanks to Mark Hemingway for the tip.

[The Rabbi]

I will say that life has changed dramatically with dash-board mounted cameras.  I wonder how much stuff went on in the old days where it was just the cop vs the citizen.

[grislyatoms]

I used to think MADD was a good organization, back when they were cracking down on drunk driving.

Now, they are nothing more than a prohibitionist group.

"We always felt he was a good officer, " said Becky Gage, 55, the victim advocate for Hillsborough's MADD chapter. "As long as officers are within the scope of the law, then we support their efforts to remove impaired drivers."

Gee, I wonder what .org was responsible for broadening that scope to a ridiculous degree?

[lupinus]

And this is the problem with DUI.  There are people impared at .05, there are people perfectly capable at .09.  It all depends on the person.  And all it takes is some magic number or and over zealous cop to damge someones life because the cop or the state feels that person is impaired when they aren't. 

Don't get me wrong, I hate drunks and people who don't know their limits.  I simply can not stand them and wont put up with them, I've been know to leave gatherings of friends or family because one or two people didn't know when to stop and got on my nerves.  Yep, I'm the party pooper I guess.

But what I refuse to subscribe to is that a magic number or over zealous cops belief means you are impared and should therefor pay thousands in fines and maybe loose your license. 

[Pew pew pew]

"I mean, perfect world, we need more deputies and fewer people."

Wouldn't a perfect world be without crime?

[Matthew Carberry]

"I mean, perfect world, we need more deputies and fewer people."

Wouldn't a perfect world be without crime?

Not if it meant he'd have to take a job with no authori-tye.

[Sindawe]

I'm sure we've all heard the phrase "If we lived in a perfect world, we would live in a perfect world".

RE: Non-imparement for some at 0.09 BAC vs falling down drunk for others at 0.05 BAC.  Those type of subjective assessments lupinus speaks of should have NO place in a court of law that deals with facts.  As it stands, I'd much rather deal with the quantitative data that says X person is in violation of the statute, while Y person is not based on BAC numbers from an assay.  Actual IMPAIRMENT testing equipment has until recently been hard to transport around and keep calibrated (at least as much as I've looked at it).  Such would be usefull for addressing those who should NOT be driving but have not been drinking.  Factors such as intoxication from other chemicals, stress and the scary one for me fatique could all be looked at and addressed.

The cop in this story?  Sounds like one who needs to find another line of work.

[Firethorn]

The cop in this story?  Sounds like one who needs to find another line of work.

Like prison janitor?  The man has a solid history of lying in court and falsifying official documents.  That alone is enough for me to want to see him serve a year per falsified document.  By the sounds of it, he's earned at least 43 years in the greybar hotel.

[Modifiedbrowning]

Said Brock: "I mean, perfect world, we need more deputies and fewer people."

I that pretty much sums up this guy's view of the world. It's just an isolated incident though, nothing to see here, move along.

[Laurent du Var]

"He wrote, for instance, that a driver on Oct. 25, 2005, lost balance while turning. The video of the encounter showed that wasn't the case. The driver blew a 0.01 in the breath test but was arrested anyway."

 I have 0,01 in the morning. Not every morning, but hey 
It is just unbelieveable which kind of crap you'll put up concerning da authority.
 

[vernal45]

Why is this guy still walking around, free.  He needs to be in jail.

[nico]

re: MADD, when the founder of a group is essentially forced out of it, it says a lot about its adherence to its original goals IMO.  The fact that she hasn't been involved with the group in over 20 years is an added testament to how far it's gone.

"MADD's founder, Candy Lightner, left the organization in 1985 and has since gone on to criticize the group as "neo-prohibitionist."MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned & I didnt start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving#MADD.27s_focus_and_Candy_Lightner.27s_departure

[MechAg94]

I agree the officer should be in jail.  At the very least, the local judges should be pissed about it and pretty much discount his testimony and citations. 

IMO, MADD is a lynch mob these days.  They are not satisfied with getting the true drunks off the road, they want to expand the limits so that everyone who had a drink in the last 2 weeks will get thrown in jail. 

The best thing they could do IMO, is to have two limits.  Have a hard limits at around 0.12 or 0.15 where you throw the book at people who are really drunk and trying to drive.  Then you have a limit down around 0.04 or 0.06 that is little more than a traffic ticket.  Assuming you even need that lower limit. 

Just a general question:  Does anyone have an statistics on car wrecks caused by drunk drivers and what their estimated blood alcohol level was?  I bet the average is a lot higher than 0.08.

[crt360]

Just a general question:  Does anyone have an statistics on car wrecks caused by drunk drivers and what their estimated blood alcohol level was?  I bet the average is a lot higher than 0.08.

I agree.

I haven't seen any statistics on the blood alcohol level of people who "cause" the accidents.  The data on which they base statistics for accidents involving alcohol is far from accurate.  From what I have seen, if the police find an empty beer can or two on the side of the road near an accident it gets reported as involving alcohol.

[brimic]

MADD is to alcohol as the BradyBunch is to guns.

[Bogie]

MADD makes me wanna use the phrase "drunk with power."
 
They got a taste, with public acceptance of a crusade, and then went nuts...
 
For every guy like that who gets caught, there's probably another hundred out there... Heck, around here, if they pull you over for DUI, if you don't move fast enough (doh...), they taser you...
 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the founder of madd got bounced for financial impropriety


the use of nonlegal limits was institutionalied by the dc cops  unless your name is kennedy
they busted many folks for one drink till if i recall they got a lawyer who bit back

[Firethorn]

Just a general question:  Does anyone have an statistics on car wrecks caused by drunk drivers and what their estimated blood alcohol level was?  I bet the average is a lot higher than 0.08.

This is non-scientific of course, but I don't ever recall any major accident DUI where the blood alcohol was below .10, and the vast majority were above .12.

Many of them were levels of 'Why wasn't this guy unconcious/in a coma/dead?'.  I've seen a number above .20.

As a way to reduce drunk driving, reducing the limit from .10 to .08 has been a miserable failure.

[SkunkApe]

I strongly encourage all of you to read this:

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitution/

I hope to convince you in the next hour, some of you, that the greatest single threat to our freedoms, the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights, is not from Iraq or Iran. I dont think its from North Korea. I dont think its from the extremists of the Muslim world. The threat, as it has always been throughout history, is internal: It is from within. But I do not think it is from the American Communist party or extremists on the right. I hope to convince a few of you that the greatest single threat to our freedoms today comes from a group consisting largely of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD....

[lupinus]

RE: Non-imparement for some at 0.09 BAC vs falling down drunk for others at 0.05 BAC.  Those type of subjective assessments lupinus speaks of should have NO place in a court of law that deals with facts.

You mean like reckless driving?  That's kind of subjective.

Driving at or under the speed limit but to fast for conditions?  Subjective.

Public nuisance?  Yep, subjective to.

The point an argument between a couple becomes domestic violence?  Yeah, that can be pretty subjective.

Murder or self defense?  In some cases, oh yeah subjective.

There are many factors to use when talking about someone who is DUI.  But BAC?  That should not be one of them.  In fact, it's effect is probably the most subbjective of all the factors you could go for as alcohol effects every person differently.

[yhtomit]

Lupinus is certainly right that BAC isn't as objective some people pretend it to be *as a measure of performance impairment,*, BUT the nice thing about BAC is  -- barring bad testing, which I won't say is impossible or uncommon, but the procedure in Philadelphia County seems to me pretty well implemented --  that it's objective numerically at least. That does mean that some people who would be sober enough to drive would be legally barred from doing so, and that's far from ideal. Still, to the degree that is BAC is predictable by the drinker based on time / body weight / amount consumed (to a reasonable degree of certainty at least), it strikes me as better than relying on subjective / observational techniques alone.

timothy

[Matthew Carberry]

Lupinus is certainly right that BAC isn't as objective some people pretend it to be *as a measure of performance impairment,*, BUT the nice thing about BAC is  -- barring bad testing, which I won't say is impossible or uncommon, but the procedure in Philadelphia County seems to me pretty well implemented --  that it's objective numerically at least. That does mean that some people who would be sober enough to drive would be legally barred from doing so, and that's far from ideal. Still, to the degree that is BAC is predictable by the drinker based on time / body weight / amount consumed (to a reasonable degree of certainty at least), it strikes me as better than relying on subjective / observational techniques alone.

timothy

Why?

If you are checking the BAC one of 2 things has occured. 

You have either witnessed them driving in a manner which would justify a stop, which is subjective but should rise to the level of a violation.  If it's a violation, punish the violation.

-or-

You've set up at a checkpoint and are stopping cars "randomly".  In that situation, absent witnessing them driving, again subjectively, in such a manner as to violate traffic laws, there is NO reason to assume them to be a danger to themselves or others.  Why then bother checking them against an arbitrary number that, apparently, is not relevent to that particular person's ability to drive?

If folks aren't breaking the law, they need to be left alone.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

If folks aren't breaking the law, they need to be left alone.

That's my main political belief, right there.

[lupinus]

If we had laws that made sense it would be mine as well

"If people aren't hurting others or acting in a predictably dangerous and harmful manner they need to be left alone" would be better

With predictably dangerous being clarified if needed as someone who is acting in a dangerous manner. IOW Driving recklessly, shooting at their neighbors house,  etc.  Stuff that is activly putting others in danger. 

[Matthew Carberry]

If we had laws that made sense it would be mine as well

"If people aren't hurting others or acting in a predictably dangerous and harmful manner they need to be left alone" would be better

With predictably dangerous being clarified if needed as someone who is acting in a dangerous manner. IOW Driving recklessly, shooting at their neighbors house,  etc.  Stuff that is activly putting others in danger. 

Yes, I should have defined "laws" more tightly.