Radley Balko Takes DUI Arrest and Turns It Into a Case of Cops Who Break Into a Guy’s Home for Having Words with Them
Radley Balko specializes in those stories that make you think: “Wow! I can’t believe it!” Often, it’s because you shouldn’t. Here is his latest, from today:
Via the comments, police break into Pennsylvania man’s home, arrest and jail him after he exchanges words with an off-duty state trooper. The man says he was confronting the trooper about parking in a no-parking zone. Even if the guy was drunk and cursing, as the cops allege, that isn’t cause to break into his home. The refusal to release the 911 recording certainly inclines one to think the cops are lying, here.
(Italics in original.) That’s his entire entry on the story.
Well. First of all, the cops aren’t the ones who didn’t release the tape. From the story linked by Balko:
Public Opinion filed a Freedom of Information request on Tuesday for that tape, and was notified on Wednesday by County Clerk Jean Byers, who is the county’s appointed open records officer, that “the public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the interest in nondisclosure.”
Moreover, if the guy “was drunk and cursing” then he drove drunk — because right after he mouthed off to the cop, he got in his car and drove home.
Doyle said he went to the store after watching one of the NFL playoff games and he walked to get there. He was there earlier in the day and his car wouldn’t start for the trip home, so Doyle walked home to Scotland Avenue and walked back later to get some things at Staples and Giant, and bring home his car.
The man in the pickup truck flashed a badge from his wallet, saying that badge entitled him to park there.
Doyle replied that the man was “special” since he was not in a patrol car, or in uniform, and had a child with him.
Doyle said he walked away, and the off-duty officer, Trooper Craig Finkle, called him back. Doyle said he walked part way back to Finkle and heard the off-duty officer ask on his cell phone for “units that can roll now.”
Doyle went to his car, it started, and he went home.
Balko didn’t mention that part.
If he had just been driving drunk, police may well have had exigent circumstances to make a warrantless entry into his home to preserve the evidence.
Apparently he got a blood alcohol test and was subsequently booked for DUI:
Doyle was taken to Chambersburg Hospital for a blood-alcohol test and then booked into Franklin County Jail on two charges of driving under the influence and one charge of disorderly conduct.
Balko didn’t mention that part.
What will his likely defense be? That he had a high BAC because he drank at home:
At home where he lives alone with two bulldogs, Doyle said he put away his groceries, let his dogs out of the kitchen area, and had a martini he’d prepared earlier and left on the counter. He said he’d had the same kind of drink earlier in the day.
A martini he had prepared earlier and left on the counter? Before he went out for a walk and got some groceries?
Bullshit.
My guess: the cops were right on his ass, and came in just after he got home. Meaning he didn’t have time to prepare a martini. So: he claims that he prepared one earlier, which allowed him to toss it down really quickly after he got home.
Oh — and it was really strong, ossifer! So if my BAC is high, it’s because of that really strong martini I drank after I got home.
It’s a convenient (and absurd) story that reads to me like an attempt to explain away a BAC reading over the legal limit.
Balko didn’t mention that part.
Look: I don’t know the facts here. I don’t know what his BAC was. Is it absolutely impossible that cops acted nefariously? No, it’s not absolutely impossible.
But, once you get past the spin of the linked story, this appears to be a drunk driving arrest, pure and simple.
At the very least, Balko should have told people that the guy was given a blood alcohol test, was arrested for DUI, and had a really stupid-sounding story about preparing a martini and leaving it on the counter to walk off and shop for groceries.
But Radley Balko will swallow any old line of crap that takes an anti-cop stance. And he will hide the facts from you that go against his pro-defense spin.
Par for the course from this guy.
UPDATE 1-16-10 10:26 a.m.: Some commenters appear to be missing the point. Balko’s major and inexcusable omission is that the guy admits he drove after the confrontation with the cop. So if the guy was drunk, it does potentially give the cops the right to break into his home. In most jurisdictions where DUI is a jailable offense, courts have allowed cops to break into homes without a warrant to preserve blood alcohol evidence. (It’s different if DUI is not a jailable offense, as in Wisconsin.)
How can Balko possibly justify making this about whether the cops had the right to break into the guy’s home . . . yet conceal the ONE FACT that arguably DID give them that right?
there’s definitely days it would be nice to come home and surprise myself with a martini waiting on the counter. That just never happens to me.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/15/2010 @ 10:30 pmThere was this mobbed-up guy who died. His brother went to the priest and said “I’ll pay you $500 to say my brother was a saint at his eulogy.”
At the eulogy, the priest said “Vincenzo was a drunk, drug-dealing, carrousing, murderous pimp. But, compared to his brother, he was a saint.”
Compared to Cyrus Sinai, Radley Balko is a saint.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 1/15/2010 @ 10:44 pmFrom time to time I rap on a cops window and ask why is he parked in the handicapped space? I also wonder why they speed and think it’s OK. I also wonder how exactly is it that a citizen gets a ticket for a rolling stop at a stop sign but cops get away with it all the time.
I think the country used to have a thing that made even the cops stay on the straight and narrow. Wish we still had it. It was probably called Sergeant’s and Lieutenants and guys doing their actual job but now, they’re all union pricks who speed and run stop signs and are most happy to write you a ticket for doing the same thing..
Random (653a53) — 1/15/2010 @ 11:03 pmLocal cop here in my town rolled through the stop at the end of my block. I was on my bike when he rolled the stop, and then pulled into the local park to have a “tactical stop” with another unit that was already there. I called him out of his car, told him he should be setting a better example in observing the VC, that he was in my neighborhood, and his actions had been noted.
AD - RtR/OS! (bc0057) — 1/15/2010 @ 11:08 pmWhen I got home, I sent an email to the Chief.
I guess I’m just lucky. Cops all drive like grannies out here. Half of them look like they could have a heart attack any second, but they don’t break the traffic laws.
Of course, I’ve seen lots of cops break traffic laws. Sometimes they have a good reason to speed without using their lights and siren, though, of course, driving a fast car you don’t own with no chance of getting a ticket is going to tempt some problems. If the cop is action oriented, this is even harder to deal with. It’s poor discipline and ought to be complained about.
It’s also quite a bit different from busting into my house for complaining about it. That’s a serious accusation. No doubt, the cop was annoyed at this jerk and happy to find a way to ruin his evening, but the fact that the jerk was a drunk driver probably played a role. I’m going to have a nice, lukewarm, stale martini that I left here this morning and think it over.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/15/2010 @ 11:25 pmOh GAWD has it been three months since your last pouncing on Radley already?
Late Morning Links
# Via the comments, police break into Pennsylvania man’s home, arrest and jail him after he exchanges words with an off-duty state trooper. The man says he was confronting the trooper about parking in a no-parking zone. Even if the guy was drunk and cursing, as the cops allege, that isn’t cause to break into his home. The refusal to release the 911 recording certainly inclines one to think the cops are lying, here.
# D.C. Metro general manager John Catoe resigns. ‘Bout damn time.
# “…there could be two Americans receiving the exact same benefits, but one American may be taxed and one wouldn’t, and the only difference would be one of them being a member of a union.” Welcome to Obamacare, where some people are more equal than others!
# He does work in mysterious ways.
# Federal judge blocks FDA’s attempt to prohibit electronic cigarettes. The campaign against e-cigarettes is one of the dumbest things the agency has done in some time. It could quite literally kill people.
# Another fun blog: Letters of Note.
There is the entire thread that Radley posted. Six different subjects, something that he does every day. With links to the actual stories of course. Go read if desired, comment if desired, or not.
How about the near disertation he provides in the story before his daily links? Late Morning Links
# Via the comments, police break into Pennsylvania man’s home, arrest and jail him after he exchanges words with an off-duty state trooper. The man says he was confronting the trooper about parking in a no-parking zone. Even if the guy was drunk and cursing, as the cops allege, that isn’t cause to break into his home. The refusal to release the 911 recording certainly inclines one to think the cops are lying, here.
# D.C. Metro general manager John Catoe resigns. ‘Bout damn time.
# “…there could be two Americans receiving the exact same benefits, but one American may be taxed and one wouldn’t, and the only difference would be one of them being a member of a union.” Welcome to Obamacare, where some people are more equal than others!
# He does work in mysterious ways.
# Federal judge blocks FDA’s attempt to prohibit electronic cigarettes. The campaign against e-cigarettes is one of the dumbest things the agency has done in some time. It could quite literally kill people.
# Another fun blog: Letters of Note.
Pat, there are some very evil people in this world and far too many of them carry badges and use Esq behind their name. I don’t think that Radley Balko is one of the evil persons in this world, but for sure he lets the public know details about many of them, as you and your own blog do as well.
You do not desire to be compared to Nifong or even this Coakley bitch. Yet your own paycheck comes from the same sources theirs did and does. Your job description may be pretty close as well.
I’m pretty sure that Pat Frey is so far above the other two mentioned in how he does his job it almost does not deserve mention. I think you are. I think many others as well think you are too.
I also think that most of what Radley shares with the world is also well done. Morning links are just that, ever read Fark? But when it’s time for real digging, I think he does the same level of job that you do.
*************
Hey did you catch Barkley and Smith last night on TNT comparing who was the blackest? They even had some written tests for backup too! Yeah!
TC (0b9ca4) — 1/15/2010 @ 11:33 pmTC, I have no idea about the history of this guy, but Patterico is spot on when he says this:
At the very least, Balko should have told people that the guy was given a blood alcohol test, was arrested for DUI, and had a really stupid-sounding story about preparing a martini and leaving it on the counter to walk off and shop for groceries.
I hope they got the BAC test to him quickly — because there are statistics on how long it takes for alcohol to be absorbed — and if they gave him the BAC fast enough, then he WON’T be able to claim the BAC was what it was based on the martini he claims to have had, if it’s high enough.
Either way, the moron will have to spend $5k to $10k in legal fees to get his worthless dumbass off.
O Bloody Hell (79d71d) — 1/15/2010 @ 11:44 pmTC:
I see. It’s called “Morning Links” and this entitles Balko to distort the facts.
And if someone points it out, try to mention Nifong somewhere. Not that it’s relevant, but our prejudices call for it regardless of the fact that it has nothing to do with anything.
Just for God’s sake don’t address the actual post. That would be a very uncomfortable thing to do.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/15/2010 @ 11:51 pmO Bloody Hell, the history is very similar to a few others. They are frequently caught omitting major aspects of the story, Patterico or some other blogger points out the major flaw, and a bunch of readers pour in to insult the guy who told the truth. Because they are fanboys of Balko or whoever it is that day.
TC, you say Balko and Patterico operate at the same quality level, and yet I never see anyone point out Patterico actually doing this kind of thing. As you note, this is not the first time Balko’s been caught playing games with the facts. If you have a problem with people embarrassing Balko, maybe you should take it up with him. He writes very passionately about civil rights, and I want him to succeed. And he can’t now, because he has no credibility with anyone who is fair and informed. Learn that lesson: passion and outrage with no integrity is a huge waste of talent. Balko is that waste.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/15/2010 @ 11:53 pmWhile defense attorneys are very necessary to get innocent people free of criminal charges, the biggest part of defense attorneys’ work (IMNSHO) is to get guilty people free of criminal charges. And, quite frankly, an intentional omission of pertinent facts means “YOU LIE!”
Especially when you’re acting as a blogger disconnected to the case instead of as an attorney tied to the case.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 1/15/2010 @ 11:57 pm(Oh, and Dustin, you called me out, so to speak. And I answered your call over here. Wanna “read and respond”?)
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 1/16/2010 @ 12:06 amI don’t read Balko’s blog. It’s not because I’m sure he’s never right; to the contrary, I suspect, and concede, that he’s right at least some of the time. No, the reason I don’t read his blog is because I have seen too many occasions on which he’s been intellectually dishonest by refusing to even acknowledge that there may be another side to the stories he self-appoints himself to be a crusader about. I believe he knows better; I believe he doesn’t care about being objective because there’s no glory or sitemeter credit for crusading in favor of law enforcement. He’s forfeited my respect and I simply don’t think he’s worth my time. (But I do confess to being just interested enough in his shenanigans to enjoy seeing him comprehensively skewered yet another time.)
TC: You really ought to be more careful about who and what you compare to Nifong. The one you made here suggests to me that you fail to appreciate both how genuinely awful Nifong’s conduct was and how genuinely rare that degree of misconduct is among American prosecutors anywhere. You put yourself into the category of moonbats who bark continuously about “Nazis” when they’re really just upset at how someone runs his soup stand.
Beldar (470322) — 1/16/2010 @ 12:12 amI agree that it’s dishonest to bend the facts for the defendant (in this case a drunk driving low life), when you pose as a journalist.
I don’t have a problem with a defense attorney hell bent on testing the state’s case from every angle. The government should never have the power to put people in jail unless they can prove their case to the people, and part of that is hard scrutiny.
Why shouldn’t the defense attorney do his best to free their client? The state has all these resources, potential for abuses, and we have agreed to a system where justice burdens the State rather than the accused. It’s obviously not the lawyer’s “biggest” part to get “guilty” people free. In fact, if they know their client is guilty, they are very limited in how they can proceed (And they can’t really lie about it). Of course, one can pretend to know that all defense attorneys are evil and lie all the time and want to get rich helping killers. Similarly, one can pretend that cops and DAs are assholes who only want to bolster their career and show power. But most folks are good.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/16/2010 @ 12:15 amDustin, I think you aimed partially at me and perhaps partially at others. Word to the wise: When you’re hunting airborne geese, don’t aim for the flock. Aim for a single goose. If you aim for the flock, chances are you’ll miss entirely.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 1/16/2010 @ 12:20 amJohn, I am not in that thread because it’s just not interesting to me to point out the banal. Entire races of slaves cannot locate the devil and negotiate with him. You said they did as “fact”, because you don’t define “fact” the way I do. It’s hard to repeat what I find obvious without being ugly, and I don’t find that fun either.
Best wishes.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/16/2010 @ 12:31 amOK, John, now you’re just acting way too sensitive to the debate. You didn’t make any substantive contribution with #14. Do you really expect someone to reply to that with anything substantive?
It’s not because I’m sure he’s never right; to the contrary, I suspect, and concede, that he’s right at least some of the time. No, the reason I don’t read his blog is because I have seen too many occasions on which he’s been intellectually dishonest by refusing to even acknowledge that there may be another side to the stories he self-appoints himself to be a crusader about. I believe he knows better
This is the problem for me. If you read Patterico’s post, it’s not that Balko was sloppy or even clumsy about leaving out parts he didn’t find outrageous. He surgically plays with the facts. He’s doing this on purpose, even after several occasions where it’s embarrassed him. He has a large following of people who are angry about the growing number of videos and stories showing cops acting like assholes (and many of the stories are accurate). He zealously makes a great case sometimes, and we all know he’s smart.
Someone who honors liberty and justice and truth shouldn’t be such a flaming hypocrite about the lives of the cops he’s messing with by playing with the facts. As John pointed out, he’s not even the defense attorney. He’s in the role of journalist. It’s his depth and care and his passion for justice that make his dishonesty much more annoying.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/16/2010 @ 12:44 amSo the unanswered question seems to be was that trooper out of line? Does he merit any special consideration when parking off duty, out of uniform, in a private vehicle, with his child in the rig?
And speaking of bullshit as our host puts it;
“the public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the interest in nondisclosure.”
What’s that all about? This is a DUI case not a matter of national security. Why shouldn’t the public have a free and unfettered access to the documentation that records a public servant’s job performance if that performance is in question. Breaking into a man’s house and depriving him of his liberty is a serious matter.
I watched a cop perjur himself when I was a kid about a court case so trivial it couldn’t possibly matter. I was an eyewitness to the incident that annoyed the cop and I was an eyewitness to his perjury. That stuck with me my whole life.
Cops have a sense of entitlement I find quite annoying. Somehow Patterrico never seems to comment much on the mostly small but sometime big
cases of police corruption and police abuse of power that are fairly routine daily occurrences.
[note: released from moderation filter. Using the word “shit” in any context flags it automatically. –Stashiu]
Amused Observer (fe7486) — 1/16/2010 @ 2:10 amWow Patrick, certainly got a chubby for Radley goin. . .you mentioned that the guy that did the Nifong comparison didn’t look at the post. Um, Ok, let’s do that.
On the face of it, you’re swinging the pendulum as far to one side as you rail on that Balko has done – whereas you slam Balko for taking the defendant’s side without question, seems that you’re doing the dame for the cops.
Was there an amount of time after the guy returned home that he could have consumed alcohol – apparently. Was he actually intoxicated during the initial encounter? Unclear, it’s a he said/she said situation.
Does it appear that the cop (apparently taking liberties by using a special parking spot, off duty, in civvies) began escalating the situation when he was called out on it? If the account that he was calling for backup to roll even before the defendant went anywhere near a vehicle, then, seems so. The story lacks any mention of a physical altercation, either claimed or charged, which would have been present if it was anything more than an exchange of words. And if the guy was leaving after having his say – why was backup required?
BOTH sides of this fish story stink, imho.
Of course, I’ve just engaged in the same sort of extrapolation you’ve done to excoriate Balko, with such extrapolation being the crux of your complaint, it seems. Fact is, none of the three of us were even present.
Balko has done a LOT of work highlighting law enforcement missteps – his outlook on the matter is probably a bit shaded, given some of the examples of malfeasance he’s discovered – what’s surprising, to me, at any rate, is that an officer of the court, sworn to uphold the rule of law, and not men, is so immediately dismissive, if not derisive, of the work that Balko performs. Does he get it 100% right and absolutely accurate every single time? Don’t know, I have my doubts – but having reviewed quite a bit of his body of works, I, for one, am grateful he’s actually out there doing the job he does do – he’s part of the answer to the “who watches the watchers’ question, in a way a doppleganger to yourself, but instead of scrutinizing the entity known as the LA Times, Balko watches for cops acting badly.
And that, in the grand scale of things, seems to me to be a bit more useful a service, all things considered.
Because ‘editors gone wild/lazy/stupid’ in the LA Times newsroom don’t have a track record of killing innocent people.
My two cents. Take it, or leave em in the little change cup at the mini-mart.
Wind Rider (2ef0d3) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:51 amBalko didn’t mention that part.
He linked to the entire story. May find it hard to believe but most of of are smart enough to read the entire story, not just his take on it.
It’s a convenient (and absurd) story that reads to me like an attempt to explain away a BAC reading over the legal limit
Can you give a link to what the BAC was?
Gerald A (b7b396) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:04 am“Can you give a link to what the BAC was?”
Gerald A. – If he was charged with two counts of DUI after a BAC test was administered I would assume that the BAC was over the legal limit, but the level is not mentioned in the story or a link provided. Your mileage obviously differs.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:31 amYet more proof that even a fish wouldn’t get caught if he’d keep his mouth shut.
ropelight (67ffc0) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:31 amThere have been enough times that I’ve forgotten an errand or had one assigned just after making my evening G&T that I now have an established procedure:
DOuglas2 (c210a6) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:41 amPour the mixed drink from the glass into a new glass using a knife held across the rim to keep the ice in the old glass.
Dispose of the ice in the sink.
Leave the iceless drink on the counter next to the refrigerator.
Upon my return add new ice and be happy I don’t have to go out again.
Admittedly it isn’t as fizzy, but at least it’s not watery, which is awful.
Wind Rider, you never address why it is that Balko leaves out key information.
Why is that?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:43 amI had to laugh at the “cops do this and the cops do that comments” like that somehow justifies this guy driving under the influence and endangering the motoring public. You don’t drive drunk, flee from the cops into your house & call “Kings X.” It doesn’t work that way. Ase law is firmly on the side of the officers in this case.
For the record, the cops where I live park in the red all the time. While it’s very tacky it doesn’t justify criminal acts by other.
If you called the police because someone was breaking into your house in the middle of the night, would you want the responding officers to make full stops at every sign & drive the speed limit? I doubt it.
Stan Switek (5bee91) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:44 amHello Beldar.
WLS Shipwrecked (3d3fb8) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:01 amFor those saying Patterico never engages in dishonest summaries of the facts, you should read the story linked to by Balko again. Patterico claims that the driver wouldn’t have had enough time to mix a drink so came up with a ridiculous story about having a drink pre-prepared. What Patterico doesn’t mention is that according to the story the guy moved his dogs twice and put away his groceries. Why wouldn’t he just omit one of the times moving his dogs if he was going to try to lie about his actions at home anyway? Of course, Patterico didn’t tell you about all the other things the drive did while at home, because that doesn’t fit with his “came right home and didn’t have time to fix a drink” theory.
hattio (90fae0) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:30 amBeldar: Well played (the Seinfeld reference).
Old Coot (d2bd0f) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:39 amThe Fix a drink or chug-a-lug defenses are one of the oldest in the book. If you are drinking when the cops come through the door, you can create a reasonable doubt that your blood alcohol was over the legal limit while you were driving. The argument for the high blood alcohol being the alcohol you drank immediately upon arriving home what what caused you BA to exceed the legal limits.
If the police chase you to your house, they are not required to immediately crash through your door. It can take a bit of time for back up to arrive, brief the arriving officers on the situation, set up a perimeter, then start trying to talk the person out before making entry. More than enough time to put away groceries, move dogs & mix a drink.
Stan Switek (5bee91) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:41 amI don’t know why they wouldn’t release the 911 tape unless it would somehow embarrass the police.
Making a “martini” takes about 30 seconds.
Drinking it can take a couple minutes.
I’ve heard you are supposed to insist on a blood test, but this type of case where you are trying to prove you were drinking too much very quickly and very recently may be different.
The cops here drive fast, on their cell phones, roll stops, make right turns without stopping at red lights, make unsafe lane changes and are all around crappy drivers… with entitled attitudes. Above their own laws.
SteveG (909b57) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:46 amUnion workers.
Is this really that odd? I’m thinking of what I did last night when I got home from work: I started going through the fridge to see what I wanted to fix for dinner, poured two fingers of Yamazaki 18 year, then went to the store to pick a few things up before I had a drink.
mlb (d28ed5) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:49 amBalko has a whole colony of cop haters over there and he plays to them every so often. We see the evidence here in some of the ridiculous comments here today. I have my own problems with certain deputy sheriffs in this “safest city in the country” who swagger around like they were just back from Afghanistan but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t deserve it if I was driving with an elevated BAC.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:54 amNo, I don’t. I say that’s my guess.
Sure it does. It gives him even LESS time to prepare a drink.
I see Cut and Paste Joe is hard at work over at Balko’s. Which I appreciate, because I WANT this sort of dishonesty to be put in Balko’s face, but I don’t want to comment over there. I’m lucky Joe doesn’t ask for payment for spreading my work around the Web.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 10:21 amBalko’s major and inexcusable omission is that the guy admits he drove. So if he was drunk, it DOES potentially give the cops the right to break into his home.
How can Balko possibly justify making this about whether the cops had the right to break into the guy’s home . . . yet conceal the ONE FACT that arguably DID give them that right?
Everything else (the weird martini story) is just circumstantial evidence that the guy was DUI. But that’s not the real point of the post. The real point of the post is Balko concealing from his readers the information that possibly justifies the cops’ entry.
Balko supporters, please address that concealment. Concealing facts is cool as long as it advances an anti-cop viewpoint? Is that your argument?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 10:25 am“Balko supporters, please address that concealment. Concealing facts is cool as long as it advances an anti-cop viewpoint? Is that your argument?”
There’s no “concealment” to address. Balko gave a quick take on a story and linked to the whole story.
The story he linked to, and that you cite, provides no “information that possibly justifies the cops’ entry.” The arresting officers entered Doyle’s home citing a bogus “disorderly conduct” charge based on the fact that he embarrassed a cop who didn’t think the law applied to him, not a DUI charge based on anything resembling probable cause (the charging officers didn’t observe him driving).
Probable cause is something to be established before the fact, not drummed up after the fact to cover ass.
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/16/2010 @ 11:00 amAccording to Doyle. Which, if true, merits a “so what?” If the original officer had reason to believe he was drunk and saw him drive, that can provide probable cause for the entry. Saying the “charging officers” did not see him drive doesn’t matter if another officer did.
It absolutely is a cover-up of the very reason they entered his house. Whether you want to admit it or not.
Patterico (d190ef) — 1/16/2010 @ 11:27 amKnapp, there is concealment to address but more importantly, you’ve now made a claim that is simply not true – that the “charging officers” have to be the witnesses of the events creating probable cause for arrest.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2010 @ 11:54 amPatterico,
If you believe that giving a short, opinionated account of a story and linking to a full account of that story so that others can see it for themselves constitutes “concealment,” then there’s really not much anyone can do for you (except hope like hell that any judge/jury you prosecute a case in front of takes your severe dissociative disorder into account when evaluating your arguments).
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/16/2010 @ 12:39 pmI see my comment has been expunged, must have struck a nerve.
“He has a large following of people who are angry about the growing number of videos and stories showing cops acting like assholes (and many of the stories are accurate).”
Cop entitlement is as much a part of this story as alcohol. We’ll see if this post stays or if it is edited.
Amused Observer (6b0b10) — 1/16/2010 @ 1:01 pmSo – It is the smart, macho thing to do to go around challenging other males when they do something you don’t like, as in where they park. And when the guy you challenge flashes some sort of badge – why then you’d better show you are not some girly man by upping the ante by mouthing off some MORE.
Aren’t there other, better, examples of police misconduct – i.e. swat teams going to the wrong house and killing someone by accident- than intoxicated guys deciding to play metermaid? Just asking…..
Californio (2b503c) — 1/16/2010 @ 1:05 pmI see my comment has been expunged, must have struck a nerve.
“He has a large following of people who are angry about the growing number of videos and stories showing cops acting like assholes (and many of the stories are accurate).”
Cop entitlement is as much a part of this story as alcohol. We’ll see if this post stays. It is not a sign of the strength of one’s position to delete dissent.
[I found your earlier comment in moderation. It was using the word “bullshit” that automatically placed it there. If you think a comment is missing, mention it in another comment or email the tip email and someone will check the moderation and spam filters. Comments are not deleted for being oppositional. –Stashiu]
Amused Observer (6b0b10) — 1/16/2010 @ 1:07 pmFirst off I must apologize for the double headline post, the second occurrence should have been this.
“Dorothy Rabinowitz on Martha Coakley and the Fells Acres Sex Abuse Cases”
**********
OK, here is the post again, all broke up with comments inserted.
“Via the comments, police break into Pennsylvania man’s home, arrest and jail him after he exchanges words with an off-duty state trooper.”
That seems to be an accurate observation of the facts by Balko as printed in the source article.
“The man says he was confronting the trooper about parking in a no-parking zone.” [out of uniform with child in tow].
That also seems to be factual, according to the source article.
“Even if the guy was drunk and cursing, as the cops allege, that isn’t cause to break into his home.”
Do police actually have the right to break into your home to ascertain if a crime was or had taken place with little more than a phone call declaring such?
“The refusal to release the 911 recording certainly inclines one to think the cops are lying, here.”
Radley does not exactly pull such out of dark places, there is quite a large body of evidence to back his supposition that somebody is being less than open and truthful.
************
Now there are the comments I believe you solicited about the post of Radley’s post.
You said, “I see. It’s called “Morning Links” and this entitles Balko to distort the facts.”
I do not see fact distortion, I do see an educated and experienced observation being expressed based upon officials NOT releasing the 911 tapes.
All Radley said was, hey gang, check this out, this might be another iceberg. Given his experience that is a valid and factual observation on his part. Not a distortion.
However I did post about your thread. Your thread was not about some alleged drunk and disorderly fellow, your post was designed to cause embarrassment to Radley Balko and his work. To create a shitstorm over an item he pointed out as another possible case of cops not being so well behaved. Such is one of Radley’s trademarks in reporting, as another pointed out, just like Patterico hanging another noose for the LA Times.
I also find it quite amusing how the legal industry will gather the wagons to protect their own no matter what, and even when a scoundrel is found out they normally are allowed to go on and probably get a promotion for their citizen destroying behavior. Reminds me of the all too silent Moderate Muslims who can’t, or won’t, stand up and flush the shit out of their own ranks so the world can go on living together.
There is never a shortage of those willing to run into the fray with toe tags either. To those, enjoy your small enclosed world. May you never get blind sided by the backside of a badge. But when you do? …..
*****************
Beldar, having Nifong free on the streets puts the legal industry into a suspect position and though rare in the extent he went to, he is not alone, he had a teacher and you can bet students as well.
That is very sad and very scary!
TC (0b9ca4) — 1/16/2010 @ 1:48 pmJust because some cops acts like an idiots, it does not entitle another to drive drunk.
Stan Switek (5bee91) — 1/16/2010 @ 2:19 pmWell, when you frame the issue that way, how could I disagree?
However, your framing is dishonest.
Here is what I argue is “concealment”: arguing the cops had no right to enter the man’s home, while failing to mention the one factor that does arguably give them that right (the drunk driving).
Instead of dealing with the issue, you insult my professionalism at my job. Do that again and you will be banned.
Try arguing the issue. How can Balko honestly argue the cops had no right to enter and fail to tell readers (most of whom don’t click links) the one fact that arguably DOES give them that right?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 2:22 pmIf one officer has probable cause to believe you are driving drunk, and DUI is a jailable offense in your state, most states allow cops to enter your home without a warrant just after the driving, to preserve the blood alcohol evidence. Yes. It’s called. “exigent circumstances.”
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 2:26 pm“your post was designed to cause embarrassment to Radley Balko and his work”
My post was designed to (and did) show a significant omission in his post, which undermines his thesis.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 2:28 pmHow much time does it take to make a Martini???
Take vodka/gin bottle out of freezer and pour, return bottle to freezer.
About 20 seconds – YMMV!
Also, if they’re in a Black & White or an issue plain-clothes car, they can pretty much park wherever they damn well please.
AD - RtR/OS! (98852f) — 1/16/2010 @ 2:45 pmBut, this “state trooper” was not in a B&W or on-duty, and so was subject to the same laws as the rest of us – meaning no parking in red-zones or handicapped slots.
Cut and Paste Joe has turned into an internet stalker just like timb. Look how well that has turned out for timb. Didn’t Linda Ronstadt record a song that aptly describes the situation: Poor, poor pitiful me?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 2:58 pmAnd yet, we still have no explanation for why Balko misrepresented the reported facts.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2010 @ 3:09 pmThe money quotes;
“There’s no “concealment” to address. Balko gave a quick take on a story and linked to the whole story.”
“Probable cause is something to be established before the fact, not drummed up after the fact to cover ass.”
How often do prosecutors deviate from their proper role which is to devine the truth not score a win?
How often do police deviate from their proper role which is to uphold the law, the supreme law being the Constitution which is quite specific in it’s efforts to curb the arbitrary abuse of power and encroachment of individual liberty.
Patterrico would have us believe that this never happens and will not address the issue of what is the proper punishment for it.
There are few criminals as low as one who hides behind the cover of law enforcement.
Amused Observer (6b0b10) — 1/16/2010 @ 3:24 pmAmused Observer, I’m looking forward to a link where you substantiate that Patterico claims that police never deviate from their proper role.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2010 @ 3:27 pm“Patterrico would have us believe that this never happens and will not address the issue of what is the proper punishment for it.”
Amused – Do you have any support for your contention or is it a pure asspull?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 3:28 pmPatterrico would have us believe that this never happens and will not address the issue of what is the proper punishment for it.
Ass pull.
Feel free to apologize any time for your falsehood, “Amused Observer.”
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 3:34 pmTC is over there at Balko’s talking about my “silence” over Nifong.
Disappointing. I thought TC was better than that.
Telling such easily proved falsehoods.
Add TC to the list of people who owe me an apology.
These Balko fans learn well at the feet of the master. When arguing against law enforcement, don’t let the facts get in your way.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 3:38 pmAh, but Patterico, it should be so easy to find that statement. “Amused Observer” must have it on the tip of his keyboard …
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2010 @ 3:39 pmPatterico – AO is pretty much a full tilt, howl at the moon, stark raving mad progressive, not that that excuses anything, just sayin’.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 3:43 pmPatterico – AO is pretty much a full tilt, howl at the moon, stark raving mad progressive, not that that excuses anything, just sayin’.
Just confirms that I’ll never get my apology, and that I was wasting my time to ask.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 3:47 pmIf one officer has probable cause to believe you are driving drunk, and DUI is a jailable offense in your state, most states allow cops to enter your home without a warrant just after the driving, to preserve the blood alcohol evidence. Yes. It’s called. “exigent circumstances.”
My post was designed to (and did) show a significant omission in his post, which undermines his thesis.
His Thesis would be… The refusal to release the 911 recording certainly inclines one to think the cops are lying, here.
I’ve seen nothing that undermines his thesis. You say Radley is hiding something, Radley says the officials are hiding something. Well you are both correct, something is Missing!
Release the 911 call tapes to the public!
I call that exigent circumstances to disbelieve the very arrogant cops story! Why do I call him arrogant, because he felt it fine to park where he probably should not have been waiting for the wife to get milk and eggs, then used his badge as some sort of a pass for his bad behavior.
Maybe’s, if’s, possibilities, rumor and conjecture. So far pretty much sums up this whole case.
I’m gonna run off now and boil up some noodles with which to flog myself with as penance for my sins here.
***************
How could we all be so very blind. “Via the comments…..” Since there are currently 886 of them I did not read them, but it sounds like the source might not be Radley at all, but one of the papers commenters!
To the comments
TC (0b9ca4) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:01 pmSorry, TC, but you’re wrong. Here’s Balko’s quote:
Balko is claiming that the cops had no right to enter the man’s home. He omits the fact that the man was seen driving drunk, which would give the cops the right to enter the man’s home.
Some chump (d97978) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:04 pmAnd Patt I apologize for the Duke thing, DRJ and yourself both did make some good posts, I obviously was not paying enough attention.
I do remember making a post on another thread here when that asshole finally got his one day sentence, or disbarred or some such, (what I thought was), an important event. You did not have a thread on the matter.
“These Balko fans learn well at the feet of the master. When arguing against law enforcement, don’t let the facts get in your way.”
That particular knife is double edged Pat.
TC (0b9ca4) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:23 pmWell this is quite illuminating. I comment here infrequently but often read this blog. I am well aquainted with Patterrico’s grudge against Balko, it is perhaps 3rd on his list behind his hometown newspaper which is a firm #1.
You are an attorney, obviously. Parsing statements for any type of weakness is your stock in trade. Fair enough.
“Patterrico would have us believe that this never happens and will not address the issue of what is the proper punishment for it.”
Upon reflection the word seldom would be more appropriate in place of never and not. It was foolish from a tactical viewpoint to include a black swan statement in a debate format. If you feel this is a sufficient faux pas to warrant an apology then so be it, I apologize. I thought we were all a bit thicker skinned than that.
But if that is sufficient to warrant an apology what are we to make of this?
“AO is pretty much a full tilt, howl at the moon, stark raving mad progressive, not that that excuses anything, just sayin’”
A position you apparently approve of since you went to the trouble of pasting in. To be accused of being a progressive is to put it mildly a bit offensive.
In conclusion I would ask again “was that trooper out of line? Does he merit any special consideration when parking off duty, out of uniform, in a private vehicle, with his child in the rig?”
And one last question, do you think accusing me of suffering from insanity based on the merits of 2 posts, a position you inplicitly endorse by repeating, would warrant an apology?
Your post #56 shows that even pros can make tactical mistakes of the black swan pursuasion.
Amused Observer (6b0b10) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:29 pmI’m sure that daleyrocks would be happy to amend his statement to “…not that that excuses anything, except seldomly …”
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:32 pmHis Thesis would be… The refusal to release the 911 recording certainly inclines one to think the cops are lying, here.
No. It would be: “Even if the guy was drunk and cursing, as the cops allege, that isn’t cause to break into his home.”
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:33 pm“That particular knife is double edged Pat.”
So far you’re the one making falsehoods in this thread, not me.
You apologize for yours, but then immediately undercut the effect of the apology by suggesting (falsely!) that I have told falsehoods in this thread too.
Nope. That would be you, not me.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:35 pm“I do remember making a post on another thread here when that asshole finally got his one day sentence, or disbarred or some such, (what I thought was), an important event. You did not have a thread on the matter.”
Check your records again, Mr. Truth Teller. When he was disbarred I reported it.
Haven’t you learned to do your research before popping off?
Oh, that’s right. You’re a citizen speaking TWOOF TO POWER! No research required. It’s the Balko way!
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:38 pmIf you feel this is a sufficient faux pas to warrant an apology then so be it, I apologize. I thought we were all a bit thicker skinned than that.
Ah, so if you tell a falsehood about me and I point it out, that makes ME the jerk. I see.
Heck of an apology. You’re like the kid with his hands jammed in his pockets, head down, growling out an “I’m SORRY!” because he’s being forced by mama to apologize.
Hey, if you think it’s fine to toss around bullshit accusations, stand by your guns. If you think you really should apologize, then do so without being a dick about it.
I really don’t need these insincere apologies. All it does it make you look like you’re trying to be contrite when you really aren’t.
“In conclusion I would ask again ‘was that trooper out of line? Does he merit any special consideration when parking off duty, out of uniform, in a private vehicle, with his child in the rig?’”
If that’s what happened, then he shouldn’t have been doing it. But I’m glad he did it, if it helped him nab a drunk driver — you know, the guy whose behavior you’re excusing because he mouthed off to the cop. Ergo he’s a hero, and his drunk driving should be excused. Right?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:44 pmThe nuts that frequent Balko’s blog really diminish the good posts that he makes from time to time. I have had my differences with cops, especially a deputy sheriff who harassed my 16 year old daughter for picking up a stranded friend who called her from a bus stop after he missed the last bus from the local junior college. He gave her a ticket for “parking” in a bus zone. Anyway, I’ve seen a few other instances of abuse of authority BUT being drunk immediately disqualifies you from complaining when you have been driving. I have seen other instances in which Balko posted marginal stories about police abuse in which his commenters then went berserk with anti-cop stuff. It isn’t Balko who is the prime offender but the idiots on that blog comments section.
There is something about extreme libertarians who have a thing about all authority, especially cops.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:44 pmSome cops are jerks and get off on their authority. Every profession has its bad apples.
But Balko will jump at ANY story and ASSUME the worst about cops — even if he has to bury facts to do so.
And you’re right, Mike. His idiot commenters will back him up. They all have major chips on their shoulders, and facts don’t matter to people like that.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:48 pmSeems like the DUI charge might be a bit flimsy if there is any interval in which the guy could have chugged a fifth of gin in private after getting out his car. Isn’t there some aspect of chain of custody in play here?
EH (dee19c) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:52 pmWho will they call when they have to confront a bunch of thugs from SEIU?
AD - RtR/OS! (98852f) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:57 pm“I’m sure that daleyrocks would be happy to amend his statement to “…not that that excuses anything, except seldomly …””
Consider it amended.
“To be accused of being a progressive is to put it mildly a bit offensive.”
Is a “bit” a large amount, a teeny tiny amount or what? Help a buddy out here. Do you consider yourself a libertarian (hah!) like Greenwald?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 4:59 pmROFL, I just kidding daleyrocks.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2010 @ 5:00 pmWe lost my brother-in-law to a drunk driver 19 years ago. Still cannot mention his name without it usually leaving my wife upset.
voiceofreason2 (0d8bfe) — 1/16/2010 @ 5:06 pmI just don’t have much sympathy for people who drink and drive. Glad he got nabbed.
Several thousand people a year die in drunk driving related automobile incidents.
Ends justify the means eh? If you are going to use my quotes then putting them in context would be the intellectually honest thing to do.
“Hey, if you think it’s fine to toss around bullshit accusations, stand by your guns. If you think you really should apologize, then do so without being a dick about it.”
I believe I can do both. An apology is offered because of my imprecise wording, now sticking to my guns, let us examine my statements and accusations.
“Patterrico would have us believe that this never happens and will not address the issue of what is the proper punishment for it.
Upon reflection the word seldom would be more appropriate in place of never and not.”
So the modified statement would read;
Patterrico would have us believe that this seldom happens and will seldom address the issue of what is the proper punishment for it.
The subject being police and prosecutorial misconduct. I’ll stand by that statement, would you care to refute it?
I noticed you dodged the question of your own behavior charactorizing me as insane. It’s your venue but your charactor assasinations do little to strengthen your position.
Amused Observer (6b0b10) — 1/16/2010 @ 5:09 pmthat would be assassinations
Amused Observer (6b0b10) — 1/16/2010 @ 5:10 pmAmused Observer – Did I mischaracterize your leanings and then Patterico picked up on it based on my mistake? If so, I apologize.
“I comment here infrequently but often read this blog.”
The immediately preceding statement by you just does not seem consistent with the accusation you made about Patterico in your comment #49. A frequent reader would know better.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 5:18 pmSeems like the DUI charge might be a bit flimsy if there is any interval in which the guy could have chugged a fifth of gin in private after getting out his car. Isn’t there some aspect of chain of custody in play here?
Depends on the credibility of the story.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 5:30 pmDaleyRocks,
Despite the slanderous and malicious nature of your charactorizations of my mental facilities your apology is accepted and your courtesy noted. It is brightly contrasted against the behavior of our host who implicitley approved and explicitly repeated them.
I’m not inclined to put much merit in your chain of logic regarding post 49. There are 2 quotes and 3 statements there.
I believe the statement you refer to as an accusation is the one where I note that Patterrico minimises publicizing routine police and prosecutorial misconduct and seldom offers opinions on the appropriate punishment for these transgressions.
You seem to be stating that a frequent reader would note a consistant and regular pattern of Patterrico casting a bright light on police and prosecutorial misconduct and opining on suitable punishment for those abuses of power. I would posit that a hard position to defend.
Amused Observer (6b0b10) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:05 pmAmused Observer, you seem to be “stating” a lot about others’ positions … all without any foundation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:08 pmI think the officer can testify to the defendant’s state of alcohol influence. There’s a reason he suspected the guy was drunk, after all. I think that’s why the defense is going after the cop as some nut hell bent on breaking into the suspect’s house… it’s an attempt to undermine his credibility.
It’s a jury question that could go either way, and will probably end in a plea bargain.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:12 pm1. Mr. Balko should have mentioned the driving part.
2. Police in PA can make a warrantless entry for DUI if they give the person inside a fair chance to come out before breaking down the door. see, Commonwealth v. Fickes, 969 A.2d 1251 (Pa.Super. 2009).
3. The 911 tape should have been released. Mr. Balko is correct that failure to release the 911 tape makes it pretty clear the police are hiding something.
4. Mr. Patterico’s (sp?) suggestion that the police are not ultimately behind the hiding of the 911 tape is equal in its disingenuousness to Mr. Balko’s failure to mention the driving.
5. Before deciding whether Mr. Doyle was driving drunk, what I would really like to hear is a tape of the call made by the off duty police to the on duty police.
Buddy Hinton (609cb0) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:15 pmSo let’s see if I have this right.
Balko is dishonest because he did’t mention that the driver was (arguably) observed driving drunk.
Patterico, on the other hand is absolutely honest. And Patterico is okay with a cop breaking laws and acting like a jerk if it helps to arrest someone who is (arguably) a drunk driver.
But, how do we know he’s a drunk driver? Because Patterico guesses he lied about having a drink pre-fixed. Patterico says he must have lied and the cops were right on his ass. Patterico says;
Then, I call Patterico on the evidence that the cops were not right on his ass, and, if the driver were going to lie it would be easier to lie about all the other things he did before the cops get there. These include moving his dogs on two occasions and putting his groceries away. I point out that these facts destroy Patterico’s guess and the lie would have been easier to admit one or more of those things and claim to have made the drink, if the driver was lying at all.
Patterico’s response?
So, I guess Patterico is now surmising the cops weren’t right on his ass, but they were just close enough for the guy to move his dogs, put away his groceries, move his dogs again, but not close enough for him to mix a drink. And all the commenters buy this and assume the guy is drunk? Please, you folks need to get your BS meters checked.
hattio (90fae0) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:30 pmOh, and just for icing, Patterico says the cop was wrong in parking in the no parking zone, IF the guy was telling the truth, even though no where do the cops deny this is how the issue started. But, Patterico believes enough of the story to assume the cops must have observed the man driving drunk. Which is it? Either there was a verbal confrontation over parking, in which case the cop really acted like a jerk, or no one observed him driving drunk. Or are you guessing that off-duty cops are spending their time observing everyone in the parking lot to see if they maybe look like they are drunk, and maybe are driving too.
hattio (90fae0) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:34 pm“4. Mr. Patterico’s (sp?) suggestion that the police are not ultimately behind the hiding of the 911 tape is equal in its disingenuousness to Mr. Balko’s failure to mention the driving.”
And this you know, how? Are we just to accept your very confident assertion? I provided evidence for what I said. You, not so much.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:36 pmCheck your records again, Mr. Truth Teller. When he was disbarred I reported it.
Excellent! HT to you.
More Excellence
Mine though!
G-nite
TC (0b9ca4) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:43 pmLOL SPQR,
Restating someone’s position is a polite way of asking if you have it right and offering them a chance to correct your perception. The bulk of my post is about my own statement and the rest is a restatement of DR’s opinion which gives him a chance to correct it if he thinks I have mischaractorized or misunderstood his position.
All pretty elementary stuff for a man who prides himself on looking behind the curtain I would think. Did you have an actual point you were trying to make?
Amused Observer (6b0b10) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:44 pm” And Patterico is okay with a cop breaking laws and acting like a jerk if it helps to arrest someone who is (arguably) a drunk driver.”
Wrong. That’s not what I said. I said if it helped him catch a drunk driver (a worse offense than illegal parking), I am glad he did it — but he should not have been doing it. That doesn’n I’m “okay” with it.
If a guy burglarizes a store, and while doing so catches a rape-murder in progress and thwarts it, I would be glad the burglar did the burglary. If I said so, and you claimed I was “okay” with burglary, you’d be a liar.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:45 pmThe only parties who have a motive for suppressing the 911 call are Mr. Doyle and the police. The only party with both a motive and access to the person who makes the decision is the police. It is obvious that the police are hiding the 911 call, and I know that you know this, and I know that you are being disingenuous about it.
You took a fair criticism of Mr. Balko and marred it with this disingenuousness of your own. You will never gain ground on him as a thinker or a writer that way!
Buddy Hinton (609cb0) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:46 pmThe only parties who have a motive for suppressing the 911 call are Mr. Doyle and the police. The only party with both a motive and access to the person who makes the decision is the police. It is obvious that the police are hiding the 911 call, and I know that you know this, and I know that you are being disingenuous about it.
You don’t know any of this. You have a reading disability. Who made the decision to deny disclosure?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:47 pmSo, I guess Patterico is now surmising the cops weren’t right on his ass, but they were just close enough for the guy to move his dogs, put away his groceries, move his dogs again, but not close enough for him to mix a drink. And all the commenters buy this and assume the guy is drunk? Please, you folks need to get your BS meters checked.
Check your own. Before you do, how about addressing the point you have avoided all thread. How do you justify Balko leaving out the part about the BAC test and the arrest for DUI?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:50 pmMore Excellence
Mine though!
What I see in that thread is you being a dick. Instead of telling me about the story, you lectured me for not having reported on it, ignoring the fact that I am not a full-time blogger.
When Nifong was disbarred I reported it. You implied I didn’t.
You also claimed I was totally silent on Nifong. I wasn’t.
You’re reckless with your statements. Obviously you have a chip on your shoulder.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:54 pm“And all the commenters buy this and assume the guy is drunk?”
hattio – I’m going with the BAC test administered at the hospital before he was hit with two DUI charges. Although we don’t know the results of the test, I’m making the ginormous leap of faith they were somehow important. Did you miss the BAC test?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:58 pmIf you want to het technixal about it, I don’t know that Mr. Doyle or Officer Hinkle or Chambersburg, PA even exist.
Could be a journalist’s idea of a joke. Could be a ChiComm pretending to be US media. Could be lots of things.
Back on planet earth, and talking meaningfully, I know that the police are ultimately the ones holding back that audio recording, and I know you know it, and I know that you know that I know that you know it. The plausible deniability that is supposed to be provided by the government official is not plausible. It is even less plausible than the idea of a pre-made martini.
Buddy Hinton (609cb0) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:58 pmOh, and just for icing, Patterico says the cop was wrong in parking in the no parking zone, IF the guy was telling the truth, even though no where do the cops deny this is how the issue started. But, Patterico believes enough of the story to assume the cops must have observed the man driving drunk. Which is it? Either there was a verbal confrontation over parking, in which case the cop really acted like a jerk, or no one observed him driving drunk. Or are you guessing that off-duty cops are spending their time observing everyone in the parking lot to see if they maybe look like they are drunk, and maybe are driving too.
You are rambling and incoherent. Yes, I believe there is a good chance that Doyle really did catch the cop in the act of parking illegally.
You clearly think that the illegal parking is worse than DUI because it’s a cop doing it. I don’t. Parking illegally is a nothing deal. DUI is very dangerous.
But folks like you don’t really give a shit about public safety. You have a chip on your shoulder about law enforcement and that justifies any dishonesty and any dangerous behavior.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:58 pmBack on planet earth, and talking meaningfully, I know that the police are ultimately the ones holding back that audio recording, and I know you know it, and I know that you know that I know that you know it.
I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you are talking out of your ass.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 6:59 pmMr. Patterico,
You write:
“Instead of dealing with the issue, you insult my professionalism at my job. Do that again and you will be banned.”
1) I made no mention whatsoever of your professionalism at your job.
2) I apologize for concluding that you suffer from a dissociative disorder. Now that I have more information (your original error vis a vis Balko plus your error vis a vis my comment), the application of Occam’s Razor (the hypothesis requiring the fewest assumptions is the best one to go with) leads me to believe that your problem is more likely related to poor reading skills than to an altered mental state.
3) It’s your site. You’re free to muzzle me here if you like — even on the basis of a misunderstanding on your part — and I wouldn’t dream of claiming otherwise. Good day, sir.
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:01 pmBuddy Hinton – Is it normal police policy to immediately publicly release 911 tapes? I’ve got no freaking idea. Unless it is, all the people whining about a police cover up are constructing a nice straw man.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:03 pmHi Cut and Paste Joe!
Happy New Year!
Are you running out of lotion yet?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:06 pmI got to thinking about it and bam there in the way back of the fridge is a whole bottle of vermouth I’ve never used.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:07 pmKnapp, claiming that your insult about Patterico’s professionalism was solely Patterico’s misunderstanding well demonstrates your lack of integrity and class.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:07 pmfeets – Vermouth is good for cooking seafood is what its good for, not much else.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:11 pmfeets – Unless you’re a member of the “Educated class” that is.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:12 pmSPQR,
I’ve never heard a definition of “professionalism” to which a comment hypothesizing illness or injury would be an “insult.”
If I told an Olympic athlete “god, I hope they don’t expect you to run the 440 with that broken leg,” would I be “insulting his professionalism?” No, I’d be noting his handicap.
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:13 pmThomas L. Knapp 1:
Thomas L. Knapp 2:
Good day sir yourself.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:14 pmOddly apropos of the banning admonition, I once blacklisted a guy for quite some time from a publication I edit.
The guy was Radley Balko.
Small, strange world it is.
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:18 pmmy sister is a flight attendant and over Christmas she brought me like a dozen different flavored vodkas from duty free I haven’t tried yet … so I have an orange stoli one chilling in the freezer right now cause I don’t have a shaker… this one is with vermouth but not a lot
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:19 pmRadley is a very passionate guy about freedoms and such I think.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:21 pmSPQR – The Knappster is in deep with the Center for a Stateless Society – I report, you judge:
“About Market Anarchism
Market Anarchism is the doctrine that the legislative, adjudicative, and protective functions unjustly and inefficiently monopolised by the coercive State should be entirely turned over to the voluntary, consensual forces of market society.
The first explicit defender of Market Anarchism was the 19th-century economist and social theorist Gustave de Molinari. The idea was taken up by the individualist anarchists, particularly those associated with Benjamin Tucker’s journal Liberty. More recently, Market Anarchism has been revived by a number of thinkers in the libertarian movement. The terms “anarcho-capitalism” and “voluntary socialism” have both been associated with the Market Anarchist tradition.
The Molinari Institute, our parent organization, publishes and links to a large amount of online resources on market anarchism.”
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:24 pmthose sound like fun ideas daley
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:25 pm“would I be “insulting his professionalism?”
No, you would be questioning his qualifications.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:27 pm“those sound like fun ideas daley”
feets – Barrels of laughs I thought to myself when I read them. Smoke a little dope, dream of anarchy. I doesn’t get any better than that!
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:29 pmthis blog is very suggestive… first it was the martinis…
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:31 pmfeets – You could sip that old vermouth while dreaming of anarchy. Myself, I can’t abide it.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:40 pmfeets – It would make a good hand sanitizer, but the alcohol content is probably not high enough. Sweet or dry?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:43 pmanarchy is the future, maybe
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:43 pm“anarchy is the future, maybe”
The way our imagined dirty socialist thug illuminati are going in Washington, there is certainly that possibility. Perhaps maybe I should get out my survival gear and be ready to head to the back country?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:47 pmSPQR,
Hey, if you’re going to bring up my C4SS affiliation, why not haul in the dirt — like this, for example, or this? That way you can just write me off as “anti-cop” and be done with it.
Thing is, I’m not defending Balko because I’m “anti-cop” (although I stipulate that that’s not an unreasonable descriptor). I’m defending Balko because Patterico is wrong in his claim of “concealment.”
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:49 pmdon’t forget the martini shaker
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/16/2010 @ 7:52 pmKnapp, your credibility is shot. See my last comment.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:03 pmPatterico, you have to understand that the transporter malfunction led to Mr. Knapp being “split” into two persons. Knapp-1 is not responsible for the statements of Knapp-2.
Seriously, he is the poster child for the “I don’t remember what I post” school of blogging.
Eric Blair (e3f433) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:08 pmThomas – I brought up your C4SS affiliation, not SPQR. I thought with your prevarications here it would be interesting for people to see what kind of a nutjob they were conversing with.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:08 pmOccam’s razor favors the theory that this case was initiated by the peevishness of an off duty trooper who was abusing his position at the time of the incident.
But police malfeasence or the timing of a drink is not the main issue here. The main issue is Balko’s presentation of the case. The home team is not putting many points on the scoreboard here. No one has put much of a chink in the armour of post #6
Of the two, Patterrico was far more disingenuous in his presentation than Balko was. It is quite obvious that personal animosity is fueling his hostility towards both Balko and the commentators here that keep poking holes in his narrative. To paraphrase Shakespeare The barrister doth protest too much methinks.
Amused Observer (6b0b10) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:09 pmThomas – Your inability to differentiate between commenters shows your reading comprehension needs some work. Heh!
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:10 pmAlso, the fellow seems to suffer from retrocranial inversion.
Eric Blair (e3f433) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:10 pmDaley, isn’t it ironic that anarcho-prissypants accuses others of poor reading skills…while reading poorly?
Sounds like a jerk, more to the point.
Eric Blair (e3f433) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:12 pmBalko has no excuse for omitting the strongest charge against Doyle. Balko could easily have taken care of that by adding just one word:
“Even if the guy was drunk driving and cursing, as the cops allege, that isn’t cause to break into his home.”
It’s bad journalism to misleadingly present the facts to make one’s argument look stronger than it really is.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:16 pmEric – THAT’S different.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:22 pmMr. Patterico,
I did see your last comment. Your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between an imputation of mental illness and an insult to professionalism is irrelevant to the fact that the distinction exists.
daleyrocks,
I apologize for my attribution error.
Regards,
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:47 pmTom Knapp
You’re a creep, Knapp.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 8:52 pmMr. Patterico,
If thinking of me as a creep (“someone unpleasantly strange or eccentric”) makes you feel better, I won’t argue the point.
Have a nice evening.
Regards,
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:01 pmTom Knapp
“Even if the guy was drunk driving and cursing, as the cops allege, that isn’t cause to break into his home.”
It’s bad journalism to misleadingly present the facts to make one’s argument look stronger than it really is.
Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 1/16/2010 @ 8:16 pm
This is a lie of omission. As a reader, this informs me that all else written by this author deserves skepticism, double-checking, and no automatic benefit-of-the-doubt be given.
And when one asks why a writer would mislead through a lie by omission, none of the answers are positive.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:01 pmKnapp,
it makes me feel better to call you what you are: a creep with no integrity. Have a nice evening and good DAY, sir!
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:04 pm“when one asks why a writer would mislead through a lie by omission, none of the answers are positive.”
True — but some answers are more negative than others.
If the correct answer is a desire to conceal the facts, as Patterico concludes, that’s a really bad thing.
However, if Balko wanted to conceal the facts, why would he link to the story? One thing that his readers and Patterico’s have in common is that they tend to follow the bread crumbs and argue the points.
The more likely explanation is that he was throwing together a set of links, browsed the article, found what he was looking for … and looked no further before tossing off a comment and a link.
The headline doesn’t refer to the DUI. Unless I missed something or miscounted, the subject doesn’t come up until the 19th paragraph and is then disposed of in two sentences.
Occam’s Razor again:
In order to sustain an accusation of “concealment” we have to assume that Balko closely read the story AND that he intentionally chose to omit a key detail buried in that story, AND that he thinks his readers are so credulous that they won’t click on his link for more details and discover that omission.
In order to sustain an allegation of mere sloppiness, the only necessary assumption is that he was in a hurry to get some afternoon links up.
Sloppiness is a journalistic sin, but it isn’t a mortal journalistic sin like plagiarism or intentional concealment of facts. And the case for sloppiness is just plain better for sloppiness than it is for concealment.
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:15 pmPatterico, I think it is great that Mr. Knapp can assign psychological diagnoses all on his lonesome, based on posts.
I think we can do the same, toward his own posts. But he did the work for us;
I would add something running from the most positive (“Clintonian-level hair spiitter”) to most negative (“Jeff Norman level nuttiness”) interpretation.
I think it is irritating when people like this deal an insult, and then refuse to own their statements by trying to do nuclear physics with grammar.
Manners would be more fundamental.
Eric Blair (e3f433) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:19 pmMr. Patterico,
That, in my opinion, is a most inexpert opinion — but you’re entitled to it.
I do apologize for whatever offense I’ve given, and when I wish you a good evening, etc., that wish is sincere.
Regards,
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:20 pmTom Knapp
Also, why is anarcho-prissypants still posting here, exactly?
Eric Blair (e3f433) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:20 pmMr. Blair,
I “owned” — and apologized for — the insult some large number of comments ago. All I argued about was the target of the insult.
The insult was to Mr. Patterico proper, not to his professionalism.
I see no reason why that distinction should mitigate the opprobrium in which I richly deserve to be held for levying the insult, but I’m rather a bit OCD about keeping the facts straight.
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:26 pmOCD can be a symptom of Parkinson’s.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:30 pmOh, please. I really am tired of people who shoot their mouths off, and then decide later they didn’t really mean it. You are trying to use hair splitting to defend your indefensible actions.
You should own the fact you were a braying jackass. Calling someone mentally ill is wrong in all kinds of ways, and you know it. And your “apology”? You don’t even put the period in the sentence the way you should. You simply write: I was wrong.
But you can’t do that. Instead you have to shuck and jive like a character in a Jolson film.
It’s tiresome. Move on, and continue your so-helpful efforts to split votes to get more Democrats elected during our current crisis. Genius! Then you get to complain more, while you puff clove cigarets and sip fair market hemp milk lattes while cultivating a Maynard G. Krebs goatee and claim to be above partisan politics.
The word that comes to mind is twee.
Again: why post here? Move on, or at least knock off the “crimson is my weskit” nonsense.
Eric Blair (e3f433) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:32 pmEric – I think he’s cute. Can we keep him? DCSCA hasn’t been very active lately and Cyrus hasn’t been around doing his Charles Emerson Winchester III impressions either.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:36 pmThe more likely explanation is that he was throwing together a set of links, browsed the article, found what he was looking for … and looked no further before tossing off a comment and a link.
I disagree. However, going with Occam and if we give your assessment the benefit of the doubt, then Mr. Balko, at the least, did himself a great disservice: He was sloppy and caused doubt in his readers as to his professionalism and accuracy. These are the things which good journalists seek to avoid at all costs.
But if one is familiar with his writing and takes into account the whole, it would seem he has an issue with authority and more often than not, consistently finds the police to be the bad guys. Because he is a journalist with this track record, it would be silly to write off a misleading statement that once again negatively paints the police.
I wouldn’t hesitate to give him the benefit of the doubt if his own writing didn’t already establish a consistently negative view and of law enforcement.
The trouble with using Occam in this is that you ignore any possible negative motive and intent, as you assume a neutral one. I’m not that generous to people who have evidenced less than objective and perhaps, honest motives in previous writings.
When Mr. Balko gives the police, and readers, the benefit of the doubt, I will consider giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:41 pmMr. Knapp sounds a bit like the character “English Bob” from Unforgiven.
voiceofreason2 (0d8bfe) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:44 pmIt’s more Percy Dovetonsils, I think, daley. Raise a glass to the memory of the brilliant Ernie Kovacs.
Yes, daley, you can keep him. But you must feed him every day and take him for walks.
And you will need to clean up his messes.
Eric Blair (70639b) — 1/16/2010 @ 9:46 pmMr. Orwell,
You write:
“You are trying to use hair splitting to defend your indefensible actions.”
I’m not trying to defend my indefensible actions at all, let alone using hairsplitting to do it.
“You should own the fact you were a braying jackass.”
OK, I was a braying jackass. Happy now?
“Calling someone mentally ill is wrong in all kinds of ways, and you know it.”
Correct on both counts.
“It’s tiresome. Move on, and continue your so-helpful efforts to split votes to get more Democrats elected during our current crisis.”
Actually, Rasmussen says that Coakley tops Brown as the second choice of Kennedy voters by 2-1. The better Kennedy does, the better Brown does. I carry no brief whatsoever for Coakley and indeed have publicly stated elsewhere that if Kennedy can’t win, I hope Brown does (for the simple reason that a Coakley win won’t damage the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, while a Brown win will damage both).
“Genius! Then you get to complain more, while you puff clove cigarets and sip fair market hemp milk lattes while cultivating a Maynard G. Krebs goatee and claim to be above partisan politics.”
Sorry to disappoint you, but I smoke ultra-light 100s, don’t study the labels on my coffee, am cultivating a full Grizzly Adams beard (at least for the moment — it’s driving me nuts; ten years in the Marine Corps made me accustomed to careful maintenance and control of facial hair), and am a vociferous Libertarian partisan (and a big fan of your work … Homage to Catalonia rocks!).
“Again: why post here?”
Because I found the topic interesting, of course. I’d noticed allusions to Patterico over at The Other McCain’s place, and when I saw a Patterico link mentioning Balko over at memeorandum, I decided to drop by.
Will I stick around? Depends on whether or not it remains interesting, and on whether or not Patterico decides to ban me. It’s all good.
Regards,
Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580) — 1/16/2010 @ 10:02 pmTom Knapp
Ah…
Thanks for revealing your actual motive, beginning with your snotty hostility from the get-go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq0OQBdIhsc
I guess that is how you see yourself, and how you are seen.
Eric Blair (70639b) — 1/16/2010 @ 10:24 pmvor – The Duck of Death
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 10:26 pmHey, daley: get your plastic bags and clean up this mess, please. He’s your pet.
Eric Blair (70639b) — 1/16/2010 @ 10:27 pmAnd thanks for reminding me about Richard Harris as “The Duck of Death.” Here is the bit from “Unforgiven.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4V2enYJ1aw
Eric Blair (70639b) — 1/16/2010 @ 10:32 pmEric – I’m having second thoughts with the revelation of the ban hammer goal. We can’t seem to get any decent trolls!
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 10:32 pmHow about a dog whistle for the horse whisperer? Mary Katherine is entertaining but she doesn’t know when to leave.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/16/2010 @ 10:35 pmLongtime lurker, first time commenter …
Patterico gives too much credit to Balko. I’ve been a semi-regular commenter (mostly semi these days) over there since he opened comments, and I’ve come to the conclusion that he just isn’t smart enough to be that sneaky. Unlike his betters at Reason, he’s infected with what makes most reporters so useless.
The real problem here is that his BS detector isn’t set off by an article that’s almost entirely an interview with the suspect and was authored by an editor. The damning quote, the “refusal to release,” is (cropped) boilerplate fluff from a very-rural county clerk immediately after the incident. Maybe it is telling of misconduct, time will tell, but in the meantime sensible non-reporters should be skeptical that it’s anything more than a county clerk that doesn’t have much experience with FOI requests (or any of the many other benevolent explanations).
The definitive Balko talkdown IMO is ironically (former semi-reg also) Ken from Popehat’s critique of the LAT terrorist passenger article. When I read the article, several alarms went off, most notably the Patriot Act = terrorist nonsense. I chalked it up to typical Balko gullibility, but after reading Ken’s piece it was clear that every paragraph should have alerted an experienced criminal justice journalist. There’s really only one excuse for this, and it’s not that he’s sneaky or immoral or an outright liar. He’s just kinda dumb, like his insistence on never updating or correcting any post ever.
el duderino (f01e0a) — 1/16/2010 @ 11:36 pmHe will correct posts. But only in a particular way. First he will ignore the correction. The person seeking a correction must be pushy. This allows Balko to couple the (inevitably inadequate and sullen) correction with sulking about the obsessiveness of the person seeking the correction. This way the focus of the correction is on someone else.
He must think this is a good tactic because he uses it a lot.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/17/2010 @ 12:01 amPatterico says
Critical reading is your friend. Since I don’t buy your assumption that the story of pre-mixing the drink was Bullshit, as you put it, I don’t assume the guy was driving drunk. So, for me, the question is; is a power crazy madman on the police force who has no moral qualms about using the power of his badge more dangerous than a citizen questioning the police. But nice job sliding past the facts again.
hattio (90fae0) — 1/17/2010 @ 12:53 amDaleyrocks says
Sorry, I should have been more clear. All the commenters assume the guy was drunk while he was driving
hattio (90fae0) — 1/17/2010 @ 12:56 amWell played, but you didn’t address my larger point. Let me be clear (like teh one): Balko is too dumb to ever take at face value. In this instance, I’m claiming that he just can’t see all the red flags. He thinks that chugging martinis after coming from the grocery store isn’t just plausible, or even likely, but the only explanation. If your mind works that way, then why would you include the DUI factoid in the blog posts?
It’s a mostly-serious argument with some minor implications to your criticism. And this is two comments now, so I think I can safely demand an explanation.
BTW, I put a little thought into this screen name.
el duderino (f01e0a) — 1/17/2010 @ 1:10 amIt’s amusing that purported libertarians take the side of someone, drunk or not, who tried to pick a fight over someone violating a no-parking sign in a private parking lot which was not his.
nk (df76d4) — 1/17/2010 @ 7:16 amSo the most generous interpretation of Balko’s omission is that he was either sloppy or is just dumb. Not looking good, Radley.
I hope that all journalists who happen to be Libertarian (such as moi) aren’t judged by Balko’s actions. Reporters should be skeptical of all ideologies, including their own.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 1/17/2010 @ 9:29 amBradley – I thought Thomas from Citizens for a Stateless Society was rather special. He’s apparently written more than 100 articles or op-ed pieces. Anarcho-capitalism is an interesting concept to ponder without even reading more about it.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/17/2010 @ 9:43 amBut are his pieces in that “precious” faux-formal style, daley?
Eric Blair (b9a8a2) — 1/17/2010 @ 10:12 amWhy is Doyle’s BAC relevant? Do facts obtained during the warrentless search justify the search? I always thought you had to have probable cause before the search, not after. What was the cause? Did off-duty Finkle perform a field sobriety test or observe Doyle walking unevenly or slurring his speech? If so, we haven’t heard that.
More importantly, why was Finkle calling for police backup? Doyle was already walking away from him, there was no threat, Finkle even attempted to call him back to his car. Sure sounds like payback for a civilian daring to question a cop to me. If Finkle was assuming Doyle was about to get into his car and drive drunk the 911 tapes would show that, yet they’re being withheld. Why?
Socratease (3135a7) — 1/17/2010 @ 10:21 amWhy is Doyle’s BAC relevant?
Because it’s evidence he may have been driving drunk.
Do facts obtained during the warrentless search justify the search?
There’s a trial for that.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 1/17/2010 @ 10:43 amAnarcho-capitalism is an interesting concept to ponder without even reading more about it.
David D. Friedman, son of Milton, is an anarcho-capitalist worth reading. I’ve read his book, The Machinery of Freedom.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 1/17/2010 @ 10:47 amWell, if I were a police officer, in my civilian car, out of uniform, had my kid with me, and was being challenged by a citizen for parking in a no-parking zone, my response would be to call for on-duty police, also.
I mean, it had to be obvious that the guy was drunk, and that he intended to drive. And besides, pointing out that an off-duty policeman is doing something that will get citizens ticketed is dangerous behavior.
Patterico, I read your blog regularly, and I agree with 95% of your analyses. If you were as critical of bad law enforcement as you are of mistakes in the LA Times…..
The citizen drove drunk, got arrested, and, per you, deserves it all. What do you suppose happened to the off-duty officer who parked (illegally) in the no-parking zone? Do you think one of his fellow officers wrote him a ticket?
Yeah. Me neither.
Mitchell (c7b050) — 1/17/2010 @ 11:32 amMitchell:
From what I can tell, the only evidence that the guy parked illegally came from the DUI suspect. Right?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/17/2010 @ 12:27 pmDid off-duty Finkle perform a field sobriety test or observe Doyle walking unevenly or slurring his speech? If so, we haven’t heard that.
No, but if the guy was drunk Finkle observed his demeanor and might have seen that.
Plus, Finkle saw him driving.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/17/2010 @ 12:29 pmThe citizen drove drunk, got arrested, and, per you, deserves it all.
No, I am saying I don’t know what happened. But I have a guess based on what I know. My guess could be wrong.
If he drove drunk, then you betcha he deserved to be arrested.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/17/2010 @ 12:30 pmRespect for the concept of a nation governed by the rule of law with no man above the law, each man possessing unalianable rights and upholding the Supreme law of the land really are’t top priorities of professional law enforcement. It just doesn’t fit the us against them, I’m an underappreciated hero narrative.
Amused Observer (a4f462) — 1/17/2010 @ 12:42 pmAs long as we are being sticklers on conclusions based off reading comprehension…
Host: Moreover, if the guy “was drunk and cursing” then he drove drunk — because right after he mouthed off to the cop, he got in his car and drove home.
This is a big “if” to come to the absolute conclusion that the guy drove drunk.
The offduty cop suspected the guy had been drinking, but had no conclusive proof.
From the article:
The affidavit of probable cause also states that Doyle yelled obscenities at the officers who came to his house.
Ah. So at this point in the story everyone agrees he’d had enough drinks to be drunk and he is cursing. Conclusive proof of drinking and cursing.
Inconclusive as to the driving while drunk charge.
Anyway, there is only ONE instance of cursing while conclusively drunk in the article and it isn’t the one chosen for the narrative here.
My gut tells me drunk guy is gaming the system as best he can, and that he may have driven drunk.
SteveG (909b57) — 1/17/2010 @ 12:52 pmMy guess?
Charges get dropped.
If it goes to trial he wins and then files a civil suit; wins there too.
Host: Moreover, if the guy “was drunk and cursing” then he drove drunk — because right after he mouthed off to the cop, he got in his car and drove home.
This is a big “if” to come to the absolute conclusion that the guy drove drunk.
The offduty cop suspected the guy had been drinking, but had no conclusive proof.
No, you’re right. He hadn’t administered a blood alcohol test before stopping the vehicle. Indeed, cops never do. Your point?
He did, however, see the guy driving.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/17/2010 @ 1:09 pmMy gut tells me drunk guy is gaming the system as best he can, and that he may have driven drunk.
My guess?
Charges get dropped.
If it goes to trial he wins and then files a civil suit; wins there too.
He wouldn’t the first guilty guy to file and win a lawsuit against the cops.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/17/2010 @ 1:10 pmHe wouldn’t the first guilty guy to file and win a lawsuit against the cops.
If the charges are dropped, then he wouldn’t be “guilty.” You know better than that. Don’t impute your guess that he was drinking into objective reality.
Sydney Carton (7c736d) — 1/17/2010 @ 1:19 pmThe vast majority of cops would have held the moral high ground the whole way through this incident.
If this guy gets a nickel out of it, that will be squarely on a bonehead move by the off duty cop…. well, two bonehead moves.
1. Park in a stall like the proletariat when off duty
2. If you do decide to park in some no parking zone and some clown begins to harangue you, consider moving.
Do NOT identify yourself as a cop.
Then if you think the guy is drunk and you see him about to drive, your 911 call is golden and the drunk guy gets his DUI and the good citizens of your state don’t have to pay a civil settlement… all would have gone swimmingly IF your dumb “I’m a cop” ass had just parked in a frickin regular spot.
SteveG (11baba) — 1/17/2010 @ 1:22 pmI’m not. I am directly responding to this comment:
That comment assumes he is guilty and that he will still beat the case. I went with that assumption for purposes of responding to the comment. Of course I don’t know whether the guy is really guilty.
However, if he really drove drunk, he is guilty in an absolute sense whether he is convicted or not. If charges are dismissed he would be not guilty under our system. But there is an objective reality that goes beyond our system.
Have you ever heard the concept of guilty people going free, Sydney Carton? Yes, you have. And people talk about it that way even though, under your view, anyone who goes free is not guilty.
True, under the law. Not necessarily, for objective reality.
There is a difference.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/17/2010 @ 1:28 pmThat comment assumes he is guilty and that he will still beat the case. I went with that assumption for purposes of responding to the comment. Of course I don’t know whether the guy is really guilty.
That’s fine.
Have you ever heard the concept of guilty people going free, Sydney Carton? Yes, you have. And people talk about it that way even though, under your view, anyone who goes free is not guilty.
I may be detecting some hostility from you here, but it’s not “my view.” It’s the nature of the system. Which is why I put quotes around the word guilty. And you know this well enough, since you said: “However, if he really drove drunk, he is guilty in an absolute sense whether he is convicted or not. If charges are dismissed he would be not guilty under our system.”
It’s interesting, however, that more speculation is given to whether the guy may or may not have been drunk driving, and not whether the cop is potentially abusing his authority. Since both are just guesses, ultimately, it depends on where one’s interest lies in pursuing such a guess. But there’s plenty of reason to speculate about the cop’s potential abuse as well.
In the future, I think that potential cop abuse of authority will be easier to see. Cameras are everywhere nowadays. And they’re recording police behavior that otherwise would be hidden. I assume that all people will look favorably on the ability to watch the watchers better.
Sydney Carton (7c736d) — 1/17/2010 @ 1:46 pm“It’s interesting, however, that more speculation is given to whether the guy may or may not have been drunk driving, and not whether the cop is potentially abusing his authority. Since both are just guesses, ultimately, it depends on where one’s interest lies in pursuing such a guess. But there’s plenty of reason to speculate about the cop’s potential abuse as well.”
I am giving the side of the story that Balko did not give. It’s ALL speculation, as far as I am concerned — but I have seen the “I just chugged alcohol right after I walked through the door” excuse before.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/17/2010 @ 1:50 pmIt’s interesting, however, that more speculation is given to whether the guy may or may not have been drunk driving, and not whether the cop is potentially abusing his authority.
And what was this guy abusing? Bullying a man over something that is likely not even a parking violation? (This was private property and the only one who could complain was the property owner.) It’s a strange sort of libertarianism you folks practice. Unless libertarianism to you means to push your fellow citizens around and they would only have recourse to their fast draw (and not their government).
nk (df76d4) — 1/17/2010 @ 1:51 pmI have seen the “I just chugged alcohol right after I walked through the door” excuse before.
I have never had occasion to do the blood/alcohol curve but I don’t believe it’s part of the prosecution’s case in chief if the test is given according to the statute (one hour after the arrest in Illinois).
nk (df76d4) — 1/17/2010 @ 1:57 pmWhen are we going to put a stop to the horror of off-duty policemen abusing the law by parking illegally in fire lanes just like ordinary citizens? Is this going to take an act of Congress or what?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/17/2010 @ 2:03 pmIt’s ALL speculation, as far as I am concerned — but I have seen the “I just chugged alcohol right after I walked through the door” excuse before.
That’s true, it is all speculation. That’s why I think it’s great that more people are carrying cameras that can provide video evidence of these kinds of encounters. There’s plenty of them on youtube already, but technology is getting better and better so that video quality improves and more can be recorded.
Sydney Carton (7c736d) — 1/17/2010 @ 2:04 pmThese Balkobots read like Tony Romo avoids sacks.
el duderino (f01e0a) — 1/17/2010 @ 2:59 pmel duderino – Reading can be tough when you’re stoned out of your mind, just sayin’.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/17/2010 @ 3:01 pmMake my day…
WSJ reports that Chemical Ali was found guilty by an Iraqi Court of crimes against humanity, and sentenced to Death!
Chalk one up for the good guys.
AD - RtR/OS! (b27208) — 1/17/2010 @ 3:12 pmAD – Chemical Ali was probably framed, just liked the badge licking authoritarians are going to try to frame former Marine Ron Doyle for the “crime” of mouthing off to an illegally parked off duty state cop, spit.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/17/2010 @ 3:28 pmWhat’s this country coming to if you can’t be publicly intoxicated and drive drunk in your own home town? Freaking police state!
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/17/2010 @ 3:30 pmI wish the Radley Balko supporters would leave the politics out of this issue. It’s really a question of accurate journalism. As a reporter and Libertarian, I have some insight into these issues.
Balko wrote a misleading summary of the incident, constructed to make people think the cops were just barging into the home because Doyle had words with them, and not mentioning the most serious charge against Doyle.
Any journalist who cares about being fair and balanced would apologize. When you are making an assertion, it’s important to fairly characterize the claims of those you disagree with. If you err at all, it should be against your own case. Erring in your own favor impeaches your credibility as a fair-minded reporter.
It is possible that the cop was a jerk looking to get even against Doyle. It is also possible that Doyle was driving drunk. Both could be true. The two are not mutually exclusive. It’s certainly not a case I’d cite as outrageous police abuse.
Balko needs to emphasize journalism more, and ideology less. We have plenty of left-wing journalists, and some right-wing ones, who put ideology first. That doesn’t excuse Libertarian journalists for doing the same thing.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 1/17/2010 @ 3:50 pm#183
SteveG (11baba) — 1/17/2010 @ 4:08 pmI thought Andy Griffith was supposed to have Barney drive Otis home.
I suppose that ended when Otis threw up in the car…
I don’t know Balko, but it looks like minor groundwork is being laid on the off chance it turns out to be an abuse of authority case
And I can’t believe the Jets could win this thing
SteveG (11baba) — 1/17/2010 @ 4:15 pm“I thought Andy Griffith was supposed to have Barney drive Otis home.”
SteveG – I don’t remember Miss Bee using any lame ass excuse about leaving a martini on the counter when she got too far into the sherry. She sacked up and used way lamer excuses.
daleyrocks (df89ea) — 1/17/2010 @ 4:22 pmBradley @ 184,
Great comment. It’s interesting to see how the omission of one word can make such a difference – and how many readers are willing to excuse it.
Whether left, right, or Libertarian, if any consider themselves “journalists”, it would seem the continual goal, first and foremost, would be accuracy and full disclosure. As a reader, when I find that there has been a lie of omission by a writer, everything else from that writer becomes suspect – unless there is a complete admittance, apology, and correction made. I responded to Mr. Knapp’s assessment (#132), which I disagreed with, at #140, regarding this, but it seems many readers are willing to excuse a lack of thoroughness – regardless if the journalist’s intent has been less than honorable.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/17/2010 @ 4:24 pmI’m just pleased to have remembered the town drunks name was Otis…. Aunt Bee drank sherry?
From now on when I go out, I am leaving a bottle of Gran Centenario on the counter… and taking a cab.
SteveG (11baba) — 1/17/2010 @ 4:29 pmWell said, Brother. But it’s ultimately pointless with these people. The Hit N Run commenters are mostly reasonable, but the hardcore Agitators are beyond parody at this point.
el duderino (f01e0a) — 1/17/2010 @ 4:34 pmDana, thank you.
Whether left, right, or Libertarian, if any consider themselves “journalists”, it would seem the continual goal, first and foremost, would be accuracy and full disclosure.
Unfortunately, politicized journalists see themselves as primarily a vehicle for their ideology. They’re propagandists first, reporters second. Chris Mooney is an example on the left. He’s a science writer known for his crusade for global warming theory and other “progressive” causes.
Mooney’s gambit is to convince scientists to speak with one voice on a topic, the better to persuade the public. The Discovery Institute (and I’m sure my favorable citation of them will surprise you), gave Mooney and his cohort Sheril Kirshenbaum a good scientific smackdown on their pro-AGW propaganda.
Kirshenbaum has it exactly wrong. Real scientists don’t “stay on message.” Real scientists don’t have a “message.” Politicians and ideologues and science journalists have “messages,” and they have seduced many scientists to betray their science and “speak up in a united voice.” Science is the study of nature–science follows the evidence, wherever is leads. Real scientists are inveterate skeptics. Unanimity and “messages” are the antithesis of science.
A large part of the blame for this debacle rests with ideologues like Kirshenbaum and Mooney who have perverted science with their hard-left ideology. They have damaged science in ways that scientists haven’t even begun to comprehend.
Science-journalists-with-an-agenda are toxic to science, because agenda-driven polemics are the antithesis of science. Within the scientific community only fools and opportunists collaborate with polemicists. Unfortunately, that may be a very large segment of the scientific community.
Now I utterly reject the Discovery Institute’s intelligent design creationism. But the validity of an argument is independent of the credibility of the source. And I think the DI’s criticism of Mooney and Kirschenbaum is utterly correct.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 1/17/2010 @ 4:49 pmMaybe…maybe not. A couple of nights ago I poured myself a scotch, realized I needed to get something from the store, left the glass on the counter untouched. Came back, drank it.
According to the story the cops never observed him. Now maybe that is just Doyle’s word, but you don’t have any evidence, just guess work.
Well, if he did have one earlier and had a BAC that was under the legal limit, then had another, could it have put him over the limit? But anyhow, just more speculation.
But it isn’t stoping your from speculating on what happened…just like Balko did. You have your biases, he has his.
So, if a person admits to driving drunk on say, January 19th, can you come and enter his home without a warrant on the 20th? If the arresting officers did not observe him is there an issue with probable cause? How come you aren’t explaining that in the body of your post?
Well, you didn’t mention it…distorting facts? You wrote that he had done a story about the incident when in fact it was just a link heavy post with blurbs about each link.
So…if you don’t read this, how do you know? I like how this word “often” gets tossed around, but then nobody gives us any numbers. He does x stories and has had y innacuracies. Would be helpful. Instead we get “many”, “often”, “frequently”, etc.
Meh.
[Released from filter 1/20/2010 — DRJ.]
Steve Verdon (94c667) — 1/20/2010 @ 1:29 pmIf one officer has probable cause to believe you are driving drunk, and DUI is a jailable offense in your state, most states allow cops to enter your home without a warrant just after the driving, to preserve the blood alcohol evidence. Yes. It’s called. “exigent circumstances.”
Yes, but isn’t it true that the police entered based on a “disorderly conduct” claim? If so, it calls into question the claims about Doyle’s sobriety. Why not go with DUI if he was appearing to be drunk to the off duty officer? Why use disorderly conduct?
Really, this really strikes me as a massive exercise in nitpickery. My god, in a links post he didn’t report all the facts. Well…yeah, its a links post. Links with blurbs, read them if you want.
Steve Verdon (94c667) — 1/20/2010 @ 1:47 pmSteve, you’re the one nit picking. An officer often relies on what he can prove, which until he had the drunk in custody was disorderly conduct.
Balko surgically removed the explanation, the GREAT explanation for why they needed to enter that house and had legal cause to enter that house. He did this because he knew his argument was crap. You know that too.
“it’s a links post” who cares what he calls his hack jobs? Irrelevant. He doesn’t get to be dishonest just because he has a habit of sloppy “links posts”. Patterico’s whole blog is “harangues posts”, so you should apply your bullshit fairly.
You are a fan of the ‘fuck the police and DA’ meme, and won’t let a few facts get in the way.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2010 @ 2:04 pmPatterico,
When I commented on another thread, you said we could be having this comment on the appropriate thread. But, the comment I made here disappeared. Anyway, I checked the original article. It doesn’t say he only had one drink, though it doesn’t say he had two either. You probably thought it was only one drink because that fits with your assumptions, but it doesn’t fit the facts.
hattio (90fae0) — 1/23/2010 @ 10:55 amHattio, the fact is that this dude was totally drunk within a few second of him driving a car and running into his home to, according to him, drink some more. He was acting like a drunken fool before the officer went into his house to preserve the evidence that he was driving drunk.
It makes a lot of sense and totally and completely explains the officer’s actions. This obvious explanation was surgically removed from the story even though it’s basically the entire story. Why would that happen on a site that likes to portray cops as liars who screw with evidence? You’d think someone who likes to discuss getting exculpatory evidence a full examination would have an eye for surgically removing evidence that puts doubt into a narrative.
Balko is a brilliant man who shares my sense of the injustice potential for police abuses, but does not share my sense of honesty. What a damn shame.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2010 @ 11:04 amAnother fact: drunks kill a lot of good people, and if a cop wants to stop them, we should thank them for doing their job correctly.
Helping an obvious drunk driver try his case in the press by demonizing a good public service is a pretty fucked up thing to do. If this drunk kills some innocent person, Balko will know because a lot of people will justifiably blame him for helping that drunk. And I think drunk drivers to this degree often repeat their offense.
Is this enough pressure to get the drunk a nice plea deal and get back on the road? I think that’s entirely possible. What a shame that when he gets home his Martinis will be ready at room temperature for him to load up on.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2010 @ 11:10 amHattio and Verdon – How do you explain the BAC of .10 then?
JD (0a26e4) — 1/23/2010 @ 11:17 amDustin says
Actually, he wasn’t that drunk. But more importantly, no one has said it was within a few seconds. That’s Patterico’s speculation. Speculation that is only justified if you completely ignore all contrary evidence, the fact that the guy got home, moved his dogs, put away his groceries, had one or two drinks and moved his dogs again. Repeating supposition doesn’t make it true.
Also, in a comment that for some reason disappeared, I linked to a new article. A witness with no connection to the citizen says he was not loud and obnoxious and that he saw nothing to make him think the guy was drunk. Admit it, you guys assumed facts consistent with your biases, and those look to be wrong.
Here’s the link
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/news/ci_14226996
Dustin also says;
Sorry, but I don’t see much evidence of your sense of honesty when you keep stating that the cops were a few seconds behind them. Even Patterico admits it’s speculation, but you keep repeating it as if it were fact.
Dustin also says;
But he’s only an “obvious drunk” if you assume that he is lying despite all evidence to the contrary, or you think that people getting drunk in their own home after driving is proof of being a drunk. Again, Patterico’s speculations are just that…speculations.
Oh, and JD, the BAC is explained by his drinking…after driving.
hattio (90fae0) — 1/23/2010 @ 12:03 pmSteve, you’re the one nit picking. An officer often relies on what he can prove, which until he had the drunk in custody was disorderly conduct.
Its called sarcasm there Dustin. Of course I’m nit picking. But so is Patterico, IMO. It was a post of quick links, not a story, not a full on blog post. His entry on the article in question probably had less than 20-25 words.
Balko surgically removed the explanation, the GREAT explanation for why they needed to enter that house and had legal cause to enter that house. He did this because he knew his argument was crap. You know that too.
WTFAYTA? It was a quick links post with a blurb after each. Nothing was surgically removed. Such a claim is silly.
“it’s a links post” who cares what he calls his hack jobs? Irrelevant. He doesn’t get to be dishonest just because he has a habit of sloppy “links posts”. Patterico’s whole blog is “harangues posts”, so you should apply your bullshit fairly.
Again, WTFAYTA? Yes, the type of post helps provide some context in what we expect in terms of coverage of the incident. A longer post on the other hand I would expect to cover all aspects of the story.
Was it misleading for Patterico to NOT tell us that? I don’t know. He provided a link so I’d normally give people a pass on that. But then so did Balko. Same standard.
Hattio, the fact is that this dude was totally drunk within a few second of him driving a car and running into his home to, according to him, drink some more.
This is unsubstantiated claims by Dustin. We have no idea how long it took between the time Doyle got home and the police arrived. As such its just pure speculation grounded only in his own preconcieved notions and is “the cops never lie, f*ck the defendant” view (see Dustin two can play this silly little game).
Hattio and Verdon – How do you explain the BAC of .10 then?
Doyle says he had 2 martinis when he got home before the police arrived. BTW a follow-up article has a witness and his wife saying they saw Doyle confront the officer at the grocery store. They said there was no yelling by Doyle and no obsceneties from Doyle. This indicates that at least part of the officers story may very well be untrue.
From Hattio’s link:
Has Petterico updated? If not…is that dishonest? Frankly I’d say no. There is lots of news to comment on and keeping track of stories can be a pain in the butt.
Steve Verdon (4c0bd6) — 1/25/2010 @ 11:37 am