Monthly Archives: August 2011
Here we go again: yet another example of the growing trend of police officers to circumvent the rules and procedures in DUI cases.
I’ve posted repeatedly in the past about pre-written arrest DUI arrest reports — using reports which are written before ever stopping, investigating and arresting the suspect. See, for example, Police Using Pre-Written DUI Reports, Pre-Written DUI Arrest Reports: A Smoking Gun, "Xeroxed" DUI Symptoms and Ready-Made DUI Arrest Reports.
A related and growing trend among some DUI cops is to circumvent the usual requirement that all arrests must be reviewed and approved by a supervisor…
Rubber-Stamped Seattle DUI Arrests Prompt Legal Challenge
Seattle, WA. Aug. 31 — Seattle police have found that drunken-driving arrests were routinely rubber-stamped or falsely certified without approval by a supervisor, prompting one defendant to ask a judge to dismiss his case or suppress the arresting officer’s testimony.
The department launched an internal investigation in March after an audit revealed the mishandling of dozens of driving-under-the-influence (DUI) cases.
A sergeant who allegedly permitted the improper screening remains under investigation.
But the department has found that two members of the DUI Unit, Jonathon Huber and Jonathan Young Jr., routinely used the sergeant’s signature stamp without having their arrests approved by him as required by policy, according to an internal-investigation report obtained by The Seattle Times.
A third officer, John Velliquette Jr., put written statements in his reports indicating his sergeant had screened his arrests, even though the sergeant had not actually reviewed the cases, the June 22 report said.
Witnesses indicated the sergeant told the officers he had "preapproved" their arrests and offered his signature stamp, according to the report.
The three officers were cleared of misconduct allegations involving honesty and arrest procedures after the department’s Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) heard testimony that the practice had been going on for 20 to 25 years and that most law-enforcement agencies do not require DUI arrest screening because most suspects are released after processing.
Witnesses also said the stamp was used to satisfy data requirements and not to deceive.
According to the report, the OPA also considered DUI officers the department’s "experts in the identification, arrest, processing and courtroom presentation of evidence" and that "it is unnecessary to have a [sometimes] less knowledgeable sergeant reviewing their reports."
Although the allegations were not upheld, all three officers were ordered to undergo supervisory counseling and training for violating the department’s arrest-screening policy. They were put on desk duty when the investigation began, but they have been returned to DUI patrols.
The OPA originally found Velliquette had been dishonest and gone further than the other officers by submitting written information that was false. But Deputy Chief Nick Metz determined supervisory intervention was more appropriate. OPA Director Kathryn Olson concurred.
Supervisory intervention means that while there may have been a violation of policy, it was not a willful violation that amounted to misconduct, according to the department…
Seattle police declined to disclose the names of the officers or details of the internal investigation under a public-disclosure request filed by The Times, citing its policy of not releasing that information in cases where officers have been cleared of wrongdoing.
The Times independently obtained a copy of the findings from Stephen Hayne, a longtime DUI attorney in Bellevue.
Why do cops have to cheat so often in drunk driving cases? What are they trying to hide?
Want to trick that breathalyzer into a false reading? Not that difficult: just change your breathing pattern.
As I’ve indicated in literally hundreds of earlier posts, these breath machines which determine guilt or innocence in DUI cases are not exactly the reliable devices that law enforcement would have us believe. (See, for example, How Breathalyzers Work – and Why They Don’t, Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol and How Accurate Are Breathalyzers?.) Yet another example of that unreliability is the fact that the results will vary depending upon the breathing pattern of the person being tested.
This has been confirmed in a number of scientific studies.
In one, for example, a group of men drank moderate doses of alcohol and their blood-alcohol levels were then measured by gas chromatographic analysis of their breath. The breathing techniques were then varied.The results indicated that holding your breath for 30 seconds before exhaling increased the blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) by 15.7%. Hyperventilating for 20 seconds immediately before the analyses of breath, on the other hand, decreased the blood-alcohol level by 10.6%. Keeping the mouth closed for five minutes and using shallow nasal breathing resulted in increasing the BAC by 7.3%, and testing after a slow, 20-second exhalation increased levels by 2%. "How Breathing Techniques Can Influence the Results of Breath-Alcohol Analyses", 22(4) Medical Science and the Law275.For another study with similar findings, see "Accurate Measurement of Blood Alcohol Concentration with Isothermal Breathing", 51(1) Journal of Studies on Alcohol 6.
Dr. Michael Hlastala, Professor of Physiology, Biophysics and Medicine at the University of Washington has gone farther and concluded:
"By far, the most overlooked error in breath testing for alcohol is the pattern of breathing….The concentration of alcohol changes considerably during the breath…The first part of the breath, after discarding the dead space, has an alcohol concentration much lower than the equivalent BAC. Whereas, the last part of the breath has an alcohol concentration that is much higher than the equivalent BAC. The last part of the breath can be over 50% above the alcohol level….Thus, a breath tester reading of 0.14% taken from the last part of the breath may indicate that the blood level is only 0.09%." 9(6) The Champion 16 (1985).
Many police officers know this. They also know that if the machine contradicts their judgement that the person they arrested is intoxicated, they won’t look good. So when they tell the suspect to blow into the machine’s mouthpiece, they’ll yell at him, "Keep breathing! Breathe harder! Harder!" As Professor Hlastala has found, this ensures that the breath captured by the machine will be from the bottom of the lungs, near the alveolar sacs, which will be richest in alcohol. With the higher alcohol concentration, the machine will give a higher — but inaccurate — reading.
So what happens when cops are called to an accident with a school bus caused by an obviously (.20%) drunk driver…and discover he's a cop?
Houston Police Threaten to Arrest Photographers to Protect Their Own
Houston, TX. Aug. 11 — With a blood-alcohol content of more than twice the legal limit and several open containers of booze in his truck, Houston Police Sergeant Ruben Trejo was on his way to work when he crashed into a school bus last April.
While it became immediately obvious he was drunk, his fellow officers responding to the accident did their best to cover up for him, including threatening to arrest witnesses who tried photographing the open containers in his truck.
Not only did police cite the bus driver for running a stop sign – when witnesses told them it was Trejo who ran the stop sign – they went on record with the media assuring he was not drunk.
But two weeks later, Trejo was charged with DWI. And only because local reporters kept pestering police about it.
According to the original news report from KHOU:
An HPD spokesman said the bus driver ran a stop sign and caused the accident. But other witnesses said the officer was the one who ran a stop sign.
The bus driver said she thinks he'd been drinking.
"He smelled drunk and he had beer and wine opened in his car," Teresa Argueta said.
Other witnesses said officers at the scene threw a towel over the open containers and threatened to arrest anyone who took photos.
Here is what the Houston Chronicle wrote two weeks later.
A veteran Houston police officer with a blood-alcohol content of .205 — more than twice the legal limit — was driving to work when he collided with a private school bus this month, authorities said.
Ruben Trejo, 46, was charged Monday with driving while intoxicated in connection with an April 13 wreck that sent him to the hospital. The legal limit for intoxication is 0.08.
Trejo collided with a school bus in the 7900 block of Harrisburg while off-duty in his personal vehicle, a Toyota Tundra pickup, about 2:15 p.m., HPD spokesman John Cannon said.
A sergeant on the Eastside patrol division, Trejo was en route to work when he wrecked, Cannon said. There were no children aboard the bus.
And as reporters kept digging, they learned he has a long history of traffic collisions, with ABC Local uncovering the following:
According to HPD's disciplinary records, Trejo has been named at fault in four accidents in 1990, 1992, 1999 and 2000. He was also cited for insubordination and conduct and behavior problems in 2008.
(Thanks to Andre Campos.)
How insane is the "War on Drunk Driving" getting?…
NJ Supreme Court Holds That Drunk Drivers Can Sue Under Dram Shop Act
New Jersey, August 7 — The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that establishes a person’s right to sue for damages under the state’s Dram Shop law, even if the injured person is also the visibly intoxicated person that should not have been served. The Dram Shop Act, also known as the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act, provides that "a person who sustains personal injury or property damage as a result of the negligent service of alcoholic beverages by a licensed alcoholic beverage server may recover damages."
In Voss v. Tranquilino, the court considered whether a man who was convicted of DWI after his motorcycle collided with another vehicle could sue the Toms River restaurant that had served him. The plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was .196 percent, over twice the legal limit of .08 percent, and he was convicted of driving while intoxicated after pleading guilty.
At trial, the defendant restaurant moved for dismissal, citing another New Jersey law that takes away an individual’s right to sue if he or she is convicted of or pleads guilty to DWI. The trial court disagreed, and the Appellate Division affirmed that the plaintiff had a right to sue under the Dram Shop Act.
The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the act "provides the exclusive civil remedy for injuries resulting from the negligent service of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person by a liquor licensee." The court pointed out that the law denying a cause of action after a DWI conviction is intended to reduce automobile insurance premiums, while the Dram Shop Act had different goals:
- To make liability coverage for bars and restaurants more reasonable by defining civil liability limits
- To encourage servers to reduce risks by permitting claims for negligent service
Because of these competing goals, the court declined to "repeal by implication" a part of the Dram Shop Act in direct competition with one of its stated purposes: holding liquor licensees accountable for irresponsibly serving visibly intoxicated patrons…
So if you go to a restaurant, drink too much, then go out and wrap your car around a tree…you can sue the restaurant for not babysitting you? Is anyone responsible for their own conduct anymore?
(Thanks to Feintuch, Porwich & Feintuch.)