Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

An historic criminal case may be going to trial soon, as observers expect Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas to request a trial setting at an upcoming preliminary hearing for former Fullerton police officers Manuel Anthony Ramos and Jay Patrick Cicinelli. Ramos and Cicinelli face charges related to the death of Kelly Thomas last summer. Rackauckas surprised more than a few people by filing murder and manslaughter charges against the officers last fall. This is reportedly the first time in the county's history that a court has held a preliminary hearing for a police officer charged with an alleged murder occurring while in uniform.

Kelly Thomas, a 37 year-old homeless man who reportedly suffered from schizophrenia, got into an "altercation" with police on July 5, 2011. Fullerton police responded to complaints of a man breaking into cars near the Fullerton Bus Depot. The Fullerton Police Department claimed that Thomas resisted when police tried to arrest him, and the department said it took five or six officers to control him. Witnesses, however, said that Thomas ran when police tried to search his bag. They reported seeing several officers hit Kelly and, once he was on the ground, shoot him with a Taser gun. The incident resulted in severe injuries to Thomas' head and neck.

At the hospital, doctors discovered injuries to Thomas' brain, a broken nose and cheekbone, several broken ribs, and internal bleeding. At least one shot from the stun gun hit him near his heart on the left side of his chest. Thomas never regained consciousness. His family decided to remove him from life support at the hospital five days later. The official cause of death was "brain death" caused by "head trauma." Toxicology reports came back negative for drugs and alcohol. Six officers, including Ramos and Cicinelli, were placed on leave after Thomas died.

Continue reading "Orange County DA Expected to Take Murder Case Against Two Former Police Officers to Trial" »

The Supreme Court's unanimous January ruling in U.S. vs. Jones was hailed as historic, marking an important affirmation of privacy rights amid law enforcement's increasing use of advanced technology, specifically warrantless GPS monitoring, to track suspects. Many people, criminal defense attorneys in particular, saw the Jones decision as an important step towards safeguarding individual privacy against electronic snooping by law enforcement. Since then, however, the FBI has stated that it faces difficulties and added expenses without the use of the GPS devices, and federal district judges in some areas have found ways around the Court's prohibition on warrantless tracking.

Jones involved a suspected D.C. drug dealer who was under surveillance through a GPS device secretly attached, without a warrant, to his vehicle by the FBI. Jones appealed his conviction in part on the ground that the FBI violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. broadly ruled that the FBI's practice of using GPS devices without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment by revealing far more about a person than the FBI ever could have learned simply by following him through the streets.

The Supreme Court took up the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals, but on much narrower grounds. A unanimous Court ruled, in essence, that the FBI could not attach GPS monitoring devices to Jones' vehicle without a warrant because it violated Jones' property rights by physically attaching the device. This leaves the question of how the Fourth Amendment generally governs electronic surveillance unanswered. It also does not specifically address whether law enforcement needs a warrant or only "reasonable suspicion" in order to use GPS trackers in the future.

Since the Jones ruling, the FBI has had to change the way it conducts surveillance operations. It reportedly had to deactivate around 3,000 deployed GPS tracking devices in January, meaning it had no way to retrieve the devices. The FBI complained that it had to substitute teams of six to eight agents to do the work of a single GPS tracker, a significant additional cost. Privacy advocates might not find this argument persuasive, but some federal district judges have entered orders that help the FBI.

Continue reading "Judges, Law Enforcement Skirt Supreme Court's GPS-Tracking Ruling" »

Five former New Orleans police officers received sentences ranging from six to sixty-five years in prison from a federal judge on April 4, 2012. The officers, Kenneth Bowen, Robert Gisevius, Robert Faulcon, Anthony Villavoso, and Arthur Kaufman, were charged with a variety of federal firearms and civil rights offenses related to shootings at a New Orleans bridge during Hurricane Katrina's aftermath in 2005. The case demonstrates two interesting aspects of criminal defense: it shows how federal prosecutors can step in when local law enforcement is compromised or implicated in a matter, and it shows that police misconduct can have a remedy.

Hurricane Katrina was the costliest natural disaster in United States history, and also one of the deadliest with nearly 2,000 victims along the Gulf coast. The hurricane made landfall in southeast Louisiana on August 29, 2005. The worst damage and loss of life occurred in New Orleans, where the failure of the levees flooded most of the city and many surrounding areas. A period of chaos followed, in which people struggled to get out of the city and crime was reportedly rampant.

On September 4, 2005, less than a week after the levees broke, four of the defendants, Bowen, Gisevius, Faulcon, and Villavaso, went to the Danziger Bridge in response to a report of officers taking fire. According to the complaint filed in federal court, the officers encountered six unarmed civilians on the east side of the bridge. The officers allegedly opened fire on the group with assault rifles, pistols, and shotguns, killing one person, James Brissette, and wounding four others. The officers then drove to the west end of the bridge, where they opened fire on two men. One man, Ronald Madison, was shot and killed, and the officers arrested the other for attempted murder of a police officer. A judge ordered his release three weeks later, with no charges ever filed against him.

The fifth defendant, Kaufman, was assigned to investigate the shootings later that same day. He submitted a report, co-authored with another officer, in May 2006 describing the matter as "solved." The Orleans Parish District Attorney investigated the matter between 2006 and 2008, making no findings as to any officer's culpability. They referred the matter to the FBI.

The officers were charged with violations of the victims' civil rights "under color of law," conspiracy to commit an offense, firearms violations, fraudulent statements, witness tampering, and falsification of records. Five other officers, all charged with offenses related to the alleged cover-up of the incident, pleaded guilty before trial. In August 2011, a jury convicted four defendants of civil rights, firearms, and conspiracy offenses, and convicted Kaufman of offenses related to covering up the incident.

Continue reading "Former Police Officers Sentenced in Post-Katrina Shooting Cases" »

Police in Roseville, California arrested a man for parole violation after he removed a GPS monitoring device eight days after he left prison. Mark Wayne Speer, as a convicted sex offender, was required to wear a monitoring device, supervised by the California Department of Parole, at all times as a condition of his release.

Police reportedly released Speer's picture to the public and asked for their help in locating him. A tip that he was staying at a Roseville hotel led police to him on February 24. They found and arrested him in a nearby garage. He was being held without bail in the Placer County Jail according to the most recent media reports.

According to the Vacaville Reporter, Speer was a resident of south Vacaville when he was arrested in 2006 on suspicion of sexual assault of a young boy and a felony probation violation. He was also reportedly arrested in August 2011 for a probation violation. He was reportedly paroled from prison several months later, in December 2011, and returned to Vacaville. Eight days after his parole, he allegedly removed the GPS tracking bracelet. This led to the police effort to locate and arrest him.

California has required people convicted of sex-related offenses to register with the state for decades. Megan's Law, passed in 1996, made information on registered sex offenders available to the general public. At first, the information was only available by calling a hotline that was not toll-free or visiting a police or sheriff station. After 2004, a new law required that all registration information be available online. The stated purpose of making this information public is to allow people to protect themselves and their children from registered sex offenders, but it claims it is not intended to further punish them.

In 2004, California began tracking paroled sex offenders and other high-risk parolees using GPS devices that they must wear at all times as a condition of parole. This was originally part of a broader effort by the state to reform the parole system, which at the time returned 70,000 former convicts to prison every year. Jessica's Law, passed as a ballot initiative in 2006, required lifetime GPS monitoring of registered sex offenders, as well as prohibiting them from coming within a certain distance of schools and parks.

Continue reading "Paroled California Sex Offender Re-Arrested After Removing Monitoring Device" »

Irvine, California's City Council voted unanimously on October 26, 2011 to allow the Occupy Orange County demonstrators to camp overnight on the lawn of the city's Civic Center, agreeing with the protesters' arguments that their tents are a form of free speech more than they are a public nuisance or safety issue. The decision came after several weeks of wrangling over the legal status of the encampments in Irvine and larger disputes nationwide about the intersection of First Amendment rights and state and local law. Regardless of how one feels about the issues presented by the now-global protests, the situation presents important issues for criminal defense attorneys to understand.

Occupy Orange County began in mid-October in Irvine with a group setting up an encampment in front of the Civic Center. In most cities with "Occupy" groups, city governments have made various attempts to move protesters (or occupiers, depending on how you view them) away from certain areas, sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently. The legal justifications given by cities usually involves city ordinances or state laws relating to public health or cleanliness and public nuisances. The Irvine City Council's decision is one of the first to explicitly grant authority to an Occupy group to continue an overnight presence in a public space.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to peacefully assemble, but courts have consistently held that governments may reasonably restrict that right as to the "time, manner, and place" of assemblies or demonstrations. Cities enforce these restrictions with a permitting system, which might deny a permit to a demonstration that would, for example, significantly block traffic or cause excessive noise at 4:00 a.m. Cities can also restrict access to public spaces, such as parks or sidewalks, at specific times for health or safety reasons. Some cities have attempted to clear demonstrators from an area in order to have sanitation workers clean the area, or they have cited protesters for health code violations relating to food or waste disposal.

Continue reading "City of Irvine Allows Occupy Orange County Protesters to Stay" »

The new Alabama immigration law potentially allows law enforcement to detain people without bond if they suspect their immigration status. A lawsuit brought by the U.S. Justice Department and several immigrants' rights groups led to a partial block of the law by a federal appeals court today, but some troubling provisions remain in effect. While this law only applies in Alabama, it is part of a nationwide trend that could have an impact on California.

The law requires law enforcement, in the course of a "lawful" stop or arrest, to try to determine the immigration status of anyone they suspect might be an undocumented immigrant. In effect, it allows law enforcement to require a person to prove their citizenship or lawful immigration status, and it allows them to hold the person until they can provide such proof. The law does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes reasonable suspicion of a person's immigration status.

Of great concern to criminal defense attorneys should be the ability of law enforcement to hold a person without bond based upon an officer's suspicion of something so vaguely defined. The notion that a person cannot be detained without probable cause to suspect criminal activity is a bedrock principle enshrined in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. To make an arrest, a police officer must ordinarily have a warrant signed by a judge or "probable cause," which is a rather high standard of belief that a crime has been committed or that relevant evidence would be uncovered in a search or arrest. Once an arrest has been made, searches potentially become much easier since the person is in custody. This could lead to discovery of evidence in situations where police would not have otherwise had probable cause, all based on the ill-defined suspicion of immigration status.

Once a person is in custody, a bond must be set, which is the amount of money that must be put up in order to get the person out of jail. A magistrate or judge often sets this amount based on factors like the severity of the alleged crime and the likelihood that the person might try to leave the jurisdiction. A person could be released without bond if they are determined to be low risk, or held without bond if a judge finds the opposite. Key to this determination is the alleged offense. Alabama's law allows a person to be detained based on suspicion of immigration status, something that is not usually part of the criminal system, and not part of the state legal system at all.

Continue reading "New Alabama Immigration Law Could Allow Police to Hold People Without Bond" »

When Breath Test Operator Fran Griefenbach left her job at the Hernando County Detention Center, she explained the reasons why in an email. This email has caused a firestorm of controversy in Florida. Mrs. Griefenbach's email indicated she quit because deputies had breached security by entering the Breath Test Room on numerous occasions without authorization. The Florida Administrative Code states that only people issued permits by the state should have access to the breath machines. This is to protect the chain of evidence.

Even though an internal investigation found the machines weren't tampered with, emails show that the security of the Breath Testing Room was lax. Numerous incidents of unauthorized entry have been found. In one case, the room was left unlocked for 24 hours. Many deputies and inmates passed the door on a daily basis.

Since these allegations arose, an electronic key lock has been placed on the door.
Although prosecutors will undoubtedly make light of the security breaches, why was the electronic lock put on the door?

In addition, the defense bar was not notified until 4 months after the allegations arose. Many people had, by then, pled guilty.

DUI cases are prosecuted around this country by relying on scientific evidence. Prosecutors take great pains to tell juries that science is on their side. Forensic experts for the state take the stand and testify with mind-numbing detail of the reliability of their crime lab. It is as if the lab is a finely-tuned watch that smoothly and effortlessly functions with very little input by mere mortals.

It is very distressing to be told the rules the prosecution uses to tout the reliability of these machines are not very important. They appear to want it both ways.

Instead of trying to sweep this all under the rug, if the powers that be dismissed any case which was tarnished by these security breaches, they could then take the ethical highroad. To prosecute someone for violating the law is one thing, but to play fast and easy with the rules when you do it is unfair.

Washington D.C. police officers Andrew Zabavsky and his partner Jose Rodriguez spent many years making the streets safe. Both officers have registered hundreds of DUI arrests. With a record like this, the Washington Regional Alcohol Program recognized them for their outstanding commitment for the period of 2006-2009. Was the city happy? No.

The two officers were subjected to investigation, harassment, demoralization and recommendations for termination by the city's police chief and others.

Why would the powers that be so aggressively persecute two decorated veteran officers? Because they refused to lie about a breath tests' improper calibration.

It appears, in 2010, a reliable technician told these two police officers that the breath tests had been improperly calibrated for a very long period of time. These faulty calibrations could affect hundreds of cases.

When defense attorneys began to cross examine these officers about the discrepancies, lawyers with the Attorney General's Office wanted the officers to act dumb. When the officers were not willing to do this, the Attorney General's Office started an investigation against them. In addition, the Attorney General's Office forbade them from testifying in court. The police department also tried to fire Officer Rodriguez.

Ultimately, both officers were cleared of all of the spurious claims. However, as of this date, Zabavsky and Rodriguez have ceased working DUI cases.

This story clearly shows how easy it is to go from being one of the "good guys" to being one of the "bad guys". Many people in this country do not believe it is possible for them or their family to innocently get caught up in the judicial system. These officers were simply doing their job. Instead of correcting any problems with the calibration of the breath test device, it seems the Attorney General preferred to keep it quiet. Once the officers refused to go along with this, they became the "bad guys".

It is understandable parties in a criminal prosecution have different interests. The People want a conviction and the defense wants an acquittal. There are, however, rules. If a defense attorney were to inappropriately coerce a witness, he/she would be disbarred.
Prosecutors do not appear to have these fears. Since they act under the color of their authority, they are given more leeway. The problem with this leeway, though, is the potential for abuse. If police officers are subject to this abuse, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Because of errors in the Hernando County Sheriff's Department's administration of breath tests, many DUI cases may be dismissed. All states have rules for the administration of breath tests. These rules must be followed in order for the tests to be admissible in court. It appears the Hernando County Sheriff's Department did not follow these mandates from August 2010 to May 2011.

Florida law requires breath testing equipment and the room in which it is located be accessible only to people issued a valid permit or people authorized by a permit holder. A video obtained by a news station, however, shows the above rules being violated.

In addition, Florida law requires breath test operators be employed by the agency but Breath Test Operator Fran Griefenbach was, in fact, a contractor. Griefenbach said she resigned because the breath testing instruments had been tampered with, machines were turned off and cameras were moved. Griefenbach said she "could no longer sign a breath test affidavit in good confidence that everything was true and accurate" because she did not know who may have been tampering with the machines.

Although the Sheriff's Department says no tampering was found, they are sending Brady notices to defense attorneys. Brady evidence is exculpatory evidence which must be disclosed to the defense. This Brady notice advises defense counsel of breaches in Intoxilizer protocol.

I have always been amazed at how Sheriff's Departments attempt to downplay the failure of their agents to follow the law. These very same people claim to have a thorough knowledge of the Penal and Vehicle Codes as well as a zero tolerance for any civilian who violates said codes. The television is literally awash with shows depicting law enforcement officers administering justice to the letter of the law. However, when they are required to follow certain protocols, they are considerably more lax.

It is important to maintain the procedures which ensure the accuracy of these breath test devices. If law enforcement is allowed to disregard these rules whenever they want, the breath test will eventually cease to have any evidential value. This would be a severe blow to prosecutions of DUI cases.

Two Chicago police officers have been charged with sexual assault while on duty. Officers Juan Vasquez and Paul Clavijo have been charged with sexually assaulting an intoxicated woman while on duty.

The case began, on March 30, 2011, when Officers Vasquez and Clavijo gave the alleged victim a ride home. The alleged victim attempted to enter the patrol vehicle's back seat but Officer Clavijo put her on his lap; whereupon, he sexually assaulted her. Upon arriving at the alleged victim's residence, both officers took turns sexually assaulting her. The alleged victim finally began pounding on the walls and screaming that she was being sexually assaulted. One officer was observed fleeing naked from the scene. Responding police officers found parts of one of the officer's uniform as well as his cell phone at the location. A subsequent test revealed the alleged victim had a blood alcohol level of .38 percent.

Attorneys representing the officers said the sexual act was voluntary, at which point prosecutors indicated a person with a blood alcohol level of .38 would be incapable of giving consent.

Discussion by The Law Office of Barney B. Gibbs:

The problem with charges against police officers is the great majority are false. People who are arrested and charged with crimes often have an incentive to falsely accuse police. Also, there are a great many people who hate the police and will use any opportunity to frame a police officer. However, just because there are many false claims, does not mean these claims should be ignored. It is important society be protected from dishonest police officers. Because of their powers, they are capable of doing great harm.

Charges against police officers, especially those committed on duty, must be considered among the most heinous. Not only has the officer committed a crime, he/she has also violated the trust society has in them. This loss of trust can adversely affect all police officers in the performance of their duty. Because many people believe there is a code of silence among police officers, none are to be trusted.

These two officers were put on administrative duties after they posted bail. At the very least, they should have been put on unpaid leave pending an investigation. Further, if it is proven they engaged in any sexual act on duty, with or without consent, they should be fired.

Public faith in the institution of justice is the basis of the democratic system. There was a time, not too long ago, that a majority of citizens of several large eastern cities believed their police were corrupt. The reason for this belief was that it was true! Police, by the nature of their jobs, stick together. Many would turn a blind eye to a fellow officer committing a crime, which would have involved an arrest had a citizen committed the act. Luckily, by and large, this is changing. However, police officers must be constantly vigilant in their understanding that their first duty is to justice and fairness.

New Jersey teen Khaliah Fitchette was riding a public bus when police boarded with the intent to remove a drunken man. When Fichette began filming the incident with her cell phone, one of the officers told her to turn off the phone. When she refused, she was placed in handcuffs, removed from the bus and placed in a patrol car for 2 hours while police officers deleted images from her phone. The young girl's family, with the help of the ACLU, has filed a lawsuit against the Newark Police Department.

This is not an isolated incident. Anthony Graber was riding his motorcycle when he was pulled over. The officer who pulled Mr. Graber over was an off-duty officer in an unmarked vehicle. Without first identifying himself as a police officer, the individual drew his firearm and ordered Graber off his motorcycle. Only after the above did he identify himself as state police. Mr. Graber recorded the incident through his helmet camera and posted it to UTube when he got home. Subsequently, Mr. Graber was charged with violating the state's wiretapping statute. Charges were eventually dismissed.

A person might ask what does a police officer have to be afraid of if he is performing his duties as he should be in public? The Fraternal Order of Police seems to think that since police officers move quickly, they don't give a lot of thought as to what the adverse consequences to them might be. Further, anything that is going to have an chilling effect on a peace officer moving, such as apprehension he/she is being taped, could cost the officer or some citizen their life or physical well-being.

The Fraternal Order has pushed for laws which would imprison people taping police officers. Cities like Chicago have made it felony to tape a police officer.

Videotape is an important way to preserve evidence. Police use it against citizens all the time. It is pretty obvious why some officers don't like being recorded. They do not want anyone to see what they are doing. Without video, most police misconduct cases would likely be thrown out. If it is just a citizen's word against a police officer's word, the police officer will almost always prevail, without some additional evidence such as video.

What would the citizens of Los Angeles have thought after the Rodney King video was published if the LAPD began to push for the criminalization of anyone videotaping a police officer? Citizens would have viewed such an effort as an abomination meant only to shield wrongdoing by police.

Police should be thankful they are being videotaped. This way there will be no false claims of police misconduct. An officer, when he begins every shift, will know he must act appropriately. By always behaving as if he/she is on video, incidents of police misconduct will be fewer.

A judge has recommended New Jersey State Trooper Sheila McKaig receive a 7 month suspension because she was stopped three times while driving after drinking.

It was reported all three stops occurred within a 3 month period. Although peace officers suspected Trooper McKaig had been driving under the influence, she was never tested, arrested or even issued a citation. Rather, after one incident, Trooper McKaig was transported to the police station and subsequently given a ride home by an officer from her department. No disciplinary action was originally instituted.

The present action only started when a letter alleging a cover-up began circulating at headquarters. Apparently, the way the situation was handled is under investigation.

This story is not really about an officer who used poor judgment and drove three times when she may have been under the influence. This story is about the fair and impartial application of the law. It is not difficult for people to see the hypocrisy of this situation. Police officers aggressively enforce DUI laws, except when it applies to them. There is no question, had a regular citizen been stopped under these circumstances, he/she would have been arrested. This is the old "Do as I say, not as I do." It must be comforting for some peace officers to know they will not be subject to the justice they dish out to others.

It is important the characters of our peace officers be beyond reproach. Their first commitment must be to justice. Favoritism has no place in our judicial system. The officers who overlooked Trooper McKaig's transgressions should have been immediately punished. Their actions placed Trooper McKaig as well as the public in danger and damaged the character of their department.

A former corrections officer charged with rape and kidnapping has entered a plea of no contest to a lesser charge and will testify against his co-defendant.

Ex-Corrections Officer Jeff Jelinek, who was charged with the rape and kidnapping of a young mother in Fontana, was facing a possible life sentence. In return for his testimony against friend and co-defendant Anthony Orban, Jelinek will be sentenced to approximately 5 years in state prison. Jelinek pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon, accessory after the fact and false imprisonment.

This case made headlines in 2010 when Jelinek and Orban, after a day spent drinking, began stalking women. Orban subsequently spotted the victim leaving work and forced her at gunpoint to a secluded location, where he raped and physically assaulted her. The sexual assault and beatings continued for nearly 2 hours. At one point, Orban sent pictures and emails to Jelinek documenting the assault. The victim was able to escape when Orban became distracted. Orban left his gun and glasses in the victim's car.

What makes this case so disturbing is that both defendants were sworn peace officers. Orban was a detective in Orange County and Jelinek was a corrections officer. Further, while getting drunk that day, both officers were carrying firearms. Police officers are human beings just like everyone else and are liable to make mistakes just like everyone else. However, the screening process used to hire these two individuals should be carefully reviewed. Both of these officers' work performance reviews should also be scanned in order to see what possible "red flags" were present. It is understandable that a peace officer can get a DUI after a night out on the town. But for two officers, from different agencies, to kidnap, rape and beat a woman leads one to believe there must have been some previous signs which may have gone unnoticed.

Michael Garten has pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter in the 2006 beating death of fellow inmate John Chamberlain. Eight other inmates, who were allegedly involved in the fatal attack, await trial. Although Mr. Garten appeared to have hit the victim one time, it was determined he was not one of the heavy hitters or major instigators.

Inmates at the Orange County Jail Theo Lacy Facility wrongfully believed the victim was a child molester. Chamberlain, in fact, was in custody for possession of child pornography. Chamberlain was found unconscious after the attack and died at the hospital. Deputies on duty at the time apparently did not see the beating taking place.

Inmates originally stated deputies told them Chamberlain was a child molester, essentially setting up the fight. In the prison culture, child molesters are the most despicable type of criminal and are singled out for abuse. In addition, inmates can sometimes get in trouble in jail if they do not attack or assist in an attack on a child molester.

What is interesting about this case is how did these inmates come to single out Chamberlain? If he was in custody for say a DUI, it could be said the prisoners just made a mistake and attacked the wrong man. Chamberlain, however, was in custody for possession of child pornography, something that one would not tell fellow inmates. Although not a child molestation charge, some inmates might take offense at this type of crime and act accordingly. These inmates appeared to have been told by someone that Chamberlain was a child molester. Once this was done, the shot-caller acted accordingly and the eight other inmates were obliged to join in or face retribution.

Although it is not unheard of for police officers to be arrested for driving under the influence, it is uncommon for them to be arrested for driving under the influence while on duty. It is reported Florida State Trooper Lisa Orshowitz was taken into custody after she hit a curb and blew out the tire of her patrol car. It is alleged the trooper had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, was uneasy on her feet and failed her sobriety tests.

Most of us understand police officers are human beings and, as such, make mistakes. There are many instances of police officers being arrested for DUI while off duty. This is more common nowadays because, even though there is still a "good old boy" mentality in many police departments, fewer officers are willing to let another officer walk for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the evolution of law enforcement in America. I believe police officers now are better trained than ever before and this training is reflected in the attitude they exhibit in their profession. While many older police officers were not so interested in the civil rights of citizens they encountered on patrol, this may be somewhat different now because officers are instructed that with the proliferation of video cameras and large verdicts against misbehaving officers, they could be held responsible for any malfeasance they exhibit. To let a drunken individual drive home only because he/she is a police officer not only endangers society as a whole, it also endangers the career of any police officer who allowed him/her to do so.

Finally, there is a basic issue of character in this type of case. Whereas a police officer arrested for a DUI off duty should be subjected to the same fines and penalties as any other citizen, it speaks volumes about the character of an officer who cites and arrests citizens for crimes all the while committing them herself!