St. Pete k-9 charges dropped

Ok, I did a little research. This guy goes out and has a few drinks. He doesn't drive to Goofport because he had a couple of drinks. His friend drives his vehicle. He has a few more drinks. Goes to his vehicle and calls for a ride. I read he fell asleep. I also read the temp that night was 30 degrees. Sounds like he did the right thing. Whether or not he was a cop or not, should everyone be arrested for not driving home and maybe hurting someone else. Why don't cops just go into the bar and arrest people for drinking.

Yeah, that's a believable story. Good excuse when you're faced with a DUI arrest. Especially when you're a police officer who KNOWS that sitting behind the driver's seat in a running vehicle on a public road while you're trashed is absolutely illegal! The more likely version is that he wanted to leave the bar earlier than his pals did, but when he got to the car and cranked it up, he passed out because he was so drunk. If he was intending to just take a nap, why was he in the driver's seat? Why didn't he recline the seat for a more comfortable rest? Why did it take so much effort to wake him up? Answer--his (and your) story is BS, which is likely why he was arrested. Had he just told the truth instead of trying to come up with a completely unbelievable line of crap, he may not have been in this situation.

YOU ST. PETE GUYS ARE WASTING YOUR TIME. THIS SGT IS A TRAFFIC GEEK. HE PARKING LOT PATROLS FOR SLEEPING PEOPLE BECAUSE IT'S NON-CONFRONTATIONAL. THAT'S HOW HE GOT PROMOTED. IF THERE'S A CALL THAT'S IN-PROGRESS OR POSSIBLY DANGEROUS, HE WOULD HIKE UP HIS SKIRT AND RUN AWAY LIKE A LITTLE SCHOOL GIRL. I'M SURE THE K-9 WASN'T THAT BAD. THIS SGT. WOULS ARREST A FAMILY MEMBER IF HE THOUGHT IT WOULD MAKE HIM LOOK GOOD.

Here's how you know he had no intent to drive....after an extensive investigation the SPPD didn't discipline him. You know if they had anything they would have. They even went so far as to pulling phone records. The only thing that remains missing is the cruiser tape.

Good luck on you next promotion Rob !!

Here's how you know he had no intent to drive....after an extensive investigation the SPPD didn't discipline him. You know if they had anything they would have. They even went so far as to pulling phone records. The only thing that remains missing is the cruiser tape.

Good luck on you next promotion Rob !!

You have no idea what you're talking about. The case is closed and it's all public record. Go get you're own copy of the tape so you can stop spouting this nonsense.

Here it is - got my own copy of the St Pete IA case. They did a detailed job and had several charges they tried to prove. They made two requests for the cruiser video but never received it. The SAO tried to make a case but because of the circumstances and evidence that was uncovered it would have required new case law - this was from seasoned attorneys, up to and including Bernie McCabe. Bruce Bartlett and Kendal Davidson. He had a ride home arranged but the ride left without him and so he had called to arrange a second ride and fell asleep while waiting for a return phone call. Criminal Justice Standards and Training looked at the case to either pull his certificate or put him on some type of probation and they agreed with the St Pete findings. If you don't believe these facts, go visit St Pete's IAD and read the case. You could probably even call them if you have questions.

Dude, you're a moron...........it would have required "new case law." What the phuck does that mean? Listen, I didn't agree with the arrest.......but it was legititmate and they were well within the statutory guidelines to effect it. The real truth is he was in actual physical control and across the street from a bar where he had admittedly been drinking. That's a slam-dunk, clear-cut case, period.

I was pissed and thought it was a low blow when that all went down. Should something have been arranged to get him out of there while still making it look good for the bystanders? Of course. I believe a veteran officer like that should have seen some professional courtesey, but the officers did nothing wrong.

By your logic, the next time we roll up on someone sitting inside their car outside a bar, we should let them go as long as they tell us they have a ride on the way. That's dumb.

Sorry, man........but your wrong. And, if I were a gambling man, I'd bet you've never really read any dui case law.........just a guess.....and please re-read the d.u.i. statute before posting again.

The only reason he was "asleep" was because he passed out drunk before he could get the car moving. The arrest was made following a citizen complaint, and that very citizen (along with several others) watched the encounter from start to finish. Any other cop in the same shoes as the GPD officers who handled this situation should have done exactly the same thing, or they should not be in this line of work. Favoritism toward other officers went out along with billy clubs and call boxes. It doesn't exist in a professional organization. Grow up and get over it.

And this is why our profession is in the sad situation it is. If you don't have the common sense and courage to use some professional courtesy, then you are a LOUSY COP and NO BROTHER OF MINE. Stand up for one another, NOBODY ELSE WILL!

Wow..........What baffles me the most is all these supposed Leo's on here trying to still stab a fellow Leo in the back, even after the charges were dropped by the Sao. The Sgt fell asleep on a cold night and it has been proven via phone records that he tried to call for a ride.

This could have been my worst enemy and I would not have made a arrest in this case. Knowing that it was a fellow Leo, I would have either gotten him home or shared some coffee until he sobered up. Fellow Leo's are my family, and no matter how busy I am, I will always find the time to look out for my family.

Whoever arrested this Leo may not have legally done anything wrong, but he or she crossed a line and disgraced themselves, and that should make their fellow Leo's very disgusted and angry.

This job is tough enough without having to worry about a fellow brother doing this to you.

None of us are perfect because God made us human. God also gave us a brain which is capable of determining right from wrong and the ability to use common sense. I will leave it at that.

Be safe my fellow brothers.......Just know that "I will always take care of my family"..............and each and every one of you are just that. Please don't forget that and please look out for one another.

Dude, you're a moron...........it would have required "new case law." What the phuck does that mean? Listen, I didn't agree with the arrest.......but it was legititmate and they were well within the statutory guidelines to effect it. The real truth is he was in actual physical control and across the street from a bar where he had admittedly been drinking. That's a slam-dunk, clear-cut case, period.

I was pissed and thought it was a low blow when that all went down. Should something have been arranged to get him out of there while still making it look good for the bystanders? Of course. I believe a veteran officer like that should have seen some professional courtesey, but the officers did nothing wrong.

By your logic, the next time we roll up on someone sitting inside their car outside a bar, we should let them go as long as they tell us they have a ride on the way. That's dumb.

Sorry, man........but your wrong. And, if I were a gambling man, I'd bet you've never really read any dui case law.........just a guess.....and please re-read the d.u.i. statute before posting again.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The APC law was enacted due to drivers sleeping at red lights. Defense attorney would ask if officer ever saw the defendant driving - "no" - case dismissed. The APC law was then enacted. SAO was worried new case law would be enacted by defense as there was no indication this subject had ever driven his truck - he didn't drive to the bar - didn't drive from it. They were worried the APC law would be changed, as several states have already done, that intent would have to be proven before you could charge APC. You would still be able to charge APC but would need to do a little more investiagtion with it.

Please post that case law and when it was enacted in this circuit. You honestly believe that a police officer can no longer initiate a DUI invest. if they roll up on somone drunk and asleep behind the wheel? That's not true. The SAO will not dismiss a case because an officer did not see them driving, that's contrary to the statute, i.e., "actual physical control."

I have never had the SAO dismiss a dui case under those circumstances, even when the person has been in their own driveway. I don't believe the SAO did not file the case because they were afraid of what MIGHT be encacted. Rather, it was probably a case ( and rightfully so) of some compassion for an LEO.

There is a lot of dui case law but some does not apply in Fla. The Confusion Doctrine is one that comes to mind......A great tool for the defense is other states, but it has never been successfully argued in Fla. courts.