Recently, in Ocean City, Maryland, Delaware State Representative John C. Atkins was stopped for DUI, but not arrested when the police figured out who he was when he flashed his State Rep. ID. This was despite swerving in his vehicle and blowing a 0.14 in a portable breath test in the field. He also allegedly had the strong odor of alcohol, several empty beer bottles on the floor, glassy and bloodshot eyes, and admissions of drinking that evening.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am a defense attorney, I support letting a driver go who is merely drinking without showing signs of impairment, because having some drinks and driving home is not illegal if you are not impaired. However, I do have a problem applying different sets of rules to different classes of people.
Does anyone think a normal person exhibiting these signs would not be at least arrested and taken to the station to blow into the real breath machine or take a blood test? Of course not…
These same clues that the driver showed in that case, with nothing more, are always used as the basis for the alleged probable cause the police use to make DWI arrests in Missouri. I cannot think of one Missouri police officer I have encountered who would not arrest a member of the general public for DWI who exhibited these same clues, with or without field sobriety testing.
Lawyers for the Missouri Director of Revenue routinely argue at hearing that it does not matter how poorly officers administer field sobriety tests, or conduct their investigation, or do anything for that matter- their position is that any sign of possible intoxication that any lay person can observe in a driver, no matter how slight, can be the basis of probable cause to arrest for DWI no matter how many mistakes the police make during the arrest. (Not that I agree with them of course).
Inexplicably, MADD, issued a press release in the case supporting the non-arrest decision of the officer who made the stop of the state representative like a bunch of hypocrites, because the officer had made hundreds of DUI arrests in the past (but apparently not politicians just the general public).
If he was actually sober, I wonder why the police sent an officer down to drive the man and his wife home? If he had killed someone, you would be hearing these same hypocrites wanting him executed and would make him the poster boy for why we need to drop the legal limit even lower to 0.05.
With the salaries of some of the MADD folks being shown to be in the range of $400,000 a year for constantly pushing an agenda that keeps them useful, if you want to know what is at the bottom or heart of an issue they are taking a stand on, all you need to do is follow the money. Of course they support the non-arrest decision of a politician who blow 0.14 on a PBT, when they simultaneously want members of the general public convicted at 0.08 (and would like it lowered to 0.05) because in this case, they do not want to bite the hand that feeds in state legislatures. . . .
Similarly, MADD had another recent miraculous lack of their usual righteous indignation in a DUI case. Nicholas Causey, the son of a former Executive Director of MADD, was recently convicted of DUI in Broward County, Florida, but the Judge in the case ultimately granted a motion for new trial, partly due to jury misconduct, but also partly due to misconduct of the former Executive Director herself!
Mr. Causey, refused the breath test, and the arresting officer accused him of urinating on the floor of the holding area at the jail, and his attorney argued that he had thrown a cup of water into the corner after receiving it from the officer. When the judge got up at one point to use the restroom, Mr. Causey’s ex-Executive Director of MADD mother (who was not a party to the case, mind you) said in front of the jury, “maybe I’ll go right here in front on the floor.”
In another recent case, MADD also backpeddled from the rhetoric and psychobabble reserved for the general masses. Gisela Zetsche, the wife of the president and CEO of the Chrysler Group (Chrysler Group is a “platinum sponsor investor in MADD) has a case pending against her in Michigan for throwing an after-prom party for her children and classmates with alcohol and little supervision.
MADD, of course, is “reserving judgment” on a platinum sponsor’s wife’s actions, where they had just flamed out in the Washington post on how heavy incarceration is warranted for parents who have parties with alcohol for their highschool-age kids. They were even applauding at that time an eight-year prison term for one Richmond couple convicted of the same thing they were “reserving judgment” on regarding their platinum donor.
Once again, all you need to do is follow the money.
MADD is also not above being vindictive even to their own when it comes to money. John Bates, the founder of MADD in Canada, was recently stripped of his power in the organization by being removed from the two key monetary committees, the finance and policy committees, for speaking out against the group’s handling of money.
Bates allegedly was asking too many questions about the way MADD’s head office was spending donor money in that most of the millions raised is used to raise more cash through paid telemarketers, and direct mail companies.
While MADD has previously claimed that 83.6 % of donated funds go to charity programs, recent investigation supports his allegations, which show that approximately 81% of the donor money is actually spent on fundraising and administration. Ironically, MADD’s top award, the John Bates Volunteer of the Year award – is awarded in his name. I guess that was before he asked questions about MADD’s squandering of donor money.
MADD is Canada’s largest anti-drunk driving charity, with revenues of about $12 million annually.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment