We all want to trust the police and see them as upright protectors of justice. While many police officers are very professional and take their responsibility very seriously, there are others who are corrupt and use unscrupulous tactics that harm the common citizen.
Bad cops exist everywhere and there is no shortage of them in Pennsylvania. Some of them will even go as far as to lie under oath:
Pennsylvania Police Officer Admits to Lying Under Oath in DUI Case
Ex-cop admits lying in DUI case
HERMITAGE — As a citizen, Raymond Bogaty wants to believe the police.
“We all want to believe the police,” he said.
But, as Mercer County Public Defender, Bogaty has occasionally suspected that a story told by a policeman has not been the whole truth.
“I’ve been doing this for 37 years,” he said. “You always have concerns about truthfulness. You, at times, suspect the truth is not being told.”
Still, it’s rare to catch a policeman in a lie, or to get an admission that someone has lied, he said.
That unusual event occurred Tuesday when Mercer County District Attorney Robert G. Kochems and Hermitage Police Chief Patrick B. McElhinny released statements saying that Hermitage patrolman Dennis Best had admitted lying under oath in a 2008 case.
Criminal justice is intrinsically a human endeavor and due to the lack of transparency and oversight when it comes to the police, the situation is ripe for honest mistakes, purposeful and conscious misleading actions (lies) and even corruption. This can lead to false conviction if we do not successfully expose the lies and mistakes in the police officer’s account. This is why it is important to have an attorney who had trial experience in DUI cases and who has the guts to cross-examine the police.
If you feel the police have violated your rights call The McShane Firm to protect your freedom and liberty. Call 1-866-MCSHANE.
A new smartphone app called “Docket in your Pocket” allows users to access Pennsylvania criminal records from their smartphone. The description from their website:
Smartphone Apps Means Your Criminal Record in Everyone's Pocket
In today’s increasingly loose-knit society, we encounter people we barely know almost daily. Have you ever asked yourself how many of those people – maybe your new roommate, your next blind date, or your child’s babysitter – have criminal records? What’s in their past? Simple parking tickets? A few harmless noise ordinance violations? What about speeding violations? OWI/DUI offenses? Drug charges? Robberies? Assaults? Rape? Murder?
With the new smart phone app – Docket In Your Pocket – the answer to these and other questions can be at your fingertips in a matter of seconds.
Knowledge is power…
This app is useful for singles, parents, students, law enforcement, attorneys and anyone interested in learning about the criminal background of others.
This type of app may cause some complications for those convicted of a crime. For example, I recently had a person contact our offices who had his previous convictions expunged. His criminal record was no longer showing up in the official Pennsylvania online records but was still showing in the “Docket in your Pocket” app. This could cause unnecessary embarrassment if this person was applying for a new job for example and someone searched for their information using this app. This is the problem in that court orders to expunge only extend to court related activities such as the AOPC, webdockets, the MDJ, the police agency, probation and parole, the PSP Master RAP records, and the Clerk of Court at the Court of Common Pleas. Third party vendors like this and ones found on the internet are not expunged by court order.
If you have a Pennsylvania DUI, drug or other criminal conviction and are eligible to have the conviction expunged, please contact The McShane Firm at 1-866-MCSHANE for more information.
[Blogger's note and update 3/23/2011: We have been up-to-date on this developing story. The issue as far as we see it is going to effect literally thousands of convictions. The "issue" goes back to the switch over to the Intoxilyzer 8000 which occurred in September 2009.]
When I tell people that I am a PA DUI Lawyer, I am often times met with disdain because people think that everyone charged with a DUI is really guilty. This is really not the case as I have pointed out many times on this blog. There are many innocent people who are charged with PA DUI violations due many factors. One of these factors is bad breath testing equipment.
Pennsylvania Police are Wrongly Charging People with PA DUI violations
Philly Flunks Own Breathalyzer Test
Dozens of DUI cases in Philadelphia are set to be re-tried because of a bad breathalyzer, officials said on Wednesday.
Apparently, one breathalyzer used by police was showing incorrect blood-alcohol levels, MyFoxPhilly reports.
The district attorney’s office says in cases where people were found guilty solely because of the test, they will get a new trial.
In cases where other evidence was obtained, such as witness testimony or blood test, those defendants would not be reevaluated.
The problem could affect about 200 convictions.
Keeping a breath machine properly calibrated is really not that difficult. There are routine checks that need to be made and if there are problems, the manufacturers offer support. That is why this gross negligence is so appalling. This recklessness shows that these officers do not care about performing good police work. We are trusting cops who can’t keep their breath machines in order to keep our families and communities safe.
As an experienced Pennsylvania DUI attorney, I have witnessed the attitude of our police force on many occasions. I have also blogged extensively on the problems with police in PA in a DUI context. The core issue is that there are a lot of police officers who are under-trained, a few are lazy, and others are careless. They are wrongly charging innocent people with DUI. It is then up to us PA DUI attorneys to protect the rights of the citizen accused.
If you are wrongly charged with a DUI in PA please call 1-866-MCSHANE for a free detailed consultation.
A lot of politics surround the issue of DUI in PA. There are many powerful lobbies like MADD and the Pennsylvania DUI Association that are pushing for harsher penalties for DUI and have even proposed some legislation that, in essence, assumes that a suspect is guilty before they have had a chance in court. I have blogged before about the presumption of guilt in DUI cases in DUI Hypocrisy: Guilty Before Being Proven Innocent.
Lawmakers in Pennsylvania are examining various proposals to make DUI penalties even harsher
One of the hottest issues is the PA DUI Laws for repeat offenders. Currently, if a person is arrested for a second DUI offense while the legal proceedings for the first trial are still ongoing, the suspect is charged with another first DUI offense. This is in keeping with our Founding Father’s notion of the presumption of innocence. MADD and other lobbies are pushing Pennsylvania legislators to enact new laws allowing police to charge such a suspect with a second DUI offense even before the first case is concluded. You can read about this in the article: Tougher penalties pushed for repeat Pennsylvania drunk drivers
Other proposals include making repeat DUI offenses a felony which would significantly increase the penalties for a DUI as well as truly ,make a lifelong impact.
Theses types of proposals are based on emotions and sentiment rather than facts and science. If looked at critically, it is apparent that increased penalties are not an effective deterrent for criminal offenses, especially when dealing with crimes related to drug and alcohol abuse. Currently, under Pennsylvania DUI laws, a third DUI offense at the highest rate carries up to five years in prison and an 18 month license suspension if there is a conviction. These are very severe consequences and if someone is still committing DUI violations after that, then this is indication of an addiction or other problem that cannot be deterred by harsher penalties. Better treatment and rehabilitation options would be much more successful in stopping repeat offenders rather than harsher penalties.
Central PA Town Sees Growing DUI Arrest Numbers but is this a Result of Better Enforcement?
I have blogged before about the statistics game police play with PA DUI arrest numbers. An increased number of arrests does not mean that there is an improvement in DUI enforcement because- “More” does not always mean “Better.”
Take the example of the DUI enforcement in Bellefonte, PA for example. The numbers have increased but by their own admissions there are some alarming oversights that need to be addressed.
Drug use boosting central Pa. DUIs
BELLEFONTE, Pa. – Police in this Centre County town made about 25 driving-under-the-influence arrests in 2009.
This year, that many people have been cited for drug-related DUIs alone.
Add that to the arrests for alcohol DUIs, and by the end of the year, the number will likely be pushing 100. By the second week of December, Bellefonte police had reached 93 DUI arrests.
“It is a big jump,” Chief Shawn Weaver said.
He attributes the increase to several things. The department has two new, young, motivated officers working nights who are aware of Bellefonte’s DUI problem.
If you are a Penn State University student accused of a DUI or are someone looking for an experience DUI attorney to represent you in Centre County, please call the DUI Attorneys at The McShane Firm at 1-866-McShane
While many people will no doubt see these statistics as proof of better DUI enforcement, those of us who deal with the police on a daily basis are forced to view this with skepticism. Are these “new, young, motivated” officers properly trained in DUI enforcement? Is it possible that they are arresting innocent people by mistake because of a lack of knowledge and over-zealousness? Are they motivated by DUI arrest numbers and hence guilty of DUI tunnel vision?
The same article states:
Now, all seven Centre County police agencies – including two state police barracks – rely on one trooper at Rockview to do the in-field testing required to arrest someone for driving under the influence of drugs.
Centre County, PA has a population of close to 150,000 and includes Pennsylvania State University which, with an enrollment of over 45,000, is the largest university in PA and the tenth largest campus in the nation. Even with such a large population of young adults who, demographically speaking are more likely to use drugs, Centre County has only one Drug Recognition Expert (DRE)? Is this DRE able to accurately assess every DUI drug case in the entire county? What happens when this officer is not available? Is having only one qualified officer a sign of good DUI-drugs enforcement?
Arrest numbers are not reliable indicators of DUI enforcement and don’t tell the whole story of how many people were actually convicted and how many were falsely arrested. If you are a Penn State University student accused of a DUI or are someone looking for an experience DUI attorney to represent you in Centre County, please call the DUI Attorneys at The McShane Firm at 1-866-MCSHANE.
Sometimes people read my criticisms of the police in Pennsylvania and conclude that I am against them. This is not true. My criticisms stem from my belief that, as stewards of the law, police officers need to be trained extremely well so they can perform their duties properly. It is actually my dream and fantasy to be out of a job. This would mean that there would be no drunk driving. It would also mean that we would have a highly trained police force in PA that arrests more real criminals and eliminates the wrongful arrest of innocent people. There are no shortcuts to this- only proper training and oversight can eliminate problems like police brutality, abuse of power, corruption, perjury and wrongful arrests. Here is a summary of a DUI case Attorney Dorward recently represented that involved an enormous mistake by a Pennsylvania police officer that led to the arrest of an innocent and critical ill citizen:
PA Police Mistake Rare Disease for DUI
Attorney Dorward represented client WM in a case where his 4 counts of DUI were dismissed. Prior to the hearing he asked the officer for the results from his client’s blood test because at the time he filed the initial charges the officer had not received the results. The officer explained he would not be testifying to the results but agreed to show them to him and made copies for him. All the tests came back negative. After receiving those results Attorney Dorward proceeded to a hearing where the officer testified he received a phone call from dispatch indicating erratic driving in the area he was on patrol.
At the time of the police stop, WM was out of his vehicle putting notes in mailboxes he thought he hit. WM’s vehicle matched the description of the vehicle given by dispatch. The officer provided testimony that WM did not have his driver’s license and could not locate his registration, which the officer picked up right in front of him. Additionally, WM’s truck ran over a 3 foot pile of stone in the yard he was in. A portable breath test (PBT) was given with no indication of alcohol. The officer also stated WM was slow and sluggish. WM was placed in the back of the officer’s patrol car and became unconscious at one point prior to leaving the scene. The officer contacted the local hospital which in turn sent an ambulance to pick him up. The officer waited on scene for a tow truck to come take WM’s vehicle away and then proceeded to the hospital where he told WM he was going to be charged with DUI.
Attorney Dorward based his arguments on the fact that the blood test came back negative and that WM has a disease called cyclic vomiting syndrome which is an extremely painful disease. WM can go through vomiting episodes that last for hours. In the three months prior to this episode, WM had been hospitalized 16 times due to this disease. Furthermore, in the time period between his arrest and the hearing, WM had to have one of his legs amputated.
He was fortunate to have a lawyer the caliber of Attorney Dorward at his side to defend his DUI case and rightfully have this case dismissed. The very unfortunate part in all of this is the fact that someone with such a severe medical condition was being falsely charged with DUI despite the fact that his breath and blood test both showed that there was no alcohol in his system. No one deserves to go through the stress and humiliation related to a DUI charge and especially not someone who is so severely ill.
As a Pennsylvania DUI Lawyer and resident of this great state, just like everyone else, I too wish there were no DUI drivers on Pennsylvania roadways. In my opinion, better education and training for Pennsylvania state and local police is the key to saving lives. As it stands, the training police officers receive on drunk driving is woefully inadequate and leads to a high number of false arrests. False arrests are a huge problem because a perfectly innocent citizens are arrested for a DUI they did not commit forcing them to go through often times lengthy legal proceedings to clear their name.
Pennsylvania State DUI Troops: Residents of Carbon, Columbia, Lower Luzerne, Monroe Counties Beware!
If we continue to ignore the training problem that is rampant in Pennsylvania’s police forces, we will end up with well-meaning but dangerously under-educated police officers jumping to conclusions that are not sound or bending the law and violating our rights:
Drunk drivers: Police are looking for you
There was a time when troopers stationed at the state police barracks in Swiftwater would track crimes and car crashes in their coverage area using a large map of Monroe County posted on the wall in the station. Color-coded pins were pushed into the map after a crash, arrest or crime.
The map and a few of its now-unused pins still stare down from the wall, but troopers have a much more sophisticated system now to piece together where and when crimes are taking place.
Since 2003, the troopers stationed at Swiftwater have used mapping technology to target patrols at roads with a high volume of drunken driving crashes and arrests.
Last year, police at the Swiftwater barracks made almost 200 more DUI arrests than the previous year — a 75 percent increase from 2008 and the largest jump at any of the 88 state police barracks in Pennsylvania last year.
(We have discussed Pennsylvania DUI statistics before so please take these numbers with a proverbial grain of salt.)
The Pennsylvania State Trooper in this article really makes some amazing admissions:
Far more useful in catching drunk drivers is the “roving DUI patrol,” Reznick said. During a DUI patrol, troopers are assigned to target areas that the PROphesy program has highlighted as heavily traveled by drunken drivers during the likeliest hours.
In a traffic stop, troopers look for more than just the obvious signs of impairment, Reznick said.
“It doesn’t have to be the traditional guy weaving all over the road,” he said.
Police might stop someone for an equipment violation. “It’s very difficult not to be able to find some type of equipment violation even on a new car,” Reznick said.
“There’s a multitude of things. There are little things built into the vehicle code, like something hanging from your rearview mirror is against the law. [Blogger's note: that is not true, by the way unless it materially obstructs the safe operation of the vehicle, which most hanging objects do not]
“Do we stop people and give them $100 citations for that? Mostly not. But it’s probable cause to pull over a car and see if there’s anything else going on.
“If we pull you over for one of these little equipment violations and you’re otherwise driving safely and not driving under the influence, then ‘Here’s your warning, sir,’ and you’re on your way,” Reznick said. “But that’s how you capture the DUI drivers also.”
Amazing! In this country we have rights and one of those is protection from unlawful search and seizure as preserved in the Fourth Amendment. Here we have admission of pre-textual stops which are not proper. Here the roving patrol officer or Trooper following this method is not only guilty of DUI tunnel vision but they are overtly treading on our rights by not demonstrating probable cause for a DUI stop. Any drivers in Carbon, Columbia, Lower Luzerne, Monroe Counties who find themselves arrested for DUI under these circumstances should call The McShane Firm immediately so a qualified Pennsylvania DUI lawyer can assess your case.
One popular "solution" to the DUI problem is to toughen the laws and make harsher penalties. Here in Pennsylvania, that still wouldn’t work because of shoddy police work. All it will do is lead to more truly factually or legally not guilty citizens among us being convicted and punished. Here is an investigation from last year that shows how inept some of these departments are:
Philly Fugitives Walk Free as Courts Watch
Court insiders call it a "Philadelphia special": a case that falls apart after both witnesses and cops fail to show up at trial. The nickname is telling, according to a four-part investigation by the Philadelphia Inquirer that began on Sunday. Looking at 31,000 criminal court cases filed in Philadelphia in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the paper found pervasive dysfunction within the city’s court system [2], which "fails to punish violent crimes, dismisses thousands of cases without any decision on the merits, and has a growing pool of 47,000 fugitives."
Because of shoddy work by police and prosecutors, some true criminals go unpunished. The full series: Justice: Delayed, Dismissed, Denied is worth reading as it highlights how widespread this problem really is.
My question is- What’s the use of pushing for stricter laws when the Commonwealth of PA can’t enforce the current ones? Why not invest funds into making crime labs better and training police better so we can catch the bad guys and make sure they get punished appropriately?
Stricter DUI laws and penalties are a shell game hiding the deficiencies of the police and prosecution. That’s the root problem that no one wants to talk about.
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
A recent report from The Republican-Herald:
Pa. State Police make record number of DUI arrests
HARRISBURG, Pa.—Pennsylvania State Police say they made a record number of DUI arrests last year while the number of alcohol-related fatalities dropped more than 10 percent.
Commissioner Frank Pawlowski says troopers made 16,900 DUI arrests in 2009, a 4 percent increase over the previous year. At the same time, the number of alcohol-related fatalities investigated by troopers dropped from 161 to 141.
According to figures released Tuesday, the number of all alcohol-related crashes was also down slightly.
Pawlowski says expansion of a drug recognition expert program deserves some of the credit. The number of drug-influence evaluations rose from 693 in 2008 to 1,118 last year.
It looks like the Pennsylvania State Police want us to believe that the decrease number of fatalities is due to their added effort in making DUI arrests. However, after reading this I am very skeptical about the implied conclusions drawn from these statistics because there are a number of unanswered questions.
- Were these added arrests a result of better police work and training or just because they were arresting anything they suspected due to DUI Tunnel Vision?
- What percentage of these cases were acquitted? Was the acquittal rate higher than it was last year? How many innocent people were falsely arrested and wrongly accused?
- What role did educational programs play in reducing the number of DUI fatalities? What about “safe ride home” type programs? Shouldn’t they be considered when evaluating the overall picture?
- A number of states have also seen an increase in the number of arrests due to DUI focused patrols that have the potential to cause over zealous police action to the point where they were arresting a lot of innocent people. There are both financial and professional justifications for the arrest, without concern as to the QUALITY OF THE ARREST. Is this the case in Pennsylvania?
Before we accept their accounts as fact and give them all the credit, we need to see more evidence than just a few statistics.
Like many things in life, more does not necessarily mean better, does it?
Here is another article to illustrate my point
Pennsylvania police cite hundreds for cursing
PHILADELPHIA — Free-speech lawsuits filed Wednesday accuse Pennsylvania police of wrongly charging hundreds of people with disorderly conduct for swearing.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyers say they reviewed 770 such citations issued by Pennsylvania State Police in a recent one-year span and found most involved profanities and other legal, non-obscene speech.
The plaintiffs are a pizza delivery driver briefly jailed for cursing at a local officer over a parking ticket and a Luzerne County woman cited by state police for hurling a derogatory name at a swerving motorcyclist.
The statute carries a possible 90-day jail term and $300 fine. The woman says she paid $1,500 to fight the ticket.
A state police spokeswoman says the agency has no immediate comment.
Statistics aren’t enough to prove anything and the police, above all, should know better.
As Henry Clay once said, “Statistics are no substitute for judgment.”
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
Drunk driving is a serious problem in Pennsylvania and across the country. Like most of us, I also wish that people would not make the choice of getting behind the wheel while they are drunk. To battle this, many people are willing to adopt "any means necessary" to eliminate the DUI problem. However, sometimes these means include infringing on our basic civil rights.
One of our basic and most fundamental rights is the presumption of innocence or innocent before proven guilty. When someone is charged with a crime, it must be proven in a court of law. No matter who the person is or what the alleged crime is, everyone is to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
I wish someone would explain that to some of our Pennsylvania State Representatives.
Here is a recent article from York dispatch
Grove DUI legislation gets thumbs up in committee
A local lawmaker’s effort to close a loophole that changed the way DUI offenders can be sentenced recently earned approval from a state House of Representatives committee.
State Rep. Seth Grove, R-Dover, in mid-February introduced legislation that would allow people arrested for a second DUI to be sentenced as repeat offenders even if they haven’t yet been convicted of the first offense.
Here is a classic example of an over zealous politician compromising our civil rights in an attempt to get tough on DUI (and get votes and pacify the powerful DUI lobbies). To illustrate let’s look at the penalties for a Pennsylvania DUI conviction:
First DUI offense, Highest Rate:
- three (3) day mandatory minimum jail time
- six (6) months maximum jail time
- $1000-$5000 fine
- twelve (12) month loss of license
Second DUI offense, Highest Rate:
- ninety (90) days mandatory minimum jail time
- sixty (60) months prison sentence which means possibly serving it in a State Correctional Institute where you may not be locally housed and there is no work release
- $1500-$10000 fine
- 18 month license suspension and after that is fully served then 12 month interlock license must be served before getting an unrestricted license
As you can see, the penalties for a second offense are much worse than the first. Under the proposed law a person charged for a second DUI before the conclusion of the first case would be charged as repeat offenders EVEN IF THEY ARE ACQUITTED AND EXONERATED OF THE FIRST ACCUSATION. This law assumes that the person was guilty of the first offense before a court has had time to review the evidence and pass a judgment on it. A person could be acquitted of the first charge and still be convicted as a repeat offender even though they only committed one crime. Seriously, you can be convicted as a repeat offender on your first offense?!
Is that fair? Is that constitutional? Is that what we are supposed to do- assume guilt?
Drug dealers, rapist of children, and murderers do not get treated like this.
To all Pennsylvania Lawmakers: Stop trying to take away our rights for your own political gain!
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
Connect with us:
Connect with Attorney McShane
Attorney Profile on TheMcShaneFirm.com
Justin McShane on Avvo
Justin McShane on FaceBook
Justin McShane on Google+
Justin McShane on JustiaJustin McShane on LinkedIn
Justin McShane on Super Lawyers
Justin McShane on Twitter
National College for DUI Defense- The Truth About Forensic Science
Videos by Justin McShane
