Sheriff's Office releases reports from judge's DUII arrest after DA declines to prosecute [Oregon]

The Oregonian - OregonLive ^ | February 12, 2014 | Rebbeca Woolington

[dragnet2]

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?

[dragnet2]

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.

[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?

How does that work?

[QT3.14]

The test or the deputies?

[dragnet2]

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

[Thumper1960]

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.

[Arrowhead1952]

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

[Scoutmaster]

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.

[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.

[Smokin' Joe]

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.

[Smokin' Joe]

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.

[minnesota_bound]

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

[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.

[QT3.14]

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.

[Scoutmaster]

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

[Scoutmaster]

To me, it appears to be a ponytail.

[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.

[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.

[B4Ranch]

>> . 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.

[zeugma]

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.