Questions are being raised about the handling of a Bartlett, Tennessee police officer who was found off-duty in an accident where she rolled over her jeep, which contained an open liquor bottle. EMTs reportedly smelled alcohol and Officer Teresa Brignole refused a sobriety test. However, the officers at the scene supported her in saying that they did not smell alcohol and she was not charged with DUI.
The internal investigation was unable to be completed bevause Brignole, 43, is on medical leave. Police Chief Gary Rikard has indicated that they may allow a grand jury to look into the matter to clear up public misgivings.
Brignole suffered a laceration on her head and several broken vertebrae in the crash of her Jeep. Two of three officers said that they did not smell alcohol. It is not clear what the third officer stated from news reports.
While she could have crashed the Jeep without the influence of alcohol, the refusal of the test is a bit off-putting for an officer.
This is only the latest controversy over officers in a slew of recent cases involving alleged DUI, here and here and here and here.
For the full story, click here.
Open container means opened, Duh
It does not matter, it was still opened regardless of HOW. If it was some poor white person or some minority they would have been charged. Its like having an empty beer bottle in the passenger area. The cops use this as a bargaining chip. So what is good for this goose is liver….
Buddha and AY,
Do you think the legislative intent of the open container statute was to have a person involved in an accident be charged with violation of the law if an unsealed bottle of liquor is broken as a result of the accident? I don’t.
Your claim is that the contents could be consumed. What is the method of consumption?
“officer is capable of being charged”
multi-tasking can be Hell on verbs
Speaking os assumption, you just assumed that I presumed this person guilty when I did no such thing. What I did was establish as a matter of law the officer are capable of being charged with the crime as defined contrary to your wishful thinking. Nice to see you compound your logical errors. It’s entertaining.
Guilt is for the judge and/or jury to decided but the charge would be valid as the law is written. That’s whether you like it or not.
I’m sorry. I thought we lived in a country where one (regardless of occupation) is considered innocent until proven guilty. I thought mens rae was still the test for criminal liability.
Buddha, You’re right! A broken bottle of liquor could be consumed. Now all you have to do is establish the method of consumption. Did she use a straw, or did she just lick it up? Did she suck it off her clothing?
A broken bottle of liquor explains the smell of alcohol without consumption.
Buddha,
Wishfilled thinking is how the Cheney Machine works.
The status of the seal is irrelevant if the contents are immediately capable of being consumed. See that “or”? It’s an operand. As in two conditions meet the definition of open container, not just the one you desire to get an outcome to protect a drunkard cop behind the wheel and let them walk on a valid charge. Outcome based reasoning is a formal logical flaw. And wishful thinking is not how the law operates.
Duh,
But Jones said two of the three officers at the scene did not report smelling alcohol on the officer. He acknowledged that there was a container of alcohol that broke during the accident.
The above is out of the article.
Buddha,
Thanks for citing the statute.
Are you claiming that a broken bottle of liquor at an accident scene would be considered to be a §55-10-416(2)(a) “open container”? I would suggest that the status of the seal needs to be determined.
Tennessee Open Container Law.
§55-10-416
(a) (1) No driver shall consume any alcoholic beverage or beer or possess an open container of alcoholic beverage or beer while operating a motor vehicle in this state.
(2) For purposes of this section:
(A) “Open container” means any container containing alcoholic beverages or beer, the contents of which are immediately capable of being consumed OR the seal of which has been broken; [emphasis added]
(B) An open container is in the possession of the driver when it is not in the possession of any passenger and is not located in a closed glove compartment, trunk or other nonpassenger area of the vehicle; and
(C) A motor vehicle is in operation if its engine is operating, whether or not the motor vehicle is moving.
(b) (1) A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by fine only.
(2) For a violation of this section, a law enforcement officer shall issue a citation in lieu of continued custody, unless the offender refuses to sign and accept the citation, as provided in § 40-7-118.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit any municipality, by ordinance, or any county, by resolution, from prohibiting the passengers in a motor vehicle from consuming or possessing an alcoholic beverage or beer in an open container during the operation of such vehicle by its driver, or be construed to limit the penalties authorized by law for violation of such an ordinance or resolution. [Acts 1994, ch. 638, § 1.]
Duh …….
AY, “An Open Container charge seems appropriate under the circumstances.”
The report does not indentify whether or not the seal was broken; only that a bottle of liquor was broken. I read nothing that would support an open container charge.
Duh,
Thats why I said open container. Duh….
But I guess here she decided to Liquor and Roll. Or more to the point she got liquored and rolled.
A “broken” bottle of liquor was at the scene. A broken (contrary to the Professor’s report of “open”) bottle would explain the smell of alcohol.
nal,
They should have when they went to the hospital. If proper medical procedures were followed.
rcampbell,
That sounds like an episode of Boston Legal. All the cops have to do is perform a blood test and he’s toast.
Professor:
First of all happy New Year.I am just wondering with the new year upon us would it be possible to maybe once a week or month to have a”I thought you should know”entry where many of us come from different parts of the country and I am quite sure that we all have seen storys that have occured in our areas that don’t make the headlines but none the less are quite interesting.
I guess an open forum so to speak,on these types of events?
Eniobob:
I like your idea of a free for all entry for people to posting their favorite stories from the week. We could have a Free For Free Friday Entry but I am not sure how to allow everyone to post directly. One possibility is to have people send me the stories and I can link them with attribution or we can use the comment section and I can cut and paste the links into the body of the posting. Any suggestions?
Ok, I ‘ll say it: All cops are equal but some cops are more equal than others.
I don’t know if this is true or urban legend, but I heard a story that alleges to involve a local guy whose name I know and who has a well earned reputation as a hard drinker. Apparently, he was driving under the influence with an open bottle handy at his side on his front seat.
For whatever reason, a police car turned on its flashers to pull him over. The story goes that he jumped out of the car, bottle in hand, and took a long slug of whiskey in full view of the police officers.
He got off unscathed because A) he was not driving at the time he drank from the bottle and B) he blew the breath test off the chart because he had consumed the alcohol so recently, so they couldn’t definitively determine his condition prior to being pulled over.
First of all she appears to be off duty. Second could they not subpoena the lab works? I am unsure if a TN Subpoena would be enough.
I know she has the right to refuse a PBT, but what about Resisting, Obstructing Opposing the Lawful Commands of a LEO? An Open Container charge seems appropriate under the circumstances.