DUI charges dropped against police officer

[sgt7546]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

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.

1. A Police Officer is a Citizen first and a Police Officer as a matter of occupation. You are absolutely correct that Police can, as defined by law, do certain things that citizens can't. I do totally agree that there are, as defined by law, parameters set for use of force and powers of arrest among others. However, I can't possibly see how having those powers would void the right to remain free of unreasonable searches and seizures as defined by the fourth amendment.

2. I have no knowledge of a train engineers rights, so I am in no position to comment on that.

3. Drug testing: I absolutely agree with you that drug testing should be used and continue to be used throughout public employment. (LEO or any other job where tax dollars are paying a salary.) The reality is some smaller agencies do not have the resources necessary to support continuous random drug tests. Possible solution raise taxes?

4. Cops have a duty to work sober.

5. I also find it offensive that this guy got off on a technicality...damn Defense Attorneys......(no offense to those that practice law).

In the end Philadelphia, I think we both agree that we would have liked to see this guy prosecuted.

[XD45]

I assume it went down like this. Since it was coke and week the officer probably didn't appear to be under the influence, not that i'd know but they are fairly easy to hide if your not totally highed up. So department policy is if your in an accident you need to have a drug test or whatever, just like if you where working a blue collar civilian job, had an accident its possible your company would test you to see if you where under the influence. With the scenario its not like the average DUI blood test, it was for the departments records not a case file, so they can discipline him but not file charges.

[larrymeyer]

Originally Posted by sgt7546

this is one of the three articles i read.
[/url]

Thank you for the source As you can see from the OP I would assume that he was driving and crash into a civilians car. Just the way the papers report I guess

[sgt7546]

Originally Posted by larrymeyer

Thank you for the source As you can see from the OP I would assume that he was driving and crash into a civilians car. Just the way the papers report I guess

No problem Larrymeyer, I would have asked the same question as you did of me, had I read my post after reading the OP.

[angus]

I guess I'm a bit thick. Why would there be a policy to test blood for any officer involved in a traffic accident if the intent of the policy were NOT to test for intoxicating or controlled substances? I realize that it's not exactly the same thing, but regular citizens give implied consent to blood/breath tests when they get their driver's licenses--are police officers actually held to a lower standard?

Plus, didn't they have to specifically test for cocaine to detect it? And if they did, what was that based on? I just don't follow the legal-logic chain here.

[1blindref]

Defense attorney Joshua Scarpello said his client feels vindicated and is now living in Illinois.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the meaning of "vindicated" ?

This is a clear case of "Do as I say, not as I do"

[knight0334]

That story is messed up.. if such is the case, I want my DUI case thrown out from about 8 years ago. They never told me my blood was to be used in a criminal case against me. lol I only got an ARD out of it, but still...

[angus]

Originally Posted by knight0334

That story is messed up.. if such is the case, I want my DUI case thrown out from about 8 years ago. They never told me my blood was to be used in a criminal case against me. lol I only got an ARD out of it, but still...

Yeah, that would be the implied consent law. Anyone who gets a PA driver license "consents" to blood/breath tests by law enforcement for intox. substances in accidents or with PC, simply by applying for the license (I'm not a lawyer, just my understanding).

The only thing I can figure is that the departmental blood draw policy for officers can only be used for inter-agency disciplinary action, even if they result in a criminal offense like possession/use of controlled substance. Strange.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by sgt7546

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.

sgt...

i agree with your posts in this thread, so i'm not arguing with you, but this statement piqued my interest and i was wondering if you (or anyone else) could clarify something for me.

i have heard of cases, in other states than PA though so maybe that is a difference, where people were charged with DUI for having cannabis metabolites in their system even though they did not have any THC in their system. as far as i understand it, means that the person smoked some weed a day or more before being busted for DUI and was not actually impaired or under the influence of a drug when arrested.

in at least one case, the blood was drawn after a motor vehicle accident in which the person who ended up being charged with DUI was not at fault...but the standard procedure in that state/for that department was to draw blood for all accidents in which someone was injured or some such thing...so there was also no real probable cause to suspect the person was DUI (since they were not at fault in the accident and did not break any traffic laws) and the blood was not drawn on the suspicion of DUI.

however, in that case, the courts said that it did not matter whether or not the person was actually impaired, only that he had some remnants of a controlled substance in his system...so he could be found guilty of DUI even though he was not actually under the influence.

(what i read about the case did not address the PC issue, so i'm not sure if that was even brought up.)

i don't have a cite to the case or anything, but i was just curious how something like that would be handled in PA: a citizen is involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he is not at fault. blood is drawn as a matter of procedure. he ends up having cannabis metabolites in his blood, but no THC. can he be charged with and convicted of DUI in PA?

(although i have addressed this issue to the good sgt, anyone who knows the answer is welcome to chime in. i've never been clear on this and am curious.)

[Charlie B]

Although I am not condoning the officer’s use of controlled substances, especially as it makes him a hypocrite, but he was not legally impaired at the time he was on duty.

Patrick Lester | Of The Morning Call reported; “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.”

Mike seemed like the perfect cop. Super nice, sincere, even tempered, and acted like the most wholesome man on earth. Sadly we know the real Mike today and he violated a lot of people's trust.

If this were the case, why didn’t his department offer him some kind of rehab program? I know this has been done in other departments.