The longer those accused of drunken driving go without being charged by prosecutors, the more risk they pose to public safety. KWCH Eyewitness News 12 found this out firsthand when reporter Alana Rocha was struck in February by a driver police say was drunk — and who’d been arrested but never charged for a hit-and-run DUI last summer. Last week, KWCH reported on more cases, including one in which a year and a half passed before the man was charged. Clearly, the system needs to work more quickly. Kim Parker, chief deputy district attorney for Sedgwick County, told KWCH she’s working “to try to streamline those processes” for charging DUIs. But as she noted, state lawmakers could be more mindful of the local consequences of the tough-on-crime bills they love to pass. If justice is to be swift as well as tough, it needs more money.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- XXX on Open thread 11/8
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
42 Comments
Yes we need to do more about DUI’s no doubt.
What shape is Alana in does anyone know? Is she going to be able to work again? I have not heard her make any remarks nor any quotes…can she speak?
In Johnson County the Kansas City Star wants the District Attorney to look the other way instead of following the law in arresting and prosecuting those with DUIs, including multiple DUIs:http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/67270.html.
The Star seems incapable of establishing facts in the case like the suspect now awaits sentencing ranging from 38-84 months in prison after she pled guilty to her 4th DUI. The new case was her 5th DUI yet the Star beats up on the District Attorney for collecting evidence?
The only way for the Johnson County District Attorney to get the truth printed was to write a letter to the editor about the woman with FOUR previous DUI convictionshttp://www.kansascity.com/273/story/70006.html
The Star would rather scare the public than see those with multiple DUIs prosecuted. They cannot report the news, nor discuss pertinent facts in their editorials.
The Star seems totally ignorant of Kansas Laws:
KSA 8-1001(k): An officer shall have probable cause to believe that the person operated a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, if the vehicle was operated by such person in such a manner as to have caused the death of or serious injury to another person. In such event, such test or tests may be made pursuant to a search warrant issued under the authority of K.S.A. 22-2502, and amendments thereto, or without a search warrant under the authority of K.S.A. 22-2501, and amendments thereto.
KSA 22-2501. Search without search warrant. When a lawful arrest is effected a law enforcement officer may reasonably search the person arrested and the area within such person’s immediate presence for the purpose of(a) Protecting the officer from attack;(b) Preventing the person from escaping; or(c) Discovering the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime.
Hospital personnel everywhere in Kansas need to be educated about Kansas Law – specifically KSA 8-1001(k) even if the Star wants Kansas Law ignored. Hospital administrators should craft policies and procedures that are in compliance with applicable federal and state laws.
One can only wonder how many fewer DUI drivers would be on the road in Johnson County, if now Attorney General Paul Morrison wouldn’t have looked the other way and was lax on enforcing laws in Johnson County when he was District Attorney.
In Meadowlark’s twisted little universe, medical personnel are obedient slaves to Phill Kline’s whims.
In the universe the rest of us live in, Federal law trumps state law, and medical professionals live by an ethical code of conduct considered by most to be inviolate.
Phill Kline wants to arrest anyone who stands in his way. He wants to force bystanders into cooperating in his investigations, even when they’re RN’s, not sworn law enforcement.
Meadowlark tries to frame this as though the only way to get evidence of intoxication is through forcing nurses to do warrantless blood tests. Meadowlark wants us to gnore the fact that prosecutors have been getting convictions based on other evidence for decades.
Just to be cute, Meadowlark blames it all on Paul Morrison. This is a refrain we’ve heard for almost a year now, and it’s tired and tiresome.
Meadowlark, do us a favor. Stay up in Overland Park. If you must post on newspaper blogs, pick one in your own hometown. Wichita has enough hot air without you.
Thanks.
Suspected drunks and people that give the police probable cause that they are drunk and driving should not have any right to refuse any test demanded by the officer. If they refuse a field breath test, the cops should cuff them, haul them to the nearest hospital and have blood taken from them- by force if necessary.
Isn’t it an automatic DUI if they refuse to be tested?
It is my understanding that Alana is recovering well and is now able to talk. It has been a difficult road and the journey is not yet completed. She plans to return to Wichita and will remain a part of the KWCH family when she is able. As for refusing a field sobriety test/breath test – it is an automatic DL suspension but not an automatic DUI conviction. These are separate processes and the offender has the opportunity to be heard in a DL hearing in order to have the DL reinstated. The arresting officer still must build the case for a DUI conviction.
“Isn’t it an automatic DUI if they refuse to be tested?”
No. It is just a 6 month administrative drivers license suspension which does not show up as a violation. This needs to change because, if somebody knows they are really drunk- especially if they have prior DUIs- it is better for the drunk to refuse the test and take the 6 month suspension which is really no suspension at all since 95% of them continue to drive anyway. The law needs to be changed to MANDATE the BAC test and people who have their licenses suspended should also have their cars confiscated for the period of suspension OR if they claim a spouse needs the car, the state should do like other states do and issue a red letter “HV” plate (habitual violator) for the car which would give the police probable cause to stop the vehicle at anytime for any reason and insure that the suspended license is not driving.
Funny how it takes a local “celebrity” being injured for the media to publicize this stuff.
No-File Nola strikes again! When are Kansans going to wake up and realize that it is a mistake to leave ANYONE in office for decades? Kansas is an elephant’s graveyard for people like Foulston, Bill Buchanan, Chris Cherches and far too many other elected and appointed officials. They literally come to Kansas to die! Why can’t the state attract qualified, UPWARDLY MOBILE leaders? An answer to that question would go a long way toward explaining why DUI cases aren’t filed in a timely manner and why the Wichita area is — in the words of some real estate speculators from Minnesota — “at the bottom of its cycle.”
As much as you may dislike KSMeadowlark Tom, he always seems to come prepared with facts to back up whatever he writes.
Where are your facts Tom?
Or are you going to do the typical Liberal Left thing, point a finger, make a comment and walk down the street with a smirk on your face.
The empty pallet in America, the Democrats.
Republican,
Tell me where in the statutes cited by Meadowlark, including the reference to 22-2502 that wasn’t pasted, a District Attorney has the authority to compel medical personnel to perform an invasive medical procedure against a patient’s will.
In fact, a full reading of one of the statutes cited by Meadowlark, 8-1001, reveals that medical personnel may draw blood if the patient has given consent.
The issue here is not whether DUI is bad. It is, and anyone doing it should go to jail, lose their licenses, etc.
This issue is whether Phill Kline can *COMPEL* medical personnel to act as law enforcement, and forcibly perform medical procedures on anyone law enforcement presents.
You can read the statutes for yourself if you don’t believe me. The *complete* KSA is online, not just the cherry-picked parts Meadowlark pasted. And speaking of those, I’ll repeat that there’s nothing he referenced or pasted that gives a DA the authority Phill Kline is claiming.
No Tom, you don’t get it – argue the points with ksmeadowlark, instead of making yet another empty pallet argument Democrats are famous for making.
Wow.
Republican, I brought the facts to the argument. I pointed out where Meadowlark’s facts were selective. I pointed out that the statutes Meadowlark cites do NOT give DA’s the authority Meadowlark claims Kline has.
This was done at your command.
This is the best answer you have?
Amazing.
Show me where the statutes prohibit DA’s doing so.
Republican:
Phill Kline wants to charge medical personnel with “obstruction of justice” (his words).
I can do better than cite a statute in rebuttal to Meadlowlark and Kline. I can give you Phill Kline’s own words from an advisory opinion (http://www.kscourts.org/ksag/opinions/2005/2005-010.htm)
***************”Whether a person has obstructed official duty [KSA 21-3808] depends upon the facts of each case. However, it is our opinion that securing a conviction and/or having it upheld on appeal in the situation you present would be difficult in light of Kansas appellate court decisions that distinguish between “an actual overt act of obstruction” that “substantially” hinders or increases the burden of a specific law enforcement officer from a refusal to cooperate which would not run afoul of the statute.”***************
Have a nice day :)
Like I said, there is no prohibition to not charging Obstruction of Justice. If the defendants want to challenge it in appellate court they can.
Start putting drunks who kill on death row.
Most hospitals have their own legal counsel that discuss these kind of issues and write policy beforehand. And I happen to know for a fact that many of these things are written into policy.
For instance, if a police officer comes into my unit and asks me if I smell alcohol, I cannot tell him. I also cannot go to him and tell him I smell alcohol on his breath as I’m treating the patient.
I have never been told that I can draw blood by the police asking me to do so. And I am qualified to do so.
It seems to me that Kline thinks he’s some sort of all empowering God that gives him the right to poke around in everyone’s business. There is procedure for these things. If he can’t follow them the rules, has a hard-on for the medical community and driving a wedge between law and medical cooperation, then he needs to get out of law.
“I have never been told that I can draw blood by the police asking me to do so. And I am qualified to do so.”
If the police tell you to draw blood for evidence collection, you should do so stat. And if you or your bosses refuse to do so, you should be charged with obstruction of justice. Suppose it was your family the drunk just killed that you are being ordered to collect a blood sample from. Do you want to see him walk free for his murders??
“Start putting drunks who kill on death row.”
I fully agree. Maybe not death row but we need to drop this non sense about “vehicular manslaughter” and charge these people with murder and give them very long prison terms. The should serve at least 30 years before parole is even considered.
If that person isn’t under arrest, they have no authority to tell me what to do with the patient who is refusing. My job is to get them to the hospital alive. You try to draw blood on a combative patient.
I’d invite every single one of you writing here to come sit in on driver’s license hearings in Sedgwick County (the first step in the DUI process) and watch how the state allows lawyers to circumvent and violate the law to try to get their client’s driver’s license back. A number of hearing officers allow defense lawyers to exceed the scope of the hearings as established by “the law” and the secretary of revenue knows it, the director of vehicles knows it, the district court judges know it, and the legislators know it.
I’d encourage you, too, to quit debating the law about DUI here because a number of you have no clue what you are writing about. It’s the lock’em-up-and-throw-away-the-key mentality that is truly undermining our ability to get them off the road and keep them off the road.
Until you have worked through the early morning hours to build a case demonstrating someone was drunk, and you’ve had to go to court in the middle of the day (which is really the middle of the night for most of these officers) your opinion doesn’t matter.
Phill Kline is an idiot and the best thing that ever happened to law enforcement in this state was his quick departure in January from office. I feel sorry for the hundreds of dedicated law enforcement officers in Johnson County who have to contend with this politician. He is not a professional prosecutor…not even close.
Let me add this, the District Attorney has nothing to do with administrative hearings for driver’s licenses.
One other thing, law enforcement officers can instruct a nurse to draw blood on someone who is not in custody. The law provides for that. Your references to searching with and without a warrant, and an abbreviated rendition of the chemical testing law is a pathetic display of a political argument. Knowing what the law says is one thing, understanding the all of the courts holdings on each law is another. Clearly that hasn’t been represented here. I’d say again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
A blood test requires a needle being shoved into someone’s arm. It’s an invasive medical procedure. The appeals courts don’t like the government to perform systematic searches in such a manner. You don’t either. Someday it could be you. Remember, you only want the government to do to others what you will allow them to do to you.
A defendant cannot be compelled to give DNA evidence (without subpoena)against his will, therefore a nurse or other medical personnel should not be charged with a crime for not drawing blood from a suspect. What if the suspect refuses – what are you going to do? Have the nurse chase them down with a syringe in his or her hand?
I can’t think of one good reason to drive while under the influence. Nor can I justify the same.
Any medical care provider not doing lab tests when a person comes into a hospital because of a car wreck and checking for drugs (of any kind)is not doing their job.
The person might be a diabetic or have some other impairment. Ruling out drugs prior to non-life saving medication treatment would a be a prudent thing to do. And I would think an automatic protocol.
Like I said, there is no prohibition to not charging Obstruction of Justice. If the defendants want to challenge it in appellate court they can.Posted by: Republican | April 29, 2007 at 04:22 PM
So you’re all for Phill Kline being able to intimidate, bully, and threaten people into doing his bidding? You’re okay with him arresting and jailing people on charges he’s already said would not apply?
TomYour bias is showing.If Kline did not enforce the law he would be violating his oath.
If you think Kline does not have the authority to order a blood alcohol screen, why dont you have AG Morrison prosecute Kline?
Tom, we all disagree on many issues.
That doesnt mean you have to disagree with EVERYTHING someone does. In fact, you probably agree with the vast majority of things Kline does. Kline and Morrison agree on the vast majority of legal issues.
Being reflexively against everything anyone does is foolish.
Econ,
There is *no law* that gives any DA the legal right to charge innocent bystanders, in this case medical personnel, with obstruction of justice for refusing to do warrantless blood draws. In fact, as Attorney General, Kline wrote and advisory opinion that specifically said the Kansas obstruction statute would not apply in this type of case. I laid it all out earlier; I cited statute, and I cited the advisory opinion.
Kline is arguing out both sides of his mouth. Not two years ago he said one thing as AG; now, as DA, he says another in his ongoing attempts to bully anyone he believes stands in his way.
Cop who knows, I do appreciate you posting. But I will tell you now that if you are in my unit, and I have a patient that is not in custody I am not doing a lab draw JUST for your information against the patient’s wishes. I would present it to the receiving department. I cannot do ANYTHING to that patient against his wishes unless he is in your custody.
By the way.To the “lock em up and throw away the key” folks, and to the EAGLE:
Remember the story on the “hot dog theif?”
As I stated on a previous thread, the guy who spend all that time in jail, for putting hot dogs in his pocket and then feeding them to his dog— well he has been shoplifting with a similar MO for better than 25 years.
Once, Safeway let him go, because he “had the money” for his cigars, so “why would he steal them?” — I think it was about 5 days later, I can’t remember, but that drunk driver then ran over a little girl and drug her under his car for more than a block.
He got out, got arrested again, and the Eagle wrote a tear-jerker on him just last month, since he was a habitual offender and had spent a “long time” in jail for hot dog theft.
We can only guess that, maybe, some angel in Heaven put those hot dogs in Tom W’s pocket.
Maybe it was the only way to keep him from hurting someone again!
So you are for preemptive arrests Paul? Sort of like preemptive wars as well? Who should decide who has paid his debt to society and who should be jailed because he MIGHT do something?
Tom”talking out of both sides of their mouths” is something attorneys do for a living.
Even so, your point is taken.
So are Republican’s points and Meadowlarks points.
I think a court will soon settle some of this for us, again.
Econ,
Thanks for giving my arguments their due.
But what are Meadowlark’s and Republican’s points? Meadowlark has taken DA Kline’s position that Kline has the authority to charge obstruction in cases where AG Kline said there’d be no case. Republican says go ahead and jail’em, and let the courts set them free later.
I believe it’s an abuse of prosecutorial powers to arrest people and charge them with crimes you *know* will never get convictions. Just think of Nifong and the Lacrosse team.
I believe that Meadowlark is seizing on this manufactured controversy to attack media outlets he disagrees with.
I believe Republican knows better. He knows what a heinous violation of civil rights Kline would be committing by proceeding with charges he knows would never hold up.
They have no point.
TomHaving worked in a court house once, and having dealth with criminal investigations of my department and other departments, it is a common practice of prosecutors to lie.They are allowed to lie.A cop or a prosecutor can claim another office worker already “turned you in” when that is not true.The KBI tried that one on me, when the KBI took over a fishing license “back-dating” case from Kansas Fish and Game.I did’t know until later that the KBI used the same routine with nearly the entire office.We all said, “HUH?”A cop or a prosecutor can claim that things will be “easier on you” if you cooperate.A cop or a prosecutor can threaten “obstruction of justice” if you fail to talk, even if the case is weak and they know they would never prosecute such a charge.Court after court has said that prosecutors do not have to tell the truth to suspects.—-Now, even so, that does not mean that prosecutors should be free to abuse the system.
“I’d encourage you, too, to quit debating the law about DUI here because a number of you have no clue what you are writing about. It’s the lock’em-up-and-throw-away-the-key mentality that is truly undermining our ability to get them off the road and keep them off the road.”
What is your solution then? I don’t want these drunks on the road. I also don’t agree with the lock em up and toss the key mentality in most cases. But we’re sick of the repeat offenders who seriously hurt people.
“Phill Kline is an idiot and the best thing that ever happened to law enforcement in this state was his quick departure in January from office. I feel sorry for the hundreds of dedicated law enforcement officers in Johnson County who have to contend with this politician. He is not a professional prosecutor…not even close.”
I agree completely. The LAST thing we need is a wedge between the working relationships between EMS, Hospital and Police. But laws are in place for a reason.
I can promise you there are nurses out there who are SCARED for their licenses to give police any information about the patients. Their attitude is that you’ll get that information when you provide the orders. And that is what they’ve been instructed by their dept lawyers.
So if you think I’m full of it, and don’t know what I’m talking about…come to our training meetings.
I once answered the phone and dispatch said ‘if you have so and so present to your department, call us, he’s a suspect’. I wrote the note and the nurse grabbed it and threw it in the trash. She said “we can’t and won’t do that”.
And republican, we don’t do a blood draw to determine blood sugar, we do that with a finger stick. Geez.
I’m trying to remember the standard protocol for lab orders for a trauma patient, if they included drug screen or not. I think they did. But that doesn’t mean the officer is privy to the results.
I have to agree with Political Mom on several issues. Wow-whodathunk?ANyway, As an EMS provider, it is not my job to draw blood for blood alchol tests. I couldn;t anylyze it if I could.By the way, , I have never been asked. But my point with the patient is, just tell me if and what and how much you have had to drink, if anything. I reinforce I am NOT law enforcement.To do anything less lessons my ability to treat the patient, who has not been proven to commit a crime.And I agree, Nurses are Very apprehensive about giving any information to law enforcement, there is this little thing called the Hippa laws that are FEDERAL and can cause you a great amount of grief. Wether or not those laws are correct in the case of drunk drivers, etc., is up to the legislature to debate, not a nurse in an ER.Finally, I too am fed up with repeat offenders. Too many times I have responded to a fatal accident when the driver was either obviously or found to have been driving drunk. Sick of it, sick of them. Remove them from the streets with mandantory sentences, with probationary mandantory interlock devices, with mandantory time spent as an observer in an ER on a typical Friday or Saturday night.
LJ I have to wonder if cop mistyped some things, because it almost seems as if he contradicted himself. I hope he comes back to explain.
WS”Preemtive arrests” ??
If we increase sentences, that is costly.So, instead, we allow early parole and then put parole violators back in prison.Tom W., the guy in question, is a scammer. He is an alcoholic and a habitual shop-lifter.He killed a kid, he was too drunk to even know he had hit her and drug her under his car for more than a block.Well, if we want to put drunks in for life, but can’t afford to, I am all for stiff enforcement for parole violators.Tom W. was GUILTY, that he scammed the jury on this one changes nothing.I suppose that you cry for OJ as well?
LJ I have to wonder if cop mistyped some things, because it almost seems as if he contradicted himself. I hope he comes back to explain.
Posted by: political_mom | April 30, 2007 at 12:37 PM
PM – I think he did. “law enforcement officers can instruct a nurse to draw blood on someone who is not in custody.” I think he meant to have “not” after “can”.
Of course a nurse or doctor CANNOT do a blood test at the behest of a cop when the person is not in custody. And even if they do a blood test on a patient and know the results, again, as LJ pointed out, there is a federal privacy act (HIPAA) that disallows giving that PHI.
As I said earlier, don’t try to argue the law if you don’t know it. I made no mistake about what I said. The police CAN instruct a nurse to draw blood on a person not in custody. If the person was involved in a traffic accident, Kansas law provides for the chemical test of the person’s blood even if they are not in custody. If they kill someone, the blood MAY be drawn by whatever means the OFFICER determines to be necessary. The very same law provides for immunity on any health care worker directed to draw the blood. The law includes paramedics, too. I’ve had paramedics in Sedgwick County draw blood at accidents. It’s a matter of how serious the accident is and how bad someone may be hurt.
Chemcial testing, according to Kansas law, must be done within two hours of the arrest or accident. If it’s not, the legal battle to get it admitted can be incredible.
HIPPA does not impact the drawing of blood in these cases, no matter what the hospital’s attorneys might say. Each hospital in Wichita has been notified, according to law, that law enforcement officers will be asking for blood draws to be done. They’ve been provided the laws that apply to these situations.
Those of you wanting to practice law here, get a clue.
KS Meadowlark, Tom, Republican, can you explain to all of us what the 10 exceptions to the search warrant requirement are? Do you know what the Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule is? How does the fourth amendment impact a blood draw? Does a person, one not involved in an accidnet, have to be in custody to have the police “search” them for their blood?
That’s what you are arguing about here. That, and the fact that some idiot for a DA is being a bully again. Before Mr. Kline brings a complaint against anyone for obstruction he should read the statute and how the Appeals and Supreme court have ruled on the law. He’ll realize that he can’t bring such a complaint.
WSOne other point, the “hotdog theif” or Tom W., DID have a bench warrant out for “failure to appear” — so regardless of guilt or innocence on the underlying charge, he absolutely violated an order of the court to appear.My point is only that society has a right and a duty to protect the public from such people.If we feel that they have been “rehabilitated” then parole or probation might work.However, Tom W. would never have been in so much trouble if not for all the previous “strikes” against him, ALL of which were entirely HIS fault.He killed someone.Many believe that, alone, justified LIFE in prison.So why do we worry about the money spent on keeping him hin jail, on OTHER charges, once we released him from the DUI confinement?