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.
And I don’t want your inability to read a plain face statute get in the way of you protecting a cop from being charged. The only tail chasing is yours.
Let me know if you ever catch your tail. We wouldn’t want the facts to get in the way of making a determination as to the validity of the charge.
Open is open regardless of how it got open. Michigan passed a statute to allow for open bottles of wine to be exempted from the laws pertaining to Open Containers. I guarantee that a drunk that has spilled whiskey will lick a counter to get it off. You fool yourself if you think not.
I would admit defeat were I defeated. Your wishful thinking asides as well, bdatroll.
“Were the contents immediately capable of being consumed? Where were the contents after the bottle broke? Where the contents on the soil or the road?”
Both matters for the trier for fact. At trial.
90% of the men in the United States masturbate in the shower, 10% sing, do you know what they sing?
Sorry Buddah you are wrong and Duh is right.
he’s got you right here,
The statute says “the contents of which are immediately capable of being consumed”. Were the contents immediately capable of being consumed? Where were the contents after the bottle broke? Where the contents on the soil or the road?
The intent of the statute was not to charge people for liquor bottles that break open as the result of a MV accident.
admit defeat and walk away, your wrong but your ego wont allow you to admit it.
98% of Canadians say “Oh Shit!” before plowing into the ditch on a slippry road.
The other 2% are from Calgary and they say “Hold my beer and watch this…”
Those are all matters for the trier of fact. You want to quibble about how they could consume it when the statute says simply “immediately capable of being consumed” which means able to get from where it’s at to the mouth. I’ve seen alcoholics spill a drink an lap it up like a dog. Literally suck it out of the carpet (which is a pathetic sight but I digress). The method of consumption is not the point. The capacity to consume is the point.
In addition, the legislature DID intend for you to transport liquor someplace other than in the cabin – (2)(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.
Well what do you know! There were no passengers! Guess whose possession it was in absent being out of the cabin then?
Open
Container
The container was open. How it got that way is irrelevant still.
Again, you want to litigate. I merely want to charge. There is enough evidence to charge as the statute is written. Deal with it. Go to court if you want to litigate. This is a blog.
No Buddha, Open is not open (according to the statute). It must be open in such a manner as to be available for consumption. Were the contents available for consumption? The statute says “the contents of which are immediately capable of being consumed”. Were the contents immediately capable of being consumed? Where were the contents after the bottle broke? Where the contents on the soil or the road?
The intent of the statute was not to charge people for liquor bottles that break open as the result of a MV accident.
Thank you for your explanation, I just like given you a hard time.
You know. Charge. Trial. Verdict. That whole due process thing.
badtroll,
It’s called “a choice”. I’ve told the story here long ago of why I walked away from the profession. But it was indeed a choice. If I wanted, I could go take a bar exam and get a license again. I simply don’t want to, although a family friend recently tempted me to take the Hawaii Bar. Then I came to my senses. The main reason is that aside from the most excellent attorneys who frequent this site, I find most attorneys to be insufferable venal bores pretty much 24/7. The profession attracts a lot of greedy people who don’t really care about the law, just their pocketbooks. There are a lot more John Yoo’s than Jonothan Turley’s and our legal system suffers for it. Life is short. I decided to surround myself with a higher quality person on a daily basis.
Duh,
You prove it. You’re the one who wants to litigate. I just pointed out the charge would be valid. Contrary to your first ridiculous assertion:
“I read nothing that would support an open container charge.”
Except the entirety of the statute which you then proceeded to try to distort to get your outcome based reasoning to work. If the legislators wanted the law to say “An open container is legal as long as no one in the cabin intended to consume it” they’d have worded it that way, but since we don’t have the Psychic Brain Police, they didn’t. They wrote the law the way they did instead. And as far a laws go, that one is pretty clear. Open is open. Why it’s open is beside the point. Still. You keep on wishing though.
The bottom line here is cops broke procedure and lied to protect a fellow officer. All this argument about a charge not filed is you pulling you pud trying to rationalize letting a cop get away with a suspected crime, a suspected crime with enough evidence present to merit a charge – potential verdict notwithstanding.
AY,
I’m not looking for an affirmative defense. When driving a motor vehicle you take the responsibility for controlling the vehicle. Defective speed indication would be an affirmative defense.
A bottle breaking during an accident would be beyond the control and responsibility of the actor. That’s why we generally look for the seal to be broken. The statute also provides that the contents must be able to be consumed. Chances are, the contents could not be consumed after the bottle was opened by breakage. Per the statute “the contents of which are immediately capable of being consumed”. What method made the consumption possible? Was it possible to consumed it by soaking it up with a shirt and sucking on the shirt?
AY,
“It is a gimme charge. But the COPS would never do that to their own. If it were you or I, Hell yes.”
Could you provide some clairfication? What do you mean by “it is a gimme charge”? Do COPS never make the charge on their own? Are you suggesting that this person, if the bottle was broken as a result of the accident, would not be charged unless prompted by a prosecutor? If it were you or I, would we be cited, or would we not be cited?
Did you intend to speed? Was it an accident that you speed or just got caught. They are General Intent, you actions set up the consequences. The Vehicle code as a general rule is General Intent. What you learn about AR and MR is school is just that you learned it. The cops should understand it but are not as bright as you’d think.
“So, what is meant is if you want to know what the purpose of a law is, you have to go back and review what the committee notes, hearings, memos etc to find out what they intended for the Statute to accomplish.”
But Buddha claims that legislative intent is irrelevant. Which is it?
Without mens rae and actus reus we have no due process.
I’ve never seen anyone charged with open container due to a broken bottle. In many jurisdictions you can’t even have an open container in public. I have trouble believing that any rational person would consider the accidental breakage of a bottle to be in violation of the statute.
Duh,
It is a gimme charge. But the COPS would never do that to their own. If it were you or I, Hell yes.
It does not matter how it got opened. Tennessee I do not believe is an Intent State. So, what is meant is if you want to know what the purpose of a law is, you have to go back and review what the committee notes, hearings, memos etc to find out what they intended for the Statute to accomplish.
Also, my feelings aside, when it comes to the Vehicle code of most states you give up certain rights. That said, say you had 4 people and one bag of dope. It cannot be proved who owns the dope. Some states now are charging all 4 with possession and if the registered owner is not in the car they will impound the car for transporting illegal narcotics. They try and make it very expensive for everyone.
AY,
In response to your statement directed at bdaman:
“Also, the info about the bottle came from the article link.”
I gave you the benefit of doubt. Your statement would indicate that you were aware that the only reason the bottle was considered to be “open” is that it broke during the accident.
Do you, as an attorney, think that a bottle, considered to be open because it broke during an accident, should result in a charge of violating the open container law?
Bdaman,
Let us not get to personal. Come on, I am a licensed attorney as well. For what ever reason someone chooses not to do what they get education for has nothing to do with the subject at had.
Also, the info about the bottle came from the article link.
What’s wrong with this picture? If mens rae and actus reus are no longer components, how do you claim due process?