Here in Ohio, the blood draw has to be done by a "doctor, nurse, or qualified tech" licensed to complete it. Policy is that any officer involved in an accident has to have a blood draw for alcohol and drugs (part of our drug policy within the city I work), at a specified facility, which is not at the hospital. I don't want to assume things, but it does seem strange that the draw was not done by at least a qualified tech.

If the blood draw was not done correctly, then the judge does have it right, under the rules of evidence anything coming from that blood draw has to be thrown out. It may have been on purpose or accident, but there is nothing that can be done now.

By the way: the Drug Policy for my department states that: we can show up to work with a BAC of .039 or under. Because of the unions within the city, they had to use one policy for everyone and couldn't set out different or more strict requirements for every different department of the city (PD, FD, Street Dept., Water Dept., ect). Our department policy states a BAC of .000, which supercides the drug policy. We have had a few guys suspended (BAC of .02) and one guy fired for a BAC of .043, all of them were residual from drinks that night before their shift.

 

linked

 

The past 2 weekends in Indy there have been rallys at the circle to protest what's going on there. One guy had a sign that read, "Officer: please don't run me over just because you can". The FBI is supposed to be involved at this point to invesigate a cover up. Hopefully all guilty parties are prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law.

 

Why didnt the cop blow into a breathalizer? Is it standard policy that cops go to the hospital for a blood test? How do you mess up withdrawing blood?

 

The blood draw wasn't messed up, it was taken by someone not certified to do so. Basically a technician did it instead of a doctor which makes the lab data inadmissable.

 

Might have been done by a trainee, nurse tech, cna, even a RN or LPN. Not a certified Dr, then throw it out.

Doesn't pass the smell test for me. Now they will look at the history of the one who took the officer there. If they normally go somewhere else, but this is the only time they did it, then they may be found guilty of interfering with an investigation. If they have done it before, then it may just go away. Either way the cops *** is saved by having the hard charges tossed and he is stuck at the most with a few misdemeanors. If only the public was always so LUCKY.

Yes, it stinx to high heaven. Like the NC cop who blew through the red and killed a woman.

It puts a stigma on all good cops, especially when there is a cover up.

 

ok here are the facts as I know them. The cop ran over the biker that was sitting still. The officers that are well trained to spot a person who had been drinking failed to spot this one even though 2 hrs later his blood was about 3 times the legal limit. Therefore did not order the blood test to be drawn like it should have been drawn. Instead they took him to the local clinic.


Maybe they were all drinking a few beers at the clinic?

call it Leo bashing if you want, I call it the truth coming out.

sad part is that WE will be paying for his defense lawyer. and he will not get the usual public pretender that you or I would

 

oh, like they didn't know where to get the blood drawn where it wouldn't hold up... riiiiight...

GW

 

I went back and read all the related articles on this. And here's what I can come up with...

1st off, the whole thing SUCKS because a man died and two other people were badly hurt.

2nd, some highly trained officers didn't notice the intoxication of a fellow officer. Something about that doesn't sit well. BUT, it said in the article that an officer involved in a crash is REQUIRED to be tested. So know that, would these officers REALLY have tried to cover it up, KNOWING he would be tested anyway? Especially with one of them being a high ranking Department official...

3rd, the officer wasn't taken to a hospital, and the blood wasn't drawn by a person with the training to make it admissable in court. Could be the other officers did that on purpose. Or, it could be that because they didn't have probable cause to suspect he was drunk, and that made the blood test purely administrative, they simply took him to the closest or least busy place nearby.

4th, the DUI charges were thrown out. BUT, don't think he's somehow "getting away with it". He's still facing a **** ton of charges including at least 3 felonies.

5th, this officer KNEW he was drunk. KNEW he shouldn't be behind the wheel of ANY car, much less a police vehicle flying along lights and siren. He screwed up big and made some horrible decisions that cost another person his life. He should (and hopefully will) be punished.

I truly hope this wasn't some kind of police coverup, but I'm not naive enough to think it doesn't happen. We'll have to wait and see what comes out. In the mean time, lets try to keep this discussion civil enough that it doesn't have to be locked or deleted, and we can keep getting information.

 

Priority at any accident is medical for any injuries, DUI second...that is the standard for anyone not just officers involved in an accident. Second, if it is an accident where civilians are injuired and the officer is involved, you don't take the officer to the same hospital. In Indy there had to be other hospitals to take the officer to instead of a clinic, it only become more difficult in smaller towns/cities that may only have one hospital.

As I stated, our policy is that you have to go to a clinic style medical facility for any alcohol/drug testing, it is not done at the hospital. So the reason he was taken to a clinic may have to do with the cities drug policy that has to be followed. Even if that is the case, the person there should have been certified to draw blood for a BAC test.

Our policy is a blood test for on-duty incidents and not a breath test, that way they can test for all substances and not just alcohol