79 DUI Cases Thrown Out: False Police Reports

Posted by Lawrence Taylor on September 22nd, 2010

Drunk driving is one if those crimes which is highly susceptible to falsifying evidence.  This is because the offense is highly dependent on the cop’s own observations and opinion.  Typically, proving "driving under the influence of alcohol" depends upon the officer’s testimony of such symptoms as weaving on the highway, odor of alcohol on the breath, flushed face, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, poor balance, staggering when walking, etc.  Usually, there are no other witnesses to contradict these "observations"; certainly, no one will believe the accused.  

The only evidence that can contradict the officer is a blood or breath test.  However, this is easily avoided: the cop simply claims that the arrested citizen "refused" to submit to testing.  This results in higher criminal penalties — and avoids any evidence contradicting the officer’s damning observations and opinion of intoxication.

How common is this?  See my past posts: Supercops…and SuperconsAnother "DUI Super Cop", and More "DUI Super Cops"…and More Innocent Victims.  

The motive?  Fulfilling quotas, overtime pay for testifying in court, promotions for high numbers of arrests, gaining awards in personnel files from MADD, etc.  See 3rd Chicago "DUI Super Cop", "Inside Edition" Documents DUI Quotas Across U.S., DUI SuperCops and SuperCops: The Smoking Gun

The following recent news article is yet another example of the proliferation of false DUI arrests:  

DA Throws Out DUI Cases Due to False Reports

Sacramento, CA.  Sept. 17
— Sacramento District Attorney Jan Scully announced Friday morning that she is dismissing 79 criminal cases, mostly DUI cases in which a former Sacramento Police officer falsified reports.

The dismissal of the cases in a result of a lengthy investigation of over 200 cases of arrests made by former Sacramento Police officer Brandon Mullock. Mullock resigned from the police department on August 27th. He was initially placed on administrative leave in January after being arrested for brandishing a weapon while off-duty after getting in an argument with someone on 9th St. and J St . Mullock later plead guilty to disturbing the peace.

During the course of the investigation of Mullock, discrepencies were discovered in several DUI reports made by Mullock and police forwarded their case to the District Attorney’s office which lead to the dismissal of the 79 cases today.

  • RichardAlan

    Well imagine that… ? gosh. This is what they did to me. My life has been destroyed and at 45 years old I’ve lost everything…. it’s been over three years since the fantasy make believe by the cops.

    Can anyone tell me what I’m supposed to do now?? What are any of us supposed to do now? Is there a class action law suit against the California DMV and the courts in the works.

    I have nothing left that these fricken Tyrants have not already taken from me and my family.

    You know I worked all my life to have and end up with nothing, based on criminals running around in costumes with badges, guns and cars with red and blue lights offering us all a fake protection and fake service at the barrel of a gun…

  • Teddy James
  • Teddy James


    DUI arrests, even those not leading to convictions of DUI, can have extremely far reaching consequences. the trial linked to is for an admission to practice law in the State of California. The application was denied, due in large part to the judge finding applicant’s assertion that he was not under the influence at the time of arrest, differed markedly from the police report and Officer Jeff George’s testimony (which occurred four years after the DUI arrest was pled out as a dry reckless. Why George felt the need to come and lie some more and get the law license denied, after he already got the applicant fired from his law firm job and sent into twelve step cult hell, is really not clear, however, George admits in his testimony that he was recognized five times by Mother’s Against Drunk Driving for DUI cop excellence (some whom have received these awards were later fired and charged with perjury, so, here’s hoping that happens to George). The judge, Patrice McElroy will not let George testify to much of anything that compares his records for DUI arrest against the average cops…George trips up and first said he suspected intoxication and drug influence, only to later claim he didn’t suspect intoxication and did not administer a breath test in the field, prior to making and arrest (he trips up in detailing what discussion he and the lawyer in waiting had about taking a breath test after the applicant had plainly passed all his stupid field sobriety tests (George could not do his hustle anywhere that required these stops be filmed by dash cams): https://www.scribd.com/document/322518168/1-23-03-0204-13755-CBX-DUI-Arrest-Police-Report-Sacramento-Ocr Judge McElroy denied Couglhin a license to practice law on a number of basis directly related to the DUI arrest by Office Jeff George: “1. Employment History …b. The committee presented clear and convincing evidence that applicant misrepresented the reason for his termination from the law firm of Schuering, Zimmerman & Scully in Sacramento, California. On February 23, 2003, applicant told the California State Bar that the law firm let him go because of his recent arrest. But on the same day, he told the Nevada State Bar that he was let go because he was not licensed in Nevada and that the Supreme Court’s deferment order was too far out for them to keep him employed (NOTE: regardless, such Nevada letter reports the DUI arrest as well, which is not even required prior to disposition of such case). The court finds that these discrepancies evidence a lack of candor. (so is a “discrepancies lesser than a “misrepresentation”? Exhibit 72, page 2 LAP notes “3/6/03…was working for a firm, they let him go after DUI, now employed.”) Exhibit 72, page 3 LAP notes “9/21/04- Janis complete phone intake. Jerry Fishkin is atty. 10/4/04- TC from Zach, he thinks he may need to be here but isn’t sure about needing to be here for 5 yrs. He thought he should check in w/ his atty, Jerry Fishkin first. Asket him some question about his use of Laratab and pot but he said he couldn’t answer my question w/out consluting w/ Jerry. He has to have a final report in to CBX by Jan 2005. Told him that would be rushing things.” 3. Substance Abuse More importantly, the committee presented clear and convincing evidence that applicant misrepresented his relationship with alcohol and treatment for alcohol abuse to the committee. In his March 19, 2003 update to the application, applicant responded to the committee’s request for information about his relationship with drugs and alcohol as follows: “I started drinking alcohol in my early twenties and have never been more than a social drinker … I have not been referred to any treatment programs for drug or alcohol abuse, nor am I current enrolled in treatment. ” In fact, as part of applicant’s nolo contendere plea to a violation of California Vehicle Code 23103 on March 11, 2003, applicant was ordered to attend eight Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings on June 10, 2003. (check because letter of 3/19/03 is obviously prior to 6/10/03)…In addition, at the informal conference with the committee on July 8, 2004, applicant for the first time admitted to having a history of alcohol abuse and been a member of AA since January 1, 2002. Therefore, the court finds that applicant lacked candor in his March 19, 2003 update, given that he was ordered to attend eight AA meetings and that he had a history of alcoholism. (compare prior use of “alcohol abuse” switches to the imaginary disease of “alcoholism”). When applicant admitted to alcohol abuse at the informal conference, the committee advised applicant…it would hold his application in abeyance until January 13, 2005, so that the committee could evaluate his recovery from abuse….On June 30, 2005, applicant enrolled in LAP. But on April 7, 2006, applicant was terminated from LAP as the LAP Evaluation Committee (double hearsay) determined that applicant had not successfully complied with its recommendations and that applicant had not gained insight regarding his alcohol abuse issues….Significantly, at this hearing, applicant was completely evasive about his alcohol abuse. He testified that he was not sure of the date of his sobriety and whether he consumed any alcohol in the past four years. Applicant did not present any credible evidence (anything self serving is not credible, and all the supporting documentation does not support the unauthorized practice of medicine angle, and six month period dates don’t line up) on why he was terminated (McElroy did not want to argue about if it was whether versus why terminated) from LAP. On one hand, he claimed that he did not know why he was terminated from LAP. On the other hand, he claimed that he was terminated fro LAP because he would not let LAP jeopardize his physical well-being. (Notice McElroy avoids references the compromising of his medical care and unauthorized practice of law angle). In other word, applicant’ reasoning is without merit. (Or, he does not know of any valid, lawful reason that LAP to justify any such purported termination) 4. March 11, 2003 DUI Conviction (a common Freudian slip throughout the trial by Judge and prosecutor as an admission that there approach would only even begin to be reasonable if Coughlin had been convicted of a DUI, alas, he was not) The committee presented clear and convincing evidence that applicant misrepresented the events surrounding his January 2003 DUI arrest in his March 19, 2003 update to the committee. As previously found, in January 2003, applicant was arrested for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana and later pled nolo contendere to a violation of California Vehicle Code section 23103, reckless driving. (McElroy excises the “dry” from the reckless driving charge, get its proper name) In his March 19, 2003 update to his application, applicant stated: “While I would like to point out that I was not under the influence of any drug (Officer testimony puts influence of marijuana at four hours from when smoked, not testimony on how long the smell lasts on clothes or “freshly burnt marijuana”, and why none found in vehicle or any pipe, etc.) when I was pulled over for having my seat belt unfastened, I must admit that I had smoked marijuana in the weeks preceding my arrest. (This says nothing of whether smoked within four hours of arrest, and no question in that regard were posed) I often wore the same sweater I was wearing the night I was arrested. I would were [sic] it almost nightly to avoid turning on the heat in my apartment. The officer must have smelled marijuana on that sweater from nights when I had previously smoked marijuana.” Applicant misrepresented the events surrounding his arrest as evidenced by the following: 1) a urine sample tested positive for marijuana (NOTE: Officer admits such does not mean it was smoked within four hours of arrest, therefore no misrepresentation as to whether was intoxicated at time of arrest…this is sloppy jurisprudence…