Drunk driving charges dismissed in Edmonton Police case


karrie
#1
Drunk-driving charges against a former police officer accused of slamming into a pickup truck after allegedly running a red light while impaired have been tossed.
Provincial court Judge Michael Allen yesterday dismissed five counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm and one count of driving with a blood-alcohol level of over .08 against (Douglas) Kurtis Brown, 30.
The Crown in the case told Allen he would not be proceeding on the six charges after the judge ruled two breath samples provided by Brown would be excluded from evidence due to a breach of his charter rights.
Allen determined the rookie police officer investigating the fiery crash - where a city man was trapped in the burning pickup and was rescued by the accused - had no reasonable or probable grounds to demand a breath sample.


full article...
 
Spade
#2
It is called "Protect your own."
 
Zan
#3
Quote:

slamming into a pickup truck after allegedly running a red light

no reasonable grounds to demand a breath sample?!? Give the rookie a medal, and throw the book at the drunk!
 
karrie
#4
That's my opinion too Zan. It took balls to breathalyze one of their own, and pin him for it. The rookie deserves HUGE recognition.


It's a disservice for the courts to let this slide on such shaky grounds, and sets a HORRIBLE precedent. In the future, any drunk involved in an accident can easily claim that his inebriation was NOT justifiable grounds for a breathalyzer, as it could as easily have been a concussion from the accident that caused a wobbly walk or some slurred words.

Insane.
 
Stretch
#5
>>Drunk-driving charges against a former police officer accused of slamming into a pickup truck after allegedly running a red light while impaired have been tossed.<<

a different result was expected?? it's us an' them.......get used to it! it gets worse!!
 
Stretch
#6
I got T boned by a wanker who ran a red light, and left the scene.....
insurance said it was a "no fault" accident! well, I'M EFFFFFFFING SORRY!!! Accidents don't happen.... they're caused.
I went to the police about a week later to see what the wanker was charged with....simple request, I thort.
was told I had to apply to thru the "freedom of infomation" thing. WOT The.......?
Its an "us n them" thing
 
Tyr
#7
..and here I thought gross police corruption and ineptitude only existed in BC.

Go figure!!
 
VanIsle
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Spade View Post

It is called "Protect your own."

Why would you say that Spade? He is not one of their own. Who's protecting him? If anyone is - it's the courts. I just asked my husband what .08 would be equal to and he said "about 2 beers". Then I read the article and the guy says he had 2 drinks. The really bad thing is that it's quite possible the cop did a sloppy job of taking notes and investigating the scene. I know I heard complaints about guys on the job writing one liners in their reports and they don't have anything to take into the court room. I worked for lawyers and one of them often said - I'm in court with your husband today. When he got back I would say "well, how did it go" (it was always against an impaired driver) and I always, always got the same response. "I lost". My husband was always well prepared and went to court with lots of evidence.
All of you here are congratulating the "rookie" cop. That tells me that since the retired cop has been retired for 3 years - the rookie would not have known him. He would not have known he was charging "one of his own". I'm surprized at you Spade. I thought you were pro police. It's becoming increasingly obvious I have been quite wrong. Maybe that's the real reason we've had a little trouble in the past and I thought it was all the glich on canada.com
 
Spade
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

All of you here are congratulating the "rookie" cop. That tells me that since the retired cop has been retired for 3 years - the rookie would not have known him. He would not have known he was charging "one of his own". I'm surprized at you Spade. I thought you were pro police. It's becoming increasingly obvious I have been quite wrong. Maybe that's the real reason we've had a little trouble in the past and I thought it was all the glich on canada.com

First, the policeman who ran the light was not retired. He was under 30.
I am not pro or anti police. I am pro "equal application of the law." Police are not always faultless.
You are being a tad defensive!
 
karrie
#10
I'd like to point out....

The police tested and charged him. Is that corruption? This article is a COURT decision overturning the work of the police force. While Edmonton does have a very corrupt police force (this officer had a vehicle full of drugs when he hit the kids), this seems to be one that they took seriously and didn't try to cover up. I blame the courts in this case, not the EPS.
 
karrie
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

All of you here are congratulating the "rookie" cop. That tells me that since the retired cop has been retired for 3 years - the rookie would not have known him.

Sorry Island, but, he was an off-duty officer, not a retired one. And the article says he blew OVER .08, not .08 on the dot. They never tell the precise measure, but, knowing officers on the EPS, it was more than a slight blow over. This was a very cut and dry case. I know that it's your gut reaction to stick up for the police, but, I really don't think this particular one warrants your efforts.
 
VanIsle
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Spade View Post

First, the policeman who ran the light was not retired. He was under 30.
I am not pro or anti police. I am pro "equal application of the law." Police are not always faultless.
You are being a tad defensive!

He was retired from the police force: Drunk-driving charges against a former police officer . This is taken from the article. He sounds to me like he could even be someone who was forced into retirement but that is total speculation on my part. The guy is an obvious loser. It's really too bad the courts let him off. Sloppy police work can make this happen. I'm sorry if I sound a tad defensive. You really seem to be on the "other" side right now.
 
Risus
#13
One law for cops, another for the rest of us...
 
karrie
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

He was retired from the police force: Drunk-driving charges against a former police officer . This is taken from the article.

"Brown, who had been a city police constable for three years, but resigned in October..."

That was also taken from the article. What the article doesn't cover is the fact that he had more drugs than one person could use in his vehicle at the time of the crash. He resigned. Most cops caught out as probable drug dealers do that.
 
Ron in Regina
#15
Being anti-corruption and anti-incompetence are very different than being anti-cop.
I'm not anti-cop, but I'm very anti-corruption and anti-incompetence. There are
many GREAT cops out there, but this now former cop (like many others) doesn't
fall into that category.
 
lone wolf
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

"Brown, who had been a city police constable for three years, but resigned in October..."

That was also taken from the article. What the article doesn't cover is the fact that he had more drugs than one person could use in his vehicle at the time of the crash. He resigned. Most cops caught out as probable drug dealers do that.

Quote:

Const. Michael Chernyk, who had been with EPS for 1 1/2 years at the time, had testified he had demanded a breath sample from Brown after smelling alcohol on him, seeing that his eyes were glossy and hearing from one witness at the scene that Brown had run a red light while speeding.

Also from the article ... so there is a very good possibility they knew each other. Hats off to the rookie! It takes some big ones to go against the Church.
 
VanIsle
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

Sorry Island, but, he was an off-duty officer, not a retired one. And the article says he blew OVER .08, not .08 on the dot. They never tell the precise measure, but, knowing officers on the EPS, it was more than a slight blow over. This was a very cut and dry case. I know that it's your gut reaction to stick up for the police, but, I really don't think this particular one warrants your efforts.

No Karrie, he was not an off duty officer. He resigned from the EPS. My mistake was that I thought it said he resigned 3 years ago but it said he was a member for 3 years. It is still my thoughts that he was forced to resign but as I said before - I'm speculating. I do not defend this man at all. I wish he had the book thrown at him. The only person I really don't understand here is the judge. I hope someone appeals this case if they can (sometimes you cannot) because this turkey needs to be charged - both for his driving and for the drugs he was carrying. It's clowns like him that give all police forces a bad name.
 
VanIsle
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Also from the article ... so there is a very good possibility they knew each other. Hats off to the rookie! It takes some big ones to go against the Church.

Why do you get the impression that they knew each other? We've lived in detachments as large as 30 people where my husband did not actually know all the members and where I often knew only maybe a dozen of them. They are not the tight knit group you might think they are. Especially newbies. They have watches and it is common for people on watches to hang together. I tried to see how many members Edmonton has but they don't seem to list that. It is my understanding that they have around 900 members but their site shows that they have several offices set up throughout the city so is it possible that they didn't even work out of the same office? Why would it be a surprize for a rookie or even a seasoned officer to charge "one of their own"? Given the same circumstances, I know beyond belief that my husband and many of the people we have known throughout the years would not have hesitated to charge the man.
 
karrie
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

No Karrie, he was not an off duty officer. He resigned from the EPS. My mistake was that I thought it said he resigned 3 years ago but it said he was a member for 3 years. It is still my thoughts that he was forced to resign but as I said before - I'm speculating.

I know for a fact that he was an off-duty officer at the time of the accident, had been on the force for three years prior to the accident, and resigned only after the accident. He didn't resign before the accident.
 
lone wolf
#20
...and you really think a cop - ex or not - isn't going to use whatever he can to influence another cop? You lie and I'll swear to it is an easy addiction. Did I say I have an impression they know each other? My son just left the EPD. In his year on the job, he got to be acquainted with a large number of them ... and left because of that unwritten code that says you cover for your fellow officer - no matter what. The idea of wearing some bad cop's reputation lost its appeal in his time with Toronto.
 
Spade
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

...and you really think a cop - ex or not - isn't going to use whatever he can to influence another cop? You lie and I'll swear to it is an easy addiction. Did I say I have an impression they know each other? My son just left the EPD. In his year on the job, he got to be acquainted with a large number of them ... and left because of that unwritten code that says you cover for your fellow officer - no matter what. The idea of wearing some bad cop's reputation lost its appeal in his time with Toronto.

Yep, the code!
 
Spade
#22
Canadian Association of Journalists — Media Magazine
 
VanIsle
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

...and you really think a cop - ex or not - isn't going to use whatever he can to influence another cop? You lie and I'll swear to it is an easy addiction. Did I say I have an impression they know each other? My son just left the EPD. In his year on the job, he got to be acquainted with a large number of them ... and left because of that unwritten code that says you cover for your fellow officer - no matter what. The idea of wearing some bad cop's reputation lost its appeal in his time with Toronto.

Then good for your son. According to some on here the Edmonton Police is no where to be a proud police officer. That was a surprize to me as there was a time when they were pretty high on the list. Sounds like they have sunken to the lowest.
It's a really bad day if a bad cop can have influence over a good cop. The un-written code should be - bad cops get caught.
 
VanIsle
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

Sorry Island, but, he was an off-duty officer, not a retired one. And the article says he blew OVER .08, not .08 on the dot. They never tell the precise measure, but, knowing officers on the EPS, it was more than a slight blow over. This was a very cut and dry case. I know that it's your gut reaction to stick up for the police, but, I really don't think this particular one warrants your efforts.

You are quite right. He was an off duty officer. It is easy to by-pass dates while reading an article. He only retired last October and the accident occurred last May so a period of about 5 months passed before he retired. I guarantee you that someone let him know that he should resign or be fired. He has more charges pending and I doubt anyone is going to go easy on him.
 
karrie
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

Then good for your son. According to some on here the Edmonton Police is no where to be a proud police officer. That was a surprize to me as there was a time when they were pretty high on the list. Sounds like they have sunken to the lowest.
It's a really bad day if a bad cop can have influence over a good cop. The un-written code should be - bad cops get caught.

I know cops on Edmonton's force, and they are great people. But yes, they are having major troubles with corruption. But it always tends to be the few painting the many doesn't it?
 
karrie
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

You are quite right. He was an off duty officer. It is easy to by-pass dates while reading an article. He only retired last October and the accident occurred last May so a period of about 5 months passed before he retired. I guarantee you that someone let him know that he should resign or be fired. He has more charges pending and I doubt anyone is going to go easy on him.

I'm willing to be dollars to doughnuts (that's not a police jab, just a saying, I swear ), that given the quantity of drugs he was carrying, he resigned to protect a few others from an interdepartmental investigation on what exactly he was intending on doing with it. From what I've heard (isn't gossip grand?), it was enough marijuana for dealing, definitely more than personal use.
 
lone wolf
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

I'm willing to be dollars to doughnuts (that's not a police jab, just a saying, I swear ), that given the quantity of drugs he was carrying, he resigned to protect a few others from an interdepartmental investigation on what exactly he was intending on doing with it. From what I've heard (isn't gossip grand?), it was enough marijuana for dealing, definitely more than personal use.

(Sarcasm alert!)...hometown grapevine has advantages. Details seldom see daylight beyond the home page edition....
 
Chev
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

He was retired from the police force: Drunk-driving charges against a former police officer . This is taken from the article. He sounds to me like he could even be someone who was forced into retirement but that is total speculation on my part. The guy is an obvious loser. It's really too bad the courts let him off. Sloppy police work can make this happen. I'm sorry if I sound a tad defensive. You really seem to be on the "other" side right now.

Islandpacific... For information's sake....
Off-duty officer charged in alleged drunk driving crash3 people lift burning truck to rescue trapped driver

Last Updated: Monday, May 12, 2008 | 10:11 AM CBC News

An off-duty Edmonton police constable has been charged with a number of alcohol-related offences after his car was involved in a fiery crash early Sunday morning in the city's south side.
Police allege Const. Douglas Brown, 29, sped through a red light at the intersection of 66 Street and Whitemud Drive around 2:15 a.m. and plowed into a pickup truck with four people….. The constable has been suspended with pay, pending the outcome of the investigation. He has been with the police service for three years, working out of the downtown division……
Former Edmonton cop acquitted of drunk driving charges
But he still faces dangerous driving charges in crash with pickup
Karen Kleiss, edmontonjournal.com

Published: Thursday, February 12, 2009
……………………. Brown resigned from his position in the Edmonton Police Service last October. The trial resumes Friday, with closing arguments.
 
VanIsle
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

I'm willing to be dollars to doughnuts (that's not a police jab, just a saying, I swear ), that given the quantity of drugs he was carrying, he resigned to protect a few others from an interdepartmental investigation on what exactly he was intending on doing with it. From what I've heard (isn't gossip grand?), it was enough marijuana for dealing, definitely more than personal use.

That kind of gossip cannot be ignored. He won't get to protect anyone. Maybe it's time for a darn good clean up. Helps to straighten messes up. Sounds like that force needs a good cleanng. You don't have to explain dollars to donuts to me and I would not have taken offence . I don't bruise that easy.
 
VanIsle
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Chev View Post

Islandpacific... For information's sake....
Off-duty officer charged in alleged drunk driving crash3 people lift burning truck to rescue trapped driver

Last Updated: Monday, May 12, 2008 | 10:11 AM CBC News

An off-duty Edmonton police constable has been charged with a number of alcohol-related offences after his car was involved in a fiery crash early Sunday morning in the city's south side.
Police allege Const. Douglas Brown, 29, sped through a red light at the intersection of 66 Street and Whitemud Drive around 2:15 a.m. and plowed into a pickup truck with four people….. The constable has been suspended with pay, pending the outcome of the investigation. He has been with the police service for three years, working out of the downtown division……
Former Edmonton cop acquitted of drunk driving charges
But he still faces dangerous driving charges in crash with pickup
Karen Kleiss, edmontonjournal.com

Published: Thursday, February 12, 2009
……………………. Brown resigned from his position in the Edmonton Police Service last October. The trial resumes Friday, with closing arguments.

Thank you for your post but I fully believed what Karrie had to say.
 

Similar Threads

57
Drunk driving laws
by Kreskin | May 9th, 2010
28
Drunk Driving Program Goes Too Far?
by karrie | Jun 12th, 2008