DUI BLOG

I’ve mentioned in the past that police agencies across the country use DUI arrest quotas — and almost uniformly deny the practice.  See, for example, DUI Quotas,  "Yes, We Have No DUI Quotas" and "Inside Edition" Documents DUI Quotas Across U.S..

The latest example of this supposedly non-existent practice:

Drunk-Driving Quota Case May Lead to Similar Efforts Elsewhere

Baltimore, MD.  Jan. 6 – Even as prosecutors weigh an appeal of a Howard County judge’s decision to throw out drunken-driving charges and rule that they were tied to illegal citation quotas, defense lawyers are considering whether the same defense might apply to past or current cases.

District Court Judge Sue-Ellen Hantman’s ruling in a case against an Ellicott City woman has raised questions on both sides — as well as eyebrows around the legal community…

Hantman said the charges against Katie Majorie Quackenbush, 22, were linked to an illegal quota — a ruling based on a memorandum that police have said was intended to describe the requirements of a federal grant that paid overtime for officers to target drunken and aggressive drivers through "saturation patrols."

"I find any evidence in this case to be inadmissible," she said, according to a recording of her Thursday ruling, and that ended the prosecution. Nevertheless, the judge indicated that "I don’t think saturation patrols are in and of themselves illegal, merely the quotas."…

The police chief said a memo to officers that called for two to four citations per hour contained, “in retrospect, not the best wording,” and conceded that he “could see how it could be misinterpreted.” He said the department does not use quotas and had revised the memo.

The memo also told the officers on the drunken-driving and aggressive-driving saturation patrols that they usually produce “at or above these amounts.”

The federal funds come from the National Traffic Safety Administration to the state, according to Buel Young, a spokesman for the state Motor Vehicle Administration. Jurisdictions can apply for them.

 
So the police chief insists that "the department does not use quotas"…and that the memo was just "perhaps not the best wording"?  Hmmmm…..it’s hard to see how "it could be misinterpreted": the departmental order that cops have to produce "two to four citations per hour" sounds pretty clear to me.

Interesting that the federal grant appears to have required police agencies to use quotas….
 
 

I’ve received feedback concerning my post five days ago (Let’s Define the Objective: Preventing Drinking — or Traffic Fatalities?), and there seems to be some skepticism concerning the relative dangers of drunk driving versus driving while either distracted, drowsy or drugged.  As I said in my post, the focus should be on the relative dangers to human life – not on whether alcohol is involved.  So let’s take a look at that…

The President of MADD has been quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying: "We don’t want cell phones and drowsy driving to become the next hot-button issue for the country, because they don’t even compare with the problem of drunk driving."  The Partnership for Safe Driving, a non-profit organization in Washington, D.C., responded:

Let’s examine the claim. During the year 2001, the government estimates that 17,448 – or 41 percent – of the deaths on our nation’s highways were "alcohol-related." In addition, approximately 275,000 – or 16 percent – of the injuries were attributed to alcohol. Since the rate of fatalities is so high, and so much higher than the rate of injuries, let’s take a closer look at that statistic.

Of the 17,448 fatalities, 2,555 occurred in crashes where alcohol was detected but no one was over the legal limit. In these crashes, alcohol may not have been the primary factor in the crash; speed, distraction or fatigue could have been. That leaves 14,893 deaths that can actually be attributed to alcohol. However, of these, 1,770 were intoxicated pedestrians and cyclists who walked out in front of the vehicles of sober drivers. They had nothing to do with drunk driving.

The Partnership questions why these deaths were thrown in with what is normally presented as a drunk driving statistic. That leaves 13,123 deaths that can be attributed to intoxicated drivers. Of these, a staggering 8,308 were intoxicated drivers who killed themselves in crashes. That leaves 4,815 deaths in which intoxicated drivers killed someone other than themselves….

How do these figures compare with cell phone use?

To date, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has provided the only nationwide estimates of cell phone involvement in fatal and injury-producing crashes. Researchers there report that cell phones are now a factor in approximately 2,600 fatalities annually and 330,000 moderate to critical injuries. But because the data on cell phone use by motorists are still limited, the range of uncertainty is wide. Researchers say that the range for fatalities is 800 to 8,000 annually, and the range for injuries is 100,000 to one million annually….

And fatalities caused by tired and sleepy drivers?

As with cell phone use, the influence of drowsy driving and fatigue on crashes often is not known unless the driver survives the crash and admits to having nodded off. Unlike both alcohol involvement and cell phone use, there is no scientific method even available for determining its presence. That said, the government estimates conservatively that 1,500 people are killed annually as a result of motorists who fall asleep at the wheel, and another 71,000 are injured annually in such crashes. However, the National Sleep Foundation believes that drowsy driving and fatigue often play a role in crashes that are attributed to other causes. For example, the government lists driver inattention as the primary cause of approximately one million police-reported crashes each year. The sleep foundation points out that drowsy driving and fatigue make such lapses of attention more likely….

Confirmation of this data has come from a study ("Drunk or Drowsy?") jointly undertaken by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which found that “Nearly nine out of every ten police officers…reported they had stopped a driver who they believed was drunk, but turned out to be drowsy…. According to NHTSA data, up to 100,000 police-reported crashes annually involve drowsiness or fatigue as a principal causal factor.” 

Interestingly, “89 percent of police officers agreed that drowsy driving is as dangerous as drunk driving”. 

MADD’s passionate fixation on drunk driving appears to be blinding it to the importance of other, possibly more significant, causes of traffic fatalities.
  

As I’ve mentioned in past posts, six years ago Mothers Against Drunk Driving changed their "Mission Statement" from one of preventing drunk driving to a dual goal: preventing drunk driving — and underage drinking (regardless of driving).  See, MADD Continues Shift Toward Prohibition.  Clearly, the focus is on alcohol rather than on preventing injuries or fatalities.  

Interestingly, MADD has been silent as the greater danger increasingly appears to no longer be from alcohol:  statistics now clearly point to distracted and drowsy driving as greater threats on the highways.  See, for example, Most Dangerous: Drunk, Drowsy or Distracted?

Now let’s add one more type of impaired driving to the scale: drugged driving….

Driving on Drugs Skyrockets, Drunk Driving Drops

Phoenix, AZ.  Dec. 21 –  East Valley DUI Task Force officers almost need to be chemists to keep up with the concoctions used by impaired drivers. Drug arrests are soaring while alcohol arrests are declining.

The job of nabbing impaired drivers is becoming far more complicated, with drivers under the influence of not only alcohol but prescription and illegal drugs, said Mesa police Sgt. Dave Meicke, a supervisor of this year’s crackdown.

He said drug arrests by one of the nation’s longest and largest DUI task forces have increased from 13 percent in 2002 to 59 percent this year.

Meicke attributes the change to steady progress on education about the hazards of driving under the influence, more officers trained to recognize drug impairment and more people abusing prescription and illegal drugs…

Perhaps MADD’s focus should be on preventing injuries and death on the highways — rather than on Prohibitionist attacks on the evils of alcohol.  
 

Need an easy $100? Just use your cell phone and report that guy who’s been tailgating you…

Call in Drunk Driver, Get Paid $100

Chicago, IL.  Dec. 21 – This holiday season, you can earn a little extra cash by reporting suspected drunk drivers on the roads.

The Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists (AAIM), an anti-drunk driving group, is expanding its program throughout the streets of Illinois for the next two weekends, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

The "Drunkbusters" program gives callers the opportunity to collect $100 for reporting an intoxicated driver. In order to be paid, the call must lead to a DUI arrest.
Drunkbusters was established in 1990 and has since given out more than $445,000, which resulted in the arrests of more than 4,450 impaired motorists, according to the Sun Times.

 
Note:  The $100 does not depend on the person reported being convicted — only for being arrested.  And the cop responding to the call already has you as a witness to what you claim is drunken driving, so chances of an arrest are high. I wonder how many of those 4,450 arrested motorists were actually convicted?

Bounty hunting on the highways….
 

As we all know from watching TV, the police are always very careful to preserve the evidence in criminal investigations. Except in DUI investigations.

What is the single most important piece of evidence in most drunk driving cases? The breathalyzer test. In fact, it’s the only evidence of the crime of driving with over .08% blood alcohol. And it’s pretty important for the “driving under the influence” charge, too: the law presumes the defendant is under the influence if the test result is .08% or higher. Evidence just doesn’t get more important than that.

So, of course, the police are careful to preserve the breath sample, right? I mean, there may be some question later of whether the machine was working correctly; it would be a simple matter to save the sample so it could be tested again on another machine. And, hard to believe, but the defense may not want to just take the officer’s word that he administered the test correctly and that the test results were from the defendant.

Unfortunately, the breath sample is routinely destroyed moments after it is tested.

But how can this be? That’s a question that was asked a few years ago by a defendant in California appealing his DUI conviction. The Court of Appeals of that state agreed and reversed the conviction:

Due process simply demands that where evidence is collected by the state, as it is with the Intoxilyzer, or any other breath testing device, law enforcement agencies must establish and follow rigorous and sytematic procedures to preserve the captured evidence or its equivalent for the use of the defendant. People v. Trombetta, 142 CalApp.3d 138 (1983).

How hard is it to save the defendant’s breath sample for later retesting? The Court noted that a “field crimper-indium encapsulation kit” was readily available, cheap and approved by the California Department of Health Services. So why isn’t the evidence saved in DUI cases today?

The Trombetta case was appealed by the state to the United States Supreme Court….where it was reversed:

Whatever duty the Constitution imposes on the States to preserve evidence, that duty must be limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and also be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means. Neither of these conditions is met on the facts of this case. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984).

What? Neither of these two conditions is met in a DUI case? Let’s take another look at the Supreme Court’s test…

1. The possible value of the defendant’s breath sample in helping prove innocence was not apparent before it was destroyed…..What? The machine never makes mistakes? It was not apparent to the police that a re-analysis of the all-important breath sample might be of any value to the suspect?

2. The defendant was able to “obtain comparable evidence by other means”…..How? He has no access to another breath test. At best, he might be able to get a blood test at a hospital, if the police let him — but it would probably be so much later that it would not be relevant or even admissible in court.

Another example of “The DUI Exception to the Constitution”.

It’s interesting that the New Hampshire Supreme Court later rejected the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and relied upon its own state constitution in requiring breath samples to be saved:

A suspect would face numerous practical difficulties in obtaining a second sample on his or her own. While in police custody, the suspect would have to locate an available, licensed technician capable of promptly performing a second test, no matter what time of day or night. Even if a defendant successfully obtained an independent second test, the results would not have the same evidentiary force as would a second test performed on the same machine at approximately the same time. Opinion of the Justices, 557 A.2d 1355 (1989).

The Trombetta decision was, as intended, a huge green flag to police agencies across the country: Go ahead and destroy the main evidence — but only in DUI cases. And law enforcement agencies have happily complied.
 

I’ve written in the past about the growing practice of forcibly taking blood from a drunk driving suspect, sometimes done by a cop in the field.  See, for example, Taking Blood by Force, Forced Blood Draws by Cops: Constitutional?, Forced Blood Draws by Cops Spreading, Blood Draws in the Back Seat by the Dashboard Light and Forced Blood Draws: Citizen Backlash?.   

Here’s a new tactic: threaten the suspect with strapping him down and painfully jabbing a needle into him (however many times it takes to get a blood sample)…unless he agrees to "voluntarily" take a breath test.

Texas Blood Test Aims at Drunk Drivers

Wall Street Journal, Dec. 11 —  Texans arrested for drunken driving should be prepared to give blood this holiday season.

Cities and counties across the state are increasingly demanding that drunken-driving suspects who refuse to take breathalyzer tests submit to blood tests that measure the amount of alcohol in their systems.

The blood-test policy—dubbed "no refusal" by law-enforcement officials, because it prevents drivers from refusing to provide evidence of intoxication—has grown from a novel procedure used in a few Texas jurisdictions to an initiative used by police statewide, particularly during weekends and holidays when drunken driving is most common. The no-refusal initiative has also caught on in other states, including Florida, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri…

Texas courts have uniformly upheld the constitutionality of mandatory blood testing, attorneys said. But criminal-defense lawyers say such mandatory tests trample suspects’ rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. "It’s an erosion of civil liberties," said Austin defense lawyer Samuel Bassett. "If we can poke people involuntarily for evidence, where do we draw the line?"…

Police are empowered to strap a suspect to a chair, if necessary, to obtain a blood sample. That allows blood to be drawn quickly—a key benefit to prosecutors because blood-alcohol concentrations dissipate over time…

In El Paso, police find that the policy actually encourages people to submit to breath tests. "We give people the option of blowing into a tube or getting poked with a needle," said Lt. Rod Liston. "People increasingly are going with the less painful option."…

Hmmm…Threatening to "poke" a suspect with a needle actually "encourages" him to submit to a breath test?  What a surprise!  But I guess this wouldn’t be "torture" using the Attorney General’s definition requiring organ failure.

So:  "Submit to a breath test…or we’ll strap you into a chair and jam needles into you."   Welcome to the War on Terrorism…I mean, Drunk Driving.
 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been very successful in pushing for lower blood-alcohol levels, Draconian criminal penalties, widespread roadblocks, unreliable evidence — and eroding our constitutional rights in the process.  See, for example, The DUI Exception to the Constitution and DUI, MADD and the "New Prohibition".

However, it would appear that MADD’s aim might be constructively redirected to their fellow Mothers…

Drunken Driving Arrests for Women Up 36 Percent

Washington, DC. Dec. 6  – The number of drunken-driving arrests for women has shot up in recent years according to a study being released today by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation.

They’ve increased 36 percent over the last decade.

In case you’re thinking about having a glass of wine or two before bringing your child to a friend’s house, here’s more to ruin the idea: The study also found that the average female drunk driver is older and better educated than her male counterparts. They also tend to hold lower-paying jobs and be primary caregivers to children.

That profile wasn’t a shock to researchers since the study, funded by the distillers’ association The Century Council, was triggered by the attention-getting accident in 2009 when a mother, Diane Schuler, drove her minivan down the wrong side of a New York highway. She caused a crash that killed herself, her daughter, her three nieces and three men in another car. It was later determined that she had been drunk and high.

Schuler’s was an extreme case that jolted attention to the unspoken truth that some parents drink to excess while caring for their children. Upsetting as it was, though, the news left many parents thinking that her drinking shared no resemblance to their own. A glass or two of wine during the day didn’t seem in the same league.

What today’s study reveals is that mothering and drinking may be a more common problem than we realize…

Physician, cure thyself?
 

As I’ve mentioned in past posts, the blood-alcohol level that largely determines what constitutes "drunk driving" has steadily dropped over the years due to political pressure of groups like MADD.  

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a well-organized (over 600 chapters), well-funded (IRS Form 990 shows revenue for 2002 of $48,051,441) and dangerous group of well-intentioned zealots — the very same folks who gave us Prohibition decades ago. For many years now, MADD’s agenda has been clear: apply political pressure to get ever-harsher drunk driving laws, law enforcement and punishment.

But what is the final goal? When will we have reached a state when MADD is satisfied that the drunk driving laws are sufficient?

The answer is simple: zero tolerance. No drinking and driving. And, eventually, no drinking. Exaggeration? Paranoia? Let’s look at a little DUI history…..

The original drunk driving laws were simple and fair: Don’t drive under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Then, years ago, law enforcement came up with crude devices to measure alcohol on the breath of drunk driving suspects. But what did, say, a .13% blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) mean?  They turned to the American Medical Association which, in 1938, created a "Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents"; at the same time, the National Safety Council set up a "Committee on Tests for Intoxication".

After some study, these two groups came up with their findings: a driver with .15% BAC or higher could be presumed to be "under the influence"; those under .15% could not. That’s right, .15%.  And that recommendation lasted for 22 years. But certain groups were not happy with the low DUI arrest and conviction rates.

Under increasing political pressure, the committees "revisited" the question in 1960 and agreed to lower the presumed level of intoxication to .10%. Had the human body changed in 22 years? Had the AMA been negligent in their earlier studies? Or were politics and law trumping scientific truth?

Well, the arrest and conviction rates shot up, but there were still too many people escaping the DUI net. Then MADD was formed by Candy Lightner (later to quit the organization and become an outspoken critic of MADD’s Prohibitionist agenda). Soon after, legislation began appearing in many states that created a second crime: driving with a BAC of .10% or higher.

This new crime did not require the driver to be affected by alcohol: even if sober, he would be guilty if his blood-alcohol was .10%. In effect, it completely ignored the questions of intoxication, driving impairment and individual tolerance to alcohol. And, despite questions of double jeopardy, the individual could be charged and even convicted of both the traditional DUI and the new .10% crimes! This gave police and prosecutors a powerful new weapon, and drunk driving arrests/convictions jumped once again.

This was not good enough. Under increasing pressure from an ever more powerful MADD, in 1990 four states lowered the blood-alcohol level in DUI cases to .08%.  Others soon followed and, ten years later, federal politicians (with one eye on MADD’s influence in elections) passed an appropriations bill in effect coercing all states into adopting the new .08% BAC standard. Since then, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has pressured state legislatures to drop the blood-alcohol level to .05%. In the meantime, they had been successful in getting nearly universal adoption of a .01% BAC standard (termed "ero tolerance") for drivers under 21.

The future is clear — and can be seen in our neighbor to the north, where .05% laws have recently been enacted…

Does New Law Miss Target on Drunk Driving?

Edmonton, British Columbia,  Nov. 19 – Alberta’s new drinking-and-driving legislation will follow the tire tracks of B.C. into a decidedly grey area. In so doing, it may create opposition to an initiative that will achieve its public-safety goal, but still invite criticism for targeting drivers who are not legally impaired according to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Drinking and driving is a crime that kills too many people, both bystanders and the drunks themselves, and there ought to be universal rejection of the practice. Our premier and her government should be dedicated to the eradication of this scourge. And they were in fact wise to consult with their B.C. counterparts, whose iron-fisted and open-handed legislation is being credited with a significant reduction in deaths caused by drunk driving since its enactment in September 2010. But the Redford government has to see the B.C. legislation for its unduly harsh nature – and its cash-cow element as well.

In B.C., a driver whose blood-alcohol content is measured between .05 and .08 – which is legal under the Criminal Code – can be hit with an immediate three-day licence suspension and have to pay a fine of $200, as well as a $250 fee for licence reinstatement and might also have to pay for towing and storage if his or her vehicle is seized. Being caught in this grey area a second or third time in a five-year period results in heftier financial penalties, lengthier suspensions and longer vehicle seizures.

Government house leader Dave Hancock said Alberta’s legislation will impose a three-day suspension and vehicle seizure on a first-time offender in the .05-to-.08 category, while a second offence could cost the driver loss of licence and vehicle for 15 days. The legislation will be introduced next week and Solicitor General Jonathan Denis says he opposes a "money grab," so fines levied here may not mirror those imposed in B.C.

But a 125-pound woman needs to drink only two fiveounce glasses of wine over a one-hour period to register .06, according to a Canadian Automobile Association calculator. When Redford said she wanted new legislation to change the culture around impaired driving, surely she meant to target those who drink themselves past .08, rather than the husband and wife who share a bottle of wine on an evening out for dinner.

Simply put, there should be no need to debate a law against drinking and driving. A government should have the good sense to fashion legislation that is consistent with the Criminal Code, preserves public safety, provides a deterrent by punishing the guilty through licence suspension and stands the test of constitutionality. Albertans can only hope the Redford government is up to that challenge.

 
You can expect to see MADD continuing to push for new .05% laws across this country, as well.  And then?

In 1999, MADD’s National Board of Directors unanimously voted to change the organization’s mission statement from just preventing drunk driving to include the prevention of underage drinking. Not underage drinking and driving — just drinking. Let me say that again: MADD formally shifted its focus away from "drunk driving" and towards the broader "problem" of drinking.

Can a new era of prohibition be far behind?
 

When I first passed the California Bar 42 years ago, it was a violation of the State Bar’s Canons of Ethics to advertise legal services.  A simple advertisement on the back of a matchcover could get you a suspension.  It was considered undignified and unprofessional.

Times change.  Now we have lawyer advertising on television, roadside billboards, the internet — many containing outrageous claims that would shame a used-car dealer.  

I keep thinking we’ve hit bottom in my profession, but…..the following self-promotional "news release" appeared on Google a few minutes ago:

L.A. Criminal Attorney Has Cyber Monday Sale — $99 DUI Defense Offered

Los Angeles, CA.  Nov. 26 – The week of Thanksgiving is a great time for eaters, drinkers, retailers and deal hunters – and a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer is looking to capitalize on the revelry by offering a Cyber Monday deal unlike any other before. Starting Monday morning at 9 AM, the SLG Criminal Law Group will offer a $99 DUI defense sale to (alleged) drunk drivers in the Los Angeles area.

“The Wednesday before Thanksgiving is the biggest drinking day of the year for Americans,” said Los Angeles criminal attorney Matthew Spiegel, founder of SLG Criminal Law Group. “There are more DUI checkpoints around the holidays, and as a result there’s an influx of people being accused of driving under the influence. With Cyber Monday right around the corner, we thought it would make sense to offer a deal like e-tailers do. Apparently, we’re the first.”

The average cost of a DUI conviction in California is between $7,500 and $10,000, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). This does not include lost pay, medical costs, vehicle damage, personal injuries or additional penalties. If the accused wants to hire a lawyer who isn’t a public defense attorney, the costs are even higher.
 
“Normally, we charge between $5,000-$10,000 to represent a drunk driver, depending on the circumstances,” said Spiegel, who has represented drivers in more than 400 DUI cases. “So a $99 DUI defense sale is unheard of for a firm like ours – but desperately needed in this economy. Sometimes good people do bad things – or are accused of doing bad things – and this sale gives them the opportunity to have solid representation at a rate anyone can afford.”

The $99 Cyber Monday DUI sale is limited to the first three eligible people who call the SLG Criminal Law Group at (213) 236-3660 after 9 AM on Monday, November 28th. Misdemeanor DUIs only, rate does not include trial. Drivers whose charges involve personal injury, property damage, reckless endangerment and other special circumstances are not eligible for the promotion, nor are drives who have had multiple DUI convictions in the past.
 

No comment necessary…..
 

The latest news fresh from the front lines of MADD’s "War on Drunk Driving":

DUI Cases in Jeopardy After Richmond County Deputy Admits Falsifying Readings

Richmond County, GA. Nov. 19 – The forced resignation of a deputy assigned to the DUI task force could affect the prosecution of hundreds of cases, according to those in the legal community.

Erik Norman faced mandatory resignation from the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office on Oct. 19 after a prosecutor reported that Norman told her he had falsified readings from a hand-held alcohol-testing device.

Norman told the department’s internal affairs division that he had done it only “once or twice” but couldn’t recall exactly which cases were involved. Norman’s credibility is gone now, no matter how many times he falsified readings, said Augusta attorney Robert “Bo” Hunter, who prosecuted drunken driving cases as the Richmond County State Court solicitor from 1988 to 1996… Even worse, Hunter said, is that there probably were people charged with driving under the influence who shouldn’t have been.

Norman, hired as a jailer in July 2002, was transferred to the DUI task force in March 2009. An accurate count of his DUI convictions cannot be made through court records, but during his time on the task force, he arrested an estimated 250 to 400 people.

State Court Solicitor Charles Evans said his office has 62 pending DUI cases in which Norman was the arresting officer. Each will have to be judged on its merits to determine whether to continue prosecuting them as DUIs. If necessary, the office will bring in Norman as a trial witness, Evans said.

The Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Coun­cil is investigating to determine whether Norman can keep his certification, said Ryan Powell, its director of operations. Unless he is arrested on felony charges or his certification is suspended, Norman is free to work as an officer, Powell said.

Falsifying evidence is a felony – making false statements – but prosecuting Norman for it would be difficult, District Attorney Ashley Wright said. A prosecutor would have to prove in which case Norman falsified the results, and there is no way to uncover those cases without Norman’s admission. He claimed he didn’t know which cases were falsified…

Do you really think this Georgia deputy is the only cop out there falsifying breathalyzer readings to justify his DUI arrest? And by the way, notice Deputy Norman’s sterling qualifications to investigate and arrest citizens for drunk driving:  He was hired in 2002 to be a jailor — and after seven years of guarding jail cells, he was transferred directly to the DUI task force.  Do you still think DUI cops are highly trained and qualified?