Chicago Police Officer Involved in Hit and Run Given Four Hours Before Taking Breathalyzer

250px-Chicagopd_jpg_w300h294Chicago Police Officer Richard Bolling was charged in a hit and run that killed a 13-year-old Trenton Booker who was riding his bicycle. In such cases, standard procedures calls for a breathalyzer as soon as possible. However, Bolling’s colleagues gave him four hours and, when they administered the test, he registered 0.079 — miraculously just under the 0.08 limit.

Bolling is the second officer involved in such a hit and run.

This is not the first such allegation of delayed testing or light treatment of officers by colleagues. There was also this disturbing case as well as case where an accused officer was assigned to his own investigation. Then there is this case of an officer being undercharged.

For the full story, click here.

17 thoughts on “Chicago Police Officer Involved in Hit and Run Given Four Hours Before Taking Breathalyzer”

  1. getplaning,

    There is honor amongst both. But I still would not try and rub the mob the wrong way.

  2. Apparently…we have cops today that behave just like those in NAZI Germany! Yeap! Karma will come back around to those evil Cops. I can’t wait for the day comes when the American People will give those cops a good taste of their own medicine. The so called law enforcement is pushing the envelope! The American people will have their day also when placing these cops in jail or lining them up for a complete beat UP!

  3. Bingo rafflaw:

    I remember learning from the April crash on the Dan Ryan, that the policy involving an off duty PO, that every incident involving a PO and suspected alcohol, automatically calls for a supervisory officer to be called in immediately.

    Where does the break down occur? Was the supervisor the one administering the failed breathe tests until 0.079 registered a pass?

  4. I saw this article in the Chicago papers and I was not surprised to read what went down. I would bet that the 0.079 reading was not the first test administered to this officer. They probably kept testing him until they got one that was below the .08 Illinois limit.

  5. Did anyone say where the next round was? Yes, I am talking about liquor.

  6. Stel Pavlou
    1, May 27, 2009 at 10:20 am
    “Hmm, well simple arithmetic adds some clarity. Alcohol burns off at at a rate of around .016 BAC per hour regardless of size or gender. ”

    I hope a criminal lawyer makes that observation at the officers trial and, absent a prosecution in criminal court, that a good attorney makes that point in a civil case.

  7. Cops are most definitely above the law. Judges too are criminal in their behaviour. They all act simply as a gang. I would really prefer to deal with the streetking as opposed to a cop or judge. At least I can negotiate with the streetking, and, he knows that I have limits, wherein, if pushed too much I could react negatively towards him. It is a much better balance than what we have come to in our society when dealing with what we call ‘officials’. Even here, most comments appear to be made by attorneys bent on getting the wording right and not seeking justice on any level. I find these comments to be proof positive that we are too far gone for citizens to expect anything even approaching a fair & reasonable outcome when dealing with our self-serving authorities and judicial system. Obviously cops lie and we know judges take money. Factor in what is politely called ‘the adversarial system’ the attorneys take to practice and there is simply no room for the truth any longer. What a mess you guys have made. Hope you are all proud of yourselves. So much for Learned Hand or Marbury vs. Madison.

  8. I thought no one was above the law in the US. Perhaps only the law is….

  9. I find it intriguing that Police Officers, who in public utterances all complain that they don’t get the respect they deserve, nevertheless will trash their image when it comes to a fellow officer.

  10. Mespo727272

    Thanks for providing the range. But on balance 0.016 can be accepted as “around” the median of 0.015 and sits nicely in the middle of 0.013 to 0.018. No?

    If you take the most conservative end of the scale, the officer was still significantly over the limit at the time of apprehension.

    I was wasn’t trying to be categorical, by the way, which is why I said “around.” I was aiming for brevity and now seem to have missed.

  11. Stel:

    “Hmm, well simple arithmetic adds some clarity. Alcohol burns off at at a rate of around .016 BAC per hour regardless of size or gender.”


    Having litigated the issue of alcohol elimination I can tell you that your categorical statement is false. The scientific facts are summarized below in a statement from a forensic consultant:

    “Elimination occurs at a constant rate for a given individual.The median rate of decrease in BAC is considered to be 15 milligrams per cent (mg%) per hour. The range of decrease in BAC is 10-20 mg% per hour. This range represents the extreme ends of the rate encountered in a normal population. Most people eliminate at a rate of between 13 and 18 mg% per hour. Of these, the majority eliminates at the higher end. Very few people eliminate at as low a rate as 10 mg% per hour.”

  12. Hit and run is a felony. So this guy did a hit and run in a fatality case and they are trying to cover up a couple of Budweisers? What friends the bowser has.

  13. Hmm, well simple arithmetic adds some clarity. Alcohol burns off at at a rate of around .016 BAC per hour regardless of size or gender. So it’s reasonable to assume his actual BAC level at the time of apprehension was around 0.143. Not quite twice the legal limit. I’m guessing they saw one open bottle of beer and took his word for it that that was all he’d had. After 4 hours there should have been nothing left in his system if he was truthful. Oops.

Comments are closed.