drunk officer kills motorcyclist

[XMil]

I'd like to read up on some other similar incidents involving cops killing people while driving drunk, can you post some links to those stories?

Glad to help.

Cops Busted for Drunk Driving

Not that many deaths, but about 275 DUI's.

 

[jsharmon7]

Glad to help.

Cops Busted for Drunk Driving

Not that many deaths, but about 275 DUI's.

I was looking more for stories about drunk cops killing people and then allegedly covering it up, as is being reported currently. That's a pretty interesting website though, I am going to read through those articles.

 

[Tactical Dave]

I love it how NO officer on here want's to comment on why it is IMPD policy to get a drug/alcohol test when involved in a wreck but that it was overlooked untill that FACT said something...... I figured someone would at least say that it does not look good.

I have also heard that the FACT officer was either let go or moved or fired or something...

Im sure part of the demotions was because of them being scape goats.... but you have to have done at least a little wrong to warrent it... period.

My neighbor went to the circle for the protest Friday night and said there was some MAD people there..... all the IMPD guys near me have seemed to have gone into hibernation....


For those that have Facebook check this out,

We the people want justice and no special treatment for Ex-Officer Bisard | Facebook

 

[Tactical Dave]

I have no doubt about that...that there are more. But the number is small...and those who are will eventually show their true colors.

I will say however that the number is not nearly as high as some here that have an axe to grind proclaim.

Ranger...it happens in all walks of life. It's unfortunate that it reflects badly on so many good men and women. But it will always be there...there is no way around it. They are nothing more that a cross section of society.

There is good and bad in everything.

I agree the number is small, and that every type of buisness has it's bad apples.......

However when the police force that is supposed to be protecting us is in the news every week for something bad then how does that look?

Now in the news they are saying an IMPD officer is getting in trouble for failing to report a hit and run?????? I mean seriously.......

I work for an airline, I tend to be a little defensive when people jump on airlines bad mouthing them and ticket costs because I understand the realities of the buisness so I can unterstand officers on here getting defensive.... because I am not in their shoes...... but when I see an airline in the news because someone did something stupid like falsifying maintenance records or something I shake my head and get quite mad...... Yes there are A LOT of people that work in the airline industry and the bad apples are a minute percentage BUT when they screw up it makes everyone look bad and when you defend them it just makes you the denfender look bad.



Here is something else everyone, my brother is an EMT here in town, he said apparently this officer was not the primary unit going for this NON feloney warrent.... said there was no reason he should have been lights and sirens..... (we all know that) but said that if he rolls hot and is not the primary ambulance he gets fired...... said that if he gets in a crash and does not go straight in for a drug alcohol test he gets fired....... but it seems with IMPD even though the policy stats that you have to go get it done that if high ranking officers are on scene that that policy can be ignoored for a while...... but we all know my brother would get fired in a heart beat and so would any one of us.

 

[Field King]

the blood was drawn from a guilty cop....seems those are always botched..

 

[phylodog]

It does not look good. It looks very, very bad.

I've gone into hibernation. Why wouldn't I? I feel bad for Denny or anyone else who has to walk around in uniform and have everyone out there look at them as if they were personally responsible for what happened. It's not a good time to be an IMPD officer, guilt by association isn't much fun. At least I don't wear a uniform 95% of the time.

 

[duckman714]

There is good and bad everywhere in life, but the press only likes the bad. I think the drunk should be fired and spend the rest of his life in jail, but that does'nt make all the men and women taking flying lead in the streets to protect us bad. IMPD is not the Pacers.

 

[phylodog]

Couple points of interest and I'm going to go back to just reading this thread:

1. The Methodist Occupation Health facility where the blood was drawn is the same facility used by IMPD for random drug testing. The blood draw is valid for use in departmental discipline but it does not meet the legal criteria to be admissible as evidence in court.

If no one who had come in contact with Bisard at the crash scene detected intoxication then the proper departmental procedures were followed. If someone did detect intoxication and knew that a blood draw from this facility would not be admissible, they should be punished for the cover up.

2. Bisard is currently suspended without pay pending termination. This is the best the Chief of Police can do at this time. Anyone recommended for hire or for termination must be approved by the Merit Board. The Chief alone does not have the authority to fire an officer, only to recommend termination to the Merit Board.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Couple points of interest and I'm going to go back to just reading this thread:

1. The Methodist Occupation Health facility where the blood was drawn is the same facility used by IMPD for random drug testing. The blood draw is valid for use in departmental discipline but it does not meet the legal criteria to be admissible as evidence in court.

If no one who had come in contact with Bisard at the crash scene detected intoxication then the proper departmental procedures were followed. If someone did detect intoxication and knew that a blood draw from this facility would not be admissible, they should be punished for the cover up.

2. Bisard is currently suspended without pay pending termination. This is the best the Chief of Police can do at this time. Anyone recommended for hire or for termination must be approved by the Merit Board. The Chief alone does not have the authority to fire an officer, only to recommend termination to the Merit Board.

I thought it was policy that you had to go for a blood draw after a crash regardless of what other officers thought or did the other officer on here forget to mention that? I am not being smart honestly, just curious.

I am glad he is not sitting at home being able to collect a pay check.

 

[phylodog]

I have not read the policy recently but from my understanding it is department policy to test any officer involved in a fatality. The difference is that this is considered an internal department procedure and a test conducted at Methodist Occupation is sufficient. This is not considered part of a criminal investigation, if it were then the blood draw would have been conducted at a hospital according to the law. I expect the policy will change now to avoid a similar situation from occurring in the future.

As was discussed earlier in the thread, an officer must submit to a test as part of his employment. Submitting to a test as part of a criminal investigation is something different entirely. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how this difference will be handled in the future.

If you believe all of the officers at the scene that no one detected intoxication then the proper procedure was followed. There was a failure to detect intoxication for sure, but no intentional wrongdoing took place.

I was not there and have not spoken to anyone who was. I don't know Bisard and have no idea of his relationship with alcohol.

 

[Tactical Dave]

I have not read the policy recently but from my understanding it is department policy to test any officer involved in a fatality. The difference is that this is considered an internal department procedure and a test conducted at Methodist Occupation is sufficient. This is not considered part of a criminal investigation, if it were then the blood draw would have been conducted at a hospital according to the law. I expect the policy will change now to avoid a similar situation from occurring in the future.

As was discussed earlier in the thread, an officer must submit to a test as part of his employment. Submitting to a test as part of a criminal investigation is something different entirely. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how this difference will be handled in the future.

If you believe all of the officers at the scene that no one detected intoxication then the proper procedure was followed. There was a failure to detect intoxication for sure, but no intentional wrongdoing took place.

I was not there and have not spoken to anyone who was. I don't know Bisard and have no idea of his relationship with alcohol.

Thanks for clarifying........ One would think that the policy would allready read that if there is a fatality that even if nobody thinks you have been drinking that you should go regardless for a blood draw.....


I am sure the law suites are allready being drawn up over all this....

 

[phylodog]

Thanks for clarifying........ One would think that the policy would allready read that if there is a fatality that even if nobody thinks you have been drinking that you should go regardless for a blood draw.....


I am sure the law suites are allready being drawn up over all this....

Well they do in a sense. The problem is that it is done as a requirement of the job. This is the procedure that was followed because no one suspected intoxication (from what is being said).

If done as part of a criminal investigation of the crash then the officer falls back to the same rights as any other citizen and there must be probable cause to draw blood without consent.

***Hypothetically***

If officers at the scene had detected intoxication, Bisard could have been forced to submit to a blood draw via a warrant signed by a judge. This procedure is much more common and well known by department personnel and would have been conducted at a proper facility.

I fully expect there will be some serious lawsuits filed in this case. I also expect some significant changes to polices with regard to departmental crashes involving death or serious bodily injury.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Well they do in a sense. The problem is that it is done as a requirement of the job. This is the procedure that was followed because no one suspected intoxication (from what is being said).

If done as part of a criminal investigation of the crash then the officer falls back to the same rights as any other citizen and there must be probable cause to draw blood without consent.

***Hypothetically***

If officers at the scene had detected intoxication, Bisard could have been forced to submit to a blood draw via a warrant signed by a judge. This procedure is much more common and well known by department personnel and would have been conducted at a proper facility.

I fully expect there will be some serious lawsuits filed in this case. I also expect some significant changes to polices with regard to departmental crashed involving death or serious bodily injury.

I know some companies make you sign something when you are hired stating that they have ramdom drug tests and that if you are involved in a crash you have to take a drug/alcohol test...... I guess more then anything I am suprised that IMPD does not have this also considering that part of the job is driving a "company" vehicle on "company" time ya know? Not to mention the speeds that the cars are driven at..... just makes my brain hurt.......

 

[Joe Williams]

I know some companies make you sign something when you are hired stating that they have ramdom drug tests and that if you are involved in a crash you have to take a drug/alcohol test...... I guess more then anything I am suprised that IMPD does not have this also considering that part of the job is driving a "company" vehicle on "company" time ya know? Not to mention the speeds that the cars are driven at..... just makes my brain hurt.......

I think what he's trying to say is that they DO have that policy, and it was that policy that was followed. However, the procedures used to implement that policy are intended for administrative, not criminal, action. They cannot use that evidence against the officer anymore than they could use your company **** test against you for a criminal drug charge.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If officers at the scene had detected intoxication,

IF???

Cops can smell a Purdue student 100 meters away at .04 on the PBT (oh, let's not forget to write "the impurities of an alcoholic beverage were overwhelming and he was the most intoxicated person I have obversed" in the police report), but they cannot smell .19 while talking to Bisard?

Maybe the uniform creates a smell force field?

.09s lean and stagger from the vehicles. .08s are barely coherent. However, .19, heck, at .19 you're ready to fly the Space Shuttle.

This fish rots from the head down--its big, rotten bald fish head.

 

[phylodog]

We have the same policy. The problem is that this is considered coercion to give up your right to privacy and can't be used in court.

A drug test required by and submitted to your company would also not be admissible in court for criminal proceedings against one of your employees. Therein lies the rub in all of this.

If there was an accident resulting in death at your company there would likely be two different investigations. One internal by your company where the employee would be required to take a drug test to keep his job. If the employee refuses, they are fired. The and LE agency of jurisdiction would come in to investigate also. If the investigating officer believed drugs or alcohol were a factor and had probable cause, that officer could obtain a warrant to require the employee to take a test.

The problem is that the two different investigations here were conducted by the same people and at the same time. From what has been said none of the investigating officers believed alcohol was a factor so there was no secondary blood draw, either by consent or via a warrant. If this is the truth then the failure was on the investigating officers to detect Bisard's intoxication.

 

[cordex]

I was watching the local news and during a commercial break there was an anti-OWI ad on. It starts out with a split screen of a guy in a bar, and a police officer. The guy is getting sloshed, the cop is getting ready for patrol. The guy heads out the door to go home, the cop heads out of the station to go on duty. Both men get in their cars and start driving. Slowly the split screen resolves into one and the cop car lights up the drunk driver. The narrator then soberly intones:
"If you're out there drinking and driving, remember: We're out there too."

Yeah, that's an unfortunate commercial to be running right now.

 

[phylodog]

IF???

Cops can smell a Purdue student 100 meters away at .04 on the PBT (oh, let's not forget to write "the impurities of an alcoholic beverage were overwhelming and he was the most intoxicated person I have obversed" in the police report), but they cannot smell .19 while talking to Bisard?

Yes, If. That is the question the FBI will be investigating. Everything hinges on that if. As I already stated I was not there, I have not spoken with anyone who was and I do not know Bisard. If it was detected and ignored then those involved deserve to be punished for violating the public trust. I did not seek out this profession to be associated with criminals.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Yes, If. That is the question the FBI will be investigating. Everything hinges on that if. As I already stated I was not there, I have not spoken with anyone who was and I do not know Bisard. If it was detected and ignored then those involved deserve to be punished for violating the public trust. I did not seek out this profession to be associated with criminals.

Thanks for clearing everything up.......... glad at least one officer on here decided to.........

Sadly I think it would be easy for any officer that did think he was drunk but did not want to say anything and say he was fine to tell the FBI the same thing.... that they thought he was fine and then that might be the end of it..... we may never know......

 

[Kirk Freeman]

All day I read how horribly intoxicated people are at .08 or .09, how they stink, how they fumble with wallets, how they stagger, how they lean, how they slur words with no volume modulation, and how miserably they fail unrecorded FSTs.

West Lafayette cops will sprint 100 yards to run down college kids coming out of bars at .04 after smelling "the impurities associated with an alcoholic beverage." Purdue cops can smell alcohol in a dorm lobby and arrest someone three floors up. However, IPD cannot smell a drunk within conversation range.

Later I get to talk to prosecutors who pull on their lapels, rock on their heels, and lecture me about the "acceptance of responsibility" and "doing the right thing" (just don't bring up Ms. DePrez).

I refuse to accept the inane notion that a gaggle of police officers and the FACT completely missed any fair probability that Bisard was intoxicated. He was .19 and there's a crushed lifeless body in a platic bag in front of them.

I do agree with phylo. I hope the feds do get to the bottom of it. This does not bode well for the future of Indianapolis law enforcement and the rule of law in general.