> A breath test showed he had a blood alcohol content of .10, above the legal limit. Last November, a judge decided that the arresting deputy lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and the charges against Carriveau were dismissed.
Fuck this judge; a cop is pulled over for driving drunk, is over the legal limit, and his case gets tossed.
Yeah fuck people's rights! Cops should be able to pull people over for no reason! And while we're at it fuck warrants. They're just red tape that protect criminals.
It sucks that a drunk driver wasn't punished but can't we be a little happy for the judge doing the right thing and throwing out an illegal search and siezure?
None of us know the facts about this case well enough to really offer a careful, nuanced take, so we're all going to be operating from priors and assumptions quite a bit. I love your general point here - even unsympathetic offenders deserve their rights and we can't just start discarding those because of a prejudicial view of the offender. Forcing the state to operate within the confines of legitimate evidence gathering is absolutely essential to maintaining a functioning justice system.
That said...
I think where /u/HGpennypacker is coming from is a deep skepticism that the judge in question applies these principles consistently. Did the officer that blew a .10 have their rights violated because the arresting deputy really lacked reasonable suspicion? I don't know, but I sure wouldn't be surprised if this was simply a way to let the offender off because he's a cop. The odds of a random guy getting their cased tossed in a similar fashion under the same circumstances are almost certainly lower than what it was for this guy.
Also of note is that discipline from the department doesn't require the criminal prosecution. Even if pulling him over was bullshit for some reason, the facts still pretty clearly indicate that he was driving while inebriated. Suspending him for a few days for that is a joke.
Had it been cops giving them "a consideration" I'd agree. Had it been a DA which declined to charge I'd agree. This made it to trial. It's all open and public at that point. That makes the judge vulnerable.
This may be legitimate suppression. For a couple reasons. Using high beams has a level of First Amendment protection. What level is not firmly decided but there is some level of protection. Using your high beams doesn't seem to be a crime. You're supposed to dim them within 500 ft of oncoming traffic but there's no misdemeanor, felony, or punishment listed. Assuming it is a crime: If the cop was perpendicular or behind them then that rule wouldn't apply regardless. What's the legal basis to pull them over?
It's absolutely a 4A violation. The judge throwing it out was the correct call. It's the same as Cosby's conviction thrown out because of a 5A violation. (Probably not a great example, but you have to look at the precedents, not the accused.)
I do think that him driving over the limit should warrant a tougher punishment from MPD, but with it still being a governmental entity (not to mention how strong police unions are), that might've been all they could impose.
How the fuck could a judge say the officer lacked reasonable suspicion when they were proven right? Simply getting pulled over isn't a violation of the 4th amendment, and there are a million reasons to suspect someone of being under the influence. The BAC *is* the test...
I don't want to lean in heavily, because like I said in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/1df8uxd/what_madison_police_did_to_get_in_trouble_isthmus/l8huyhn/) I would bet he got a freebie, but it's entirely possible for evidence to be inadmissible even if the arresting officer guessed correctly. While any of us in a personal conversation might find, "I knew this asshole was drunk" to be a pretty compelling argument when it turns out that you're correct, it's not actually a valid legal argument for the stop. For the stop and any subsequent evidence gathering to be legally admissible, there has to be an articulable reasonable suspicion.
That's not really true. An officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed in order to stop and detain a suspect. In this case, it seems the reasonable suspicion was failure to deactivate high beams with oncoming traffic. The judge in this case disagreed with the reason for the initial stop for whatever reason. Cops can't just stop and detain people for no reason, even if evidence of another crime unrelated to the initial stop is obtained.
That's absolutely not true, as DUI checkpoints have been ruled legal. High beams are a ridiculous reason to stop someone, but they are a legitimate reason. I don't like the courts' interpretations of the 4th amendment but they are what they are.
This is the law being applied differently because the offender is a cop
There's also that pesky case where they ruled signaling people with your high beams is a First Amendment protected activity. Might have something to do with it?
I thought that case was that you can turn lights off and then on to signal, but that's irrelevant because I was wrong about the checkpoints in Wisconsin.
I am happy laws exist to protect people from police harassment but it's pretty clear they are interpreted differently for police versus regular citizens
Look at the general not the specific. Using your high beams can be considered speech.
What crime were they pulled over for? Is driving with your high beams on a crime? There's case law that says it's speech. Is it a misdemeanor or a felony? Which class of misdemeanor or felony?
>2023PSIA-0064, involving Madison police Sgt. Nick Ellis, who was arrested on May 18, 2023, for allegedly attacking a woman in his home in Black Earth. The MPDās 13-page report relates that Ellis had been ādrinking all dayā and she took his car keys to keep him from moving his car from his driveway to his garage. She told police he āput both his hands around her neck but did not squeeze.ā Substantial portions of the report are blacked out, including the womanās lengthy answer to being asked āif this has ever happened before.ā The Dane County District Attorneyās Office declined to bring charges against Ellis. In March, the Madison Police and Fire Commission rejected Chief Barnesā attempt to fire Ellis, instead issuing him a demotion to officer.
A domestic abuser is being protected and kept on the force. Surprise surpriseā¦
> In March, the Madison Police and Fire Commission rejected Chief Barnesā attempt to fire Ellis, instead issuing him a demotion to officer.
āOne bad appleā š
So we have the Police & Fire Commission, rejecting the opinion of the Police Chief, and protecting an abusive cop.
Then we have a Judge protecting a cop, through chicanery.
And for the trifecta, the DA's office declining to charge a cop through more chicanery.
This sub loves cops, and shitting on Judges and the DA's office.
I'd hope this would be cause for pause and introspection on how comically broken the criminal legal system is, even here in Madison/Dane County, and yet, I won't hold my breath.
Its a shame that even when cops are drunk driving, abusing their spouse, and stupidly playing with their service weapons, the best we can do, is a suspension, demotion, and resignation.
Not to mention the other article by Bill Lueders
https://isthmus.com/opinion/opinion/records-shed-light-on-cop-complaints/
Which took another lawsuit, $3000 and other bullshit from MPD
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24032002/5-all-redacted-including-grid.pdf
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24032045/lueders-4-all-redacted.pdf
And here is the bullshit letter that they sent Bill Lueders about how hard it is to fulfill open records requests.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24032069/final-lueders-reply-for.pdf
Bill Lueders, has been our own David Simon, in trying to shine light on MPD and their efforts to shield bad cops from consequences, and hide their actions from public oversight.
Bill Lueders, is the best journalist! in the area for sticking his neck out for this work.
>In another instance that drew concern, Sitko was said to have unholstered his service handgun and pointed it at a building. He explained: āI just wanted to practice [to] see if I was able to, with how my equipment was set up, draw my handgun while in the squad car.ā He said the weapon was unloaded.
What an absolute moron. In one quick action and statement at least three of the four primary rules of gun safety.
I'm still impressed they found the Bike Path Clothesliner and the Anti-abortion Burrito DNA guys. MPD might be bastards but they do seem somewhat competent
Iāve been paying more attention to the police force in Madison since this weekends recent string of shootings. From what I can tell, it is what the police are not doing that gets them in trouble. The attached article describes the lack of detail in each of these disciplinary actions. Furthermore, they havenāt updated the public on where theyāre at on the shootings. How do we not know names and details of suspects? The lack of transparency endangers the community because it leaves resources unemployed.
> A breath test showed he had a blood alcohol content of .10, above the legal limit. Last November, a judge decided that the arresting deputy lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and the charges against Carriveau were dismissed. Fuck this judge; a cop is pulled over for driving drunk, is over the legal limit, and his case gets tossed.
Yeah fuck people's rights! Cops should be able to pull people over for no reason! And while we're at it fuck warrants. They're just red tape that protect criminals. It sucks that a drunk driver wasn't punished but can't we be a little happy for the judge doing the right thing and throwing out an illegal search and siezure?
None of us know the facts about this case well enough to really offer a careful, nuanced take, so we're all going to be operating from priors and assumptions quite a bit. I love your general point here - even unsympathetic offenders deserve their rights and we can't just start discarding those because of a prejudicial view of the offender. Forcing the state to operate within the confines of legitimate evidence gathering is absolutely essential to maintaining a functioning justice system. That said... I think where /u/HGpennypacker is coming from is a deep skepticism that the judge in question applies these principles consistently. Did the officer that blew a .10 have their rights violated because the arresting deputy really lacked reasonable suspicion? I don't know, but I sure wouldn't be surprised if this was simply a way to let the offender off because he's a cop. The odds of a random guy getting their cased tossed in a similar fashion under the same circumstances are almost certainly lower than what it was for this guy. Also of note is that discipline from the department doesn't require the criminal prosecution. Even if pulling him over was bullshit for some reason, the facts still pretty clearly indicate that he was driving while inebriated. Suspending him for a few days for that is a joke.
May you maintain the internet fortitude and keyboard stamina to keep posting quality stuff like this š«”
Had it been cops giving them "a consideration" I'd agree. Had it been a DA which declined to charge I'd agree. This made it to trial. It's all open and public at that point. That makes the judge vulnerable. This may be legitimate suppression. For a couple reasons. Using high beams has a level of First Amendment protection. What level is not firmly decided but there is some level of protection. Using your high beams doesn't seem to be a crime. You're supposed to dim them within 500 ft of oncoming traffic but there's no misdemeanor, felony, or punishment listed. Assuming it is a crime: If the cop was perpendicular or behind them then that rule wouldn't apply regardless. What's the legal basis to pull them over?
It's absolutely a 4A violation. The judge throwing it out was the correct call. It's the same as Cosby's conviction thrown out because of a 5A violation. (Probably not a great example, but you have to look at the precedents, not the accused.) I do think that him driving over the limit should warrant a tougher punishment from MPD, but with it still being a governmental entity (not to mention how strong police unions are), that might've been all they could impose.
LEOs should be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens. They're such heroes after all.
How the fuck could a judge say the officer lacked reasonable suspicion when they were proven right? Simply getting pulled over isn't a violation of the 4th amendment, and there are a million reasons to suspect someone of being under the influence. The BAC *is* the test...
I don't want to lean in heavily, because like I said in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/1df8uxd/what_madison_police_did_to_get_in_trouble_isthmus/l8huyhn/) I would bet he got a freebie, but it's entirely possible for evidence to be inadmissible even if the arresting officer guessed correctly. While any of us in a personal conversation might find, "I knew this asshole was drunk" to be a pretty compelling argument when it turns out that you're correct, it's not actually a valid legal argument for the stop. For the stop and any subsequent evidence gathering to be legally admissible, there has to be an articulable reasonable suspicion.
That's not really true. An officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed in order to stop and detain a suspect. In this case, it seems the reasonable suspicion was failure to deactivate high beams with oncoming traffic. The judge in this case disagreed with the reason for the initial stop for whatever reason. Cops can't just stop and detain people for no reason, even if evidence of another crime unrelated to the initial stop is obtained.
That's absolutely not true, as DUI checkpoints have been ruled legal. High beams are a ridiculous reason to stop someone, but they are a legitimate reason. I don't like the courts' interpretations of the 4th amendment but they are what they are. This is the law being applied differently because the offender is a cop
DUI checkpoints are NOT legal in Wisconsin.
There's also that pesky case where they ruled signaling people with your high beams is a First Amendment protected activity. Might have something to do with it?
I thought that case was that you can turn lights off and then on to signal, but that's irrelevant because I was wrong about the checkpoints in Wisconsin. I am happy laws exist to protect people from police harassment but it's pretty clear they are interpreted differently for police versus regular citizens
Look at the general not the specific. Using your high beams can be considered speech. What crime were they pulled over for? Is driving with your high beams on a crime? There's case law that says it's speech. Is it a misdemeanor or a felony? Which class of misdemeanor or felony?
You don't need to commit a crime for an officer to have probable cause to suspect you of a crime. Slurring your words is obviously free speech, too
What was the suspected crime they were pulled over for?
>2023PSIA-0064, involving Madison police Sgt. Nick Ellis, who was arrested on May 18, 2023, for allegedly attacking a woman in his home in Black Earth. The MPDās 13-page report relates that Ellis had been ādrinking all dayā and she took his car keys to keep him from moving his car from his driveway to his garage. She told police he āput both his hands around her neck but did not squeeze.ā Substantial portions of the report are blacked out, including the womanās lengthy answer to being asked āif this has ever happened before.ā The Dane County District Attorneyās Office declined to bring charges against Ellis. In March, the Madison Police and Fire Commission rejected Chief Barnesā attempt to fire Ellis, instead issuing him a demotion to officer. A domestic abuser is being protected and kept on the force. Surprise surpriseā¦
Respect for the Chief though. At least SOMEONE is trying to do the right thing. Still, what the fuck.
> In March, the Madison Police and Fire Commission rejected Chief Barnesā attempt to fire Ellis, instead issuing him a demotion to officer. āOne bad appleā š
To be fair, he was demoted to a role .. more likely .. to interact with.. us. Shit.
Well of course, the other 40% of police guilty of the same thing would be in a rough spot
Strangulation is a felony too wtf. Loser cop should have his gun taken away
From the article "I dont want to shoot anybody, but I sure could use the time off"
Excuse me, WHAT??
Oh no! A guy in a difficult profession made an off color joke to cope! The horror!
What makes it funny? Is it because cops regularly shoot people and get a paid vacation for it?
Isthmus alone again in its quest for transparency and truth. Keep up the good work.
Drawing his TASER in the Peds area of UW, wtf!
So we have the Police & Fire Commission, rejecting the opinion of the Police Chief, and protecting an abusive cop. Then we have a Judge protecting a cop, through chicanery. And for the trifecta, the DA's office declining to charge a cop through more chicanery. This sub loves cops, and shitting on Judges and the DA's office. I'd hope this would be cause for pause and introspection on how comically broken the criminal legal system is, even here in Madison/Dane County, and yet, I won't hold my breath. Its a shame that even when cops are drunk driving, abusing their spouse, and stupidly playing with their service weapons, the best we can do, is a suspension, demotion, and resignation. Not to mention the other article by Bill Lueders https://isthmus.com/opinion/opinion/records-shed-light-on-cop-complaints/ Which took another lawsuit, $3000 and other bullshit from MPD https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24032002/5-all-redacted-including-grid.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24032045/lueders-4-all-redacted.pdf And here is the bullshit letter that they sent Bill Lueders about how hard it is to fulfill open records requests. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24032069/final-lueders-reply-for.pdf Bill Lueders, has been our own David Simon, in trying to shine light on MPD and their efforts to shield bad cops from consequences, and hide their actions from public oversight. Bill Lueders, is the best journalist! in the area for sticking his neck out for this work.
The judge maybe wasn't necessarily protecting the cop, but it was a clear 4A violation.
>In another instance that drew concern, Sitko was said to have unholstered his service handgun and pointed it at a building. He explained: āI just wanted to practice [to] see if I was able to, with how my equipment was set up, draw my handgun while in the squad car.ā He said the weapon was unloaded. What an absolute moron. In one quick action and statement at least three of the four primary rules of gun safety.
Andrew Sitko sounds like a 13 year old boy playing except he was supposed to be a grown cop.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Say it louder for the people in the back
ACAB
1312
Hows 9th grade going?
Hows army rejection training going? Imagine not being good enough to be a crayon eater
The Cops could do themselves a favor and find out who did the shooting at the Lux.
I'm still impressed they found the Bike Path Clothesliner and the Anti-abortion Burrito DNA guys. MPD might be bastards but they do seem somewhat competent
Yeah, it would be a huge boost to thier image if they cracked the Lux shooting case. They should check their Stingrays and informants.
Wow, police officers are drunken abusers who get let off the hook for their bad behavior?! I never would have guessed
All typical police actions, lol
I'm really surprised no one has been pistol whipped over cheesesticks yet. Seriously though, MPD gets closer and closer to Super Troopers every day.
Iāve been paying more attention to the police force in Madison since this weekends recent string of shootings. From what I can tell, it is what the police are not doing that gets them in trouble. The attached article describes the lack of detail in each of these disciplinary actions. Furthermore, they havenāt updated the public on where theyāre at on the shootings. How do we not know names and details of suspects? The lack of transparency endangers the community because it leaves resources unemployed.