Post by WaTcHeR on May 24, 2006 9:34:37 GMT -5
05/24/2006 - We are a suspicious bunch, aren’t we? You can’t blame the people who want to know more about the latest drinking and driving incident involving a Moline cop. The Moline Police Department has had a fairly long string of drinking-related incidents in the past couple of years and some people are wary.
In the most recent case, an unidentified officer was dished out an undisclosed discipline in relation to an incident that may or may not have involved drunken driving.
Clear as mud? That’s the problem, at least for the public.
Moline Mayor Don Welvaert said he’s satisfied with Police Chief Gary Francque’s explanation of what happened with an officer who was pulled over by a fellow cop after squealing his tires and “drawing attention to himself.”
Police are refusing to say publicly whether a field-sobriety test or a breathalyzer was administered but evidently shared more details with city officials.
“The chief laid it out to the council and myself in closed session,” the mayor said. “I’m completely satisfied.”
And maybe that’s enough for some people. It might even be enough for most people if not for the police department’s recent history. The public has been given some fairly solid reasons to suspect a certain amount of funny business is going on in Moline.
And now, even if there’s no funny business whatsoever, the shroud of suspicion remains. It could be completely wiped away if only the chief would be nearly as straightforward with citizens as he is with the city council.
We don’t need to know the cop’s name, but it would be good to know what an internal police investigation has shown he did wrong. It’s hard to believe that squealing your tires merits discipline. And why not say whether the cop was given a field-sobriety test? They’ve acknowledged that alcohol was involved. Again.
It’s possible the chief knows that too much truthfulness can backfire.
Case in point: Moline officer Stephen Kautz was arrested for drunken driving in the early morning hours of June 1, 2004, after a single-vehicle accident. A fellow cop found him hanging upside-down from his seatbelt, asking where he was and what he had hit.
The chief at the time, Steve Etheridge, said, “He was intoxicated, recognized for being intoxicated and was arrested for being intoxicated.”
But Kautz got off. His fellow officer took the stand in court and said he smelled alcohol coming from the SUV, but not from Kautz himself. A judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to make the DUI arrest. Never mind that a hospital blood test showed his blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit for driving.
There have been other cases, including a more recent one in which an officer was fired after being convicted of drunken driving in Iowa. In that case, Francque was remarkably open. But he had to be. Since Timothy Saathoff was arrested in Iowa, the case was largely out of Moline’s hands.
The public confidence gets iffy when Moline quietly handles these things alone.
And there’s no reason for that. Or is there?
In the most recent case, an unidentified officer was dished out an undisclosed discipline in relation to an incident that may or may not have involved drunken driving.
Clear as mud? That’s the problem, at least for the public.
Moline Mayor Don Welvaert said he’s satisfied with Police Chief Gary Francque’s explanation of what happened with an officer who was pulled over by a fellow cop after squealing his tires and “drawing attention to himself.”
Police are refusing to say publicly whether a field-sobriety test or a breathalyzer was administered but evidently shared more details with city officials.
“The chief laid it out to the council and myself in closed session,” the mayor said. “I’m completely satisfied.”
And maybe that’s enough for some people. It might even be enough for most people if not for the police department’s recent history. The public has been given some fairly solid reasons to suspect a certain amount of funny business is going on in Moline.
And now, even if there’s no funny business whatsoever, the shroud of suspicion remains. It could be completely wiped away if only the chief would be nearly as straightforward with citizens as he is with the city council.
We don’t need to know the cop’s name, but it would be good to know what an internal police investigation has shown he did wrong. It’s hard to believe that squealing your tires merits discipline. And why not say whether the cop was given a field-sobriety test? They’ve acknowledged that alcohol was involved. Again.
It’s possible the chief knows that too much truthfulness can backfire.
Case in point: Moline officer Stephen Kautz was arrested for drunken driving in the early morning hours of June 1, 2004, after a single-vehicle accident. A fellow cop found him hanging upside-down from his seatbelt, asking where he was and what he had hit.
The chief at the time, Steve Etheridge, said, “He was intoxicated, recognized for being intoxicated and was arrested for being intoxicated.”
But Kautz got off. His fellow officer took the stand in court and said he smelled alcohol coming from the SUV, but not from Kautz himself. A judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to make the DUI arrest. Never mind that a hospital blood test showed his blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit for driving.
There have been other cases, including a more recent one in which an officer was fired after being convicted of drunken driving in Iowa. In that case, Francque was remarkably open. But he had to be. Since Timothy Saathoff was arrested in Iowa, the case was largely out of Moline’s hands.
The public confidence gets iffy when Moline quietly handles these things alone.
And there’s no reason for that. Or is there?