A Drunk Driving Case Made for TV’s ‘Law & Order’

By | January 29, 2016

  • January 29, 2016 at 1:09 pm
    reality bites says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    DUM-DUM…

  • January 29, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    S Haack says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    L&O junkie here, too – – bring back Ben Stone and Paul Robinette! : )

  • January 29, 2016 at 1:22 pm
    Rich says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 5

    where was the police car and were the running light on?
    also, was he a repeat offender?
    If he was like the guy in Texas they had to extradite from Colorado, the jail time is warranted.

    • January 29, 2016 at 3:50 pm
      Insurance Grandma says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 0

      Good questions. We just do not know all of the facts. This needs to go to a trial where a jury (grand or otherwise) can look at the facts, ask questions, discuss the case, and then make the decision.

  • January 29, 2016 at 1:28 pm
    steve says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 19

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • January 29, 2016 at 1:46 pm
      Bill says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 38
      Thumb down 1

      Wow Steve, I guess in your world no one gets pulled over for anything? No one has accidents? In my world I see these things every day. Officers risk their lives every day.

      Would you make those comments if you were pulled over for, say, speeding? The officer exits his cruiser and is hit by a car and killed. It is your fault. Your choice to exceed the speed limit caused you to be pulled over. You began a chain of events that led to the officer’s death. Your breaking the law caused the officers death.

      This incident is tragic, but the courts are treading on a slippery slope here. Where do you decide to draw the line?

      • January 29, 2016 at 8:39 pm
        UW says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 14

        That is exactly the point I was going to make. By this “logic” any time an officer dies the person they were responding to will be guilty of murder. Shoplifting, speeding, or even being unlawfully pulled over could now be a life-sentence. Talking to a police officer could become a life sentence under certain conditions. It is absolutely moronic, but of course none of the hardcore conservatives are here crying about government overreach.

        • February 1, 2016 at 10:54 am
          UW Supreme says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 16
          Thumb down 1

          I can’t actually believe I’m responding to this, but here it goes….

          I 100% agree with the legal opinion laid out in the article. Foreseeability as a legal concept is very tough and way too opened ended. I feel as if this case is more based on emotions than actual legal precedent. By the court’s logic, everyone of us would be guilty of murder if any of our actions performed throughout the day inadvertently created a chain of events that lead to a death at some point in the future. It’s insane and terrifying.

          People need to put the fact that this guy was drunk aside. Again, by using the court’s logic, if he was sober and driving back to work from lunch with a busted tail light (that he wasn’t aware of) and got pulled over, does he have to foresee the officer getting hit by a passing vehicle as he exits his patrol car? Of course not. None of us would.

          It is horrible what happened to this officer and his family, but beyond a drunk driving conviction for the minor collisions this driver caused, I’m seeing extreme overreach.

          Are you happy now UW? Trick question….you’ve never been happy.

          • February 20, 2016 at 3:37 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Is the trick that this is a statement? Because in the English language we end sentences with question marks.

            I love how whenever you right-wingers try to be clever you just look stupid.

  • January 29, 2016 at 1:35 pm
    FFA says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 23
    Thumb down 0

    Well, he didn’t foresee getting involved in the wreck in the first place. He probably didn’t even expect to get drunk if he is like me. So, how could he expect this to play out?
    important to note, if i even have one drink, I am not driving. Always in walking distance of my water hole.

  • January 29, 2016 at 1:36 pm
    Russell Irving says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 1

    I agree with this author both from a legal point of view and that it would make for great TV. (I’m also a Ben Stone L&O fan.)
    This reminds me of the real case where a drunk driver struck a female pedestrian. She was rushed to hospital ER. Doctors told her husband that she needed a blood transfusion and surgery to save her life. That without the transfusion, she would almost certainly die. Well, the husband said she was a 7th Day Adventist and would refuse the transfusion. She died and the driver was charged with her murder. He argued that he should be punished but that she/her husband caused her death by refusing the new blood. The driver ended up being convicted.

  • January 29, 2016 at 1:37 pm
    Rich says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 0

    Didn’t mention anything about the other drivers responsibility, the officers responsibility to protect himself and the fact that the DA is trying to set a new precedent. If Ryan had a severe heart condition and knowing that , went out and drove , had an attack with the same outcome , is he innocent and the responsible driver guilty????

    • February 1, 2016 at 10:12 am
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 11
      Thumb down 5

      Rich, I had a case some years ago where a State Farm driver crossed the center line and hit our insured head on. State Farm argued that their driver was impaired by a heart attack and therefore they were denying the claim to our insured. Guess what, they did have to pay because their driver was the cause of the accident.

      • February 1, 2016 at 10:49 am
        Rosenblatt says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 31
        Thumb down 5

        Depending on the state and applicable case law, denying liability under the “Sudden Medical Emergency doctrine” is a valid defense if the driver was previously unaware of said medical condition that resulted in the Sudden Medical Emergency.

  • January 29, 2016 at 1:47 pm
    Franklin says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 24
    Thumb down 1

    Call it a case of the Fridays, but I can’t tell if Steve is serious, so I will play devil’s advocate. Using that logic, is a gun maker responsible for someone’s death in a shooting? If the gun had never been made…

    A lit cigarette ignites a housefire and a firefighter dies while attempting to put out the flames. Is Marlboro responsible for? If the cigarette had never been made…

    In this case, if the bar never served the liquor… Heck, if we are going down that route, if the liquor had never been made…

  • January 29, 2016 at 1:54 pm
    Dave says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 27
    Thumb down 0

    As much as I despise drunk drivers and want to see them punished to the fullest extent of the law (and they rarely are), this case is a stretch. I feel for the officer, his family and friends. And would have no problem of them taking a civil case against this guy. But the drunk from a criminal standpoint deserves all the punishment we can provide for his being drunk and any immediate consequence of that act. If the prosecutors, judge and jury want this result to figure into sentencing for that crime, fine. But to hold him directly criminally responsible for the death of this officer appears to be a stretch. I too am a huge original Law & Order fan. Still catch the reruns.

    • January 29, 2016 at 5:31 pm
      Agent says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 22
      Thumb down 0

      Dave, you are the voice of reason. Life is complicated and these types of cases underscore how complicated situations are some time. I am leaning toward not doing criminal prosecution because the drunk was not driving. How about the other motorist that apparently disregarded all the flashing lights etc to strike the officer? Punish the drunk to the full extent possible. Was the driver who struck the officer inattentive, texting while driving?

      • February 1, 2016 at 10:34 am
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 8

        Who had Agent referencing “texting while driving” in his first post?

        You win the pool!!

        Am I the only who found it hysterical that the one on this blog who only believes all people are either right or wrong, left or right, Republican or Democrat and sees the world in black and white; now says life is complicated?

        Maybe Agent is experiencing some personal growth. I guess if WE can have a black president, anything is possible.

  • January 29, 2016 at 1:59 pm
    Crain says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 22

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  • January 29, 2016 at 2:06 pm
    BS says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 26
    Thumb down 0

    I’m having a really hard time with the homicide charge. What if he’d been completely sober, and had a fender bender? Or what if he’d been pulled over for a busted tail light? The officer still would have been out of the car, and most likely still have been hit by the SUV, because it’s driver wasn’t paying attention. Would they still be charging him, or would they be charging the person driving the SUV?

    I’m not excusing the drunk driving. They should definitely throw the book at him for the DUI and the minor accidents. But putting the responsibility for the officer’s death on him, instead of the person that actually hit him, seems like a huge stretch. And one that’s probably going to backfire on them.

  • January 29, 2016 at 2:08 pm
    MadDog says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 0

    Ryan should use the “affluence” defense, if he can. When will that story make it to TV or film? I guess that story’s not over yet. Talk about guilty!!!

  • January 29, 2016 at 2:35 pm
    R says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    In W@illiamson County Texas (home of the Michael Morton wrongful conviction 25 years in jail), the DA is now charging DUI with attempted assault with a deadly weapon – the car – because DUI impairs and a collision might be fatal.

  • January 29, 2016 at 3:10 pm
    I don't see any deep pockets says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    Hard to follow the logic here.

  • January 29, 2016 at 4:16 pm
    TDub says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 10

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • February 1, 2016 at 9:20 am
      Dave says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 17
      Thumb down 0

      TDub, I understand your point about “proximate cause” but that theory works better in insurance than in criminal cases. The drunk deserves to have the book thrown at him for driving while drunk. But murder? I guess we’ll see.

      • February 1, 2016 at 10:00 am
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 6

        So Dave, if drunk drivers are ticketed and fined and the MVR reads DUI for alcohol, shouldn’t we call the Marijuana violations DUM?

        • February 1, 2016 at 10:54 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 15
          Thumb down 5

          Nope. DUI means Driving Under the Influence. This includes alcohol, marijuana, prescription medication, et cetera.

          Driving under the influence (DUI) or Driving while intoxicated (DWI) is the crime of driving a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or other drugs (including those prescribed by physicians), to a level that renders the driver incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely. The name of the offense varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from legal to colloquial terminology.

          • February 1, 2016 at 11:53 am
            You missed it, Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            I’m sure Agent’s tongue was firmly planted in their cheek!

          • February 1, 2016 at 12:04 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 9

            Rosenblatt,

            I believe Agent was joking. At this point, we should assume he is joking due to the ridiculousness of 99% of his posts.

        • February 2, 2016 at 9:31 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 4

          100% disagree You missed it and Ron – Agent has previously argued with me that he thinks DUI/DWI only applies to alcohol and nothing else. I do not believe he finally retained something I told him and now made it into a joke as he hasn’t properly retained things I’ve told him numerous times in the past either (e.g. my voting record or that there are 2 polar ice caps on our planet.)

          Now if Agent posts that it was a joke and he agrees with me/us that DUI/DWI covers more than just alcohol impairment, I will admit I made a mistake.

    • February 3, 2016 at 1:49 pm
      BS says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      I have to disagree with you TDub.

      You mention that in “some other murder cases, if you are committing a felony with a group, and someone in the group happens to kill someone, all of you can be charged with murder”. I understand and agree the reasoning behind this. If someone is killed during the commission of a criminal act, everyone involved with the criminal act should be held responsible. Even if they weren’t actively involved in the killing itself.

      But when do you consider a criminal act ‘over’? Ryan was no longer driving, so was no longer actively engaged in the criminal act of driving under the influence when the officer was hit. He was standing alongside the road, and the officer was investigating the accident. Yes, it may be argued that if Ryan hadn’t gotten into the original accident, then the officer wouldn’t have been standing where he was when the SUV hit and killed him. But we wouldn’t even be discussing this if the driver of the SUV had been paying attention in the first place.

      Once again, I think it comes down to the question of when does a criminal act end? What if the officer had arrested and was in the process of driving Ryan to the precinct to be processed, and his squad car was hit head-on by another driver? If the officer died then, would Ryan still be guilty of his death? Would the argument be made that if the officer wasn’t forced to respond to the accident caused by Ryan’s intoxication in the first place, he wouldn’t have been driving that road at that time?

      If a police officer is the process of arresting someone for possession of heroin (a felony in most states) in some run-down drug house and the roof collapses, killing him, do we charge the addict with murder? What if a police officer responds to a domestic violence call, arrests the husband for battering his wife, but gets shot by the wife while walking him out the door? If the husband hadn’t been beating his wife in the first place, the officer never would have been at the house. So do we charge him with the officer’s murder? What about someone who gets pulled over for an illegal right turn? In most states, traffic violations are criminal offenses. If the ticketing officer gets hit by a separate car, do we blame the person that performed the criminal right turn, or the driver that actually hit the officer?

      I understand the desire to make Ryan pay for the entire incident. He’d already caused two accidents because of his drinking, and chances are this wasn’t his first time getting behind the wheel, loaded. And maybe Officer Olivieri would still be alive if he hadn’t had to deal with those accidents. So, wanting to make an example out of Ryan for driving under the influence is completely understandable. But a charge of vehicular homicide when he wasn’t even in a car when it happened is a huge stretch and runs the risk of setting a very bad prescient and possibly creating a very, very slippery slope.

      Ryan’s drunk driving, while awful and deserving of punishment is not what killed the officer. An SUV driver who didn’t slow down and pull over to pass an accident/active police stop did.

  • February 1, 2016 at 1:49 pm
    steve says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 1

    my shoot from the hip comment exceeded all my expectations for getting responses.
    thanks to all!

    • February 1, 2016 at 5:34 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 8

      steve, If you write a sentence on this blog, you will get a book in response, usually a criticism or insult. Take it from me, there are serial trollers who just can’t wait and scroll through every article and then pounce. Many use fake monikers, but we all know their language they use. Name calling and foul language is a sure sign of mental disease.

      • February 2, 2016 at 8:58 am
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 5

        Agent,

        That is some serious self-loathing. Are you sure you’re not Jewish?

        • February 4, 2016 at 11:09 am
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 1

          I save my loathing for you and about 4 or 5 others on this blog. By the way, you just insulted Rosenblatt. I am sure you made his day.

          • February 5, 2016 at 9:45 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Agent,

            Unlike you, I do not loathe anyone. Not even you or Bob, though I have no respect for either of you.

            My guess is that Rosenblatt is smart enough to get the humor.

  • February 2, 2016 at 9:37 am
    dabear666 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    Since citing the driver for DUI implies the driver was impaired, aren’t we concluding his judgement as well as coordination was impaired? I fail to see how the driver, in an impaired state, is expected to foresee all the potential ramifications of his actions as implied by the court. Is it reasonable an impaired driver could foresee he may hit another car–sure, because any driver can reasonably foresee an impact with another vehicle can occur any time they get behind the wheel (whether sober or under the influence). Can they reasonably foresee that if they are stopped by the dude of the road for any reason (accident, police stop, flat tire, mechanical problem due to poor vehicle maintenance) and a police officer stops also they could ultimately be held responsible for poor driving by another driver that results in an “accident” and death? How exactly does an impaired person reasonably foresee such a convoluted string of events as possible?

    I think the court went with over reach in this event.

  • February 3, 2016 at 4:56 pm
    Rosenblatt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    There’s a lot of good discussion here, but there’s one part of this incident that I think is being glossed over. Before I go there, I feel it is a stretch to charge the drunk driver with homicide based on the facts laid out in this article. That said….

    The drunk driver’s “….stopped vehicle was in the eastbound High Occupancy Vehicle lane, facing perpendicular to the direction of traffic.”

    If the drunk driver’s vehicle was not disabled, couldn’t you argue that a reasonable and prudent person would not have stopped in the far left lane, instead they would have moved the vehicle to the breakdown lane? Could this inaction cause the majority of contributory negligence to be placed against the drunk driver?

    Basically, if the drunk’s vehicle was operable and the drunk left it in the HoV lane blocking traffic, does this change any of your opinions about the drunk driver contributing to the officer’s death?

    Ultimately I agree with Rich and Insurance Grandma up above – there’s just too many questions left unanswered right now. Did the incident happen immediately after a crest in the hill, thereby reducing the foreseeability of the “last” vehicle in this situation? Where was the officer doing his investigation – in the HoV lane or in the breakdown lane? And As Rich said, where was the police car and were the [police lights and sirens] on?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*