Judge disses drunken driving tipsters

Saturday, March 21, 2009
Troy cops told they can't stop car based only on 911 call.
Mike Martindale / The Detroit News
TROY -- In a very rare move, the city of Troy is appealing a district judge's decision to dismiss a drunken driving case last month because it was based on observations of another motorist, rather than the officer who finally stopped the suspected driver.
Troy police stopped the car, a Chevrolet Lumina, in a subdivision off Rochester Road about 1:30 a.m. Nov. 11 after a motorist used a cell phone to report the Lumina had been weaving. According to court records, a 38-year-old Sterling Heights driver was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. He recorded a 0.10 blood alcohol level on a breathalyzer test -- higher than the 0.08 in which a motorist is deemed too intoxicated to drive in Michigan.
But Troy District Judge William E. Bolle dismissed the case during his first court appearance on Feb. 24.
"...You can't just assume that a cell phone caller is reliable, many times they are," Bolle said, according to a court transcript. "I've had occasions where they were not. I've had occasions where they're a spiteful person that's called the police and made allegations that in fact were not really true."
A transcript of the dispatch tape records the caller's description of the weaving driver.
"I have a car in front of me driving erratically ... oh my God," the caller said.
"Yeah, you got to send somebody out here for sure. He's all over the road."
The caller provided the Lumina's license plate numbers, along with his own name and phone number, during the two-minute call, in which he followed the car.
In court, the driver's attorney, Kirsten Neilsen Hartig, said the police did not see the motorist driving erratically and only pulled him over in front of his home, according to court documents.
Troy city attorney Lori Grigg Bluhm said filing an appeal of the judge's decision was a "very, very rare" action for her office to take, but felt the dismissal must be overturned.
"We've worked with the judge for years, and it pains us to do this," Bluhm said. "We believe the officer's stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, regardless of whether she personally observed erratic driving."
Said Hartig on Friday night: "I am very disappointed. I thought the judge ruled appropriately on this matter and the Police Department never confirmed this person's identity. My client never weaved, never drove improperly and even used turn signals."
In dismissing the case, Bolle told attorneys his decision was based on "competing interests," including "the right of a driver to be free from an illegal stop."
A Mothers Against Drunk Driving representative described the dismissal as "absurd."
"What are we supposed to do, wait for people to be killed before you arrest a drunk driver?" said Richard Rondeau, executive director of the Macomb-Oakland chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
"I've made more than a half-dozen calls to police like that myself about drunk drivers.
"What does this say to citizens? To ignore what we see? It doesn't make any sense. Police were provided with good information by a reliable source. I don't care if the officer saw him hit a curb or not. I just want that drunk off the road."
Bolle noted the officer observed the Lumina "for at least a mile" and didn't notice any bad driving.
"I don't think there was enough evidence for her to make a stop. ... I don't think you can proceed to a prosecution given what she knew," he wrote.
"...You can't just assume that a cell phone caller is reliable, many times they are," Bolle said, according to a court transcript. "I've had occasions where they were not. I've had occasions where they're a spiteful person that's called the police and made allegations that in fact were not really true."
A transcript of the dispatch tape records the caller's description of the weaving driver.
"I have a car in front of me driving erratically ... oh my God," the caller said.
"Yeah, you got to send somebody out here for sure. He's all over the road."
The caller provided the Lumina's license plate numbers, along with his own name and phone number, during the two-minute call, in which he followed the car.
In court, the driver's attorney, Kirsten Neilsen Hartig, said the police did not see the motorist driving erratically and only pulled him over in front of his home, according to court documents.
Troy city attorney Lori Grigg Bluhm said filing an appeal of the judge's decision was a "very, very rare" action for her office to take, but felt the dismissal must be overturned.
"We've worked with the judge for years, and it pains us to do this," Bluhm said. "We believe the officer's stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, regardless of whether she personally observed erratic driving."
Said Hartig on Friday night: "I am very disappointed. I thought the judge ruled appropriately on this matter and the Police Department never confirmed this person's identity. My client never weaved, never drove improperly and even used turn signals."
In dismissing the case, Bolle told attorneys his decision was based on "competing interests," including "the right of a driver to be free from an illegal stop."
A Mothers Against Drunk Driving representative described the dismissal as "absurd."
"What are we supposed to do, wait for people to be killed before you arrest a drunk driver?" said Richard Rondeau, executive director of the Macomb-Oakland chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
"I've made more than a half-dozen calls to police like that myself about drunk drivers.
"What does this say to citizens? To ignore what we see? It doesn't make any sense. Police were provided with good information by a reliable source. I don't care if the officer saw him hit a curb or not. I just want that drunk off the road."
Bolle noted the officer observed the Lumina "for at least a mile" and didn't notice any bad driving.
"I don't think there was enough evidence for her to make a stop. ... I don't think you can proceed to a prosecution given what she knew," he wrote.