Three Years After Fatal Crash, Indianapolis Cop Arrested For Another DWI

4/29/2013 12:19 PM ET

An Indianapolis police officer suspended of his duties has been arrested and charged with DWI for the second time, Fox59 reports.

Over the weekend, David Bisard admitted to driving drunk after he struck a utility pole and guard rail.

When an officer arrived the accident scene, Bisard blew a .17% on a Breathalyzer test which is over twice the legal limit in Indiana. He was then arrested and booked in jail.

Bisard told Indianapolis Metro Police, “I know you know who I am. I messed up today. If you guys can cut me a break I promise I will never drink again,” Indiana News Center reports. He reportedly repeated he was guilty of driving drunk in the latest incident, but was not drinking the day of “that other crash.”

Bisard was referring to the 2010 crash he caused while driving with .19% BAC. While on duty, he allegedly crashed into two motorcycles that killed one person.

4-29-13 Lawmakers slow down on DUI proposal

Supporters of a proposal to overhaul the state’s DUI laws said Wednesday they are focusing on a narrower set of changes and hoping to tackle the issue in an expected special legislative session.

By Brian M. Rosenthal

Seattle Times Olympia bureau

OLYMPIA — Lawmakers are tapping the brakes on a proposal to overhaul the state’s drunken-driving laws.

The legislation, a priority for Gov. Jay Inslee and lawmakers in both parties, had appeared on a fast track for approval before the regular legislative session ends Sunday.

But with a special session looking likely, supporters said Wednesday they plan to take the extra time as well as focus on a narrower set of proposals.

“We’re trying to change the law, and we have to be very deliberate,” said state Rep. Roger Goodman, who chairs the House Public Safety Committee. “This is complicated stuff.”

Senate Law & Justice Committee Chairman Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley, said the bill is alive and will be considered during the special session, assuming lawmakers don’t wrap up their work by Sunday.

Inslee suggested Wednesday that a special session may be needed to finish state budget negotiations and address other bills.

Both Goodman and Padden said the bill, whenever it gets a vote, will focus on repeat DUI offenders and will not include one of the centerpieces of the original proposal: a 10-year ban on alcohol purchasing by three-time offenders.

The original proposal, crafted in the aftermath of two fatal Seattle crashes that authorities have tied to alcohol, was rolled out by Inslee last week as “the most aggressive, the most effective, the most ambitious” DUI bill in state history.

But in the days since, officials from law enforcement and local governments have said much of it is unworkable or too expensive.

Goodman unveiled a scaled-back version Wednesday that did not include the alcohol ban, a statewide “24/7 sobriety program” as an alternative to imprisonment or a requirement that all cars impounded during DUI arrests be outfitted with ignition-interlock devices before being returned to the driver.

The new version would require that an interlock device be installed within 10 days of an arrest, but only for those who have been convicted of a previous DUI.

Currently, all people convicted of DUI are required to install the devices before they drive again. An ignition interlock prevents the car from starting while the driver is drunk.

The amended bill would also increase jail sentences, but not by as much as the original version. It would still expand DUI courts and restrict deferred sentencing.

Inslee spokeswoman Jaime Smith said the governor was aware of the changes and is OK with them.

On Wednesday, Inslee reiterated his desire to get the bill passed by Sunday. But that appeared increasingly unlikely after a state House Public Safety Committee meeting.

Goodman opened the meeting by saying he did not “want to give the members of the committee some impression that we’re trying to jam something through without adequate deliberation.”

State Rep. Sherry Appleton, D-Poulsbo, immediately chimed in: “I really think we’re jamming this through. I mean, I don’t like to do a bill that’s only 5 days old.”

Several other lawmakers also complained.

After closed-door deliberations, Goodman announced he was delaying a scheduled vote.

“It does feel like we’re rushing this too much,” said Goodman, who did not announce a time for the next committee meeting.

State senators working on their own version of DUI legislation announced they, too, were slowing down, as the Law & Justice Committee rescheduled a Thursday meeting for Friday.

Padden said his proposal will still include a provision to make DUI a felony on the fourth offense instead of the fifth.

But he said he still has to figure out how to pay for the additional incarceration costs.

Brian M. Rosenthal: 360-236-8267 or brosenthal@seattletimes.com.

On Twitter @brianmrosenthal

Supreme Court Backs Warrants For Blood Tests In DUI Cases

April 17, 2013 by Nina Totenberg NPR

The Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test. The vote was 8-to-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter.

A photographic screen hangs in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is undergoing renovations. On Wednesday, the justices will hear arguments in a case that asks whether police without a warrant can administer a blood test to a suspected drunken driver.

Tyler McNeely was pulled over late at night after a state trooper observed him driving erratically. When McNeely refused to take a Breathalyzer test, the officer drove him to a local hospital and ordered blood drawn for an alcohol test. The officer did not seek a warrant, even though he had done so in previous cases. The state of Missouri contended that because alcohol naturally dissipates in the bloodstream, each passing moment means valuable evidence is being lost, and so a warrant is never required for a blood draw.

The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that in most circumstances there is adequate time to get a warrant. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, said that in the modern world of technology, police can often obtain a warrant quickly by using their cellphones or by email, and that in most jurisdictions a magistrate is available at all hours to grant a warrant request.

If an emergency requires officers to dispense with the warrant requirement, Sotomayor said, that determination must be made on a “case-by-case” basis and later justified in court. In addition, she noted, because officers must typically take a suspect to a hospital for the blood draw, some delay and some dissipation of alcohol is “inevitable.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito, wrote separately, agreeing in part with the majority but taking a different approach. They said that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood does not necessarily justify forgoing a warrant, but said that law enforcement officials need clearer rules and guidelines for when they are out in the field. They would have given the law enforcement officer greater discretion.

In dissent, Justice Thomas agreed with Missouri that the natural dissipation of blood alcohol constitutes an emergency that exempts law enforcement officers from the general requirement of a warrant.