Home » DUI Arrest Procedures
By guest-writer
In a typical DUI case, the suspect is apprehended by police officers who are wearing uniforms, or are otherwise obviously licensed police. Rarely are people suspected of DUIs arrested by civilians.
A recent incident, however, in Bassett, California illustrated what happens when good Samaritans take the law into their own hands.
According to a recent story in the San Gabriel Tribune, the suspected drunk driver—a man in his mid-40’s whose name has not yet been released—tried to flee the scene of a crash on a California freeway but was thwarted by concerned citizens.
The driver had caused a crash around 5 a.m. that clogged morning traffic on the 605 Freeway for more than an hour, according to logs from the California Highway Patrol.
The crash involved the driver’s Honda Pilot and another vehicle and, despite the driver’s high level of intoxication, the crash did not cause any serious injuries, according to an interview with CHP Officer Luis Mendoza.
In the interview, Officer Mendoza said that the drunk driver tried to flee the scene immediately after the accident. In addition, Mendoza admitted that he could not verify some reports that suggested the driver tried to steal another car when he was running away from the scene of the crash.
According to Mendoza, other drivers “saw him kind of staggering, walking away from the scene.” When they tried to hold in place, the drunk driver reportedly became “a little aggressive.”
Despite the driver’s aggressive stance, one passerby was able to handcuff the man with flexcuffs, and then forced the man to sit down. Once the man was handcuffed and seated, several citizens kept an eye on him to ensure that he wouldn’t try to flee again.
Of course, after all this effort, the driver remained uncooperative when police arrived, as he refused to take a sobriety test and did not answer the officers’ questions. Nevertheless, because of his behavior and other obvious signs, the police concluded that he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
When CHP officers arrived, the suspect was not cooperative and refused to submit to sobriety tests, the officer said. Officers determined he appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Now, the driver will face potential fines, a suspended license, or even jail time as a result of his transgression. If he had injured any of the other motorists, or if he had injured a police officer, the possible sentence he would face would be much worse.
And despite the courage of the other drivers who detained the drunk man, people who are not trained police officers are typically discouraged from taking the law into their own hands, particularly if the situation involves a dangerous person.
Of course, this advice didn’t stop a few brave motorists in California from detaining an obviously inebriated driver.
By guest-writer
After a DUI arrest, suspected drunk drivers have several options. They can take a breathalyzer test or refuse to do so, they can bail themselves out or spend the night in jail, and they can determine how they behave in front of the police.
Rarely, though, do DUI suspects take the ill-advised choice of running from the police. This practice, however, seems to be growing more popular, particularly in the town of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
According to a recent report from Sioux Falls’ newspaper, The Argus Leader, local police have had a difficult time with runners, or people who sprint out of the police station while waiting for the results of a blood or breathalyzer test.
The problem is particularly acute in the case of convicted DUI drivers who must return to the police station for a daily blood alcohol test.
After a DUI conviction, South Dakota often orders offenders to participate in a 24/7 sobriety program. For a period of a few months, the offenders must have a blood test taken every day at the police station.
If the individuals pass the exam, they are free to go, and eventually graduate from the program after a certain period of documented sobriety. If, however, the individuals fail the exam, they are immediately placed into jail because they violated the terms of their DUI probation.
One hole in this system in Sioux Falls, though, is that a test-taker must wait in the police department for 15 minutes while the police officer attempts to determine the validity of the initial test.
During this waiting period, the offender waits in the lobby, which is not staffed by a security guard, and the only officer in the room is behind a desk tinkering with blood tests. In other words, it is an invitation for a concerned offender to run.
This occurs fairly frequently in Sioux Falls, according to the report, and recently happened in the case of Brad Lehrkamp. The 28-year-old Lehrkamp was waiting in the lobby and he feared that he had “blown hot,” or failed his blood test.
Lehrkamp’s fears proved accurate, and so, fearing the prospect of going back to jail, Lehrkamp bolted out of the lobby and made a run for it.
His attempt to flee, however, was quickly thwarted when he broke his leg leaping down the police department’s stairs. After being treated at a nearby clinic, a gimpy Lehrkamp was promptly delivered to a local jail.
Of course, dramatic attempts to flee are not the only possible method of escaping South Dakota’s 24/7 sobriety program. Other defendants simply refuse to show up for their appointments, which voids the terms of their probation and also leads to further jail time.
These 24/7 programs have been very popular in many states, because they save the costs of jailing a DUI offender, but also allow law enforcement officials to keep close tabs on people who may act as a danger to others.
The programs, however, also have their critics, many of whom claim that daily blood tests are too intrusive, and that they may not prevent future DUI accidents if they are too loosely enforced.
By guest-writer
Highlighting a trend that has grown more common across the United States, several cities in Texas are deciding to force suspected DUI drivers to take blood tests if they refuse to take the less-invasive breathalyzer tests.
The controversial practice—known as “no refusal” testing because suspected drunk drivers cannot refuse the blood tests—has also taken hold in several other states, including Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, and Illinois.
According to a recent report from Fox News, the practice has also upset many civil rights attorneys, who argue that forcing suspected drunk drivers to take a blood test amounts to a violation of their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure.
Of course, police departments strongly defend the practice. And the courts seem to think it is fine, as well. In Texas, for example, the court system has uniformly supported police officers’ rights to administer the blood tests, even if the defendant refuses.
Typically, people who are pulled over for a DUI are offered a breathalyzer test, which simply involves blowing into an instrument that provides a rough estimate of the person’s level of intoxication.
Suspected drunk drivers, though, are often not keen on taking the breath test, and some criminal defense experts recommend that drivers avoid them altogether in certain states.
The new policy used by Texas police officers, however, will thwart drivers’ attempts to circumvent the law. The biggest downside, though is that it requires the forceful pricking of a person’s finger to obtain accurate results.
Despite the invasiveness of the procedure and the complaints from civil rights attorneys, police departments often prefer the blood test to a breath test because the blood test often offers more convincing evidence at trial.
Sources indicate that prosecutors across the country find that blood tests help them win DUI convictions in almost 90 percent of their drunk driving cases. And this reality often drives DUI suspects to plead guilty to the charges before a trial even starts.
So, the blood tests appear to offer overwhelming evidence of a person’s level of intoxication, and they are often administered without the driver’s permission. Because of these realities, mandatory blood tests appear to be very bad news for drunk drivers.
Of course, police admit that they would also have mandatory breath tests if it wasn’t so difficult to force someone to blow in a tube (in contrast, it’s much easier to stick someone’s finger with a needle without that person’s permission).
Alas, the police are left without only one mandatory form of blood alcohol testing, although it appears to be a very valuable one.
And as more and more jurisdictions embrace the use of “no-refusal” testing, suspected DUI drivers may continue to see an erosion of their right to privacy. The question remains, though, whether this erosion of privacy is worth the benefit to public health of keeping more drunk drivers off the road.
By guest-writer
When people face the indignity of a DUI arrest, they are best advised to refrain from attacking their arresting officers. This advice, unfortunately, has not reached all drivers, as proven by the recent antics of a man in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania.
The man, 46-year-old Eric J. Gross, allegedly kicked a state trooper in a police cruiser while they were traveling to the police station after Gross had been arrested under suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, according to a report from The Morning Call.
After Gross kicked the trooper, Joseph Wasylyk, the injured officer was able to pull his car over, force Gross outside of the car, and physically restrain the arrestee to prevent future kicking.
The trooper drove Gross to the station, and then retreated to the Lehigh Valley Hospital, where he was treated and released.
Sources indicate that the bizarre incident started at roughly 6:00 p.m. when Wasylyk responded to a report of someone driving recklessly in Washington Township, Pennsylvania. Shortly thereafter, Gross abandoned his vehicle and started walking down a local highway.
When he responded to the scene, the trooper eventually spotted Gross and arrested him for suspicion of drunk driving. It should be noted here that, even though Gross wasn’t driving at the time, his driving earlier that night still made him eligible for a DUI offense.
After the initial arrest, the trooper placed handcuffs on Gross behind his back, and secured Gross in the back seat of his cruiser with a seat belt. His job seemingly done, Wasylyk started to drive towards the DUI Center in Allentown, where Gross would be charged and booked.
While they were driving to the DUI Center, however, Gross started cursing and moving around in the back of the cruiser. To get a better look at the anxious offender, the trooper turned on his interior lights.
Soon, Gross began kicking the armrest and computer printer located inside the cruiser, though when the trooper asked Gross to kindly refrain from harming the equipment, Gross quickly obliged.
This stern warning, however, did not prevent Gross from taking much more aggressive action later in the drive. Sources indicate that Gross lifted his legs and started kicking Gross repeatedly on the right side of his body.
In a feat of physical coordination, the trooper was somehow able to pin the man’s legs against the seat, pull the car over, and restrain Gross before driving him to the DUI Center in one piece.
For his acts of violence, Gross now faces charges of aggravated assault, simple assault, reckless endangerment, criminal mischief, and harassment.
He was held on $20,000 bail and immediately sent to Lehigh County Prison, where the guards will be best advised to watch out for his flailing legs.
By guest-writer
The annals of overzealous police behavior are full of shocking tales, but few are as unsettling as the recent allegations that a man was tased 13 times by police officers after a DUI arrest.
According to a recent report in the Santa Barbara Independent, 50-year-old Tony Denunzio was tased repeatedly by arresting officers after being pulled over for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol.
Both Denunzio and witnesses of the incident claim that officer Aaron Tudor punched, kneed and tased Denunzio after the Tudor pulled him over for DUI Charges, even though Denunzio allegedly did not resist the arrest.
A mug shot of Denunzio taken a few hours after the arrest shows a badly bruised man with a contusion on his right eye and cuts on his forehead and cheeks. During the arrest, Denunzio also suffered a broken nose, broken ribs, and an injured wrist.
While both sides have their own stories—police claim Denunzio resisted the arrest, while he claims that police had no reason to beat him—extra intrigue was added to the case when authorities revealed that the entire episode had been caught on a patrol vehicle camera.
Currently, the police video is not yet available, and information about Denunzio’s level of drunkenness has also not been released, so investigators are left with competing narratives about the night.
According to the story told by police, Tudor pulled Denunzio over after the driver had executed a series of quick lane changes without using his turn signal.
Police further alleged that, after he left his truck, Denunzio started walking away from Tudor. When Tudor grabbed the driver’s arm, Denunzio resisted the physical contact. This forced Tudor to trip Denunzio and apparently slap him several times in the head.
These slaps allegedly did not subdue the driver, so Tudor eventually resorted to punching and kicking the arrestee. When these proved inadequate, and Denunzio continued to resist, Tudor began to use his Taser, which was activated 13 times.
Witnesses, however, offered a different story. According to some people on the scene, Denunzio left his car without knowing that he was being pursued by a police officer.
When Tudor yelled at him to stop, witnesses claim that Denunzio obliged and did not actively resist the arrest. In his defense, Denunzio also claimed that that he did not physically challenge Tudor, and instead “laid down like a kitten” when the officer grabbed him.
In response to public outcry over the incident, a spokesman for the Santa Barbara Police Department said that police officials had reviewed the tape of the altercation and concluded that Tudor did not violate police regulations.
While it may take authorities more time to conclude who acted irresponsibly in this incident, it is fair to say that Denunzio could have handled the situation better.
DUI arrests may lead to some fines or possible jail time, but their effects can be compounded by aggressive behavior after the arrest. Other drivers would be well advised to mind their manners in the presence of police.
By guest-writer
A nightmare scenario for an Illinois man was recently resolved when he won a settlement against the city of Naperville after being falsely arrested for DUI.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, David Briddle was driving his Mercedes sedan on May 30 when police pulled him over and arrested him for driving under the influence of alcohol.
After his arrest, though, Briddle took a blood alcohol test and passed with flying colors, registering a 0.0 during the breathalyzer test.
Briddle’s sterling performance on the BAC test, however, was not the end of the story. Despite the exonerating evidence, and the fact that police released him without charges, Naperville police still announced Briddle’s arrest on the police blotter.
As a result, Briddle’s mug shot and a story detailing his arrest were published in a local newspaper, despite the fact that Briddle had not actually committed a crime.
Even though the Naperville police made a mistake, they claim that had a valid reason to arrest Briddle.
According to the police report from the incident, Briddle admitted to having four or five beers before starting his car, and allegedly failed a field sobriety test, though Briddle disputed this in his lawsuit.
Briddle’s lawsuit, filed with the aid of his DUI lawyer, accuses Naperville police of regularly inflating their drunk driving arrest statistics. Briddle claims that his unfortunate incident was part of a pattern of unlawful behavior by the police department.
This claim will not be addressed in court, as Briddle settled with the city for $10,000 before proceeding to trial, but it does raise questions about the Naperville police department.
In his lawsuit, Briddle observed that Naperville ranked second in Illinois cities (other than Chicago) for DUI arrests. Briddle also claimed that Naperville police officials inflate the city’s DUI arrests to provide more revenue and recognition for the city.
Despite Briddle’s allegations, a study performed by the Chicago Sun-Times suggests that Briddle’s misfortune may have been an isolated incident.
Arrest reports obtained from the Naperville police for last Memorial Day weekend show that the majority of drivers pulled over by local police had blood alcohol levels above the legal limit. This suggests that Naperville police weren’t indiscriminately arresting people for false DUIs.
Accusations of profit-seeking are often leveled against police for enforcing speeding limits and drunk driving laws, but if drivers are violating these laws, police have every right to pull them over.
The difficulties inherent in proving systematic discrimination or arbitrary arrests by police likely led Briddle to accept a settlement in this case.
While false DUI arrests undoubtedly occur, they are not usually the norm. It is more common for DUI arrests to be rendered invalid due to sloppy police work, or the failure of the arresting officers to abide by procedural regulations.
By guest-writer
Breathalyzers are typically used at traffic stops when police suspect that someone has been driving under the influence of alcohol. Rarely, though, are breathalyzers used on young people who are not driving.
A 13-year-old boy, however recently discovered that police have several applications for breathalyzers, which are simple devices used to detect a person’s blood alcohol content.
According to a recent article in the Detroit Free Press, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit against police in Livonia, Michigan after the police allegedly forced a teenager to take an alcohol breath test while on a school field trip.
At the time of the incident, the boy and his classmates were on a field trip celebrating their eighth grade graduation at Livonia’s Rotary Park.
The ACLU lawsuit alleges that the boy and his friends had walked into nearby woods for a brief walk when an assistant principal, who had followed them into the woods, found them and accused them of drinking alcohol.
The assistant principal based his allegation on a liquor bottle that was found near the boys, though they claimed it did not belong to them and that they had not been drinking.
When the police arrived, they forced the students to take a Breathalyzer test. To the embarrassment of school officials and the officers, each boy blew a 0.0, proving that they had not had alcohol.
The boy’s lawsuit focuses on the officers’ breach of his Fourth Amendment right to not be subjected to an unlawful search. The Fourth Amendment is designed to protect innocent people from obtrusive searches by the police.
According to the ACLU, federal and state courts have ruled police officers must have a search warrant to administer a breathalyzer test to someone who is not driving.
The lawsuit also claims that, not only did the police officers not have a warrant to lawfully administer the blood alcohol test, they also did not have any probable cause of wrongdoing that might have given them a reason to pursue a search warrant in the first place.
As the lawsuit stated, “[w]hen there is no evidence that a child has done anything wrong, he should never be subjected to this degrading and embarrassing procedure in front of his teachers and peers.”
As mentioned above, these types of situations are relatively uncommon. Breathalyzer tests are usually given to adult drivers when they are suspected of driving under the influence.
Even under these circumstances, however, breathalyzer tests are not infallible. In addition to the tests’ potential for making mistakes, police must also follow a strict set of guidelines when they give BAC tests.
If these police fail to follow proper procedures, or the results of the BAC test are unreliable, a DUI lawyer may help a person arrested for a DUI fight the charges.
By Topher
A police officer in Redding, Ca., is currently on paid leave after his arrest last week for suspicion of driving a city vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
Matthew R. Zalesny was stopped by Redding police early Aug. 17 and subsequently arrested by California Highway Patrol Officer Kurt Heuer.
Police Chief Peter Hansen told the Record Searchlight that Zalesny was cited and arrested, and that the officer is now on paid administrative leave as a department investigation is carried out.
Zalesny’s law enforcement duties have also been suspended, Hansen told the newspaper.
The criminal investigation of the case has been handed over to the CHP in accordance with standard department procedure. The case is currently being prepared for the Shasta County District Attorney’s review.
Zalesny, 44, was born and raised in Redding and has worked for 23 years as a law enforcement officer.
After beginning his career with the Tehama County Sheriff’s Department as a deputy in 1988, he moved to the Anderson Police Department three years later. While there, he worked patrol and served as an officer in the department’s Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program.
Zalesny has been with the Redding Police Department since 1994, where he has worked as an identification technician, taught defensive strategies, served on the SWAT team and served as a field training officer.
In 2007, Redding police honored Zalesny and a group of other officers for their work on an anti-gang enforcement unit.
Zalesny’s DUI arrest marks the second among Redding police officers in the last five years. In 2006, Christopher Jacoby was arrested when CHP officers found his car plowed off a highway embankment.
Jacoby pleaded guilty to the charge, paid fines, and spent ten days in jail before eventually returning to work as a Redding Police Department investigator.
Redding Police declined to provide the newspaper with the conditions of Jacoby’s discipline for the DUI arrest.
By Topher
The Fourth of July is usually associated with the usual suspects of fireworks, booze, and hot dogs. Unfortunately, the holiday has also become notorious for the number of DUI arrests that occur during the festivities.
This trend grew more pronounced in many areas this year. From Biloxi, Mississippi, to Santa Clara, California, several cities across the country saw a significant spike in DUI arrests over the holiday weekend.
First, according to local sources, a total of 214 drivers were cited for driving under the influence in Mississippi during the mid-summer festivities. This represented a 27 percent jump over the number of DUI arrests at the same time last year.
In the entire state, troopers reported issuing more than 5,000 traffic citations, although a significant number of these violations were not alcohol-related.
During the weekend, Mississippi troopers responded to a total of 130 accidents. Roughly 40 of these had injuries and one resulted in a fatality, although this was also not due to drunk driving.
More collisions and citations occurred on the Gulf Coast, where traffic becomes particularly dense during the weekend.
This rising DUI trend was not limited to genteel southern states. Across the country in California, the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office reported an even more dramatic 33 percent increase in the number of DUI arrests during the holiday, although the statistics show the jump could be as high as 50 percent.
In this year’s anti-DUI crackdown, county officials arrested 141 people for driving under the influence. During a similar campaign on the Fourth of July last year, officers arrested a mere 94 drivers for driving while intoxicated.
Law enforcement officials were stumped when asked for an explanation of the rising numbers, claiming that DUI figures had dropped in recent years, especially over Memorial Day weekend.
The weekend also saw five DUI-related car accidents in Santa Clara County, but no fatalities were reported. The city plans to aggressively enforce DUI laws during Labor Day weekend this September.
The jump in DUI arrests during this party-filled weekend is somewhat typical, as police officers are often more vigilant about establishing checkpoints and more carefully monitoring drivers’ behavior.
As a result, holiday weekends also see a rise in the use of public transportation, carpooling, and taxis to avoid the legal consequences of an arrest for drunk driving.
A DUI charge, however, does not have to cripple your reputation or your finances. If you’ve been charged with driving under the influence, a local DUI lawyer may help you fight the charge.
By guest-writer
In Bayou George, Florida, a woman pulled over for suspected DUI has been arrested on additional charges, after she slipped out of police handcuffs as well as her clothes and allegedly assaulted a deputy following a car crash.
Samantha Wilson, a 22-year-old woman, was put in custody after she crashed her car at 4 p.m. on a Sunday. She was arrested when police suspected her of drunk driving, and that is when the real excitement began.
According to the NWF Daily News, notes from drunk driving police say that Wilson, whose hands were handcuffed in front of her, quickly slipped out of them the first time. Police re-handcuffed her, and put her in the front seat of a police cruiser.
But while highway patrol trooper Ken McNabb was putting her seatbelt on, Wilson, having once again freed herself from the handcuffs, punched him in the head.
McNabb was able to get the door of the cruiser closed, but Wilson escaped from her handcuffs again, and let herself out of the car. It was about then that she dropped her trousers and began to relieve herself next to the police vehicle. Her husband arrived soon after, pleading with her to stop urinating and pull her pants back up.
Wilson was restrained again and put back into a patrol car. On the way to the police station, according to McNabb, Wilson yelled and screamed, asking to see her husband while kicking at the windows behind the officer’s driver’s seat.
She then proceeded to remove her shoes and pants so that she was naked from the waist down. “She stated that she was going to urinate on my seats before launching into a shouting tirade,” said Deputy Randolph Grob.
Then Wilson, already on her way to jail on suspicion of DUI in Florida, began to slam the plexiglass divider with her handcuffs. She had taken them off again and put them on her fist as though they were a pair of brass knuckles.
The officer stopped the car because he thought Wilson would break through the glass, and when he opened the door to the back seat, she punched him in the nose again. He didn’t remove her from the car because he thought he might hurt her, so instead he was able to force the door closed and radio ahead to the police station to have a female officer ready for her arrival.
Once at the jail, officers had to forcibly remove her from the car amidst her continued punching.
By Topher
The U.S. Department of Transportation is kicking of this year’s campaign against drunk driving with some new data gathered about the habits of drivers when it comes to alcohol.
One piece of data gathered from surveys released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates that 8 percent of all drivers have driven drunk in the last year.
That translates into around 17 million people when applied to the population of drivers in the U.S.
The NHTSA’s campaign, called “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit, Under Arrest,” focuses on keeping drunk drivers off of the road. The campaign will include a law enforcement crackdown that will run from now until Labor Day.
Police agencies from all over the country will step up DUI enforcement as a part of the campaign. Their efforts will be aided by $13 million in radio and TV advertisements put out by the NHTSA.
“Drunk driving is deadly, it’s against the law, and unfortunately, it’s still a problem,” said Secretary Ray LaHood of the NHTSA.
“With the help of law enforcement around the country, we are going to continue doing all that we can to stop drunk driving and the needless tragedies that result from this reckless behavior.”
According to the survey data collected by the NHTSA, four out of five people said that drunk driving was a major threat to their own life and to the lives of their families. One out of five people had driven a car within two hours of drinking alcohol over the last year.
Another part of the survey made the distinction between those who said that they had driven within two hours of a drink, and those who hadn’t.
Among the first group, it was determined that they drank more frequently than members of the second group. Among members of the first group, a little more than 25 percent of them said that they drank alcoholic beverages three or more days per week.
The survey results were troubling to law enforcement in part because of the habits that it showed among younger people, and especially among younger males.
Those 16 to 20-year-olds that admitted to driving after they drank said that they drank almost six alcoholic drinks in a sitting. This was not necessarily before they drove a car, but rather it was a generalization about their drinking habits.
Nonetheless, in the eyes of the NHTSA, it shows that should a young person make the poor decision to mix drinking and driving, the drinking side of things is likely to be in the extreme.
Drivers aren’t the only concern. The more drinking that goes on, the more likely it is that someone will be a passenger while a drunk driver is at the wheel.
The survey results indicate that 8 percent of the population that is 16 or older rode with a driver who they though might have drunk too much alcohol to drive safely.
Surveys like this are conducted periodically to keep a tab on the public attitude towards drunk driving.
By Topher
An elementary school teacher at an elementary school Florida will not be returning to her classroom after she was arrested for DUI. She is also accused of threatening the police during the stop.
Joann Tomas taught third-grade Spanish at Dr. Williams Chapman Elementary school, according to the Miami Herald. She won’t be returning to her regular duties after the incident. Instead, she has been reassigned to an office work position while the case plays out.
Tomas was pulled over on suspicion of DUI in early August by police who saw her car swerving through traffic. When they approached her SUV, police noticed that Tomas appeared to have “watery eyes, flushed face and slurred speech.” She also had difficulty locating her driver’s license, and lost her balance while she was getting out of her car. In order to walk, she had to steady herself on the car, the report said.
Tomas managed to threaten one of the police officers, the report indicates, before she was arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail. According to that report, Tomas threatened the officer by saying “I am taking your job. I am going to say you took my shirt off, lifted my skirt and touched my (expletive).”
Tomas’ combative behavior did not end with those remarks, however, police say. They say she also, at the jail, managed to work her way out of the handcuffs she was wearing and throw them at an officer, who she then allegedly kicked in the groin area.
In response, the officer Tased Tomas in the chest. That didn’t stop her, though, as she got up and tried to punch the officer, who Tasered her again.
More kicking and punching ensued as officers did what they could to restrain the feisty teacher after her DUI arrest.
Not to be deterred, Tomas continued to make offensive and threatening statements. “I am going to take your jobs,” she is reported to have said. “I have a Jewish lawyer.”
Also noted were additional racially disparaging remarks made to police officers.
Tomas is disputing the reports by officers, saying that she was “unnecessarily roughed up,” as the Miami Herald puts it. “All my knees are bruised from putting me on the floor,” Tomas stated.
She did admit to cursing at the officers, but said that she hadn’t eaten for 12 hours at the time she was pulled over.
By Topher
Jamie Hicks was driving erratically when her daughter called police from the backseat of the car to report her mother driving drunk with herself and her 10 year old brother in the car.
Hicks was driving down I-84 and was weaving in and out of traffic. According to CNN, Hicks’ daughter was frantic the first time she called, because her mother was “driving erratically and speaking incoherently.”
The cell phone cut out, which prompted 911 operators to call back several times, trying to reach Hicks’ daughter so that the car remained monitored. By the time, they managed to contact her again, all they heard was an argument.
Hicks was apparently furious at her daughter for telling the police about her intoxicated state. Thankfully, the car was pulled over by this time. Operators for 911 were able to locate the cell phone signal of the vehicle and the police arrived soon after.
According to the New York Post, Hicks made some admissions to the police about the fact that she had been drinking. Her blood alcohol level was .18, which is more than twice the legal limit of .08 in New York State.
Hicks was charged with a felony DUI for violating Leandra’s Law, a New York statute that makes driving intoxicated with children in the vehicle a felony. She has been released on $2,000 bail and is due back in court next month. The children have been released into their grandparents care, according to ABClocal.com
Stephen Hicks, the grandfather, is quoted as saying “The family is very grateful my granddaughter had the common sense to make that call . . . The situation is — how can I put it — a terrible lapse in judgment.”
Hicks had been driving her children back from the grandparents home in the first place. The drive between Southbury, Connecticut where the grandparents live and Brewster, New York, where Hicks was arrested is about 45 minutes long.
Regardless, this twelve year old girl is incredibly brave to go against her mother and do what was best for everyone in the car. Police will not be releasing the tapes, but they do recognize the fact that if more children “told” on their parents there may be fewer DUI crashes.
The bottom line is that if you see someone behaving as though they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, do not let them behind the wheel.
By Topher
An Illinois DUI judge threw the book at 25-year-old Edward Clark after he hit and killed David Long and his dog Shadow, who were out walking early one morning last year.
The judge convicted Cook of reckless homicide, 15 counts of DUI, and one count of unlawful possession of a converted motor vehicle back in May.
Cook was driving down the residential street at a speed of about 50 miles per hour in Batavia, Illinois when he veered off the road and onto the sidewalk, hitting Long and Shadow. Cook was driving a 2003 white Ford Acura that he had borrowed from a friend without permission, according to CBS 2 Chicago.
The toxicology report showed that Cook had alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine in his system, reports the Chicago Tribune.
Cook maintains that he does not have a problem with drugs or alcohol, but his driving privileges had been revoked in 2008 due to an aggravated DUI. Cook was still on parole for that offense at the time of the crash.
Cook also has numerous drug, battery, and theft charges, but has never actually completed one of the sentences for these crimes.
The judge took that into consideration during the sentencing. The judge felt that since Cook doesn’t feel that he has any problems, he should be kept off the streets in order to keep others safe at the very least.
Long’s wife and the Illinois state prosecutors pushed for more, but the judge said case law would not support a charge of first degree murder. Instead, Cook will serve consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences, leading to a full amount of jail time of fifteen years. He will probably be out on parole in 10 years.
Cook refrained from making a statement to the judge, but did tell his mother that he loved her as he was being led out of the courtroom. Cook has never publicly apologized for killing David Long and his best friend.
Susan Long is satisfied with the sentence, but notes “this is another one of those stories that starts with drinking alcohol and ends with tragedy.”
By Topher
The police often find themselves in unexpected – and sometimes dangerous – situations, especially when it comes to DUI arrests.
This week featured a number of unfortunate interactions between police and those charged with drunk driving.
In Massachusetts, a trooper was hit by a car driven by an allegedly drunk driver, and it sent him to the hospital. He was recently released from the hospital, but the driver will face arraignment in court, according to the News Telegram.
Captain Frank Hughes was in an intersection directing traffic around midnight after a concert and fireworks show on the fourth of July. The crash threw the trooper onto the hood of the driver’s Nissan Maxima. The driver did not stop for the trooper, even after he caused what a spokesman called “serious injuries.”
Franklin Morales, the alleged driver, faces charges of DUI, negligent driving and DUI causing serious bodily injury. According to the charge, the driver went straight instead of heeding the captain’s traffic directions. Morales registered a .15 blood-alcohol content, and failed field sobriety tests.
Also in Massachusetts, a man stopped and arrested for DUI was also charged with kicking a trooper and threatening him.
John Ross tried to run away from police on foot after he was arrested on Interstate 81. He was described by police as “very combative.” When he was taken to the hospital, he screamed profanities at the hospital staff.
There was also the threat that he made to police, who said that he “made a comment about shooting” the trooper who arrested him. Ross was charged with aggravated assault, terrorist threats, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, DUI, public drunkenness and harassment, according to Public Opinion.
A Pennsylvania man faces DUI and aggravated harassment by a prisoner charges after he repeatedly spit on the officer who arrested him for DUI, according to the York Daily Record.
Ross Eugene Bricker almost hit Officer Thomas Kibler’s patrol car in his pickup truck. Kibler stopped him, and Bricker admitted to drinking and failed a field sobriety test.
Then, as Kibler was driving Bricker to the booking station, Bricker allegedly spit at the officer, hitting him in the top of the head.
