So what happens when a cop stops a driver for DUI — and the driver’s a cop? 

Deputy, Officer Argue Over DUI Stop

Ponce cop heard trying to help county sergeant

Ponce Inlet, FL.  Nov. 8  –   A Ponce Inlet police officer who pulled over an off-duty Volusia County sheriff’s deputy on suspicion of drunken driving last weekend was apparently trying to help his fellow law enforcement officer, an audiotape of the traffic stop reveals.

"(Sheriff’s) Sgt. Greg Miles is going to come and get you," Officer Chris Selander is heard saying on the tape he made early Sunday morning. "I’m not going to arrest you. You can relax. You know you’ve been drinking probably a little too much. I saw the alcohol in the car. I can smell it."

A short while later on the 45-minute tape, Selander goes on to say, "You’re a sergeant now. You get to keep your job, and that’s your career."

But the deputy, Sgt. Kenneth Vickery, still seemed intent on arguing he hadn’t done anything wrong and repeatedly raised Selander’s ire as the pair stood in the 4300 block of South Atlantic Avenue. Vickery, who works in the sheriff’s training division, insisted he hadn’t crossed any lines on the road, hadn’t swerved and wasn’t speeding.

"You ran off the road, and, now, you’re basically calling me a liar," said Selander, a patrol officer. "I didn’t have to do any of this. You could be sitting in that jail right now. You still can."…

The conversation continued to switch from calm to arguing.

At one heated moment, Selander said, "You’ll be lucky if you have a job after this. Now, sign the ticket, keep your mouth shut and go home."

At another angry moment Selander said, "I think you want to go to jail. I’m tired of your attitude. . . . You don’t even act like a police officer. You don’t even act like a sergeant."…

When all was said and done, Vickery was cited only for an improper lane change.

If it were you driving that car, you’d be facing drunk driving charges — and resisting arrest…after you were released from the hospital.

Last week I mentioned how manufacturers across the country were refusing to turn over the critical software code in their breath-testing machines.  See What Are Breathalyzer Manufacturers Hiding?  Just how far are they willing to go to keep us from looking inside these secret black boxes that determine guilt or innocence?  A follow-up story in today’s news:

Thousands of Tucson-Area DUI Cases May Get the Boot

Intoxilyzer 8000 May Be Ruled Unreliable

Tucson, AZ.  Nov. 9  – A dozen years ago, 3,000 drunken-driving prosecutions in Tucson were dismissed in one day – about 5,000 cases within a few months – because the breath-test device that said the drivers were drunk was deemed unreliable.

Those numbers could easily be surpassed if one of the current alcohol detectors in Arizona, the Intoxilyzer 8000, is found to be unreliable, a leading driving under the influence defense attorney said.

"This is going to be huge," said Tucson lawyer James Nesci, because the current machine is widely used statewide as opposed to the older device, which was used in Tucson and at a smaller agency…

Despite court orders across the country, CMI has declined to divulge the code, which defense attorneys say will show that the device is error-prone. The company has racked up more than $1 million in fines by refusing to comply with a similar Florida court order, records show.

CMI President Toby Hall didn’t return phone calls for comment. When Bernini first ordered CMI to release the code, Nesci said a process server couldn’t get Hall to accept the court order.

Last month, Bernini told prosecutors to get the source code from CMI.

Deputy County Attorney Robin Schwartz told Bernini that she didn’t think the state could force CMI to reveal the code.

Bernini also set a Nov. 24 hearing for Hall to appear and explain why she shouldn’t hold him and CMI in contempt for refusing to comply with her orders…

Recent events echo those in the mid-1990s when defense attorneys challenged the integrity of the RBT IV breath test machine, manufactured by Intoximeters Inc., based in St. Louis. Prosecutors eventually agreed that the device was faulty, which led to 3,000 cases being dismissed at once in 1997 and the total number thrown out about 5,000, Nesci said.

What are they so afraid of?  Could it be that inside the black box is…junk?
 

Some police agencies around the country use videotapes as part of their drunk driving investigations.  The vast majority, however, do not — despite their low cost, ease of use and invaluable evidence as to driving patterns, physical symptoms, slurred speech, poor balance, incriminating statements and performance on "field sobriety tests".

Why don’t they use them?  And why, when they do, do they so often get lost or erased?  See my post Why Do Police Erase Videotapes?

Local Attorney Says All D.U.I. Arrests Should Be Videotaped

KUTV News, Utah.  Oct. 23  - Many Utah police departments videotape suspected drunk drivers.  The Highway Patrol has most of the dashboard cameras in Utah.  Attorney Jason Schatz wants to see more videotaping for the sake of his clients.

 “It’s only fair to those people if the technology is available”, he says.  Schatz defends suspected drunk drivers and says often, police video is valuable evidence in court, challenging officers’ written reports.  

 “You look at the police report and you’d think this person was falling down drunk, then you see the tape and you say ‘Wait a minute, that doesn’t look the way it was described on paper”. 

Schatz says he wants Utah to adopt mandatory videotaping like the State of South Carolina.  He hopes to find a local lawmaker who will take the issue to Capitol Hill.

Forgive my cynicism, but I’m naturally suspicious of prosecutors who say they would rather spend money on charitable causes than on more trustworthy evidence.