Georgia DUI Blog

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150385696050&viewitem=#ht_500wt_1077Currently, the bid is over $10,000.00.This is just crazy.

For many years the state of Florida used the same breath alcohol testing device currently used in Georgia, and it helped to convict tens of thousands of DUI defendants across the state. Now evidence that the Intoxilyzer 5000 might not have been as reliable as prosecutors portrayed is coming to light.  About 70 times each month in Florida the new Intoxilyzer 8000 rejects a breath test because control tests (calibration checks) are not acceptable.  Therefore, Florida defense attorneys contend that similar problems should have been at least as common with the older model.

Two top experts have said that the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test machines, which Florida used for about two decades before the state changed to the updated machines in 2006, could not meet today’s scientific requirements for ensuring accurate results.  The Intoxilyzer 5000 was only “inspected” once per month to see if the machine was working properly.  The machine now in use, the Intoxilyzer 8000, runs two calibration checks, as recommended by the National Safety Council, during every breath test.  The testimony of those experts now prevents prosecutors from introducing the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath tests in court in the small number of remaining cases where that older machine was used.

Due to the inadmissibility of the Intoxilyzer 5000 test results dozens of DUI defendants in different counties around the state have had charges dropped or reduced to reckless driving.  Unfortunately, it is too late for anyone already convicted with results from the Intoxilyzer 5000 to benefit from the situation.  Many prosecutors continue to claim that the Intoxilyzer 5000 machines were reliable, even if the scientific community now calls for better safeguards to make sure the machine is accurate.  On the other hand, defense attorneys say it is frightening to contemplate how many innocent people were convicted or saw no choice bu to plead guilty, and also lost their driver’s licenses, based on a test whose reliability is now in question.

In depositions in DUI cases this year, two state experts say the currently accepted practice is that a control test must be performed during each actual test to ensure accurate results.  Florida authorities used to say that a calibration check once per month was sufficient, but they have finally conceded that the scientific community has favored a calibration check at the time of each test for decades.  Prosecutors can still proceed with the older DUI cases without breath tests; however, a conviction requires a jury to believe that a driver was intoxicated based on police testimony or video recordings of the traffic stop.

The issue regarding the Intoxilyzer 5000 and whether its results were scientifically valid arose during the battle for access to the computer source code that runs the machines.  Defense attorneys in about 450 DUI cases questioned the reliability of the machines, and judges have ruled that the defendants should have access to the computer code inside the Intoxilyzer 5000 and 8000.  After the manufacturer refused to disclose the code, many judge have ruled that prosecutors would only be able to introduce the results if the established the admissibility of the test via expert testimony in each case.

The following news article was a story that I found on Yahoo.com on Sept. 13, 2009.  I predict that in the near future we will begin to see police officers trained to draw blood from DUI suspects that refuse to take chemical tests of their breath after being arrested for DUI.  Currently, if someone arrested for DUI refuses to take the test, they lose their license for one year with no work permit or provisional license of any kind.  Is that not enough?  Are we really ready to start straping down our citizens, forcing needles into their arms against their will and drawing their blood?  For what reason would we do this?  Their are already provisions in place where the police can go get search warrants from a Judge and have the blood drawn at a hospital.  This is routinely done on cases involving serious injuries and death.  So why do we need to do this for the guy that gets stopped for his tag light being out and then refuses testing?  Is it worth the risk to the police?  What risks are presented to the driver?  Here are a few that I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Injury
2. Infection
3. Lawsuits on the police
4. Battery
5. Officer Safety
6. Spread of disease
7. Fear of needles

One possible good result of this practice is that the Judges may start taking motions attacking a police officer’s probable cause a little more seriously.  It is becoming almost a rubber stamp with the courts deferring to the officer’s decision on the side of the road.

I think this is a can of worms that Georgia should be reluctant to open.  We have sufficient procedures in place to get a test when it is needed.  This is just going to get many drivers hurt and many officers sued.  Although, the medical malpractice lawyers are probably salivating at the idea of poorly trained officers sticking needles in folks.

BOISE, Idaho – When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he’ll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver’s arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.

“I was looking at people’s arms and hands, thinking, ‘I could draw from that,’” Dowell said.

It’s all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program’s aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training.

For years, defense attorneys in Idaho advised clients to always refuse breath tests, Ada County Deputy Prosecutor Christine Starr said. When the state toughened the penalties for refusing the tests a few years ago, the problem lessened, but it’s still the main reason that drunk driving cases go to trial in the Boise region, Starr said.

Idaho had a 20 percent breath test refusal rate in 2005, compared with 22 percent nationally, according to an NHTSA study.

Starr hopes the new system will cut down on the number of drunken driving trials. Officers can’t hold down a suspect and force them to breath into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood — a practice that’s been upheld by Idaho’s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation’s highest court ruled in 1966 that police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunk driving suspect without a warrant, as long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest and carried out in a medically approved manner.

The practice of cops drawing blood, implemented first in 1995 in Arizona, has also raised concerns about safety and the credibility of the evidence.

“I would imagine that a lot of people would be wary of having their blood drawn by an officer on the hood of their police vehicle,” said Steve Oberman, chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ DUI Committee.

The officer phlebotomists are generally trained under the same program as their state’s hospital or clinical phlebotomists, but they do it under a highly compressed schedule, and some of the curriculum is cut.

That’s because officers don’t need to know how to draw blood from a foot or other difficult sites, or from an infant or medically fragile patient, said Nicole Watson, the College of Western Idaho phlebotomy instructor teaching the Idaho officers.

Instead, they are trained on the elbow crease, the forearm and the back of the hand. If none are accessible, they’ll take the suspect to the hospital for testing.

In a nondescript Boise office building where the Nampa officers were trained, Dowell scanned his subject and prepared to draw blood. Chase Abston, an officer taking his turn playing a suspect, recoiled a bit, pressing his back deeper into the gray pleather chair.

Dowell slid a fine-gauge needle into the back of Abston’s hand. Abston, who had been holding his breath, slowly exhaled as his blood began to flow.

All the officers seemed like they’d be more comfortable if their colleagues were wielding sidearms instead of syringes. But halfway through the second day of training, with about 10 venipunctures each under their belts, they relaxed enough to trade barbs alongside needle jabs.

They’re making quick progress, Watson said. Their training will be complete after they have logged 75 successful blood draws.

Once they’re back on patrol, they will draw blood of any suspected drunk driver who refuses a breath test. They’ll use force if they need to, such as getting help from another officer to pin down a suspect and potentially strap them down, Watson said.

Though most legal experts agree blood tests measure blood alcohol more accurately than breath tests, Oberman said the tests can be fraught with problems, too.

Vials can be mixed up, preservative levels in the tubes used to collect the blood can be off, or the blood can be stored improperly, causing it to ferment and boosting the alcohol content.

Oberman said law enforcement agencies should also be concerned “about possible malpractice cases over somebody who was not properly trained.”

Alan Haywood, Arizona’s law enforcement phlebotomy coordinator who is directing the training programs in Idaho and Texas, said officers are exposed to some extra on-the-job risk if they draw blood, but that any concern is mitigated by good training and safe practices.

“If we can’t get the evidence safely, we’re not going to endanger the officers or the public to collect that evidence,” he said.

The Phoenix Police Department only uses blood tests for impaired driving cases. Detective Kemp Layden, who oversees drug recognition, phlebotomy and field sobriety, said the city now has about 120 officers certified to draw blood. Typically, a suspect is brought to a precinct or mobile booking van for the blood draw.

Under the state’s implied consent law, drivers who refuse to voluntarily submit to the test lose their license for a year, so most comply. For the approximately 5 percent who refuse, the officer obtains a search warrant from an on-call judge and the suspect can be restrained if needed to obtain a sample, Layden said.

Between 300 to 400 blood tests are done in an average month in the nation’s fifth-largest city.

During holiday months that number can rise to 500, said Layden, who reviews each case to make sure legal procedures were followed.

Outside of Arizona, some law enforcement agencies in Utah have officer phlebotomists, and police in Dalworthington Gardens, Texas are cross-trained as paramedics and have been drawing blood for about three years. The NHTSA is in talks with Houston, Texas about doing the phlebotomy training there, he said.

They’re all attracted by Arizona’s anecdotal evidence.

“What we found was that the refusal rates of chemical testing lowered significantly since this program began,” Haywood said. “Arizona we had about a 20 percent refusal rate in 1995, and today we see about an 8 to 9 percent refusal rate.”

A report on DUI arrests was released on August 19th amid fanfare generated by NHTSA for their latest anti-DUI initiative. Speeches by Transportation Secretary LaHood and MADD President Laura Dean-Moody were along the lines you might expect, and there was a press release on the NHTSA website. The study is “Alcohol Impaired Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes, by Gender and State, 2007-2008.” DOT HS 811 095.

The report indicates that between 1998 and 2007, DUI arrests for women increased almost 29%, while arrests for men dropped about 7.5%. The NHTSA study points out that the latest data shows that traffic fatalities involving women who were allegedly impaired by alcohol increased or stayed the same in 15 states, while for numbers remained the same or increased for men in 13 states. The study claims that this is significant in light of the overall 9% drop in alcohol related fatal crashes. What the NHTSA report did not emphasize is that in 40 states fatalities in “alcohol related” accidents involving women drivers actually declined or was unchanged. It only went up in 10 states. That doesn’t sound as threatening, but numbers that alarm justify NHTSA budget increases and larger grants for MADD. The overall numbers reflect a reduction in fatal wrecks involving alcohol impaired women of 1% from 2007 to 2008, so the trend apparent in the FBI data is a reduction in fatal DUI crashes last year..

CNN quoted the MADD president as blaming the increase in DUI’s among women as possibly attributable to increasing economic pressure (more women in the workforce who then drink to reduce the stress of being in the workplace) and television presentations of glamorous women who stay home and drink.

     Fewer Americans are driving drunk, but roughly one in six drivers on weekend nights is driving under the influence of drugs, according to a data released Monday by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey.  In a survey conducted in 2007, 2.2 percent of drivers had a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher, which would exceed the limit for driving while intoxicated in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the agency said in a news release.

     The first such survey, conducted in 1973, found 7.5 percent of drivers above the 0.08 limit, the release said. Other surveys were conducted in 1986 and 1996.
“I’m pleased to see that our battle against drunk driving is succeeding,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood  said in the news release.  “However, alcohol still kills 13,000 people a year on our roads and we must continue to be vigilant in our efforts to prevent drunk driving.”

     The 2007 survey was the first to also check for drug use while driving. It found that 16.3 percent of nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for drugs, according to the statement.  What the NHTSA report does not explain is what percentage of these drivers was under the influence of drugs or even impaired to the slightest degree.  The drugs used most commonly by drivers were marijuana (8.6 percent), cocaine (3.9 percent) and over-the-counter and prescription drugs (3.9 percent), it said.  The last group would include such popular medications as Xanax, Lorcet, and Valium.  “This troubling data shows us, for the first time, the scope of drugged driving in America and reinforces the need to reduce drug abuse,” said Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

     The survey involved setting up random sites across the country to question drivers who participated voluntarily and on condition of anonymity.  In total, almost 11,000 eligible drivers entered the survey sites, with 9,413 drivers agreeing to breath-alcohol measurements, 7,719 providing oral fluid samples and 3,276 nighttime drivers submitting blood samples, the news release said.

     What used to be known as typing is now known as “texting” by the young and the technologically savvy not-so young, so long as it is done on an electronic apparatus that transmits the typed message to another electronic apparatus. Driving under the influence has become such a social taboo thanks to nearly three decades of government paid advertising that most people recognize the acronym DUI (driving under the influence). However, according to a growing body of research and empirical observation, “driving while texting” is a potentially worse hazard than DUI, and should be just as socially unacceptable as driving drunk.

     Driving while texting (DWT), which is typing on something much smaller than a bread box, is now afflicting our culture as a consequence of cellphone addiction. Had we asked thirty years ago, which is worse - driving drunk (much worse than today’s “impaired to the slightest degree”) or driving while typing - the nearly universal response would have been the latter. Now it seems that there must be a study of everything.

     Sure enough, the U.K. Transport Research Laboratory study, commissioned by the Royal Automobile Club Foundation, has concluded that motorists sending text messages while driving are “significantly more impaired” than those who drive drunk. The study showed texters’ reaction times deteriorated by 35 per cent with an incredible 91 per cent decrease in steering ability, while similar studies of drunk driving indicate reaction time is reduced by about 12 per cent. By that measure, DWT is three times more dangerous than DUI, and logically ought to be treated as severely, if not more so, under the law and in terms of social disapproval.

     Studies by the U.S. National Highway Safety Administration show that 85 per cent of all motor vehicle crashes are caused by distracted driving- not drunk driving. However, laws banning DWT are still quite rare. After all, who thought about driving down the highway at 65 miles per hour while typing thirty, twenty, or even ten years ago? Maybe some day soon the folks at MADD will become irate about this issue too. Nah, I almost forgot. Outlawing DWT has nothing to do with virtual prohibition - MADD’s real goal.

Donte Stallworth who was arrested March 14, 2009 for DUI manslaughter in Miami has pled Guilty to the charges against him.  This brings closure to the victim’s family and they have been kept in the loop and given their blessing to the sentence.  Mr. Stallworth will receive the following:

1. 30 days of jailtime
2. A LIFETIME license suspension
3. 2 years of house arrest
4. 8 years of probation
5. 1000 hours of community service
6. Alcohol and Drug Counseling

This may sound like a light sentence for the charge, but it is actually quite serious and very much is an appropriate sentence fashioned by people that know the facts of the case much better than of the talking heads on TV or MADD.  There was a lot of mitigation that I am sure played a big part in the outcome.

1. He stopped immediately.
2. He called the police.
3. He admitted he hit the man.
4. He cooperated with the investigation.
5. He took full responsibility.
6. He has compensated the family saving them the long drawn out civil case.
7. The man ran out in front of him apparently trying to catch a bus.
8. The man was not in a crosswalk.
9. He has no criminal history.

The simple truth is that the prosecution may not have been able to prove causation in this case.  Simply put, they had a strong DUI case, but couldn’t necessarily prove that the DUI was the cause of death.  A sober driver in that same spot may have killed him too.  The strength of the case is one of the primary factors considered in plea negotiations and I suspect it weighed heavily here too.

If the prosecutor had insisted on years in jail, then the case would have most certainly gone to trial.  This would have caused more harm to the family and potentially more harm to Donte Stallworth.  The prosecutor would have been between a rock and a hard place, with a mediocre case at best.  That kind of “all or nothing” situation is rarely good for anyone.  I think they did the right thing in the nature of a compromise.

From a public relations standpoint, Donte Stallworth and his lawyers have done a marvelous job  putting this to rest in just a few short months. He has been suspended from the NFL and may never play again, we will see.  It’s a sad case.  There are no winners here.  There is no celebrity treatment here.  However, all these folks that think they know to best run the legal system, need to go to lawschool, sit for the bar exam, then go out and change the world.  Until then, I wish they would leave the legal business to those that know it best…the prosecutor, the defense lawyer and the judge.

Today, the Georgia Supreme Court issued this opinion striking down Georgia’s statute on improper left turns.  Since the statute is vague and can be read in two opposing ways, it fails to give fair warning of what conduct is illegal.

     The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a “split decision” in two Intoxilyzer source code cases today. However, the minimal showing required for disclosure of the source code augurs well for future defense efforts.

     In State v. Underdahl the Supreme Court ruled that the district court abused its discretion in finding the source code relevant and related to his guilt or innocence. Underdahl made no threshold evidentiary showing whatsoever; while he argued that challenging the validity of the Intoxilyzer was the only way for him to dispute the charges against him, he failed to demonstrate how the source code would help him do so. He advanced no theories on how the source code “could be related to [his] defense or why the [source code] was reasonably likely to contain information related to the case.”

     State v. Brunner, however, yielded a different result. This defendant submitted source code definitions, written testimony of a computer science professor that explained issues surrounding the source codes and their disclosure, and an example of a breath test machine analysis and its potential defects. Brunner’s submissions showed that an analysis of the source code may reveal deficiencies that could challenge the reliability of the Intoxilyzer and, in turn, would relate to his guilt or innocence. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the district court in Brunner’s case did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the source code may relate to his guilt or innocence.

     The Court also considered whether the district courts’ findings that the State had possession or control of the source code were clearly erroneous. The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure require prosecuting attorneys to assist the defendant in seeking access to matters that are within the “possession or control” of the State. Both district courts had found that the State is the owner of the source code for the Minnesota model of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, relying on the request for proposal (RFP) issued by the State when replacing the previous version of its breath-test instrument. The Supreme Court found that the source code was effectively in the possession or control of the state.

     As the law now stands in Minnesota, the defendant must make a minimal showing in order to obtain an order requiring the State to produce the source code. The remedy in per se cases, including the Minnesota version of “extreme DUI”, will be dismissal, with suppression the likely remedy in “less safe” cases. Will the State comply? Will CMI cooperate? Stay tuned.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090331/ap_on_fe_st/odd_bar_stool_dui;_ylt=At0Y0×70vCM4zD6ouscmhMHtiBIF

Authorities in Ohio say a man has been charged with drunken driving after crashing his motorized bar stool. Police inNewark, 30 miles east of Columbus, say when they responded to a report of a crash with injuries on March 4, they found a man who had wrecked a bar stool powered by a deconstructed lawn mower.

Twenty-eight-year Kile Wygle was hospitalized for minor injuries. Police say he was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated after he told an officer at the hospital that he had consumed 15 beers. Wygle told police his motorized bar stool can go up to 38 mph.

Wygle has pleaded not guilty and has requested a jury trial.

CHICAGO – Motorists convicted of driving drunk will have to install breath-monitoring gadgets in their cars under new laws taking effect in six states this week.

The ignition interlocks prevent engines from starting until drivers blow into the alcohol detectors to prove they’re sober.

Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska and Washington state began Jan. 1 requiring the devices on all motorists convicted of first-time drunken driving. South Carolina began Thursday requiring them for repeat offenders.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been conducting a nationwide campaign to mandate ignition locks for anyone convicted of drunken driving, claiming doing so would save thousands of lives. But critics say interlocks could lead to measures that restrict alcohol policies too much.

Users must pay for the fist-sized devices, which in Illinois cost around $80 to install on dashboards and $80 a month to rent; there’s also a $30 monthly state fee. They also require periodic retesting while the car is running.

“It’s amazingly inconvenient,” said David Malham, of the Illinois chapter of MADD. “But the flip side of the inconvenience is death.”

Other states with similar laws include New Mexico, Arizona and Louisiana. Most other states give judges the option of forcing convicted drunk drivers to use the devices. In practice though, they are rarely ordered unless laws mandate them, according to MADD.

Until now, that’s been true in Illinois, said MADD national CEO Chuck Hurley.

“Illinois has excellent law enforcement,” he said. “But the judicial system leaks like a sieve. This law will change the catch and release system to one where people are at least caught and tagged.”

In Illinois, the interlocks are mandated only for the five to 11 months licenses are suspended with a first DUI. Drivers can opt not to install them, but then would be banned from driving at all during the suspension period.

Motorists in Colorado get a similar choice — install the devices or get a longer suspension.

The law taking effect in Washington state actually relaxes penalties on drunk drivers, allowing them to avoid a previously mandatory license suspension by getting an interlock. The bill’s author, Rep. Roger Goodman, said too many motorists were driving with suspended licenses.

Motorists could try skirt the devices by, say, having someone else blow into detector or driving someone else’s car. But if caught trying to circumvent the interlocks, they could go to jail.

Within a year, up to 30,000 first-time offenders in Illinois could be using them, state officials estimate.

New Mexico was the first state to mandate the devices in 2005. Since then, according to MADD, that state has seen its drunk-driving deaths fall 20 percent.

Hurley said other states could see the same percentage decline within a few years.

DUI deaths nationally have plummeted to around 15,000 from around 30,000 annually in the early 1980s.

Malham, who supports the technology, said in the future even more advanced technology will enable cars to effectively sniff car cabins, scan faces and eyes of drivers or even test sweat on steering wheels to assess sobriety before engines start.

Not everyone is as enthusiastic.

One of the staunchest critics of interlock laws for first-time offenders is the Washington, D.C.-based American Beverage Institute, a trade association representing restaurants and retailers.

ABI managing director Sarah Longwell said the group backs interlock laws targeting repeat offenders and those arrested with high blood-alcohol levels.

But she said laws advocated by MADD don’t allow judges to distinguish between those who have a few drinks and go just over the 0.08 blood-alcohol legal limit and those who go way over.

“We want sensible alcohol policies,” she said. “We want 10 people to be able to come in and have one drink and not one person to come in and have 10.”

She said current interlock laws could lead to more draconian measures.

“We foresee is a country in which you’re no longer able to have a glass of wine, drink a beer at a ball game or enjoy a champagne toast at a wedding,” she said. “There will be a de facto zero tolerance policy imposed on people by their cars.”

She argued that MADD puts too much emphasis on links between alcohol and traffic deaths, giving too little regard to the roles excessive speed and driver cell-phone use in deadly accidents.

Proponents of interlock laws say studies back their approach. They cite a 2008 study by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation that found interlock devices in New Mexico helped decrease repeat offenses by approximately two-thirds.

MADD also points to figures showing one-third of all drunk drivers have a prior DUI conviction.

The American Beverage Institute questions studies cited by advocates, saying they other factors, like education programs, also account for the declines.

Malham concedes Illinois’ new law isn’t perfect. For one, it only applies to drivers during relatively short license-suspension periods.

“But perfection can’t be the enemy of the good, to quote (18th century philosopher) Voltaire,” he said. “I’d like to see more teeth in the law in the future. But this is a start.”

Wausau, WI. Mar 28 (AP) – Cars lining the street. A house full of young people. A keg and drinking games inside. Police thought they had an underage boozing party on their hands.

But though they made dozens of teens take breath tests, none tested positive for alcohol. That’s because the keg contained root beer.

The party was held by a high school student who wanted to show that teens don’t always drink alcohol at their parties.  Dustin Zebro, 18, said he staged the party after friends at D.C. Everest High School got suspended from sports because of pictures showing them drinking from red cups.

Zebro purchased a quarter-barrel of 1919 Classic American Draft Root Beer, and by 10 p.m. Saturday, the scene outside his rural Wausau home had all the makings of a teen drinking party – cars, noise and kids…

Nearly 90 breath tests were done, and officers even searched locked rooms for hiding teens.

Now, there’s a lesson to be learned here, but it’s probably not the lesson the cops wanted to teach these youngsters.

Atlanta ranks 12th on this list.A sort of interesting article.  They rely on various factors such as liver disease, DUI arrests and some statistics from MADD in determining the ranks.

See article HERE.

Thanks to lawyers that have been fighting for the source code that controls the operation of the Intoxilyzer it looks like the tide is turning. Previously, prosecutors all over the country have been objecting to turning it over because it is a “trade secret” and that the State does not have it in their possession.

Some Judges have Ordered CMI to turn it over and the company has been flatly refusing to do so. See Contempt Order here. cmi-turnover-order.pdf

CMI has finally decided to cooperate. They are willing to let it be examined subject to a protective order. I don’t believe this has been accomplished yet and we have not seen the proposed protective order and how restrictive it will be. See attached. CMI memo

CMI’s new “state of the art” machine has more problems.  Now folks are getting charged with refusals through no fault of their own.

See the attached memo. fdle-memo.pdf

TAMPA - Daniel Brock won high praise for jailing impaired motorists. Mothers Against Drunk Driving honored him. So did his bosses. But one of Hillsborough County’s most aggressive DUI deputies may have wrongly sent dozens of people to jail, the Sheriff’s Office acknowledged on Thursday, June 14, 2007.

The agency fired Brock on May 24^th. In 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. (Editor Note: I bet he “prescribes” to the theory that somehow everyone is impaired or too drunk to drive at .08)

A driver may be charged with DUI in Florida 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.

Records show he pulled people over on DUI stops 17 times while his cruiser was occupied with other prisoners. That’s against procedure. He routinely filed arrest reports days, even weeks, after making an arrest. He told internal affairs Detective Bruce Crumpler that he always reported the results of field sobriety tests based on memory. Wouldn’t that leave room for errors, Crumpler asked? “Well, there’s room for error, ” Brock told Crumpler. “I’ve never had a problem.” (Editor’s Note: Until now his job was not on the line, his liberty was not restrained, and his license was not jeopardized. No wonder he had never had a problem.)

His paperwork became the subject of scorn at the Hillsborough State Attorney’s Office, where prosecutors said the deputy tarnished his reputation by filing inaccurate arrest reports that lacked important details. “He doesn’t have a very good reputation for being a very good DUI officer that we care to work with, ” prosecutor Jennifer Gabbard told Crumpler. “It’s almost like whatever you can do to make it look like you’re arresting people.”

From October 2005 to October 2006, Brock made 313 arrests for driving under the influence. 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. Within the Sheriff’s Office, Deputy Brock previously had been praised for his “outstanding professional service” and was consistently recommended for raises. His superiors rated his performance “satisfactory” and called him a credit to the office. He was lauded as a dedicated deputy who spoke to high school students about the perils of impaired driving.

“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.” (Editors Note: MADDs leadership embraces a “zero tolerance” standard for everyone, so they believe a person who drank one beer at a ball game should be arrested.)

However, the former deputy encountered a few bumps in the road. He was suspended and sent to driving school in 2000 after a string of what the Sheriff’s Office deemed avoidable traffic accidents. In 2006, he was named in a federal lawsuit alleging that he physically attacked the mother of a teenage boy he arrested in 2002. The Hillsborough County woman said Brock forced himself into her home, pushed her into a corner and sprayed her with pepper spray. The lawsuit is unresolved.

During the recent internal affairs investigation, Brock denied trying to boost numbers for personal recognition. It was unclear Thursday whether Brock intends to appeal his firing. 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.”

Georgia legislator, Ben Harbin, was arrested on Sunday for DUI. He was released on $1200.00 bond. Read the story from the AJC here. Here is a quote from the story.

At about the time of the crash, Robby Russ, a waiter at the Standard Food & Spirits, heard what he said sounded like a boom and looked out through the large window of the bar to see a utility pole “crooked like the Leaning Tower of Pisa.” Russ, 41, said he ran out to help. He said Harbin was coherent and without any visible signs of injuries. He wasn’t in “bad shape on the intoxication level,” said Russ, who has been tending bars for 18 years. “I know he’s been charged with DUI, and I know he’s an important guy. But he wasn’t wasted,” he said. “He wasn’t slurring his speech or falling over his face. He composed himself very well.”

Sounds pretty good, right? Check out this arrest photo. Not bad.

11Alive.com - Fatal DUI Wreck Brings 10 Year Sentence

One interesting fact here is that the victims’ families were siding with the defense and asking for probation.

TheStar.com - News - MADD’s Outspoken Founder Punished

Kevin Donovan
Staff reporter 

The founder of MADD Canada, who spoke out against the national organization’s fundraising practices, has been stripped of his role on the charity’s two key committees.”I feel betrayed,” said John Bates, 79, whose quarter-century battle against drinking and driving earned him the Order of Canada.Bates learned Monday evening he was gone from the charity’s finance and policy committees, which monitor the organization’s expenditures and revenues, and set the tone for the charity.The news came to Bates during a brief teleconference involving five of the 17 board members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

“This seems to be in response to asking too many questions,” Bates said yesterday. “But I don’t believe in spending donor money the way MADD head office does and I feel I had a responsibility to speak out.”

A recent Star investigation, in which Bates was quoted, revealed that most of the millions MADD raises stays with the paid telemarketers, door knockers and direct mail companies hired by the charity to raise cash.

While MADD insists that 83.6 per cent of donated funds goes to the charity’s programs, the Star found that it was virtually the reverse, with about 81 per cent of MADD money spent on fundraising and administration.

MADD is doing an internal review of its fundraising practices and has hired consultants to survey chapters to see if they are happy with the organization. The results of those initiatives would normally be discussed next month at the two committees from which Bates has been removed.

A MADD lawyer who spoke during the conference call told Bates “it would be inappropriate, perhaps uncomfortable” for him to remain on the committees, but did not elaborate. The lawyer did not return a call from the Star.

The Star received an email from the board’s vice-chair, Al Newton, who said Bates was removed because he is a non-voting member of the board and the board had decided that only voting members should be on committees.

The Star has attempted to ask Newton why only five members of the 17-member board were able to remove Bates but Newton did not respond.

Tony Carvalho, one of the five board members who voted in the Monday night meeting, was helped by Bates in 1990 when Carvalho’s son was killed in a drunk driving accident.

Told later by the Star that Bates felt betrayed by the board members who voted, Carvalho said: “Yes, John was helpful to me. We are friends and he was very supportive when we went through our situation (when his son was killed).”

Carvalho would not discuss his reasoning for voting against Bates. “I think there are always two sides to a story and I would like to leave it at that.”

Long-time MADD volunteer Nancy Codlin, of the Durham chapter, reacted with dismay when she learned what had happened to Bates. “It’s a sad day when the founder of MADD cannot ask questions. John is a dear, dear man who has the organization’s best interests at heart.”

At his home in Etobicoke yesterday, Bates tried to make sense of what happened.

On a wall in his cramped office hangs a series of plaques, including the Order of Canada, the country’s highest civilian honour. Bates was awarded the distinction in 1998 for “his tireless dedication over the years to raising awareness of the tragic consequences of impaired driving.”

It notes that his work resulted in a groundswell of support for legislative reform; made roads safer; reduced drunk driving fatalities; and his leadership and voluntary efforts with MADD “led to the development of a nation-wide support network for accident victims.”

Bates, a retired magazine executive, took up the anti-drunk driving crusade in the early 1980s after a friend of his daughter’s was killed by an impaired driver.

Bates was also awarded the title of “Founder of MADD” in 1993 for his “outstanding achievement and dedication” to the cause. This gave him a lifetime seat on the board.

MADD’s top honour “ the John Bates Volunteer of the Year award “ is awarded in his name.

Strewn on his desk yesterday were unused notes for the Monday night call. Unused, because MADD chief executive officer Andrew Murie (who is not a board member) spoke up and called for the vote.

Bates had just told the people on the call: “Even though I am the one being held out as a bad guy (by MADD head office) I am the one trying to save this organization.”

Bates told the Star he had very much wanted to discuss the fundraising issue and also remark on the importance in any organization of speaking out.

He had planned to quote slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, who once said “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

Bates, who founded MADD in the early 1990s (he was founder of an earlier group started in the 1980s which became MADD), remains on the board but he does not have voting rights.

MADD is Canada’s largest anti-drunk driving charity, with revenues of about $12 million annually.

In its investigation, the Star found that the local, volunteer-driven chapters of the charity do a great deal of good work on a shoestring budget. But the majority of the fundraised millions stay with paid fundraisers.

Murie, MADD’s chief executive officer, has told the Star that the telemarketers and others the charity hires to ask for cash are conducting charitable works because they are spreading the message of the organization.

The federal charity regulator does not condone this type of accounting.

Murie, who has previously said his charity is being criticized by a few “disgruntled” volunteers, did not respond to a request for an interview yesterday