Dui Arizona Lawyer Recommendation
By Kit Bradshaw, TCPalm.com, 03/20/07
Jupiter, Florida - Police Chief Frank Kitzerow has recommended 22-year veteran officer Jeffrey Sprauer's employment be terminated in an Internal Affairs investigation report to Town Manager Andy Lukasik that was released Monday.
Surrounding a traffic stop for suspicion of DUI, Sprauer committed conduct unbecoming an officer, did not report misconduct to his supervisor, committed a misdemeanor, was untruthful and was untruthful in an official proceeding, Kitzerow wrote in his conclusion to the 21-page document and recommendation to Lukasik.
Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer told Kitzerow he will not prosecute any of Sprauer's future cases because of the untruthfulness violation, the police chief said in his conclusion.
"Officer Sprauer violated the public trust, the law, failed to comply with established Jupiter Police Department Policies, compromised his integrity and compromised his ability to perform the essential job functions relating to honesty," Kitzerow wrote.
Sprauer, whose Dec. 20 traffic stop with no arrest soon prompted a Stuart Police Department policy change toward future suspected cases of DUI, will remain on administrative leave until April 20, when a predetermination meeting will be held. By April 26, Lukasik must decide whether to agree with Kitzerow to fire Sprauer, not to terminate the officer or amend the chief's recommendation.
At 11:41 p.m. that Wednesday, Stuart police did not arrest Sprauer, but instead gave him two citations -- failure to maintain a single lane and failure to have his driver license -- and allowed him to be taken home, following a videotaped sobriety test in which Sprauer could not recite the alphabet and was shown to have difficulty keeping his balance. No Breathalyzer test was administered, according to reports.
This decision not to arrest the officer created an uproar in the Stuart community, resulting in a change of policy. Now, Stuart officers are mandated to arrest all individuals suspected of DUI infractions.
Sprauer told Internal Affairs investigators in Jupiter in January that he had had at least nine drinks in a span of a little more than five hours that night before he was stopped at U.S. 1 and Grumman Boulevard on suspicion of driving while under the influence, according to the report. He told Stuart police he had not had any alcoholic beverages that evening, according to the police report.
"Between the hours of 6:15 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., Officer Sprauer advised he consumed either four (4) or five (5) twelve ounce bottles of Budweiser beer and one shot called a 'Nassau' while bowling (Stuart Lanes)," the Internal Affairs report says. "After bowling, they went to the Sakura Restaurant for dinner. While there, Officer Sprauer consumed four (4) Vodka and Cranberry drinks. This was between 9:30 and 11:30 p.m., according to Sprauer's testimony in the Internal Affairs investigation. He was with two companions.
"In total, Officer Sprauer advised he consumed either nine (9) or ten (10) alcoholic drinks within five and one-half (5.5) hours," the report said. "(The predetermination meeting) will be the opportunity for Jeff and his attorney to share any additional information and for me to ask any questions," said Lukasik on Monday. "I will be making my decision within four working days of this meeting. I can sustain the chief's recommendation and terminate Jeff's employment, overturn the chief's recommendation or alter it in some way."
In his report, Kitzerow wrote: "After careful review of all the facts and circumstances, taking into consideration Officer Sprauer's actions as they relate to his ability to effectively continue as a Jupiter Police Officer, I am recommending his employment with the Town of Jupiter be terminated."
"It's a very tough thing all the way around," said Kitzerow by telephone shortly before the report was released Monday. "But you have to do what you believe is the right thing."
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Alcohol Consumption Calculations, a male weighing 200 pounds who consumes the equivalent of nine alcoholic beverages over a five hour period would have an approximate BrAc of .1139%. The legal level of impairment is .08%.
Sprauer told Stuart police he had not had any formal education in regard to field sobriety tests, although a review of Sprauer's records show that he had completed several DUI and Breathalyzer training courses from 1985 through 2001.
"In essence with a sustained violation of untruthfulness, Officer Sprauer will be ineffective as a police and witness in criminal or traffic court of law due to a lack of credibility. Mr. Barry Krischer, the State Attorney for Palm Beach County, advised me that he will not prosecute any of Officer Sprauer's future cases due to this sustained untruthfulness violation," Kitzerow stated in his report.
Lukasik said the Feb. 15 report was released when the town's attorney said the internal investigation report and Kitzerow's recommendation to the town manager could be made public before Lukasik's final decision.
Contact: kit.bradshaw@scripps.com
Retrieved March 21, 2007 from http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-320jupitercop,0,2926562.story?track=rs
September 17, 2007 at 04:36 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200e54ef40b728834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tougher (but still not tough enough?) on DUI:
Comments
At this rate, we will wake up one day to find half of the population in incarcerated. Talk about the freest country in the World!
Posted by: EJ | Sep 17, 2007 4:42:38 PM
I was aiming for 65%
Posted by: S.cotus | Sep 17, 2007 4:57:32 PM
45 days (what's that, 22 actual days?) for a 1st offender DUI? That is stupendously idiotic. You'd get less actual time for an assault causing injury... a crime that actually has a mens rea. It's good news for lawyers who know how to try DUI's and the rich people who can afford them. It's really bad news for poor working slobs that will lose their jobs for sure when they go to jail for a month.
And WHY is a higher BAC level more serious? A person with a lower BAC would, presumably, have more control of his or her mental faculties and be in a better position to consciously choose to drive. Why isn't that more serious?
A person with a .20 might think they're driving a space ship -- if there is even any "thinking" going on at that point.
Also, "high risk"? Really? I thought we punished people for their actual crimes in this country, not their "risk"? If someone is killed or injured it's intox manslaughter or intox assault with comparable punishments. If they have a BAC above a magic number, which is determined primarily by the crackpot "science" of breath analysis in most jurisdictions, then they get to lose their jobs, licenses, and freedom for a month or more? All under a strict liability rubric?
Why not put them in the stocks on the courthouse lawn for open containers too?
Posted by: dweedle | Sep 17, 2007 5:03:13 PM
The New Mexico law appears to be consistent with the recommendations of the US Commission on Alcohol Abuse which are based on research. The Arizona 45 day mandatory jail sentence is contrary to the commission recommendations so I doubt that Arizona will have the same positive results as New Mexico.
A person with a BAC of 0.20 would probably be arrested for public intoxication because they would be impaired to a degree that requires supervised until they become sober. There are a lot of DUI cases and a BAC of 0.20 is not that uncommon so most Arizona jails will have a very long waiting lists of people waiting to get into jail to serve their 45 day sentence. Some of them may drink and drive while they waiting to serve their sentence so I wonder how much public safety will be improved. If the wait time becomes too long many of them will not appear and that will mean a arrest warrant will be issued and someone will have to find them and bring them to a judge who may put them in jail for contempt. I doubt that Arizona Sheriffs will be very happy about this new penalty.
Posted by: JSN | Sep 17, 2007 6:22:27 PM
Just a guess, but the government paying for free taxi rides for any intoxicated person would probably be a lot cheaper and save a lot of lives. The ignition-interlock devices could be adapted to the back seat of taxis to confirm intoxication so some couldn't pretend to be drunk for a free ride.
But that could condone getting drunk. Can't have that. Better more people get killed or put in jail.
Posted by: George | Sep 18, 2007 5:39:36 PM
DUI THIRD vs. 2ND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHT:
VICTIMLESS CRIME & VOID OF INJURED PARTY
Current law Eternally Removes the “Right to keep and bear arms” based on a drinking and driving record of 3 DUI convictions when the Crime is victimless & Void of any injured party. (Cannot be restored)
INDIVIDUAL STATE LAWS
The states impose the felony laws for DUI 3rd, 4th, or even 5th offenses (Depending on state) however, it is the Federal Law of Title 18 922 that eternally cements and debars the individuals right to possess a firearm regardless if the firearm is for hunting, self-defense or for personal protection. (The federal government has enslaved the people for non-violent offenses)
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
THE TRUTH
Regardless the number of DUI convictions, driving under the influence of alcohol has absolutely NO relationship with the second amendment protected “Right” of the people to keep and bear arms if there is no injured party.
The states “Including Michigan” contend that a person’s driving record of 3 DUI convictions poses a serious risk to society and should establish a “Felony” on there record that by federal nexus of Title 18 922 inherently & eternally removes the citizens “Right” to keep and bear arms for as long as that person shall live upon the face of this earth.
Shouldn’t the states and the federal government first eternally remove the drivers “Privilege” (A Non Protected Right) of operating a motor vehicle before eternally removing a “Protected Right” of the people to posses a firearm?
(Which removal would tend to actually save lives?)
Currently the states reinstate the citizens “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle yet federal Title 18 922 (Felony Laws) eternally & forever block the citizens “RIGHT” from ever possessing a firearm for THE EXACT SAME DRINKING & DRIVING OFFENSE of DUI 3rd CONVICTIONS: DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?
Drunk drivers “KILL” thousands of motorists each year: Debarring the drunk drivers second amendment” Right” to keep and bear arms has not saved even one motorist or life, ever!
In Fact, Debarring the persons “Privilege” to ever operate a motor vehicle WOULD SAVE countless lives and WOULD NOT infringe upon the Constitutionally Protected God given inalienable “Right” of the people to bear arms!
THE ROOT AND PROBLEM vs. PRIVILEGE AND RIGHT:
The state “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle is a mere “Privilege,” “and is NOT A RIGHT”: For DUI 3rd convictions the” Privilege” of driving has a time frame provision by the state for “Absolute & Full Reinstatement” to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.
The “Right” to Keep and Bear Arms, “IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT” and “is NOT just simply a mere Privilege”:
For DUI 3rd convictions this “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms is eternally and forever debarred void of time frame provision for reinstatement based on the federal law of Title 18 922. (THE STATES NEED TO ALLOW TIME FRAME REINSTATEMENT FOR DUI 3RD OFFENSES BY REMOVING THE FELONY)
Regardless of one’s personal & moral stand on drinking and driving, there should be a positive reinstatement provision for constitutional “Rights” of the people to keep and bear arms THE SAME as there is a TIME FRAME provision for reinstatement of a mere “Privilege for the EXACT SAME drinking & driving offense of DUI 3rd convictions especially when there is no injured party.
THE OPERATORS STATE “PRIVILEGE” TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE IS TIME FRAME REINSTATED: THE DRIVERS RIGHT TO POSESS A FIREARM SHOULD ALSO HAVE THIS EXACT SAME TIME FRAME FOR REINSTATMENT OF THEIR RIGHT, BASED ON THE EXACT SAME OFFENSE.
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES FOR TIME FRAME REINSTATEMENT
Posted by: Michael Saari | Jan 22, 2010 9:33:02 AM
