.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Police Arrest man for DWI despite him blowing a 0.0

I wonder how much time, effort and stress this is going to cost him. Not to mention the legal fees, impound fees and other associated idiocy that

Errett readily agreed to take the breathalyzer test, maintaining his innocence. He told the officer he had been confused and nervous when taking the field sobriety test.

When he took the test, the result came back with all zeros. He had no alcohol in his system.

“The legislature, the courts and law enforcement officers all want people to take a breath test when requested by law enforcement. Fair enough,” Linehan said. “But why take the test if being completely innocent is no defense against being arrested for a crime you didn’t commit? If I get a call from a potential client at 3 a.m. don’t I have to tell him, ‘Yeah you could take the test, but even if you test .000, you will still be arrested?’ ”

Errett was given the ticket, had to put up a $1,000 bond, pay to get his car out of the impound lot and hire an attorney with his trial scheduled for later this month.

“Coming on the heals of the sanctions against Prosecutor Attorney Mike Nifong in the Duke rape case, it is my hope that we have reached a point where it is no longer acceptable for the state to continue to prosecute innocent people. There should be some sanction for arresting someone the officer should reasonably know to be innocent,” Linehan said.

“In this case the officer had a scientific test, a scientific test which officers ask juries to believe everyday, which told the officer that my client was innocent,” Linehan said.

“And even with the knowledge that my client was innocent, he was still charged. The state should be held accountable for that. My client has been unfairly embarrassed and has had to expend attorney fees for a crime he didn’t commit. At an absolute minimum he is owed an apology and the community is owed an explanation as to why our officers are arresting people they know to be innocent.”

Linehan said with the trial pending, he has asked his client not to speak to the media.

The police department declined to comment and referred all questions to the Prosecutor’s Office.

Vandervoort said after they have reviewed the case, it may still go to trial, or the charges may be dropped or altered.
Hey, but it's only a couple of bad apples, right. Seriously, what's up with cops.

Labels: ,

2 Comments:

Anonymous Badger said...

No offense but as soon as I read that he failed the field tests but blew a 0.0 I figured he was on drugs, be they prescription or illegal. Its telling that the article does not mention any possibility of the driver being high or that the a blood test was offered or accepted. The attorney for the defendant glances over that possibility as well. Add in the very weak excuse of being nervous and confused on the field tests. How hard is it to walk a straight line or balance on one foot? I personally dislike the HGN test because way too often the test comes back as a failure yet the defendant can pass all of the others.

9:05 AM  
Blogger Kid Handsome said...

No offense taken, and it's a good point, except that there is no allegation that he was on any other drugs (even legal prescription or over the counter medicine).

Also, as for the field tests it's the eye test (THAT PRACTICALLY NO ONE IN THE WORLD IS ACTUALLY QUALIFIED TO ADMINISTER OR INTERPRET) that gets most people. Plus, sometimes it's hard doing things when you have a cop yelling at you.

In fairness it makes me a bit cynical when the government won't release any of the data underlying their breath tests, eye tests, and other tests. I start to wonder what they're hiding.

2:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home