Posted on 03/05/2006 12:37:27 PM PST by Mean Daddy
Since you can't post anything from the Des Moines Register, here's a link to the article. Unbelievable!!!
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060303/NEWS01/603030387&SearchID=73237551850783
From WHO-TV of Des Moines:
DES MOINES, Iowa The chief of police in Des Moines is questioning a decision to not ticket an officer stopped for speeding.
Last September, drug investigator Stewart Drake was stopped on Interstate 235 in West Des Moines for driving 99 miles-per-hour.
Officer Troy Shelley thought he smelled alcohol, but he didn't test Drake or issue a speeding ticket. Drake was given a warning and a supervisor was asked to pick him up.
Chief Bill McCarthy says he regrets the perception that Drake got preferential treatment.
A West Des Moines police spokesman says Shelley acted appropriately because Drake would face punished from his department.
Drake was suspended without pay for two days. He avoided a 300-dollar speeding fine and possible license suspension.
Just a rumor AFAIK.
File under 'I wouldn't doubt it.'
hmmmmm....ya think one of us peasants would've gotten the full monty????!!!!!
Happens Everyday in every city across the nation.
Nope.
Never heard of a suspected drunk driver being given the option of getting a ride home after the fact.
IBTBL
PING...........
Anyone that believes cops don't look after their own are fooling themselves....
That's a new one to me....In Before The....Balogna Lines
Hey!I was thinking the same thing.Thats been happening forever!Nothing new there.
In before the boot lick.
LOL!
These cops are just busy poisoning the jury pool. It'll come back to haunt when the jurors become fed up.
No blood, no foul right Bro? ;-)
Laws aren't for members of the gang.
You are so right! Jurors with any experience or knowledge now know to disbelieve any self-serving police testimony.
Depends on who did the pulling over. They may think this is their chance to get back a someone. Or even more likely, their chance to get ahead.
Well, I don't know what all the fuss is about, I've given alot of people breaks for speeding and some for DUI also, and they weren't cops.
Just because some poor slob has alcohol on his breath doesn't mean that he's drunk.
Know what I'm sayin'? You feel me?
Jurors with any experience or knowledge avoid jury duty.
I didn't need the 3 hours of OT bad enough.
Good point.
I hear ya, that paperwork can be a real drag. I remember when Ohio went to their new "Swift & Sure" DUI, DUS laws. The only 'Sure' part of it was the time consuming forms, including reading the rights of the arrested to them. That makes alot of sense, reading rights to a drunk.
The only 'Swift' part was how fast Der State would give them back their license as soon as they paid the "Re-instatement fee."
I've smelled alcohol on folks' breath and not given them a formal test. I mean, just talking to them and observing them is a test in itself.
Depends how bad they are.
They can gain experience quite quickly. I served with a young woman that followed the Bailiff's directions exactly, and got a parking ticket. When she asked him about it he just grinned at her, not realizing that he just torpedoed the ADA's assault on a police officer case.
Are you saying she made up her mind to sabotage the case because of a $5.00 parking ticket?
HMMMMMM...
A West Des Moines police spokesman says Shelley acted appropriately because Drake would face punished from his department.
Well Chief McCarthy better tell his spokesman to STFU if he doesn't want that perception to be widely known. When does a DUI ticket NOT result in the offender facing punishment from all sorts of directions???
Were those people driving 99 miles an hour?
Oh so we should just let it go then??
it sounded more like she torpedoed the case because of the way the bailiff treated her.
what she did doesn't make any sense, but it sounds like that's what the guy was saying.
I don't know her thought process, she did vote to acquit, and eventually the jury hung 10-2 for acquittal (starting at 2-10).
It is a possibility that the deputy was perceived as preventing her from complying with the law, and she equated the other deputies with the one she had personal knowledge of, and concluded that the defendant had gotten similar treatment. That would make the deputy the one that sabotaged the case.
There was testimony that the deputies involved had provoked the defendant, they denied it.
LOL!
I've also cut people breaks for speeding.
That's how it sounded to me too, but it makes it sound, at least to me, that she was upet because she got a ticket and so voted not guilty.
I'm sure there must be more to it. I just thought I'd ask.
I was thinking from a couple of your posts that you must live out in the country. But a $5.50 ticket? Now I'm thinking maybe you actually live in 1950.
Ah, well then maybe it wasn't just the parking ticket.
No, I live in a little armpit of a city west of Cleveland, Ohio. (thank you for your sympathy)
I wouldn't mind having lived during the 50's, seems alot better times than now. But that's something I didn't get to pick.
My Dad had a '55 Chevy and a '57 Chevy pick up truck. Nice era. They don't build 'em like that no more.
I guess I haven't had a parking ticket since I lived in Brooklyn, NY (circa 1980). It's hard to Not get parking tickets in NYC. Most were $50. Some as little as $35.
If one were interested simply in removing hazards to the public, then the removal of the hazard would be primary to the enforcement of any rule; if, however, one were interested in punishment as a deterrent, then one would target the most egregious first, and all others with equal zeal.
Further, if one were interested in punishment as a social tool, even the innocent would be punished if the conviction could be made persuasive.
Finally, the punishment would become ubiquitous as all are assumed to be hazards.
Probably not, the defendants history as well as the deputies was concealed, which is standard procedure, the defendant testified and that opened him to impeachment by previous conduct, which the ADA didn't do, so, he was perceived as clean. That's the direction the deliberations took.
I think a parking in a Handicapped spot is either $250.00 or $500.00 here. Most of ours are $5.00 or $10.00 after 24 hours.
You are a Zen Master. Sensei
Gotcha.
I believe it is called “professional courtesy”. It doesn’t apply to us common folk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.