Disappointing

[Sgt. Slaughter]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...rment-brk.html

Surprise police arrested one of their own Tuesday morning on suspicion of aggravated DUI and endangerment.
Mike Phillips, a rookie officer on the job less than a year, was booked after a collision in the area of Paradise Lane and Mountain Vista Boulevard.

Phillips, 39, a longtime McDonald's franchise manager before becoming an officer, was hired with two other rookies in August.

Police said Phillips struck a vehicle with an adult and a child passenger inside. Neither one were injured, a police news release said.

"During the course of the investigation it was discovered that Phillips was impaired," the release said.
"Due to the breath test administered on Phillips indicating that he had no alcohol in his system, a drug recognition expert (D.R.E.) was used to evaluate Phillips," it said. "The D.R.E. determined that Phillips was under the influence of a nervous system depressant."

Phillips was booked into the Maricopa County 4th Avenue jail. He's on administrative leave pending an internal investigation, officials said.

In an Aug. 25 Republic article about the hiring of Phillips and two other officers, a police official said the three hires went through a rigorous background screening including a polygraph test.

Sgt. Michael Stewart, who oversees the Police Department's recruitment and hiring, said he and his counterparts at other agencies call friends, family members, neighbors and co-workers to ask about an applicant's personality and background.

He said Phillips and his fellow rookies were hired because they tested well and impressed police supervisors, Stewart said.

Lt. Penny Riherd said at the time that department officials chose to hire Phillips in part because he was new to law enforcement to maintain a balance of veterans and newcomers, Riherd said.

There are benefits to hiring novice and veteran officers.

"New guys coming in, they're absolutely new, so everything they learn is going to be the Surprise way, how we do business," Stewart said. "With laterals, they don't have to go to the academy. We save time, money and training on that aspect and they're bringing in experience, But then, there's the retraining aspect."

Veteran officers bring valuable experience but may take some time to become familiar with Surprise police policies, the sergeant said.

[GIOSTORMUSNRET]

What are "Surprise police policies"? Some one makes policy spur of the moment during a crime?

[MG108]

What are "Surprise police policies"? Some one makes policy spur of the moment during a crime?

Team America. The Surprise police jump out and yell "Surprise C**kf*gs!"

Actually, Surprise is a city in AZ and they have a municipal PD. It's in the Phoenix metro area.

This officer is probably not off probation yet and has no protections or appeals when they fire him. Even if he had narcotic prescription, he's going to get nailed for driving. Not disclosing it will only compound it and depending on when it started, potentially a cert issue.

It's unfortunate it was an accident instead of traffic stop. Glad no one was hurt.

The article isn't clear about where the occupants were. I suspect there was a child in his car when he was stopped.

[PlateStacker]

Did he have a script for said medication? I'd be pretty p1ssed at all this negative media attention if it was prescribed to him. And no, taking his medication doesn't mean he's not aloud to drive.. as long as he took it per directions and responsibly. However, there are warnings against operating heavy equipment IF feeling impaired.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

It doesn't matter if it was prescribed or not. AZ cops process DUI-Drugs all the time for script meds.

"Responsible" would be not driving after taking the meds.

[DAL]

Did he have a script for said medication? I'd be pretty p1ssed at all this negative media attention if it was prescribed to him. And no, taking his medication doesn't mean he's not aloud to drive.. as long as he took it per directions and responsibly. However, there are warnings against operating heavy equipment IF feeling impaired.

Wrong. How you "feel" doesn't matter, nor does whether the medication is prescribed.

[DAL]

Driving under the influence of prescription medication is a problem that is increasing. Many people are unaware of the dangers, and of the illegality.

[Raggy]

Team America. The Surprise police jump out and yell "Surprise C**kf*gs!"

Actually, Surprise is a city in AZ and they have a municipal PD. It's in the Phoenix metro area.

This officer is probably not off probation yet and has no protections or appeals when they fire him. Even if he had narcotic prescription, he's going to get nailed for driving. Not disclosing it will only compound it and depending on when it started, potentially a cert issue.

It's unfortunate it was an accident instead of traffic stop. Glad no one was hurt.

The article isn't clear about where the occupants were. I suspect there was a child in his car when he was stopped.

I thought the AZ legislature recently made the provision of DUI that if the person is/was legally prescribed the drug by a licensed physician (MD), than that is defense to prosecution? Also, what do you mean not disclosing it could cause cert problems? I read in on the AZ Central website that the DRE "was able to show that some sort of depressant was present.....including cold medicine." My question is, what was the rush to arrest the officer with the possibilty that this could have been after effects of Vicks cold medicine he took the night before? Why not wait until the lab test comes back? Some PDs here in AZ act as if DUI is on-par with homicide or a child sexual assault. If it does come back an illegal substance, than this officer did it to himself. If not, he should seek legal advice.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

28-1381

A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances:

1. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.

2. If the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle and the alcohol concentration results from alcohol consumed either before or while driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle.

3. While there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person's body.

4. If the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle that requires a person to obtain a commercial driver license as defined in section 28-3001 and the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more.

B. It is not a defense to a charge of a violation of subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section that the person is or has been entitled to use the drug under the laws of this state.

C. A person who is convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

D. A person using a drug, as prescribed by a medical practitioner licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 7, 11, 13 or 17 is not guilty of violating subsection A, paragraph 3 of this section.

Even though A3 could be out if that's what he was under the influence of (with a prescription), he could still be charged with A1 if he showed impairment.

[MG108]

Did he have a script for said medication? I'd be pretty p1ssed at all this negative media attention if it was prescribed to him. And no, taking his medication doesn't mean he's not aloud to drive.. as long as he took it per directions and responsibly. However, there are warnings against operating heavy equipment IF feeling impaired.

He's impaired. It doesn't matter why. They don't even bother testing. If you are deemed impaired and you appear to be under the influence of a drug, you are DUI.

I thought the AZ legislature recently made the provision of DUI that if the person is/was legally prescribed the drug by a licensed physician (MD), than that is defense to prosecution? Also, what do you mean not disclosing it could cause cert problems? I read in on the AZ Central website that the DRE "was able to show that some sort of depressant was present.....including cold medicine." My question is, what was the rush to arrest the officer with the possibilty that this could have been after effects of Vicks cold medicine he took the night before? Why not wait until the lab test comes back? Some PDs here in AZ act as if DUI is on-par with homicide or a child sexual assault. If it does come back an illegal substance, than this officer did it to himself. If not, he should seek legal advice.

There is no lab test necessary. He's impaired by observation. Enough so that they wanted him to take a breathalyzer . Without alcohol, they look for other reasons for the impairment and the DRE tests revealed symptoms of drug use. The drugs could be legally prescribed but he's still impaired and still exhibiting signs of use. DUI is impairment coupled with intoxicants. Impairment is presumed if BAC is over certain limits or if any illegal drugs are present.

And the cert problem is if he lied during an investigation. "Did you take any medication?".

The defense against the metabolite DUI is a prescription. It's not a defense to impairment. If you're arrested for DUI and the test comes back positive for illegal drugs, the state doesn't have to prove impairment for a guilty DUI verdict. If you have a prescription, the state does have to prove impairment. Exhibiting impairement coupled with signs of drug use is probable cause for arrest. It doesn't matter whether the drug use by itself was legal.

And PDs everywhere treat DUI as a misdemeanor unless certain conditions are met. He was charged with two misdemeanor offenses according to the article. The fact that he hit someone while impaired should concern everyone. Not only that, he was impaired to such an extent, that the officer was not satisfied with the breathalyzer results and brought on a certified DRE. I wasn't there but considering the amount of latitude allowed in non-injury cases, this was a problem they didn't feel comfortable leaving alone. "Driver was shaken up in collision, passed breathalyzer - refused medical attention and was driven home by officer X" is an easy out and they didn't feel comfortable with it, obviously.

[stbspd]

Have a question here, if this were just a civvie would they have even been charged and since Police Officers are held to a high standard he is facing charges or would this have happened to most people involved in an accident similar to this?

And Sarge, what you doing roaming around the "peppy" part of azcentral?

[MG108]

Have a question here, if this were just a civvie would they have even been charged and since Police Officers are held to a high standard he is facing charges or would this have happened to most people involved in an accident similar to this?

It depends on the circumstances, the officer, the DUI suspect, etc, etc. The kid in the car, past DUIs, injuries, degree of impairment, accident or traffic stop, etc, are all factors.

A police officer in an accident is going to get more scrutiny by supervisors. I suspect that at a minimum, a supervisor was making the calls on who examined him for DUI and probably decided not only a DRE was needed but possibly that they come from a specific unit.

[BlkAlpha]

Does anybody else think that Surprise booked this officer because they received some heat for citing and releasing two Phoenix Officers for DUIs a while back?

[MG108]

Does anybody else think that Surprise booked this officer because they received some heat for citing and releasing two Phoenix Officers for DUIs a while back?

Nope.

[Raggy]

He's impaired. It doesn't matter why. They don't even bother testing. If you are deemed impaired and you appear to be under the influence of a drug, you are DUI.



There is no lab test necessary. He's impaired by observation. Enough so that they wanted him to take a breathalyzer . Without alcohol, they look for other reasons for the impairment and the DRE tests revealed symptoms of drug use. The drugs could be legally prescribed but he's still impaired and still exhibiting signs of use. DUI is impairment coupled with intoxicants. Impairment is presumed if BAC is over certain limits or if any illegal drugs are present.

And the cert problem is if he lied during an investigation. "Did you take any medication?".

The defense against the metabolite DUI is a prescription. It's not a defense to impairment. If you're arrested for DUI and the test comes back positive for illegal drugs, the state doesn't have to prove impairment for a guilty DUI verdict. If you have a prescription, the state does have to prove impairment. Exhibiting impairement coupled with signs of drug use is probable cause for arrest. It doesn't matter whether the drug use by itself was legal.

And PDs everywhere treat DUI as a misdemeanor unless certain conditions are met. He was charged with two misdemeanor offenses according to the article. The fact that he hit someone while impaired should concern everyone. Not only that, he was impaired to such an extent, that the officer was not satisfied with the breathalyzer results and brought on a certified DRE. I wasn't there but considering the amount of latitude allowed in non-injury cases, this was a problem they didn't feel comfortable leaving alone. "Driver was shaken up in collision, passed breathalyzer - refused medical attention and was driven home by officer X" is an easy out and they didn't feel comfortable with it, obviously.

MG108,
First off, I would like to thank you for your reply. But I do have issue with one of your statements. The part about him lying while he was under investigation. This was a criminal investigation, not an internal investigation. The officer should be afforded all of his 5th ammendment rights. He does not have to answer that question, nor would any non-law enforcement person, as the scope of the investigation has now turned from a civil investigation (collision) into a criminal (DUI). I still don't see the need to arrest and book this officer right away. If the Lab report comes back positive for an illegal substance, than why not apply and get an arrest warrant? If it comes back negative for any illegal substance, than it looks lnothing more than a PD trying to make itself look good at the expense of an innocent person. If that's the case, egg is on the face of the PD.