Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sheriff's Office releases reports from judge's DUII arrest after DA declines to prosecute [Oregon]
The Oregonian - OregonLive ^ | February 12, 2014 | Rebbeca Woolington

Posted on 02/16/2014 10:01:28 AM PST by QT3.14

The Washington County Sheriff’s Office has released police reports about the January impaired driving arrest of Circuit Court Judge Donald Letourneau, who was cleared this week of criminal wrongdoing.

The reports, disclosed Tuesday in response to a public records request, offer some new details about the incident, which was reviewed by the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office. Letourneau has been a judge for 21 years in Washington County.

The district attorney’s office Tuesday released its charging decision, which stated prosecutors could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Letourneau, 63, was driving impaired.

(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: donaldletourneau; dui; duii; oregon
Title shortened...

Does the DA's office apply the same standards to the unwashed masses? Or is it a case of Animal Farm?

1 posted on 02/16/2014 10:01:28 AM PST by QT3.14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

Enforcing laws against the common folks but not against the insiders. This prosecutor and judge should be impeached, put on trial and defrocked. It is quite insulting to all citizens.


2 posted on 02/16/2014 10:03:44 AM PST by Zuben Elgenubi (NOPe to GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14
It's a tiered legal system. Depends on who you are and who you know.

Me? I'm nobody and I don't know anybody. So I live in fear. [shrug] It's America. A police state. Just the way it is.

3 posted on 02/16/2014 10:04:08 AM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14
Letourneau’s blood alcohol-level was .06 percent during the incident. The legal limit in Oregon is .08 percent, but prosecutions can occur with lower blood-alcohol levels, if impairment can be proven.

4 posted on 02/16/2014 10:04:21 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14


5 posted on 02/16/2014 10:05:34 AM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
blood alcohol-level was .06 percent during the incident. The legal limit in Oregon is .08 percent

It's not worth prosecuting and pissing off every judge they have to bring cases in front of.

6 posted on 02/16/2014 10:06:43 AM PST by Jeff Chandler (Obamacare: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

Grounds for suspicion, but he passed the breathalyzer. And .08 is a pretty tough standard.


7 posted on 02/16/2014 10:07:16 AM PST by Sicvee (Sicvee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

It’s good to be the (black-robed) king.


8 posted on 02/16/2014 10:09:22 AM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have Ingsoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

He had two glasses of wine at DINNER..
THE BASTARD..


9 posted on 02/16/2014 10:12:45 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi
blood alcohol-level was .06 percent during the incident. The legal limit in Oregon is .08 percen

It appears I over-reacted in my post above. Sorry.

10 posted on 02/16/2014 10:13:56 AM PST by Zuben Elgenubi (NOPe to GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

.06 is not DUI. DA made the right call. Just because some cop says blah, blah, blah, the breathalyzer says differently. No Animal Farm here.


11 posted on 02/16/2014 10:16:42 AM PST by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

If the readings are to be believed, .06 is not above the legal limit. If someone drinks at a bar and stops when they know their BAC is below the legal limit, they are drinking responsibly. Cops love to catch drunks. They get brownie points and awards for catching drunk drivers. They will always write their reports to shed the best light on why they did what they did. Sitting outside a bar and following someone who leaves is like shooting fish in a barrel. This time the fishie swam too fast. While I would love to see the legal establishment types be hoisted on their own petard, in this case the “judge” was not legally drunk and was not liable for conviction, under the law. Perhaps he will get busted later. Perhaps not.


12 posted on 02/16/2014 10:20:19 AM PST by Thumper1960 (A modern so-called "Conservative" is a shadow of a wisp of a vertebrate human being.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

This entire incident reeks of government corruption and in fact there is little in the article I believe..


13 posted on 02/16/2014 10:26:48 AM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi

No you didn’t.

There are so many lies and deceit in the article, it’s hard to tell if anyone told the truth here.

From the cops statements to the judges... It just reeks...

But I do love the comment from the corrupt judge that he, “Did not trust the deputies”.

What a hoot..

If these same deputies brought someone else before this judge’s court, the judge would trust them???

What total government BS....Government corruption seems endless.


14 posted on 02/16/2014 10:34:20 AM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi
It appears I over-reacted in my post above.

Maybe you did over-react, but then again maybe you didn't. The judge refused to take a field sobriety test when he was first pulled over. He claimed that he didn't trust the tests.

I find that odd. I wonder if the judge accepts the results of field sobriety tests when he is conducting a trial. I'll bet that he does.

Now, that doesn't mean he's guilty. But I wonder...

15 posted on 02/16/2014 10:37:55 AM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

Has this judge been trusting of what LEO’s say in his court before this?

We may never know. But, if he has any integrity, he will always weigh with impartiality the words of both the defendant and the prosecutors.


16 posted on 02/16/2014 10:40:07 AM PST by Thumper1960 (A modern so-called "Conservative" is a shadow of a wisp of a vertebrate human being.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Thumper1960

Sitting outside a bar and following someone who leaves is like shooting fish in a barre.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
There used to be a cop in DC (I normally use Police but not this time) that would grab people coming out of a bar and getting into their car. Even if you blew .06 and he didn’t like your ‘attitude’ he would charge you with DUI and use the excuse ‘IN HIS OPINION’ you may have been under the limit BUT you were under the influence.
Virginia went to 2 man DUI arrests and after being pulled over they would wait till the 2nd car arrived before doing much anything - after the Officer had determined you MAY be under the influence he would call for the ‘duty expert’.

The cop in DC may have had a lot of cases thrown out BUT he sure did manage to ‘ruin’ a lot of peoples reputation etc because you had to go through the ‘process’ before court.


17 posted on 02/16/2014 10:43:52 AM PST by xrmusn (6/98 --When you have them by the short hairs, the minds and hearts soon follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Thumper1960
But, if he has any integrity, he will always weigh with impartiality the words of both the defendant and the prosecutors.

How it is possible people are being convicted and sent to jail if even the judge stated he does not trust his own law enforcement?

How in the *#+* does that work?

18 posted on 02/16/2014 10:56:42 AM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Thumper1960
But, if he has any integrity, he will always weigh with impartiality the words of both the defendant and the prosecutors.

How does the law have any integrity at all, when it even considers judging the statements from those they don't trust?

19 posted on 02/16/2014 11:00:46 AM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
But I do love the comment from the corrupt judge that he, “Did not trust the deputies”.

Deputies? Where did he say that?

He did refuse sobriety tests because he didn't trust the tests.

20 posted on 02/16/2014 11:00:59 AM PST by QT3.14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Thumper1960
In addition, if the judge stated he does not trust his own law enforcement, should everyone the judge has put in jail or made decision about based on law enforcement statements and testimony, be released?

If not, why not?

21 posted on 02/16/2014 11:04:16 AM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

Deputies? Where did he say that?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Before Letourneau took a breath test, he reportedly told Braun he did not take the field tests because he does not trust them.


22 posted on 02/16/2014 11:05:45 AM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14
And if you mean "the judge does not trust the field test" how is it possible anyone else in that county ever was convicted based on field tests?

How does that work?

23 posted on 02/16/2014 11:08:04 AM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

The test or the deputies?


24 posted on 02/16/2014 11:11:56 AM PST by QT3.14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

BTW, if the judge does not trust that counties testing and evidence gathering techniques, how is it possible to convict others?


25 posted on 02/16/2014 11:11:58 AM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

Perhaps the judge had a lucid moment and the drug of governmental hegemony was worn off.

Once I did trust law enforcement and government. The 53 years I have lived and the things I have seen have placed massive qualifiers on those old sentiments.


26 posted on 02/16/2014 11:12:01 AM PST by Thumper1960 (A modern so-called "Conservative" is a shadow of a wisp of a vertebrate human being.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

Piker... From about 10 months ago.


(Video) Travis County DA sentenced to 45 days for DWI Newsroom
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3009853/posts


27 posted on 02/16/2014 11:26:03 AM PST by Arrowhead1952 (The Second Amendment is NOT about the right to hunt. It IS a right to shoot tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14
Not taking a side here.

From other articles on this story:

The judge took two breathalyzer tests, the first beginning thirty minutes after his arrest. The judge blew .078 and .069. BAC levels are always rounded down to the benefit of the arrested person; hence, .069 became .060. .08 is the legal limit for intoxicated.

The judge was pulled over after he left Coach's Sports Bar. The arresting officer said Judge Letourneau slowed for a yellow light at an intersection, then sped up and ran the red light. The judge didn't immediately pull over for the police car, which had activated its lights. When the judge pulled over, he didn't pull over to the curb.

The judge refused to participate in field sobriety tests and was not required to take a breathalyzer in the field. The police arrested him based on the laundry list of items police appear to write in all DUI arrest reports: smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech.

The judge reported that he had consumed three or four beers at Coach's and had been there only a short period of time, watching part of the first half of the Trailblazers game.

Judge Don Letourneau.

28 posted on 02/16/2014 11:28:11 AM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Oregon Rev. Stat. 813.135 says that drivers shall be deemed to have given implied consent for field sobriety tests. Oregon Rev. Stat 813.136 says that the refusal to submit is admissible as evidence of intoxication at trial.


29 posted on 02/16/2014 11:33:37 AM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
If these same deputies brought someone else before this judge’s court, the judge would trust them???

Maybe not, if the evidence was subjective and did not meet the threshold for being dui.

Then again, (not knowing), maybe the judge threw out a few cases where solid evidence wasn't enough to convict and ticked off the local constabulary.

30 posted on 02/16/2014 11:44:40 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
If these same deputies brought someone else before this judge’s court, the judge would trust them???

Maybe not, if the evidence was subjective and did not meet the threshold for being dui.

Then again, (not knowing), maybe the judge threw out a few cases where solid evidence wasn't enough to convict and ticked off the local constabulary.

31 posted on 02/16/2014 11:45:21 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Is that a pony tail he has or a Billy Ray Cyrus bob?


32 posted on 02/16/2014 12:30:43 PM PST by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: minnesota_bound

My sister lost her driver license several years ago by walking home from a friends house. She was drunk, she is also about 5ft tall and might weigh 95lbs so a few beers would put her over the limit.
Now the license could be given back for just $2,000 in lawyer fees....
Is this why the DUI limit has dropped to .08?
Money going to lawyers. 2 or 3 drinks makes anyone guilty except for this judge.


33 posted on 02/16/2014 12:34:19 PM PST by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster; All
Oregon Rev. Stat. 813.135 says that drivers shall be deemed to have given implied consent for field sobriety tests. Oregon Rev. Stat 813.136 says that the refusal to submit is admissible as evidence of intoxication at trial.

Great post!!

Are we to assume the judge and the DA didn't know about the above Oregon laws?

It gets back to my questions in post 1.

34 posted on 02/16/2014 12:53:12 PM PST by QT3.14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

I assume the DA uses those two laws constantly in DUI cases.


35 posted on 02/16/2014 2:18:29 PM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: minnesota_bound

To me, it appears to be a ponytail.


36 posted on 02/16/2014 2:19:59 PM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
The judge took two breathalyzer tests, the first beginning thirty minutes after his arrest.

I'm continuing to read. The DA's internal memo says the .78 BA test took place 49 minutes after arrest, and the .68 test took place 52 minutes after arrest.

The judge weighs 190 and, in his own words, said he drank "three or four beers" over a short period.

37 posted on 02/16/2014 2:26:37 PM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
The judge took two breathalyzer tests, the first beginning thirty minutes after his arrest.

I'm continuing to read. The DA's internal memo says the .78 BA test took place 49 minutes after arrest, and the .68 test took place 52 minutes after arrest.

The judge weighs 190 and, in his own words, said he drank "three or four beers" over a short period.

38 posted on 02/16/2014 2:26:37 PM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

>> . The legal limit in Oregon is .08 percent, but prosecutions can occur with lower blood-alcohol levels, if impairment can be proven. <<

That’s the reason the judge refused to take the field tests. Flunk and you are convicted of impaired driving.


39 posted on 02/16/2014 4:27:32 PM PST by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
Maybe you did over-react, but then again maybe you didn't. The judge refused to take a field sobriety test when he was first pulled over. He claimed that he didn't trust the tests.

Many lawyers advise that you never take one of those "field sobriety tests" at any time, because you can always be made to fail those subjective tests if the cops want you to. It's just plain good sense not to cooperate with them.

I find that odd. I wonder if the judge accepts the results of field sobriety tests when he is conducting a trial. I'll bet that he does.

I'd bet the judge would have refused a search of his vehicle as well. It's his right to do so. Should he allow evidence entered in cases where people are stupid enough to waive their rights and allow a warrantless search?

I would be more interested if he gives other folks who similarly refuse to perform like a circus animal for police.

From the article, it says he tested at .06 on a breathalyzer. As long as there was no 3 or 4 hour delay in taking the test (as often happens to the priviledged class pulled over for DUI), then I think there is no issue here.  In fact the arresting officer was stupid for pushing the charge. Probably because he got his dander up because someone refused to cower before his awesome might.

 

 

40 posted on 02/17/2014 6:27:19 AM PST by zeugma (Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
And if you mean "the judge does not trust the field test" how is it possible anyone else in that county ever was convicted based on field tests?

By performing like a trained monkey for police, you have voluntarily given up your rights to not have that performance used against you. I think police should be required to tell you that you don't have to take the "tests'.

41 posted on 02/17/2014 6:31:28 AM PST by zeugma (Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
Many lawyers advise that you never take one of those "field sobriety tests" at any time

Interesting, and thanks for the info. But does a refusal mean the cops have the right to drag you down to the station for other tests?

42 posted on 02/17/2014 8:19:20 AM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
Interesting, and thanks for the info. But does a refusal mean the cops have the right to drag you down to the station for other tests?

Depends upon the state.

Because of some pre-existing conditions, it's impossible for me to "pass" a field sobriety test, unless the officer is being extremely generous.

It hasn't come up for me yet, but I'll absolutely refuse to perform like a trained monkey for them if it does.

 

43 posted on 02/17/2014 10:56:09 AM PST by zeugma (Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
I think police should be required to tell you that you don't have to take the "tests'.

You might be surprised but the police are allowed to lie to you, and they do so all the time.

What should happen since the judge admitted he does not trust the counties testing and evidence gathering procedures, all courts there should rule against the police when these types of evidence gathering proceedures are performed.

AND write into the law that you're not required to submit to any field tests, AND all those convicted in his court, based on field testing evidence, should be exonerated. Go back 15 years.

44 posted on 02/17/2014 3:42:31 PM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
You might be surprised but the police are allowed to lie to you, and they do so all the time.

hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahaha

No sir, that is not something I'm unaware of. Being able to lie successfully is a part of the job description in most police departments. (for any government agency actually)

 

45 posted on 02/18/2014 8:12:47 PM PST by zeugma (Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Hence my suggestions....


46 posted on 02/18/2014 8:24:39 PM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson