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.
Here Buddha, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Maybe you will learn something about our legal system.
Did the bottle break while the engine was running? Prove it!
The statute requires that the engine be running (vehicle moving or not). I would say that there is no reason to put an “unopened” bottle of liquor (one that was given to me at a Christmas Party, or that I had just purchased from the store) in a separate compartment (therefore treating it like an “opened” bottle, but I guess it is possible that some cop, some prosecutor, and some judge could be as ridiculous as you are.
You’ve piqued my interest. Do Bob, Esq. and Mespo (or even Prof. Turley) think that a bottle of liquor, broken as the result of an accident, meets the criteria to deem this to be a valid charge?
Why is it your not a practicing lawyer, man your good, you could be famous. Must of done somthin real bad. Who can I ask about that.
Legislative intent is a crap argument. The statue is clear and unambiguous.
The vehicle was in motion before the wreck. Physics still apply. Jeeps don’t turn over on their own. What is present here is room to possibly charge those blue brotherhood clowns with obstruction.
There is no men rea component to this statute but if you really want to go that way, why wasn’t the bottle in the glove compartment or some other area segregated from the vehicle cabin? You could have intended the bottle to be decorative, but if it was opened by breakage or by the seal, it’s still open which means capable of consumption even if you had to lick it off the floor. The charge is “Open Container”, not drunk driving. By the letter of the law, the container was open.
Buddha,
You’re the one claiming that a charge of violating :§55-10-416(2)(a) would be valid. This places the burden on you to prove that the engine was running at the time the bottle was opened. AND that it was possible to consume the contents after it was opened.
I’m glad that most police officers, prosecutors, and judges, have a better understanding of legislative intent than you do.
It’s one thing to state, as AY did, that she should have been charged with violating the open container law based on Professor Turley’s statement that an open container was found at the scene, but quite different when that container was not opened by breaking the seal. It has to do with mens rae.
Awwww. That’s just adorable! You think your powers of deduction are functional!
you sure are defensive, as to your education and it being equal, I would make the deduction that seeing how your not a licensed attorney that education was a waste, except for bullying people here.
Aww, isn’t that sweet. The dancing monkey has a playmate.
You’re right, bdaman.
You can doubt my credentials all you want, half-wit. Ask the other attorney’s here if I have the same education as they do. Start with Bob, Esq, mespo and Mike Appleton. If you still doubt it, ask the Professor.
Seriously, you are just sounding more Wayne every day. Which is both funny and sad at the same time.
blah blah blah troll
What part of this don’t you understand? Rhetorical. I have no burden of proof other than proving your buddy was wrong about the nature of the law and its validity in the current circumstance for meriting a charge. Which I did.
I’m not going to litigate a case I’m 1) not being paid for or for 2) charges that have not been filed although they rightfully should be.
You are a simple creature.
oh and he’s so good at bein an expert he’s never wrong. Kinda makes you wonder why he’s not an astute lawyer. Why is that, oh thats right been building computers since you were eight. I think you would of made a great lawyer.
see told ya, no law degree but he’s an expet
I don’t have to prove squat other than you are wrong about the validity of the charge. Which I already did. In spades. If you want to try this case, pass the Tennessee bar and go defend the officer.
Again:§55-10-416 (2)(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.
Opened by the cap, broken open, if you can drink it, it’s open. And you must have never seen any westerns either. Drinking out of broken whiskey bottles is a standard trope.
You object to a valid charge?
I’m not the prosecutor, sport. I don’t have the burden of anything. Take it up with them.
I’m just the guy who showed you were wrong about the validity of the charge. It’s as simple as that.
good one duh, hey in case you wondering Buddah is a legal expert. He doesn’t hold a law degree but that doesn’t matter. He’s been a legal expert in alot of cases.
Mr. Buddha,
You have the burden of proof, Sir. You need to demonstrate that the engine was running at the time the bottle was opened, and that the contents were capable of being consumed. If the contents were capable of being consumed (part of the statute) you MUST be able to provide the method of possible consumption.
Anonymously Yours
1, January 7, 2010 at 11:12 am
Buddha,
Wishfilled thinking is how the Cheney Machine works.
____
In many more ways than one.
Pardon, telekinesis.
Damn multi-tasking.
“Was it opened while the engine was still running? You’re gonna need to prove that it was.”
You gonna prove it wasn’t? That’d be some card trick. Because before the Jeep came to an abrupt halt it was in motion. So unless Deputy Drunk was moving it with telepathy the engine was running.
Again, HOW the bottle got opening isn’t the point. It was open by the definition provided in the law.
pregnant is still pregnant no matter how she got pregnant, Duh
AY,
Was it opened while the engine was still running? You’re gonna need to prove that it was.