Judge disses drunken driving tipsters

[ZooKeeper]

I found this one interesting...unfortunately without the reasonable suspicion being developed by the officer with his own observations, the stop lacks probable cause & the drunk walks.

Saturday, March 21, 2009
Judge disses drunken driving tipsters
Troy cops told they can't stop car based only on 911 call.
Mike Martindale / The Detroit News

TROY -- In a very rare move, the city of Troy is appealing a district judge's decision to dismiss a drunken driving case last month because it was based on observations of another motorist, rather than the officer who finally stopped the suspected driver.

Troy police stopped the car, a Chevrolet Lumina, in a subdivision off Rochester Road about 1:30 a.m. Nov. 11 after a motorist used a cell phone to report the Lumina had been weaving. According to court records, a 38-year-old Sterling Heights driver was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. He recorded a 0.10 blood alcohol level on a breathalyzer test -- higher than the 0.08 in which a motorist is deemed too intoxicated to drive in Michigan.

But Troy District Judge William E. Bolle dismissed the case during his first court appearance on Feb. 24.

Advertisement

"...You can't just assume that a cell phone caller is reliable, many times they are," Bolle said, according to a court transcript. "I've had occasions where they were not. I've had occasions where they're a spiteful person that's called the police and made allegations that in fact were not really true."

A transcript of the dispatch tape records the caller's description of the weaving driver.

"I have a car in front of me driving erratically ... oh my God," the caller said.

"Yeah, you got to send somebody out here for sure. He's all over the road."

The caller provided the Lumina's license plate numbers, along with his own name and phone number, during the two-minute call, in which he followed the car.

In court, the driver's attorney, Kirsten Neilsen Hartig, said the police did not see the motorist driving erratically and only pulled him over in front of his home, according to court documents.

Troy city attorney Lori Grigg Bluhm said filing an appeal of the judge's decision was a "very, very rare" action for her office to take, but felt the dismissal must be overturned.

"We've worked with the judge for years, and it pains us to do this," Bluhm said. "We believe the officer's stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, regardless of whether she personally observed erratic driving."

Said Hartig on Friday night: "I am very disappointed. I thought the judge ruled appropriately on this matter and the Police Department never confirmed this person's identity. My client never weaved, never drove improperly and even used turn signals."

In dismissing the case, Bolle told attorneys his decision was based on "competing interests," including "the right of a driver to be free from an illegal stop."

A Mothers Against Drunk Driving representative described the dismissal as "absurd."

"What are we supposed to do, wait for people to be killed before you arrest a drunk driver?" said Richard Rondeau, executive director of the Macomb-Oakland chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

"I've made more than a half-dozen calls to police like that myself about drunk drivers.

"What does this say to citizens? To ignore what we see? It doesn't make any sense. Police were provided with good information by a reliable source. I don't care if the officer saw him hit a curb or not. I just want that drunk off the road."

Bolle noted the officer observed the Lumina "for at least a mile" and didn't notice any bad driving.

"I don't think there was enough evidence for her to make a stop. ... I don't think you can proceed to a prosecution given what she knew," he wrote.

Bolle did not return a call seeking comment Friday.

The appeal will be heard by Oakland Circuit Judge Colleen A. O'Brien on April 1.

[Five-O]

This case smells funny on a number of levels.
In PA this case would have made it past a prelim if the DA knew how to present a case. The stop itself is a supression issue and the prosecution should have objected immediately to the defense raising it as an issue. If the stop was deemed invalid then the fruit of the poison tree doctrine would rule and all evidence after the stop would be inadmissable...but that is not for the Magistrate to decide. In PA all that is needed at the magistrate level is prima facia evidence. In other words, the prosecution establishes that a crime did occur and that more likely than not the defendant was involved.....thats it. Then its on to the next level. Additionally the prosecution should have put the origional 911 caller on the stand as a witness to establish the defendant was the vehicle operator and showed signs he/she was incapable of safe driving...don't need to be a COP for that. . That however does not account for either lazy of just bad police work on the arresting officers part. The arresting officer should have waited and observed first hand erractic driving or some other vehicle code violation to establish probable cause not just reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a vehicle stop. Why she did not is a mystery.

[Dozer523]

A few years ago a lady backed into my car. I called the police and said "This lady just backed into my car and did some serious damage."
I was told "Exchange information with her and contact your insurance company."
I said, "She's drunk." They said, "We'll be righ there." And 3 minutes later, they were. They cuffeed her and took her for a ride. I've never regretted that call.

[ZooKeeper]

I said, "She's drunk." They said, "We'll be righ there." And 3 minutes later, they were. They cuffeed her and took her for a ride. I've never regretted that call.

Wait...was she drunk? ;)

[x SF med]

A few years ago a lady backed into my car. I called the police and said "This lady just backed into my car and did some serious damage."
I was told "Exchange information with her and contact your insurance company."
I said, "She's drunk." They said, "We'll be righ there." And 3 minutes later, they were. They cuffeed her and took her for a ride. I've never regretted that call.

You probaly weren't in Michigan...

[Mike]

Woman I used to work with was a drunk.

She was headed home via interstate one evening and a trucker noticed her swerving all over the road.
4 of them boxed her in and got her off the road til the cops got there and hauled her stupid ass in.

F that judge.

[Smokin Joe]

I had many a DUI cases and conviction based on 911 calls.

As stated above F that judge... the prick is probably a drunk anyways.

[cornelyj]

Wait...was she drunk? ;)

So was she drunk or not?:eek:

Yea eff that judge I didn't want to be the first one to write it though....

[Dozer523]

Wait...was she drunk? ;)

OH Yeah. I've seen drunk folks once or twice . . . not me :rolleyes:but . . . I resembul dat, whut ah meen isssssssssss in MY oHpin - yun she wuz . . . ? what were we takin'a. . . bout? :p

[DbeforeD]

One year all our Security Forces deployed to the box, so I was augmented to the skeleton force to help out. I was put on a ECP with this (in my opinion) cute Security Forces girl, and I had finally got hold a standard issue M-16A2 on duty. So I was standing there with a sheepish grin and a rubbery one. (for the record, holding the weapon got real annoying buy the third month) The two of us did a “random vehicle search” on this civilian guy that worked on base. She told me to just stand there and watch him so he doesn’t do anything dumb while she checked the vehicle. Nobody ever does anything dumb anymore, so I thought. The guy and I were watching her bend over to check out the driver’s side of the vehicle, when she stands back up and holds out a beer can with condensation all over it. She proceeded to pour out the remaining contents onto the ground and put the guy in cuffs. He asked “can I call my shop and tell them I’m going to be late?”

“No… You’re going to jail.” She replied.

F that judge. (just had to say it)

[Slantwire]

The two of us did a “random vehicle search” on this civilian guy that worked on base. She told me to just stand there and watch him so he doesn’t do anything dumb while she checked the vehicle. Nobody ever does anything dumb anymore, so I thought. The guy and I were watching her bend over to check out the driver’s side of the vehicle, when she stands back up and holds out a beer can with condensation all over it.

I'm sure she appreciated you watching her bend over in case the driver did something dumb, like pull a weapon on her (or you). But it's okay, because no one does anything dumb. Just ask Mir Aimal Kasi or the guys at Fort Dix.

[DbeforeD]

I'm sure she appreciated you watching her bend over in case the driver did something dumb, like pull a weapon on her (or you). But it's okay, because no one does anything dumb. Just ask Mir Aimal Kasi or the guys at Fort Dix.

Good point, but not being trained for that duty as well as someone slotted for that job. I was pretty sure it would take more time for me to chamber the weapon and get a bead on him than for him to draw and get a shot off. We were basically there for intimidation factor. In fact a couple of years later, a green Subaru blew past three gates, the bomb dump, and made it to the flight line. The people that marshal the jets had to ram him with their “follow me” trucks to prevent him from hitting the planes before the Security Forces apprehended him. Why did he make it that far? Because the augmented person didn’t know if he could open fire or not.

I can’t speak for Security Forces, we were trained not even to chamber a round unless we intended to shoot. Most of the personnel in the armed forces are professional. SF here on this forum are professional soldiers, I on the other hand can’t raise my index finger and say “this is my safety, sir”. From what I am told, negligent discharges are career enders in the Air Force, and God forbid you forget to put a cover sheet on a TPS report. My brother in law in the Marine Corps had a negligent discharge in the box, and he made rank. As a weapons maintainer, I hardly ever get issued a fire arm. Because of safety regulations, I’m not even allowed to keep a multi-tool or knife in my person. I will do my job professionally and efficiently as I swore to do, but if I am issued a weapon, that means sh!t has hit the fan. And I am a fish out of water. Just like a QP or a Security Forces would be if I took them on a facility inventory or a shipment prep. I know what am and don’t pretend to be something I’m not, like a “QP”, “SF”, or “Seal”. And after I read what QP say and do to posers, I would neeever want to be in that bracket. So if I ever see a very messy fan, the first thing I’m going to do is request instruction from someone who knows what they are doing. Then again, if a QP says “Hey, for some reason 5.56 round, lot number XXX99X999-999, won’t go bang.” Then I can exercise my profession.

That was my professional answer, personally I was standing behind him and was close enough to actually hit him with my weapon if he did do anything. I won’t lie, I am afraid of the big bad Article 15. My son needs these health benefits.

[Slantwire]

We were basically there for intimidation factor.

[...]

I know what am and don’t pretend to be something I’m not, like a “QP”, “SF”, or “Seal”.

I'm not a QP, either. I simply mean that if I'm supposed to provide security through intimidation, I wouldn't "share the moment" with the guy in the car.

Not trying to start a pissing contest. You told your story, I made my comment. Done. If you want to continue, PM me.

[Razor]

Good point, but not being trained for that duty as well as someone slotted for that job...As a weapons maintainer, I hardly ever get issued a fire arm.

Many times in life we're faced with situations in which we're asked to perform a task or series of tasks without specific training. Its these times we must ask ourselves, "What can I do to better prepare myself and those around me for this work?" This is especially true when our assigned tasks relate to the protection of our well being, and that of others. What resources do we have at hand to better train ourselves for what we may be expected to do? Do I work in an arms room full of rifles and/or pistols, where I can perhaps use some dummy rounds (even if I have to spend $10 of my own money to get them) to practice loading, unloading and malfunction clearance so I'm ready if I'm ever called to employ a weapon? Can I ask my co-workers for some training in the tasks I'm expected to perform either before or after my shift?

Something to consider.