And you wonder why people don't trust the justice system?!?

[Donald]

This case and result is just ridiculous. How many more times will this sort of thing happen?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story ... alcomments

Judge throws out impaired-driving charges against ex-officer
A provincial court judge has decided that a breathalyzer test given to an off-duty Edmonton police officer violated his rights.

Douglas Kurtis Brown faced five counts of dangerous driving, five counts of impaired driving and one count of blowing over the legal limit following a crash last spring that seriously hurt a teenage driver.

But Judge Michael Allen threw out the impaired driving-related charges Thursday, saying the rookie police officer who was investigating the crash didn't take proper and complete notes. Nor did he file a report that would have supported reasonable grounds for conducting a breathalyzer, the judge said.

The only charges Brown now faces are the five counts of dangerous driving.

Brown allegedly sped through a red light at the intersection of 66 Street and Whitemud Drive around 2:15 a.m. May 11, 2008, and plowed into a pickup truck with four people inside.

The three passengers scrambled out, but the 18-year-old driver was seriously injured after he was trapped inside the burning truck and rescued by others at the scene.

At the time, the Edmonton police force suspended Brown without pay. He has since resigned from the force.

[Nark]

As much as this might piss of a reasonable person, you have to respect the process of law.

The purpose of a Judge is to ensure the evidence presented meets certain requirements. In this case, it appears the rookie cop screwed the pooch when collecting the circumstantial evidence (breathalyzer, report requiring probable cause to evaluate the person, etc...) The judge had enough foresight to see that if the evidence was presented, it would be grounds for appeal down the road.

Despite the dismissal of some of these charges, this is proof the justice system works.

[Donald]

It would be really interesting to see a study done showing the percentage of cases getting dismissed on technicalities when there is a cop involved versus not.

[ronjeremy]

..

[Nark]

I'm not defending the alleged drunk cop who caused a young lady severe harm, however this isn't a technicality that he avoided a more serve indictment. This is another example of how the complicated world the Justice System works.

A very high percentage of people who are indicted plead out before getting to trial. I believe around 80%. These are the people who know they are guilty, and don't want a more severe punishment if they ride the system out. (It's pretty hard to appeal a guilty plea.) For those who plead not-guilty, the judge has an enormous responsibility ensuring that all rules set forth by the government and prior case law are met to ensure a fair trail for the accused, who by the way doesn't have to prove his innocence. It is the responsibility of the Crown to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


In many cases under the appellate process, sentences are reversed, and the guilty party walks out of jail because of the way evidence was presented, or not presented at all. More often than not they walk out a free person, as they cannot be tried again under Double Jeopardy. Schedule B, para 11 of the Cdn Charter of Rights and Freedom.


So in this case Justice was served, as this former police officer is going to trial on the five counts of dangerous driving. He can face up to two and a half years in jail if guilty on all five counts, or as little as $1000 dollar fine.

Time for his peers to decide 1) if he's guilty and 2) what his penalty should be.

[ronjeremy]

If my post came across as saying that the officer got off too easily or that the justice system is totally wrong, I did not mean it that way. The point I was trying to get across is that he didn't get off just because he is a cop. There are cases thrown out daily for technicalities that exist because of the complicated legal system. These "technicalities" can be as simple as the wrong date put on one of the reports or as it sounds in this case, the fact that sufficient notes were not made. People need to realize that this is broadcast in the media because he was a cop, people right or wrong hold them to a higher standard. Yes, the one charge has been stayed but that has nothing to do with his profession.

[Hedley]

he didn't get off just because he is a cop

I am reminded of a case, a few years back, where an Ottawa
cop got drunk, got into his car, and killed a kid on a bicycle near
Bell's Corner's. He didn't stick around - he took off, and later
claimed he thought he had "hit a deer"

His buddies muddied the paperwork up enough that he literally
got away with murder.

I wish the rest of us could have our paperwork similarly fouled up!

The so-called "justice" system exonerated him, but public
outrage got him kicked off the force.

There's an old saying that when a cop is kicked off the
force, if a civilian had done it, he would have gone to jail.

Perk of the job, I guess.

[rigpiggy]

Which reminds me what has happened to "monty" aka the guy who tased dziekanski

[crazy_aviator]

The police "take care of their own" there is NO seamless , unbiased and fair justice system in Canada and there never shall be !!! The mentality of the force is thusly " we are doing a great and difficult job , dont worry about the little things and DO take care of your own , lest some day , you may need help from a brother ( to lie, cover-up or cheat ) and he/she is not there for you " There is a "code" and in part , the "law" is ABOVE the law !!! DOGS !!

[Wilbur]

Conviction rates for impaired and BTA Over are very low across the board; somewhere in the range of 30%.

At a point in history, I know that police did tend to let other police get away with certain things like MVA infractions and impaired driving. However, while cops may get away with more warnings for minor MVA infractions than the average person, the days of a free pass on impaired driving are long gone for the most part.

Attitudes toward moral issues in society tend to be similarily reflected within law enforcement circles. 30 Years ago, drinking and driving was illegal, but socially acceptable. As result, police tended to give warnings to anyone who was moderately impaired and only charged those who were thoroughly pissed or had caused an accident. Their fellow cops generally got warnings even when thoroughly pissed. Nowdays, impaired driving is both socially unacceptable and illegal. An impaired driving cop who gets away with a warning these days is lucky to have stumbled upon a like minded cop because the vast majority of his/her younger peers have no tolerance for drinking drivers and would arrest and process another cop without hesitation.

[ronjeremy]

crazy_aviator, do you have any evidence to back your statement up?

[. ._]

I knew a girl in a southern Ontario city that lived across the street from the private club for police. All of the neighbours never parked on the street on friday or saturday nights, because there was always some cop that came out of the bar all snapped up and would side-swipe the parked cars. If this ever did happen, the club would pay for repairing the damaged car, but the residents got tired of taking their cars to the body shop every month.

The club eventually moved to a place where there were less parked cars on the street, and less residents around. Kind of like what bikers do with their club houses.

-istp