Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Somebody is going to get sued

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Somebody is going to get sued

    Driver Who Tested Positive for DUI Not Arrested, Dies in Wreck 3 Hours Later

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274532,00.html

    JANESVILLE, Wis. —

    A driver who was stopped for speeding and tested over the legal limit for blood-alcohol content, but was not arrested, was killed less than three hours later Monday when his car hit a tree, according to police.

    Janesville police records indicate that Jason Stacy, 29, was seen speeding and driving erratically downtown shortly after 1 a.m.

    According to an analysis of police records by WISC-TV in Madison, Stacy was stopped and given a Breathalyzer test that indicated a blood-alcohol level of 0.12 percent. The legal limit in Wisconsin is 0.08.

    Stacy was ticketed for imprudent speed and failing to stay in the center of his lane. The officer didn't arrest Stacy but did prevent him from driving until a friend picked him up, the television station reported.

    Around 3:45 a.m., Stacy's car hit a tree and burst into flames, deputies said. Stacy, who was alone and not wearing a seatbelt, was found about 50 feet away.

    Janesville police declined to comment. The Rock County Sheriff's Department said it is investigating.

  • #2
    I don't doubt that this POS's family is going to sue. That is the "American way." I can do what I want because I am not responsible for my actions. Idiot got a break and decided to **** it and his life away.

    Give some people an inch and they take a mile.
    Space for rent .........

    Comment


    • #3
      As cold as this sounds, at least he only took himself out and nobody else because of his bad decision. One less drunk on the road as far as I'm concerned.
      Last edited by Gil; 05-22-2007, 11:30 AM.
      "Life should be a mission and adventure, not just a mere existence"

      Comment


      • #4
        Just goes to show you guys, do everything you possibly can to every DUI driver. Don't cut them any breaks, don't give them any slack. They don't deserve it.

        Comment


        • #5
          This kid was getting a break and he threw everything away and it cost him his life. The officer will be the one that pays the price now. Good luck!
          "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything!"-Wyatt Earp

          "You never know when crazy will show up!"-Irishdep

          Comment


          • #6
            Stopped drunk, arrested same

            DUI rule #1, given a break and opportunity, the drunk will always get back behind the wheel... ALWAYS! Sorry, but I have no sympathy for a cop who lets a .12 go on his merry way.


            Only one person died here, but it could have been much, much worse. A bad judgment call, to which the officer and his department will have to pay the price
            "Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought" ~Henri Louis Bergson
            ______________________


            ComptonPOLICEGANGS.com

            Comment


            • #7
              That reminds me a little of something that happened in my county a few years back. It ended up changing a law about how long a drunk's car can be impounded after they're arrested...

              *Mistrial For Drunk Driver Friend*

              SALEM, N.J., Feb. 10, 2003
              -------------------------------------------------------------------------

              (AP)"A judge declared a mistrial Monday in a closely watched case of a man charged with homicide for failing to stop a friend from becoming involved in a fatal drunken-driving accident.

              Jurors told Superior Court Judge William Forrester they were hopelessly deadlocked. Another jury deadlocked in the case last August.

              Kenneth Powell was charged with vehicular homicide and aggravated assault after the July 2000 crash that killed Michael Pangle, his best friend. Pangle was driving a car that drifted across the center line and collided head-on with another vehicle, also killing that driver.

              The crash occurred less than an hour after Pangle was released following a DUI arrest. Powell had picked Pangle up after his arrest and taken him back to his vehicle instead of taking him home.

              Defense lawyers and officials of Mothers Against Drunk Driving have said they believe it was the first time someone with no direct involvement in a drunken-driving accident had been charged for not stopping the driver involved.

              Prosecutor Michael Ostroski said no decision had been made yet whether to try Powell a third time. Powell's lawyer, Carl Roeder, said the state should instead spend resources beefing up DUI laws.

              The accident led New Jersey to give police the power to impound a drunken driver's vehicle for up to 12 hours after an arrest."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by exComptonCop View Post
                DUI rule #1, given a break and opportunity, the drunk will always get back behind the wheel... ALWAYS! Sorry, but I have no sympathy for a cop who lets a .12 go on his merry way.


                Only one person died here, but it could have been much, much worse. A bad judgment call, to which the officer and his department will have to pay the price
                You find in Law Enforcement that there are two Truths:
                --No good deed goes unpunished
                and
                --That is what you get for being a nice guy.

                The line the Plaintiff's Attorney (the lawyer suing YOU--Hey, the Dept declared that this is NOT what you were trained to do, and they got out of being sued) is going to use is:
                Officer-what are you SUPPOSED to do with a DUI driver?

                Officer- You had the duty to arrest this DUI--Why didn't you?

                Officer--Isn't it true that if he had been in jail, he could not have killed my client's ( Wife, father, mother, son) ?

                I TOTALLY AGREE with you, Compton Cop.

                Comment


                • #9
                  In PA we are allowed to "arrest" then release operators for DUI. If applied to the first story, what difference would it have made if the guy was released by the cop, or arrested, taken before a judge, then released? I've had guys I have released to "friends" or relatives of the drunk that do the same thing. Take the guy back to his car, or even let them drive their own car. There are a lot of places that don't have a "drunk tank" or similar holding place to keep these idiots from getting behind the wheel again. We once arrested a guy twice in one night, at the SAME DUI checkpoint after he was released to a friend of his. What are you supposed to do? Sit on the guy all night until he sobers up? I'm all for every police station having a drunk tank for these people, but then there are legal issues of jailing people without due process, and now you also need someone to babysit them on station so they don't hurt themselves or choke on their own puke.
                  As far as the question of if this officer should have done something different, most arrests are at the discretion of the officer. We all also know that most people arrested for this type of behavior are on the street before the report is done. Also, in PA it is up to the magistrate to put the offender in jail, not the cops. At a .12% none of our magistrates would do that unless he was an out of state resident, and even then, only if no one could come to pick them up.
                  As far as "rights" are concerned; I look at them this way... I don't tell you what church to go to, and you don't tell me what kind of firearm I can own...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Stacy was ticketed for imprudent speed and failing to stay in the center of his lane. The officer didn't arrest Stacy but did prevent him from driving until a friend picked him up, the television station reported.


                    I don't see the problem. Maybe it's just an obtuse day....but I really don't see where the grounds for suing would be.

                    The cop stayed with him until a friend arrived. Is that not equvilant to having a DD? The cop made sure he was with someone that could drive him home safely. How is the cop responsible if the kid later leaves the company of this sober friend, and proceeds to drive again?

                    If the kid had been arrested...what would have occurred? Would he have been taken to the station until what....someone came and got him? What is the difference here?
                    http://z4.invisionfree.com/crimescen...UserCP&CODE=22

                    " From the hottest fire, the strongest steel is born. Dance not with the Phoenix, lest she burn you to the quick in an instant, yet none more desireable, both beautiful and terrible." ~~~ thx armoredman


                    http://www.authorsden.com/plreedwallinger
                    www.rainbooks.com
                    www.reedwriting.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by phoenixrose View Post
                      Stacy was ticketed for imprudent speed and failing to stay in the center of his lane. The officer didn't arrest Stacy but did prevent him from driving until a friend picked him up, the television station reported.


                      I don't see the problem. Maybe it's just an obtuse day....but I really don't see where the grounds for suing would be.

                      The cop stayed with him until a friend arrived. Is that not equvilant to having a DD? The cop made sure he was with someone that could drive him home safely. How is the cop responsible if the kid later leaves the company of this sober friend, and proceeds to drive again?

                      If the kid had been arrested...what would have occurred? Would he have been taken to the station until what....someone came and got him? What is the difference here?
                      It'll be interesting..but i think that there is DEFINITLY going to be a Suit ovetr this...it's all going to depend on how the Jury sees it, if it even goes that far, the municapality will settle just to save money.

                      There's already been caselaw about this. In NJ we have something called "John's Law" (GOD i hate named laws)..Basically if you hook someone for DWI, they stay in custody for a Minimum of 12 hours, UNLESS they have a sober adult take custody, and Sign an acceptance form for Any and all Liability should said drunk get behind the wheel again. I've actually had a couple of wives, refuse to sign once they realize that THEY're on the hook if hubby decides to drive again before he's sober. under that law we also Impound the cor for a Min 12 hours, NO exceptions....we used to have discretion to park the car legally if there was a spot.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kpdpipes View Post
                        There's already been caselaw about this. In NJ we have something called "John's Law" (GOD i hate named laws)..Basically if you hook someone for DWI, they stay in custody for a Minimum of 12 hours, UNLESS they have a sober adult take custody, and Sign an acceptance form for Any and all Liability should said drunk get behind the wheel again. I've actually had a couple of wives, refuse to sign once they realize that THEY're on the hook if hubby decides to drive again before he's sober. under that law we also Impound the cor for a Min 12 hours, NO exceptions....we used to have discretion to park the car legally if there was a spot.
                        Wisconsin, where this happened, has the same law in place. The major difference is that an individual agency can elect by policy to hold for 12 hours no matter what. My agency is like that. No release for OWI for at least 12 hours or until they blow under a .04 BAC whichever is longer.

                        Wisconsin has already had case law in place that puts the liability in situations like this squarely on the department and officer who makes the decision not to arrest an OWI. I dont need a crystal ball to see how this one with turn out.
                        Originally posted by kontemplerande
                        Without Germany, you would not have won World War 2.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Two words....

                          qualified immunity.

                          Hopefully that particular circuit court recognizes that the police officer or the state was not responsible for affirmative protection.

                          Check out Pinder V Johnson very good example of how the police are not responsible for the actions of the public when they are not in custody.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm confused...was he given the PBT (portable) and he then blew a .12% on the scene? In Florida, a PBT is only used to assist in determining probable cause. If the officer administered the PBT, however all his normal faculties appeared normal, then the officer can articulate that he did not believe that the driver was DUI. A PBT test result is not enough to determine probable cause for an arrest for DUI (in Florida).

                            A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than yesterday. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745

                            It's only a conspiracy when your party is not in power.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              To bad Fox did not report the whole story.

                              Fox forgot to mention that the guy passed the three NHSTSA field sobriety tests before the PBT.

                              For the complete story
                              http://www.gazetteextra.com/stacy052207.asp

                              Oh, and for all of you that jumped to criticize before you had all the facts….shame. You must not know what It feels like to have the ignorant media misrepresent your actions on the job.
                              Last edited by holfo000; 05-22-2007, 09:21 PM.
                              War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
                              John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5748 users online. 302 members and 5446 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X