California Sheriff Toughens DUI Penalties for Deputies

[westcoast]

California Sheriff Toughens DUI Penalties for Deputies

Posted: January 30th, 2008 10:11 AM EDT

CHRISTINA JEWETT
Sacramento Bee (California)

Four Sacramento County Sheriff's deputies have been charged with drunken driving the past four months, nudging Sheriff John McGinness to boost penalties for the offense to a baseline of 20 days off work with no pay.

None of the officials who were arrested were on duty at the time. Two of the drivers were involved in collisions just before their arrests, and one female lieutenant is accused of having a blood-alcohol level more than three times the legal limit.

McGinness sent out a memo to deputies in mid-December, urging them to think about drunken driving incidents that have killed one local officer and sent another to state prison.

"Do not allow yourself to engage in conduct which has the potential to result in either of these outcomes," the sheriff's memo says.

One of the four deputies was arrested after the memo came out.

Sheriff's union vice president Brannon Polete said the department has punished drunken drivers with two or three days off without pay -- far fewer than the 20 days off without pay that McGinness instituted.

"I think it needs to be taken seriously," Polete said. "There is a higher standard for law enforcement, but there is the human factor. We make mistakes."

Polete said he's talked to two of the offending officers, who are "punishing themselves" more than the department could penalize them.

The first drunken driver incident was highly publicized. On Oct. 4, Sgt. Chris Guerrero, 41, was pulled over by a Roseville Police officer on Douglas Boulevard near Harding Boulevard at about 12:45 a.m.

Two passengers -- a sheriff's sergeant and deputy -- exited Guerrero's car and began yelling at the Roseville officer not to arrest the 41-year-old, implying that he would start a "war."

The Roseville Police officer allowed a bystander to drive Guerrero home. That Roseville Police officer is facing an Internal Affairs probe by Roseville Police. Sheriff's Internal Affairs are also probing Guerrero and the sergeant and deputy's roles in the incident.

Guerrero was charged with drunken driving in November and court records say his blood-alcohol level was .16, twice the legal limit of .08.

Guerrero's attorney, Joseph Hougnon, said the arrest and sobriety test were conducted improperly and he plans to fight the charges.

The next DUI arrest came less than a week later. Deputy Carlos Cabrera, 28, was arrested by a California Highway Patrol officer on Highway 50 west of Scott Road. The arrest citation says Cabrera was in a collision and had been driving with a blood alcohol level of .16, also twice the legal limit.

Cabrera pled no contest in December to one count of drunken driving and was sentenced to 60 hours of community service and informal probation.

Lt. Jill Joanne Taylor also crashed before she was arrested for drunken driving. On Dec. 6, she veered her Toyota Sequoia SUV off of South River Road in Yolo County and hit a tree that was 12 feet from the road, said CHP officer Phil Gruidl.

Gruidl said paramedics came to the scene and transported Taylor to UC Davis Medical Center.

Documents filed in court say Taylor's blood alcohol level was .28 -- nearly quadruple the legal limit. Taylor was charged with DUI and an enhancement for having a blood-alcohol level above .15.

Taylor resigned weeks after the incident, sources say. Reached by phone, Taylor declined to comment.

Several weeks after McGinness fired off his Dec. 15 missive, 22-year-old deputy Daniel Rouse was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving Jan. 12 after a CHP officer saw him driving erratically on the ramp on to eastbound Highway 50 from southbound Capital City Freeway.

Rouse was booked and released from jail and has since been charged with driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level above .08.

McGinness said that all of the suspected drunken drivers -- except the lieutenant who resigned -- are subject to pending Internal Affairs investigations.

[westcoast]

I don't want to start a debate about Professional Courtesy because that is up to each individual officer/deputy to decide.

My question is about the discipline from getting an off-duty DUI. How can you still function as a peace officer if your license is suspended ("per se" from the DUI arrest)? It doesn't make sense to me. Are officers/deputies normally terminated after the IA investigation is done?

[LA DEP]

My agency is in the process of making a first time offense 15 days on the bricks.

[LA DEP]

Westcoast,

You can still function with a suspended CDL....you have to work the desk, or a 'non-driving' function.

When you get a limited CDL (to/from/at work and alcohol classes) then you can work the field again if your station captain approves it.

[GB0610]

I don't want to start a debate about Professional Courtesy because that is up to each individual officer/deputy to decide.

My question is about the discipline from getting an off-duty DUI. How can you still function as a peace officer if your license is suspended ("per se" from the DUI arrest)? It doesn't make sense to me. Are officers/deputies normally terminated after the IA investigation is done?

Professional courtesy typically, no longer at least, extends to DUI. There are to many legal issues that have risen to the surface over the years......whether its ethical could still be up to debate, I guess (not in my book though).

Ya, I will say I am pretty shocked to hear that 20 days on the beach is viewed as a serious punishment. I could see 3-6 months as bare minimum. But in my opinion, termination would not be to excessive.

Its amazing that a couple of officers were quoted as saying that the arresting Officer would be starting a war in making that arrest. That in and of itself, if true, would also be grounds for termination in my book.

[nobody33]

Its amazing that a couple of officers were quoted as saying that the arresting Officer would be starting a war in making that arrest. That in and of itself, if true, would also be grounds for termination in my book.

It must be nice to work somewhere where they hire robots that don't make mistakes or have errors in judgment.

A DUI charge costs several grand, is 8 hours in jail, and pretty much screws up someones life already... why make it worse with more punishments? Why should cops get punished twice?

[MrBug708]

It must be nice to work somewhere where they hire robots that don't make mistakes or have errors in judgment.

A DUI charge costs several grand, is 8 hours in jail, and pretty much screws up someones life already... why make it worse with more punishments? Why should cops get punished twice?

I would hope that Peace Officers would be held higher then the law. Yes, everyone is human, but a lot of trust is place in them

[LB Blue]

Sometimes I don't get some cops (mostly CHP). It's like some come from a different breed. I can understand a cop hooking another cop for DUI if they struck a vehicle or hit someone. What I don't understand is that they pull over a cop for whatever the violation is, and hook him/her for DUI just based on that alone.

We all (cops) arent robots and do are job by the letter of the law all the time, thats why we have a thing called "DISCRETION". And no I not saying cops should get away with breaking the law, but give me a break and lookout as if you were the one behind that wheel. I have allowed citizens to walk home after a suspected DUI because of the conditions were I thought my decision was best for it. We all break the law no matter who you are, but the penalties should be the same for all. Cops already got it worst in other offenses such as DV, where we lose our jobs due to the law not allowing you to carry after convicted. And DV can be as little as a shove to get your spouse off of you.

I have given 3 or 4 cops (also civilians) breaks after coming from parties and I would expect the same, but ofcourse everyone is different. I usually tell people I give breaks to have someone pick them up and have someone else rive their vehicle. It's that simple. Why kill someone career after it took damn year the world to get. Thats just me and my 2 cent. I will continue to use my discretion as long as I have that option.

[LB Blue]

Oh yea, DUI is still just a MISDEMEANOR, right? ok, thats what I thought. Thats only if you don't hurt anyone while drunk.

[Don951]

[QUOTE=LB Blue;1087658]Sometimes I don't get some cops (mostly CHP). It's like some come from a different breed. I can understand a cop hooking another cop for DUI if they struck a vehicle or hit someone. What I don't understand is that they pull over a cop for whatever the violation is, and hook him/her for DUI just based on that alone. QUOTE]

Why do you think the CHP is a different breed. Is it because they have more strict regulations?

[LB Blue]

[QUOTE=LB Blue;1087658]Sometimes I don't get some cops (mostly CHP). It's like some come from a different breed. I can understand a cop hooking another cop for DUI if they struck a vehicle or hit someone. What I don't understand is that they pull over a cop for whatever the violation is, and hook him/her for DUI just based on that alone. QUOTE]

Why do you think the CHP is a different breed. Is it because they have more strict regulations?

Regulations have nothing to do with your choice of using your own discretion at enforcing the law. I don't have a problem with CHP's in general, we are all part of the same family, but I once was told by a CHP officer "you, know we don't have a problem hooking cops" and was proud of it. Like I said before, thats just me. I don't speak for all the cops or even the ones on this forum. These are my feelings only.:cool: (I love that cool icon for some reason)

[GB0610]

It must be nice to work somewhere where they hire robots that don't make mistakes or have errors in judgment.

A DUI charge costs several grand, is 8 hours in jail, and pretty much screws up someones life already... why make it worse with more punishments? Why should cops get punished twice?

Stating that arresting an adjacent city's officer is going to start a "war" shows a tremendous amount of arrogance that runs deeper that what was said that night. It shows that they thought they were above the law and that they take the responsibilities of their job as some sort of game or that of "1upmanship", not realizing that this is real life, not a movie. That is childish and repugnant!

We are held to a higher standard. Plain and simple. DUI is a serious crime. Yes it is still a (M) charge, but it is a hot issue and a crime that takes sooo many lives. Why should we as cops be allowed to skate home because of our positions? I will say that I have NEVER written a cop I have pulled over for a traffic violation a ticket. But with the serious nature of DUI, that courtesy won't extend.

[GB0610]

We all (cops) arent robots and do are job by the letter of the law all the time, thats why we have a thing called "DISCRETION". And no I not saying cops should get away with breaking the law, but give me a break and lookout as if you were the one behind that wheel. .

This statement is a complete contradiction.

So we should use discretion when it comes to arresting our brothers in blue, since we "are all law breakers anyway" (said elsewhere in your post). But then you go on to say that we (cops) should "not get away with breaking the law". So which is it?!?

If I were drunk behind the wheel, I would expect to hooked for it.

[Se7en]

It must be nice to work somewhere where they hire robots that don't make mistakes or have errors in judgment.

A DUI charge costs several grand, is 8 hours in jail, and pretty much screws up someones life already... why make it worse with more punishments? Why should cops get punished twice?

Police officers are, and should be held to a higher standard. If you drink and drive you do not deserve this job, there are too many who would love to do this job willing to take their place.

[JSL0506]

It's interesting in how some feel that cops "shouldn't be punished twice", and how these guys and gals should allegedly get a break because they have a badge.This goes hand in hand with the fact that the hiring process is subjective, skewed, and inefficient.Obviously the procedures in hiring are a joke when cops are going out and getting tanked or "just having one drink" and getting behind the wheel,they are stealing money, use of excessive force, and the ever so high washout rate which in turn feeds this constant testing with so many agencies. So is it ok that someone screws up royally after getting sworn in? While there are those in LE who contribute positively, on the other hand, the boneheads who get caught breaking the law combined with those who get away with things, it's obvious that the hiring process is failing due to this nonsense in addition to the percentage of quitters. If this wasn't true, then why would there be such constant testings with so many agencies. Overall, to say that there aren't enough qualified candidates is an efort to put the blame in the wrong place.

[LB Blue]

Stating that arresting an adjacent city's officer is going to start a "war" shows a tremendous amount of arrogance that runs deeper that what was said that night. It shows that they thought they were above the law and that they take the responsibilities of their job as some sort of game or that of "1upmanship", not realizing that this is real life, not a movie. That is childish and repugnant!

We are held to a higher standard. Plain and simple. DUI is a serious crime. Yes it is still a (M) charge, but it is a hot issue and a crime that takes sooo many lives. Why should we as cops be allowed to skate home because of our positions? I will say that I have NEVER written a cop I have pulled over for a traffic violation a ticket. But with the serious nature of DUI, that courtesy won't extend.

So you are saying, that cops should get away with minor traffic violation (M or I) but be arrested for DUI's? So, you are saying a cop who is speeding (who could possibly kill someone while speeding) would be issued a warning by you, but a cop who's driving tipsy wouldnt be given a break? I don't get it. Are you a cop? if so where?

Just so you know, I will continue to operate they way I do and continue to give breaks now and then if reasonable to give one. I'm not a robot and arrest everyone who breaks the law because if I did, I would be making 100 arrest everyday. I have bigger problems to worry about then to arrest a cop for DUI (not saying I will never, but I tend to reason with law biding people(for the most part)).

[LB Blue]

This statement is a complete contradiction.

So we should use discretion when it comes to arresting our brothers in blue, since we "are all law breakers anyway" (said elsewhere in your post). But then you go on to say that we (cops) should "not get away with breaking the law". So which is it?!?

If I were drunk behind the wheel, I would expect to hooked for it.



Where am I contradicting myself? I said I used my discretion on everyone, not just the boys and girls in blue. I also said, that I don't think we (cops) should get special treatment, but the key word is "Discretion". Are you telling me you are perfect and you don't break the law (speeding (dont care if its 2 mph over), jaywalk, spit, don't use your blinkers, ec.)? I think not, because no one is perfect and I don't care who you are or what you do as a perfession, you will do dumb things and make mistakes. Now the question is, do we (cops) hold only the "letter of the law"? maybe you do, but I don't. Does that make me a bad cop or a fair cop? That depends on who you ask and I don't really care what the next person thinks because I know I will do my job the best way I know how. period.

Remeber: We can arrest for any violation no matter how small it is, but do we? NO (but you can be robo cop if you want)

[GB0610]

Using discretion is of course, an important part of the job. By using discretion, I demonstrate my ability to differentiate between someone spiting on the side walk and driving blitz. ;)

And of course, I have broken the law at some level since swearing in. My point was primarily directed at your suggestion that you would give preferential treatment for DUI to a fellow cop based on his position. After all, you did say:

"I can understand a cop hooking another cop for DUI if they struck a vehicle or hit someone. What I don't understand is that they pull over a cop for whatever the violation is, and hook him/her for DUI just based on that alone"

That alone is a crime. Why wouldn't you expect to be arrested for that alone?

AND you said:

"I have given 3 or 4 cops (also civilians) breaks after coming from parties and I would expect the same".

Why would you expect the same courtesy?

It drives me nuts when cops use their badge to try and get out of things (I have never done it, been tempted though when pulled over for a traffic violation). You can't expect to be treated differently because your job. Its great when someone does recognize that you are on the same side (confidential plate comes up or you show your creds due to being armed), but it shouldn't be EXPECTED!

I think there is room for a discussion on the use of discretion. Its a sticky situation and there are grey areas. No one is perfect, I recognize that. But it personally bothers that I had to apply and get turned down so many times in the beginning due to being too in honest in my BI with the mistakes I made in my youth, while others have lied and got on in the first shot. These same guys (some, not all) are the same ones who get on the job and think they are above the law.

[GB0610]

Not to mention the legal ramifications of the Officer who let him off with the use of his professional courtesy. What happens if he gets a ride back to his car an hour after getting the courtesy lift home, and then drives it into a building, or kills someone as in the story mentioned above?

That would be on the Officer who let him off. That's a big risk for that Officer to take. Lose his job to help another guy out who wasn't taking anything but himself into consideration when he decided to drive drunk in the first place.

(These are the legal ramifications, among other, I was referring to in my original post)

[andy5746]

I hate drunk drivers. Period. Don't care who you are or what you do. Period. It is the most reckless, selfish and stupid thing you can do. It's as dangerous and indiscriminate as firing your gun in the air, only the cars weigh more than bullets. It's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed. Can you guess I've had friends and family hurt & killed by these criminals? I have been crashed into 3 times by these criminal - and one was an off duty D.A. Investigator. I wonder if someone let him go before he ran into me??

To each his own, but use your discretion wisely. You aren't doing anyone a favor if the guy continues on his way and hurts/kills someone - that night or the next time he ventures out drunk. Everyone gets an opportunity to learn from their poor choice, a DUI arrest is not the kiss of death - and it might be the wake-up call someone needs to come face to face with his drinking problem.

I know this isn't going to win me any popularity points, but I'm not in this game to win Miss Congeniality. GET A DESIGNATED DRIVER for crying out loud!!!

[LB Blue]

Great stories, sounds good. There are exceptions to every rule and by you given an example of a deputy who ended up killing the passenger, is the worst case DUI incident. If you read my statement correctly, I did say that when I do let people go on a DUI, I allow them to be driven home (not drive off or hurry home). I can sit here and come up with a million situations with bad outcomes to almost any crime, so you can give these examples all you want.

I don't expect special treatment just because I wear a badge. Maybe it sounded that way, but I did not mean it that way. I was trying to prove a point, that COPS should use their best discretion and look at all facts (not just the crime itself). We can argue this topic all day, but I rather not.

Just remember this, anything you let go (give a break to) can come back and bite you in the ***. I don't care how small the crime is. But I'm glad everyone is not the same, thats what allows this Law Enforcement community to grow and change (for the better). And until they tell me I have to arrest everyone that breaks the law with no exception, then I will continue to do my job using discretion to the best of my ability.


Here is one example of me using my judgment: I pull a guy over for a suspected DUI. I asked the guy your usual DUI question and how far is his home from here. I run the guy and found out the guy has a history of a prior DUI. This guy is going to jail.

Same situation, I run the guy and he has no criminal history, and he lives 1 mile away. He is a working man, that just had a huge argument with his wife and decided to leave the house and have a few drinks to avoid a DV. Ok, I'm putting all this together and forming my opinion. I ask the guy if he can have a friend pick him up and drive him home. Maybe park his car in a lot some where if no one can drive it to his house. Now, if he cant find anyone to drive him home, my only option to save my butt is to hook him. Now if I'm wrong for that, then I'm just wrong.

The attitude test is always a factor in my decision as well (thats with any violation tho).

[LB Blue]

I Dont Let Drunk Drivers Drive Off. If I Give You A Break, You Will Have Someone Pick You Up. Period.

We All Hate Drunk Drivers, I Would Think That You Are A Fool If You Let A Dui Driver Drive Off. Thats A Huge Liability On You If You Do That, But I Have Seen It Done.

To Avoid That, You Can Have Someone Pick Them Up Or Call A Taxi. Tow The Vehicle Away And Your Liability Problems Are Over.

[LA Copper]

LB, referencing your described scenario above:

If you let this guy go home after you've stopped him, now you've just allowed a drunk guy who initially left his house to avoid a domestic violence situation, go home drunk to the same wife who ticked him off in the first place. He's gonna be mad at her and blame her for you stopping him.

I don't think that's gonna go over too well if they get into a fight, he pounds on her, the police get called and they find out that you just let him go after stopping him for DUI a short time before. Now he gets arrested for a felony, she might end up at the hospital and the kids may end up at a relatives or worse, DCFS.

Let's face it, these are really tough situations. How about we (law enforcement) don't put others in the position in the first place to have to make this decision. I agree discretion should be used whenever possible but sometimes the situation doesn't allow for it.

[Kieth M.]

Gee, I wonder if the Sacto Co. SD has a human resources, or employee assistance program that helps employees with identifying and/or recovering from substance abuse problems? My guess is they don't, as many bosses in L.E. think that suspensions and terminations will send an adequate message to all employees that alcohol-related misconduct will not be tolerated.

Suspending employees for 5/10/20+ days does not address a drinking problem, nor does terminating them - if they are salvageable as an employee, why would an agency want to do that?

Where I used to work, we had rehabilitation agreements, which allowed an employee in trouble for alcohol-related misconduct to cut their penalty in half, but they had to attend AA, meet with a pshrink, submit to random testing, and be evaluated monthly for their job performance while under contract. Many were successful, some resumed drinking upon completion of the contract, others cheated and were terminated - but at least they got a chance to try and get recovery.

[LB Blue]

LB, referencing your described scenario above:

If you let this guy go home after you've stopped him, now you've just allowed a drunk guy who initially left his house to avoid a domestic violence situation, go home drunk to the same wife who ticked him off in the first place. He's gonna be mad at her and blame her for you stopping him.

I don't think that's gonna go over too well if they get into a fight, he pounds on her, the police get called and they find out that you just let him go after stopping him for DUI a short time before. Now he gets arrested for a felony, she might end up at the hospital and the kids may end up at a relatives or worse, DCFS.

Let's face it, these are really tough situations. How about we (law enforcement) don't put others in the position in the first place to have to make this decision. I agree discretion should be used whenever possible but sometimes the situation doesn't allow for it.


I agree, don't put us in those situations. That will solve everyones problems.

Yea, the guy could go home a still beat his wife, but he can also go home after being hooked for DUI and blam his wife for it and still beat his wife.

Point is, like you said, It's better if we don't have to deal with it at all. But reality is, at some point in everyone's (cops) career they will come across this situation and they will have to make their own decision. I'm not worried about because I don't drink and drive period. My career is not worth a M charge.

[LA DEP]

Professional courtesy typically, no longer at least, extends to DUI. There are to many legal issues that have risen to the surface over the years......whether its ethical could still be up to debate, I guess (not in my book though).

Ya, I will say I am pretty shocked to hear that 20 days on the beach is viewed as a serious punishment. I could see 3-6 months as bare minimum. But in my opinion, termination would not be to excessive.

Its amazing that a couple of officers were quoted as saying that the arresting Officer would be starting a war in making that arrest. That in and of itself, if true, would also be grounds for termination in my book.

GB0610,

20 days is a VERY serious punishment for my agency....if we get more than 30 days on the bricks in a calander year, we are unemployed. Plus, with a discipline record like this, you are looking at not getting promoted or transferred to a good job for 2-3 years.

20 days off without pay equals about a 5K to 8K fine.........PLUS all the stuff the court dumps on you.....

Termination for a first time offense, much as you might like to see it, would never fly in front of the civil service commission.

My agency does offer 'settlement agreements' were you agree to attend AA meetings, meet with the pysch docs, take random tests ect......this will get 5-10 days knocked off your sentence.

The idea is to salvage the employee and correct the problem...not throw them under the bus.....

[LB Blue]

The one thing I hate about this all, is that we (cops) can lose our career (not just the job with that one department) for a DUI, but a Lawyer, Doctor, Judge, and any other profession will not lose their jobs. I heard about a Lawyer who had 3 DUI's on him but that didnt effect his employment. You will never find a employed cop with 3 DUI history and probably not even with 2 DUI's... These Rules need to be followed by any power profession not just cops.

Yes we are held to a much higher standard, and we should. But I think those higher power people, your Lawyers and Judges should be held to the same as well. ****, they do get paid more then we do and they can afford to lose pay for 20 days. Where most cops cant afford that lost.

[LB Blue]

MBA, Did you read that I heard and aslo know a guy who is a Lawyer who has 3 DUI's and who is still employed. So, I am not living in a different world, I'm living in a world that money talks and BS walks. lol (I thought that would be pretty cool to end it with lol.)

Maybe that lawyer lied to me, who knows.

[GB0610]

The one thing I hate about this all, is that we (cops) can lose our career (not just the job with that one department) for a DUI, but a Lawyer, Doctor, Judge, and any other profession will not lose their jobs. I heard about a Lawyer who had 3 DUI's on him but that didnt effect his employment. You will never find a employed cop with 3 DUI history and probably not even with 2 DUI's... These Rules need to be followed by any power profession not just cops.

Yes we are held to a much higher standard, and we should. But I think those higher power people, your Lawyers and Judges should be held to the same as well. ****, they do get paid more then we do and they can afford to lose pay for 20 days. Where most cops cant afford that lost.

To be honest man, you are killing me!

Which is it, should we (cops) not be railed on so hard for a DUI since other professional professions aren't (lawyers, doctors), or should they (the professional professions) be held to the standard that we are?!?

I don't know what you want after reading your post three times. Again, help me understand. Do you want to be given slack for a DUI since the other "power professions" (a Dr. responsibilities and powers are TOTALLY different than ours) OR do you want them to have a 1 strike and your out rule held to them if they get a DUI?

If you believe the latter, than I will agree with you in that a lawyer/judge or Dr. EMPLOYED BY THE STATE/FED should be held to the same high standard. But as another poster said, many lawyers and doctors are private practice and are not subject to the same standards or protections.

[GB0610]

GB0610,

20 days is a VERY serious punishment for my agency....if we get more than 30 days on the bricks in a calander year, we are unemployed. Plus, with a discipline record like this, you are looking at not getting promoted or transferred to a good job for 2-3 years.

20 days off without pay equals about a 5K to 8K fine.........PLUS all the stuff the court dumps on you.....

Termination for a first time offense, much as you might like to see it, would never fly in front of the civil service commission.

My agency does offer 'settlement agreements' were you agree to attend AA meetings, meet with the pysch docs, take random tests ect......this will get 5-10 days knocked off your sentence.

The idea is to salvage the employee and correct the problem...not throw them under the bus.....

Ya, my Dept. has a deal where if you approach them with your issue (addicted to drugs, legal or illegal or a drinking problem) and ask for help BEFORE you have an issue (DUI, etc.) they will work with you to get it taken care of with no detriment to your position. I think that is commendable for both the employee and the department.

Although I won't say this is my hard and fast opinion, but none the less, I have a hard time feeling sympathy for the guy who gets loaded and drives his car and gets the DUI, then comes in the next day and says "I have a problem, please help me". Did the guy/gal only come to the realization that he has a problem because he got caught?

[LA DEP]

Ya, my Dept. has a deal where if you approach them with your issue (addicted to drugs, legal or illegal or a drinking problem) and ask for help BEFORE you have an issue (DUI, etc.) they will work with you to get it taken care of with no detriment to your position. I think that is commendable for both the employee and the department.

Although I won't say this is my hard and fast opinion, but none the less, I have a hard to feeling sympathy for the guy who get loaded and drives his car and gets the DUI, then comes in the next day and says "I have a problem, please help me". Did the guy/gal only come to the realization that he has a problem because he got caught?

We pretty much have the same thing, some of it may be REQUIRED under the federal ADA act, since alcoholism and drug abuse are considered disabilities.

and sometimes folks have to hit bottom before they realize they have a problem. one of the things that the department psychologists look for during the mandatory debrief is; did the employee just do something stupid, or do they actually have a drinking problem?...

I had a close friend and radio car partner that got hooked on vicodin.....he had three nasty on duty injuries that required multiple operations. Problem was, that he did not go to the EAP first and ask for help. He got popped for stealing a prescription pad and writing his own scrips. Needless to say, he doesnt work for my agency anymore.

[LB Blue]

To be honest man, you are killing me!

Which is it, should we (cops) not be railed on so hard for a DUI since other professional professions aren't (lawyers, doctors), or should they (the professional professions) be held to the standard that we are?!?

I don't know what you want after reading your post three times. Again, help me understand. Do you want to be given slack for a DUI since the other "power professions" (a Dr. responsibilities and powers are TOTALLY different than ours) OR do you want them to have a 1 strike and your out rule held to them if they get a DUI?

If you believe the latter, than I will agree with you in that a lawyer/judge or Dr. EMPLOYED BY THE STATE/FED should be held to the same high standard. But as another poster said, many lawyers and doctors are private practice and are not subject to the same standards or protections.


You must have selective reading, because If you read my statment once again, you would have seen this statement in it "These Rules need to be followed by any power profession not just cops."

I think that answers your question, right?

[nobody33]

The reality is that good people make mistakes. Why should a good cop, who had one too many drinks and blows a .08 BAC, have his life destroyed? Some of you are too eager to ruin people I think. Just because someone has done something wrong doesn't mean they can't be salvaged...



"there are too many who would love to do this job willing to take their place."

Not here. Its much cheaper to give someone counseling and help than it is to hire (and take a chance the person is even worse) a new person.

I think there's a lot of (newer) officers out there suffering from what I call "CHiPs" syndrome. On CHIPS did you ever see the officers give a warning- at all? never unless they got a hot call... they never used one of the most powerful benefits our job has- desecration. Solving a problem, preventing, or stopping a crime doesn't always have to end a cite or an arrest. Some officers just don't get that, and don't have the thought power to solve a problem without "dispensing justice."

That's how we end up with officers giving each other BS tickets, officers ticketing grandma for running the stop sign (instead of sending her to test at the DMV), and the 110 pound ER trauma nurse getting hooked for DUI after getting stopped for no front plate... because two drinks puts her above .08.

[Fuzz]

The reality is that good people make mistakes. Why should a good cop, who had one too many drinks and blows a .08 BAC, have his life destroyed? Some of you are too eager to ruin people I think. Just because someone has done something wrong doesn't mean they can't be salvaged...



"there are too many who would love to do this job willing to take their place."

Not here. Its much cheaper to give someone counseling and help than it is to hire (and take a chance the person is even worse) a new person.

I think there's a lot of (newer) officers out there suffering from what I call "CHiPs" syndrome. On CHIPS did you ever see the officers give a warning- at all? never unless they got a hot call... they never used one of the most powerful benefits our job has- desecration. Solving a problem, preventing, or stopping a crime doesn't always have to end a cite or an arrest. Some officers just don't get that, and don't have the thought power to solve a problem without "dispensing justice."

That's how we end up with officers giving each other BS tickets, officers ticketing grandma for running the stop sign (instead of sending her to test at the DMV), and the 110 pound ER trauma nurse getting hooked for DUI after getting stopped for no front plate... because two drinks puts her above .08.

What about the 300lb ER trauma nurses who had 6 drinks putting them above .08...... wheres the love for them:D

[sgttom]

back at the bar (or your place) :eek::D


What about the 300lb ER trauma nurses who had 6 drinks putting them above .08...... wheres the love for them:D

[vkswede]

I completely agree with Se7en...........Police officers are, and should be held to a higher standard. If you drink and drive you do not deserve this job, there are too many who would love to do this job willing to take their place.

[Kieth M.]

I completely agree with Se7en...........Police officers are, and should be held to a higher standard. If you drink and drive you do not deserve this job, there are too many who would love to do this job willing to take their place.

Let me guess, you're non-drinker since birth? Your brand of faith forbids it, perhaps?

What about the cop who was a "non-", or a "normal" drinker, before he/she saw one too many dead bodies, hearrd too many screams, or lost a partner, developed PTSD and begins to drink more heavily to self-medicate....but, otherwise, they're an employee worth helping and keeping? You make no allowance, whatsoever, for seeing too much, too soon, and standing among the dead and dying?

Gee, I wouldn't want paint you as a "TA-MOM" (tight-sphinctered member of management), but you can feel free to wear the title, should you choose.

[vkswede]

Hi Keith, Actually I drink as a matter fact I just had a shot of Brandy, but I am at home. What I meant is you do not want mix drinking with driving.

[Kieth M.]

Hi Keith, Actually I drink as a matter fact I just had a shot of Brandy, but I am at home. What I meant is you do not want mix drinking with driving.

Let me take you back to your post (#41) which says that anyone who drinks and drives does not deserve to be a cop.

Okay, so back to my question. A cop sees too much, too soon. Let's call it PTSD. He/she self-medicates and loses judgement. He/she drives DUI gets arrested and cops out to it. Doesn't hurt anyone. Considering (in LAPD's case) we've spent $100K to select, train, and equip this cop....too bad....we're all done here - send them packing. Throw him/her under the bus and move on. That's your take?

[nobody33]

What about the 300lb ER trauma nurses who had 6 drinks putting them above .08...... wheres the love for them:D

Haha good point... it's probably going to take more than 6 for that much weight! But she gets a transport home too... no one working in a trauma room goes to jail short of DV and something that puts them in prison... its just a matter of self preservation on my part. I've been there once, and I'm going to do whatever I can to keep the ER staff on team nobody33 :)

[Trinium]

I would extend professional courtesy for DUI, and I would expect the same, however, I would not say things like you will be "starting a war" thats just downright unprofessional and embarassing to my dept. (btw I haven't driven drunk in long time)

Think like this.. if you hook a cop for DUI your are hooking a guy who has risked his life every day for years, has put up with all kinds of crap, who has arrested all sorts of nefarious criminals, has cancelled family plans to work overtime and take drunks to jail who ****ed in the back of his car. Now maybe you don't drive drunk but maybe you speed like a lunatic (which is just as dangerous as deuce), drank to much at home and didn't pay enough attention to your wife and kids, slept with a prostitute, smoked weed off duty here or there, were rude and hurt peoples feelings.... you have flaws too. So do I so I wouldn't arrest another cop for DUI, I would for DV or a crime with an actual victim like dui with injury.

And dui eliminator you have some good points but the thing is I've found most deuces drive again and again after there suspended so who's to say that Dep would have stopped being dui just cuase he was caught for dui?

[code33]

What's up with all the Non-LE passing judgment?