By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Most DUI arrests are rather uninteresting, others have some rather bizarre circumstances, as is the case where the Washington State Patrol arrested Everett, WA Police Lieutenant Jimmy Phillips for suspected DUI. This in itself was not extremely inordinate but what truly struck me as odd were a number of particulars alleged during the incident that made me wonder, “What were you thinking!”
There are certain commonalities manifest in the run of the mill drunk. Every law enforcement officer has heard these excuses and they oddly seem to be taught by a common teacher in Drunk Driving 101, but we would hope that the very ones who see such graduations would not enroll in the course themselves.
The State Patrol alleges that Lieutenant Jimmy Phillips, with Everett, drove his pickup/camper on a freeway near Kennewick while helping himself to shots of Jack Daniels whiskey. He lost control of his vehicle, rolled it, and crashed. Two troopers arrived and investigated, later hooking him up for DUI.
Now, I would like to present to you some of the allegations made during this incident along with commentary on how such events seem to happen with most all accused drunk drivers:
The old “I’ve only had two beers officer.”: The human brain must be hardwired to bring up the “two beers” response when asked how much one had to drink. It is astonishing how common this is, most drivers say it when asked. The lie seems to be inherent with homo sapiens as the statement seems to transcend language, social status and culture.
In this case Lt. Phillips allegedly claimed that he only had “two shots” of whiskey. Troopers claim he blew a .207 on a breath test; two and a half times the legal limit.
“I’ve suffered enough by crashing my car”: When Lt. Phillips was asked by a trooper if he would perform voluntary field sobriety tests he reportedly said, “”Look, the truck and camper are totaled, isn’t that enough?” The arrest report stated that he had watery, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and smelled of alcohol.
They incriminate themselves so easily: “I’ve had too much to drink,” Phillips said to one of the troopers. “I know that, and that’s why I wound up in the ditch.”
Now, if proven these allegations certainly will constitute a Career Limiting MoveTM, especially of a police manager and twenty-five year veteran. His agency now is conducting an internal affairs investigation and it likely will not go well for him.
But with each of the above mistakes he allegedly made, that he obviously should have known better as a veteran officer to repeat, there was one additional that is truly astounding:
Commit a possible Life Limiting MoveTM: It is usually very ill advised to walk up to a law enforcement officer on a traffic stop while carrying a pistol in your hand. Rookies know this from day one. But, Lt. Phillips seems to have forgotten this most basic rule. He approached one of the troopers carrying a cocked and loaded handgun; causing the trooper to draw his weapon and order Phillips to drop the pistol. When asked why he did this he reportedly said, “I just wanted to give you the gun.”
A word of advice, leaving the pistol in the truck and telling the cops it is inside is much, much better.
So again I must pose the question, “What were you thinking?”
By Darren Smith
Sources:
KOMO News
Washington State Patrol (photo credits)
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
http://www.drinkfox.com/information/alcohol-metabolism
The first part of the brain and nervous system affected by alcohol consumption is the area responsible for judgement. Hence, the ridiculous, self-incriminating behavior and language.
Unfortunately, the first drink also dulls judgement perception such that one has the thought that one more drink won’t hurt…I imagine most (sober) readers can see the circular path of unreasonable reasoning started by the first drink.
Paul, You’re simply incorrect. This aforementioned enzyme breaks down alcohol in the stomach before it enters the bloodstream and to the brain. On average, men absorb 30% less alcohol into their bloodstream than do women. BAC stands for blood alcohol concentration.
Nick – I am going to need a cite to back up your claim, please.
Paul, Back when I taught high school I would have discussions about alcohol. I feel it is the duty of teachers to discuss these type of real world issues. So, I did research to have some facts to go along w/ my real world experience. The New England Journal of Medicine published a study on the topic of alcohol tolerance vis a vis the sexes. They found that in men and women of equal weight, men tolerated better. They discovered the reason being men have far more of the enzyme alcohol dehydronenase in their stomach. This is the enzyme that breaks down alcohol.
Nick – there is a difference between tolerate and metabolize. It makes no difference when the cops stop you and you blow over 0.08.
@Nick, the problem is that the risk is too great.
I don’t trust the breathalyzer device to have a narrow margin of error.
So I eat out less.
@ KCF
In addition the police have been known to “stake out” various bars and restaurants where they know that liquor is being served and wait for the patron to leave. With such a small amount of liquor needed to make you over the limit, going out to dinner with your family and having even one glass of wine will put you into a DUI.
Easy money for the cops. Lay in wait and catch you after dinner.
So. Like you, we don’t go out to dine in the evenings much anymore. We will stay home and have cocktails…..my cooking is just as good as the restaurant’s anyway 😀 Or. Go to a friends home for dinner. The cops won’t lay in wait at everyone’s home…..just the restaurants.
The restaurants lose out in the lucrative dinner trade. Bars suffer or cater to the truly hard core drinking crowd.
As a result, the prices of meals have risen to make up for the loss in trade and marginal restaurants go out of business. Some smaller restaurants have just ceased to be open after 5pm. Several of the previously successful lodges that were known for good food and music have completely closed their dining to anyone other than lodge patrons. Others have closed entirely because they are seasonal and can’t stay in business without off season local trade.
KCF, I think checkpoints are wrong. I agree we need to find a balance between safety and personal freedom. It comes down to personal responsibility. I have little concern when I go out to dinner. I have good personal control over drinking and it’s part of the meal. I can have a couple Negroni’s and a glass or two of wine w/ several course over a couple hours. Now, I’ve never been stopped for drinking and never blown into a breathalyzer. So, you may be correct about the vagaries of individual breathalyzers. I would like to hear Darren on this. I know radar guns must be routinely calibrated. What about breathalyzers? However, I still think the key is what my old man taught me. You NEVER drink w/o eating food as well.
@Nick, the problem is that the risk is too great.
I don’t trust the breathalyzer device to have a narrow margin of error.
So I eat out less.
Mission accomplished, I guess.
There is a bit of hysteria and Puritanical evangelism by the modern Molly Hatchets.
If, as in this case, the alcohol caused the accident, let it be punished.
But if there was no accident, just a 0.8 on a random pickup (no driver error or law broken) just to find DUIs, that seems morally wrong.
In my opinion, and notwithstanding the fundamental right to bear arms, there should be no drinking while carrying or handling guns.
I agree with this. It is dangerous to yourself and to others to drive drunk. It is just as dangerous to handle firearms when drinking. Most gun accidents that occur to adults are a result of impaired judgement from drinking and/or drugs.
Every gun safety course that I have taken and in conjunction with getting a hunting license stresses the illegality and danger of hunting while drinking. That and how to safely be able to cross a fence with a loaded rifle or shotgun and not shoot yourself stupidly in the process. Basic common sense.
No drinking and driving. No drinking and guns.
KCF, I agree w/ you the lowering to .08 has hurt the restaurant biz. I do take issue w/ the 1 beer=.08. As you know, the weight of the person and their metabolism are key factors as is if food is consumed. We Italians never drink w/o eating. The other variable is portion control. The aforementioned Democrat AG in WI w/ the “2 glasses of wine” is an example. When I see one of those HUGE wine glasses I think of her and wonder if those were the glasses. LOL! They must hold close to a bottle if filled to the rim. Finally, men tolerate liquor better than women. The only way I could see that 1 beer[12oz.] equaling .08 is maybe a teenage anorexic 85lb. girl. MAYBE.
Nick – I would disagree that men tolerate liquor better than women. Since it is based on body weight, a 200 lb. man can drink more than a 100 lb woman, but a 200 lb woman would tolerate just as much. One of the challenges is that the level of alcohol changes in the body over time. So, when you left the bar you might blow a 0.05, but by the time they pull you over you blow a 0.09.
A strange tale
The Science Geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
He’s on track to become the next Chief.
Who wants to bet it will take longer to decide his career limiting move than to fire that SRO?
A private party with a concealed-carry permit cannot drink while carrying in the overwhelming majority if not all states and in many can’t even be in a bar while carrying, and I’d guess it’s the same with open carry. What’s up with the failure to charge Lt. Phillips with carrying a weapon while drinking let alone being intoxicated?
At least he didn’t say, “Do you know who I am? Glen Campbell.”
Steve Groen,
In Washington it is not a criminal offense to carry a weapon while intoxicated, however there are statutes that can encompass this such as hunting while intoxicated. There is a provision in the law that calls for confiscation of firearms contained within vehicles pursuant to a DUI/Physical Control, vehicular assault or vehicular homicide. The law is a bit quirky with regard to DUIs but a good primer may be read below:
https://www.parnelldefense.com/publications/dui-while-armed/
As for bars it is illegal for any person (including CPL holders) other than the proprietor or a commissioned law enforcement officer to possess a firearm in a liquor licensed establishment such as a bar. This does not apply to say the restaurant part having a closed bar. Generally if the section prohibiting those under 21 also will prohibit firearms. Also Law Enforcement Officers have carry authority greater than that of CPL holders.
Darren: Thanks for providing the Washington carry framework.
I think a Phillips Law should be enacted to prevent law enforcement from carrying while drinking or going into bars while off-duty (and in parts of a restaurant where those under 21 years of age are not allowed). It’s fairly clear that law enforcement officer’s have no higher moral ground here. Lt. Phillips is the rotisserie example of negligence leading to property damage, but an alcohol-enhanced ego with a gun in a bar could produce much the worse.
In my opinion, and notwithstanding the fundamental right to bear arms, there should be no drinking while carrying or handling guns. Period. Bar fights and the like from hurt egos are too prevalent to permit guns, even LEOs’ guns, to enter the mix.
Thanks, Lt. Phillips, for your poorly-contained ego.
he blew a .207 on a breath test
Yikes. He was gooned UP!! You have to practice to be able to contain that level of alcohol and still be conscious.
I hope that he receives the same treatment a civilian who was this drunk and dangerous would receive. And yep…..definitely a career altering event. Or should be.
Why not outlaw booze and drugs completely? You could call it “Prohibition”. I know that I made that name up but it seems appropriate and would work. They cannot make their own drugs or booze. Build up that Wall! Keep the booze and dope out! The aliens too. Well, not all aliens.
Lowering the blood alcohol limits to 0.8 has come at the cost of wrecking much of the fun people used to have.
Which is the point of the law.
As it stands,you cannot have even one beer or glass of wine in Minnesota when going out to eat without risking a DUI. So people go out less.
There is little evidence that one beer results in impaired driving.
Maybe for women, but not men.
The DUI rules are merely a resurrection of the Puritanical Prohibition laws. They exist for moral purity, not safety.
This guy was stone drunk. I’d fine him and forget it.
Absent a history of recidivism, I don’t see the point of crushing him under the DUI leviathan wheels.
What does society gain by jailing him, aside from lawyer fees and feelgoodism?
I know, that’s crazy talk.
Darren, The “2 beers” is the boilerplate or “hard wired” response of most men. Women tend to go w/ the “2 glasses of wine” mantra. We had a former female US Attorney, who later was elected Dem WI. State Attorney General, get stopped by a deputy a few years back. Thankfully, for the cop, he had a dash cam. The woman was stumbling, bumbling, mumbling, drunk. We don’t know how intoxicated because she refused the breathalyzer, however this drunk Dem pol insisted she only had, “2 glasses of wine.” The words I remember the most were, when it was obvious she was getting popped, “Here’s the deal, I’m the Attorney General.” It turned out the deal was she was not long for that office. Although, I know politicians. This happened back in 2004. She got a primary challenge from another woman and lost. I could see her trying to resurrect her career in the future. But, that video will never disappear.
“As if someone like Manning, Assange or Snowden are required to get approvals from some Gov. agency as to what is and/or is not national security, prior to spilling the beans.
We’ve even enacted whistle blower protections laws so why the hell are these three guys still being incarcerated or requiring political asylum somewhere else.
When whistle blowers are treated as criminals for exposing government fraud, is this not a sign of a society being run by the real criminals.” – hskiprob
Yes. And there are many other whistleblowers beside these three who are serving time based on trumped up charges.
A clear cut conviction for DUI, if the Police officers did what they are supposed to do. As a libertarian, we are not fond of malum prohibtum laws and that these problems can be handled more effectively with other law enforcement techniques.
When a person is creating an imminent danger, as this officer surely was, you have an indictable action. DUI has become a huge legal business so I can understand why attorneys may not want to alter the existing system. Of course the poorer people who cannot afford council will be treated more harshly than those that can afford attorneys. The Breathalyzer tests limits seem to be on the low size especially for the larger folks who can hold their liquor a bit better.
It’s not necessarily always just the bottom line statistical results to determine how to promote safety. The negative results of social policy must also be considered. Malum prohibitum laws have costs Americans $trillions in legal and social costs. We used to put the drunk in jail for the night and let him sleep it off, when he was caught creating an eminent danger. When a drunk driver does hurt someone else or their property, I thought the penalties were not stiff enough. Now we have gone the exact opposite and make it to easy for law enforcement to get a conviction and the penalties to stiff, especially when no eminent danger was created.
Cops can just stake out the local bar, wait for their “favorite” individual(s) to have an few and nab him as soon as he starts his car and drives off. Of course cops would never do that? Our law enforcement system works on arrest and conviction success. We’ve incentivized arrest and incarcerations to such an extent that even the cops are reaching out to try to limit the number of incarcerations. Felonies also limit the voter ranks.
I don’t know the statistical results on the number of lives saved or the number of lives destroyed but they are both important. The negative ramifications of social policies are often worse than the benefits.
Just from this various post on this blog it is easy to see that our police state is strong and getting more and more violent.
I am a political or socio-economist so I am observing from a different perspective that those that are in the trenches. It seems today we have more laws and regulations then ever before and the results should be considered. We have right now, 98 million people on food stamps and that is because they are living at or near the poverty line. If it was 5% of our society you could chalk it up to being dead beats, etc, but approximately 1/3 of our society is now living at or near the poverty line.
To me this suggests some very systemic problems. Most sit back and observe not wanting to rattle the gages of the beast for fear of retaliation and I et that. When people are being arrested and imprisoned for blowing the whistle on government corruption or trying to fight it, this also indicates a systemic problem. As if someone like Manning, Assange or Snowden are required to get approvals from some Gov. agency as to what is and/or is not national security, prior to spilling the beans.
We’ve even enacted whistle blower protections laws so why the hell are these three guys still being incarcerated or requiring political asylum somewhere else.
When whistle blowers are treated as criminals for exposing government fraud, is this not a sign of a society being run by the real criminals.
Legal systems depend on people being rational but they are not. Even those considered relatively well-balanced frequently commit irrational acts (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes for quite a lengthy list of self-defeating behavior.)