DUI charges dropped against police officer

[fultonCoShooter]

hmm cocaine is out of the system in usual 72 hrs weed 30 days

I wonder if they served a warrant on his house to looks for the substance?

[Steve in PA]

Originally Posted by sgt7546

If the blood draw is required for any Officer involved in a motor vehicle accident (as some agencies have as policy), then this guy's successful argument was that the blood draw was for department policy, not a criminal investigation.

Exactly.

Was he arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence?

He's not above the law, its all about how and why the blood was drawn.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Steve in PA

Exactly.

Was he arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence?

He's not above the law, its all about how and why the blood was drawn.

Maybe you can explain further.
If its department policy to draw blood of the officer because of an accident, are they looking for something?
And when they do find something, whats next?
If its drugs or alcohol wouldn't it be department policy for it to become a criminal investigation/matter? An arrest?
If it becomes a criminal matter then isn't it out of "department hands"?

[sgt7546]

Originally Posted by Michele

Maybe you can explain further.
If its department policy to draw blood of the officer because of an accident, are they looking for something?
And when they do find something, whats next?
If its drugs or alcohol wouldn't it be department policy for it to become a criminal investigation/matter? An arrest?
If it becomes a criminal matter then isn't it out of "department hands"?

1. In this case the Ex-Officer was at a dead stop, in a marked police vehicle with the emergency lights activated. The suspect from the original chase rammed this marked police vehicle causing the accident. Based on that collision there was no reason to suspect that this Ex-Officer was under the influence of any type of intoxicant. As a matter of routine policy that many law enforcement agency's have, the Ex-Officer was asked to submit a blood sample. At that point this was not a criminal investigation, just an administrative policy, and if this Ex-Officer refused he would have been subject to disciplinary action, per that agency's policies.

If you look at the circumstance (marked Police vehicle, with emergency lights activated, being at a dead stopped and rammed by a fleeing vehicle) I don't think any reasonable person would conclude that this Ex-Officer was driving under the influence of an intoxicant. I can't blame the other LEO's on scene for not advising this Ex-Officer that he was being investigated for a crime, and that the routine administrative blood test would be used as evidence in a criminal matter.

2. Now if in this case the Ex-Officer had slurred speech, blood shot eyes, or some other reason to suspect that this Ex-Officer was operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, and the responding LEO'S followed standard procedures for DUI arrests, the criminal charges would have moved forward in criminal court. Most Law Enforcement Agencies have a policy in place to deal with an Officer that is arrested. Some Agency's policies suspend that Officer without pay pending a conviction, others suspend with pay, others trigger dismissal. Several Agencies policies require that an outside agency investigate any allegation of a crime against that Agency's Officer, which is meant to alleviate the appearance of some form of a cover up.

THREE SIDE NOTES:

a. This incident was this Ex-Officer's [u]second[u] DUI type of offense. This Officers first offense occurred in 2001 in a different state and was expunged. A criminal history check at the time of hiring this Ex-Officer would not have revealed that arrest.

b. In the motion to suppress the blood draw evidence in this case, the Judge concluded that there was no deception on the part of the local, county or state police that investigated this incident.

c. I don't think any stand-up LEO is pleased with this case. I think if you were to ask any of the investigating LEO'S in this case, the LEO's would have liked to have seen this Ex-Officer prosecuted. In my experience, Cops don't like dirty Cops...period.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by sgt7546

1. In this case the Ex-Officer was at a dead stop, in a marked police vehicle with the emergency lights activated. The suspect from the original chase rammed this marked police vehicle causing the accident. Based on that collision there was no reason to suspect that this Ex-Officer was under the influence of any type of intoxicant. As a matter of routine policy that many law enforcement agency's have, the Ex-Officer was asked to submit a blood sample. At that point this was not a criminal investigation, just an administrative policy, and if this Ex-Officer refused he would have been subject to disciplinary action, per that agency's policies.

If you look at the circumstance (marked Police vehicle, with emergency lights activated, being at a dead stopped and rammed by a fleeing vehicle) I don't think any reasonable person would conclude that this Ex-Officer was driving under the influence of an intoxicant. I can't blame the other LEO's on scene for not advising this Ex-Officer that he was being investigated for a crime, and that the routine administrative blood test would be used as evidence in a criminal matter.

2. Now if in this case the Ex-Officer had slurred speech, blood shot eyes, or some other reason to suspect that this Ex-Officer was operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, and the responding LEO'S followed standard procedures for DUI arrests, the criminal charges would have moved forward in criminal court. Most Law Enforcement Agencies have a policy in place to deal with an Officer that is arrested. Some Agency's policies suspend that Officer without pay pending a conviction, others suspend with pay, others trigger dismissal. Several Agencies policies require that an outside agency investigate any allegation of a crime against that Agency's Officer, which is meant to alleviate the appearance of some form of a cover up.

THREE SIDE NOTES:

a. This incident was this Ex-Officer's [u]second[u] DUI type of offense. This Officers first offense occurred in 2001 in a different state and was expunged. A criminal history check at the time of hiring this Ex-Officer would not have revealed that arrest.

b. In the motion to suppress the blood draw evidence in this case, the Judge concluded that there was no deception on the part of the local, county or state police that investigated this incident.

c. I don't think any stand-up LEO is pleased with this case. I think if you were to ask any of the investigating LEO'S in this case, the LEO's would have liked to have seen this Ex-Officer prosecuted. In my experience, Cops don't like dirty Cops...period.

Do you ever wonder why some people have little to no respect for the police?

That doesn't include me, but when the police and the CJ system do little more than protect their own, it does leave a bad impression and a bad taste.

The dude was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of controlled dangerous substances and some line up to tell us that it didn't affect the outcome. Is that how the law of DUI works?

I think that's what you're getting at. When the CJ system lines up behind a screw up like this, it makes everyone involved look bad.

[Michele]

Thanks for the replies.
Now I understand, I think.

[sgt7546]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

The dude was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of controlled dangerous substances and some line up to tell us that it didn't affect the outcome. Is that how the law of DUI works?

I think that's what you're getting at. When the CJ system lines up behind a screw up like this, it makes everyone involved look bad.

In this case i don't believe anyone "screwed up". If you research the case, you will find that no charges were filed until after the toxicology report came back, as no person suspected this Ex-Officer was under the influence of anything. The case could not proceed without the blood evidence, which was properly suppressed by the Judge.

I am by no means standing by this guy, I'm glad he is no longer an LEO.

To put it another way, say you worked for a company that requires blood tests if you are operating a company motor vehicle and are involved in an accident (yes many company's do this). You are stopped at a red light and a car plows into the back of you. When the Police arrive they gather your information and you have no signs of any type of impairment. Since no probable cause exists to believe that you were driving under the influence of an intoxicant, would you be comfortable with the Police telling you, even though I have no reason to suspect that you are committing a crime, I am going to take you down to the hospital and do a blood draw anyways.

I doubt you would allow your rights to be violated like that and I know I would not. As a matter of fact if this were to occur to you, I'd be happy to contribute to any legal fund for you to seek civil remedy for your civil rights being violated.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by sgt7546

In this case i don't believe anyone "screwed up". If you research the case, you will find that no charges were filed until after the toxicology report came back, as no person suspected this Ex-Officer was under the influence of anything. The case could not proceed without the blood evidence, which was properly suppressed by the Judge.

I am by no means standing by this guy, I'm glad he is no longer an LEO.

To put it another way, say you worked for a company that requires blood tests if you are operating a company motor vehicle and are involved in an accident (yes many company's do this). You are stopped at a red light and a car plows into the back of you. When the Police arrive they gather your information and you have no signs of any type of impairment. Since no probable cause exists to believe that you were driving under the influence of an intoxicant, would you be comfortable with the Police telling you, even though I have no reason to suspect that you are committing a crime, I am going to take you down to the hospital and do a blood draw anyways.

I doubt you would allow your rights to be violated like that and I know I would not. As a matter of fact if this were to occur to you, I'd be happy to contribute to any legal fund for you to seek civil remedy for your civil rights being violated.

No, it was a screw up. We are talking about a LEO operating a motor vehicle with legal rights different from the general public. The proper analogy is not what would happen if some John Q. was operating. It's much more like the train engineer -- you waive certain rights when you take the job. Drug testing is (or should be) one of them. The legal authority to engage in a number of activities that the general public cannot (high speed light it up chase), and how about the fact that Mr. cop has the legal authority to arrest and a different legal standard in the use of force, including lethal force, means (or should mean) that the usual rights to be free of unreasonable intrusions into his rights have been waived.

Cops are different in lots of ways, which they all will be happy to remind you of. John Q. has a legal obligation to do pretty much whatever cop says. Cop should have legal obligation to work sober.

I also find it offensive that cop has the balls to hide behind the same "technicalities" that so many criticize as such.

[larrymeyer]

Originally Posted by sgt7546

1. In this case the Ex-Officer was at a dead stop, in a marked police vehicle with the emergency lights activated. The suspect from the original chase rammed this marked police vehicle causing the accident. Based on that collision there was no reason to suspect that this Ex-Officer was under the influence of any type of intoxicant. As a matter of routine policy that many law enforcement agency's have, the Ex-Officer was asked to submit a blood sample. At that point this was not a criminal investigation, just an administrative policy, and if this Ex-Officer refused he would have been subject to disciplinary action, per that agency's policies.

If you look at the circumstance (marked Police vehicle, with emergency lights activated, being at a dead stopped and rammed by a fleeing vehicle) I don't think any reasonable person would conclude that this Ex-Officer was driving under the influence of an intoxicant. I can't blame the other LEO's on scene for not advising this Ex-Officer that he was being investigated for a crime, and that the routine administrative blood test would be used as evidence in a criminal matter.

2. Now if in this case the Ex-Officer had slurred speech, blood shot eyes, or some other reason to suspect that this Ex-Officer was operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, and the responding LEO'S followed standard procedures for DUI arrests, the criminal charges would have moved forward in criminal court. Most Law Enforcement Agencies have a policy in place to deal with an Officer that is arrested. Some Agency's policies suspend that Officer without pay pending a conviction, others suspend with pay, others trigger dismissal. Several Agencies policies require that an outside agency investigate any allegation of a crime against that Agency's Officer, which is meant to alleviate the appearance of some form of a cover up.

THREE SIDE NOTES:

a. This incident was this Ex-Officer's [u]second[u] DUI type of offense. This Officers first offense occurred in 2001 in a different state and was expunged. A criminal history check at the time of hiring this Ex-Officer would not have revealed that arrest.

b. In the motion to suppress the blood draw evidence in this case, the Judge concluded that there was no deception on the part of the local, county or state police that investigated this incident.

c. I don't think any stand-up LEO is pleased with this case. I think if you were to ask any of the investigating LEO'S in this case, the LEO's would have liked to have seen this Ex-Officer prosecuted. In my experience, Cops don't like dirty Cops...period.

Please site your sources. The story I posted never said he was driving with either lights or siren. Just that he was involved in an accident. Other LEO's must have had a reason to draw blood especially on a fellow LEO. Why would the judge suppress the blood in this instance after all if it was a civilian I'll lay odd the blood wouldn't have been suppressed. I understand the officer is now living in Ohio what's to stop him from doing the same thing again ? To quote you this was his second DUI but this time it included drugs as well. By not allowing the blood into the court this officer goes free with no black mark on his record. This allows him to apply to another department for a job.

[sgt7546]

Originally Posted by larrymeyer

Please site your sources. .

Sorry for the confusion Larrymeyer, when I researched the case, this is one of the three articles i read.

Montco DA drops drug charge against ex-policeman
Alleged drunken driver crashed into officer's police cruiser.
By Patrick Lester | Of The Morning Call

January 5, 2008

A former Marlborough Township police officer accused of driving under the influence of drugs while on duty was able to get the charge dropped, but probably will never work again as a policeman.

The Montgomery County district attorney's office has dropped the charge against Michael L. Bramlett, 31, formerly of Lower Salford Township, after a judge ordered the suppression of evidence related to a blood sample taken from Bramlett after the Feb. 3, 2007, crash.

Bramlett was on duty and using his police cruiser as a road block to stop a drunken driver when the collision happened, according to a complaint filed in Montgomery County Court.

Without the use of the blood test results, prosecutors would not have the evidence needed to convict Bramlett, said Risa Vetri Ferman, the county's incoming district attorney. The district attorney's office on Dec. 20 filed a motion to withdraw the charge, court records show.

Judge William J. Furber Jr. ordered the suppression of the blood test at the request of Bramlett's lawyer. When Bramlett consented to have blood drawn on the night of the crash, he was not told the blood test results would be used against him in a criminal case, the judge agreed.

Joshua E. Scarpello, the Philadelphia attorney representing Bramlett, said his client was told on the night of the crash that the blood test would be used in the event that a civil lawsuit was filed against the township over the crash.

With the charge dropped, Scarpello said, Bramlett feels vindicated and is ''happy and healthy and living in Illinois.''

''His personnel file now has information about what happened, so the likelihood that he'll be a police officer again is slim to none,'' Scarpello said, adding that Bramlett declined to speak to a reporter.

In court papers requesting that the charge be withdrawn, Assistant District Attorney Christopher Parisi said Judge Furber determined there was no deception on the part of Marlborough police officers, the county detectives and state police who investigated the case.

''The commonwealth has insufficient evidence to proceed against [Bramlett] without the evidence obtained from the blood draw,'' Parisi wrote.

Scarpello said that when he first reviewed the case, he thought prosecutors were being ''a little overzealous'' in pursuing criminal charges.

''When I heard about the charges, I thought losing his job and losing his career was enough,'' Scarpello said. ''He wasn't impaired the night of the accident. There may have been something in his system, but he was not inebriated.''

Bramlett resigned from his $40,800-per-year job after he was charged with driving under the influence of drugs. Investigators say the blood tests showed trace amounts of cocaine and marijuana.

Authorities said that based on the tests, it was likely Bramlett took the drugs days before the Feb. 3 crash and that he was not impaired by drugs that night.

Investigators say Bramlett was one of several officers pursuing an apparent drunken driver when Bramlett parked his vehicle in the middle of Geryville Pike near Green Lane, using it as a blockade to stop the alleged drunken driver, who drove his van into the cruiser.

The van driver -- Thomas J. Brewster, 69, of Pennsburg -- was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and related charges. He was admitted into an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program, court records show. ARD allows first-time offenders to have their record cleared if they successfully complete the program.


http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-...,7676913.story