Great Job officer Welte!!! I wish all police personnel were as vigilant. Too many just give warnings. People need to be responsible for their actions! Adn held accountable! Grow up and follow the laws and you won't have any problems!

916WI--Exactly how many scientific studies have you done to arrive at the conclusion that anyone who has 3 or 4 beers and blows a .08 is okay to drive? They didn't just pick this number out of a hat. Granted I'm sure .08 is on the low end of intoxication but I'd rather they error on the side of caution than take the chance of somebody getting killed. And you don't have to be falling down drunk to have an accident. You just have to have impaired reflexes.

916WI, I just don't understand how you can support the idea of allowing impaired drivers operate their vehicles. Something that would seem to amount to just a matter of common sense and we have people arguing about it.

You appear to be someone with at least a modicum of intelligence. While I disagree with your point of view on this topic, your posts are well thought out and written coherently. I thought you'd be above taking my words and twisting them around to make your point. Guess I was wrong on that one.

Great job Officer Welte!
*
If you are drunk at a bar call a friend or a taxi for a ride home. It is better than a DUI.

Yeah, you're right Jim......Maybe we should start locking up everyone who is convicted of speeding for a minimum of 3 to 5 years as well. Because as you know, all of these people are reckless driving statistics just waiting to happen.....How is that for being proactive?:)

916WI wrote:If someone goes out and gets totally wasted and kills someone, then absolutely--go throw the book at him......

See, and I think we should be a little more proactive than that. Instead of waiting until the drunk actually kills someone, I think we should be enforcing the laws that are on the books. Y'know, the ones that are there to help prevent such a death.

Mickey.....Please take a time out, take a deep breath and count to ten....No need to get personal with the attacks. To answer your question--no, I'm not drunk I haven't had a drink since St. Patrick's Day. I'm glad to see that you view the cell phone toting soccer moms with the same disdain as the drunk drivers--we really need to lock them up:) Anyone that drives without 8 hours of sleep under their belt, should also be considered impaired--let's lock them up too. Don't even get me started on the elderly drivers--we could set up a whole prison system just to house these horrible criminals!!!! My point is, having 3 or 4 beers and blowing a .08 should not make for a drunk driver. Someone like this should not get thrown in jail or treated the same as someone who has committed armed robbery. If someone goes out and gets totally wasted and kills someone, then absolutely--go throw the book at him......but a couple of beers before being pulled over for speeding shouldn't be grounds for ruining someone's life....Yes, I have lost a close friend in a drunk driving accident as well as friends in other types of car accidents. I would never use a tragic event like that to condemn everything and anything under the sun though.....

916Wi..What are you, drunk? Can't you even spell my name right?
Wow.
First off, cell phone usage is an entirely different subject, which I am also against while driving.
And, if you are impaired, sorry, you shouldn't drive. What, you aren't adult enough to realize what can happen if you drive drunk? Then you're ignorant.
Sorry for being "dramatic". I lost two loved ones to drunk driving. Perhaps if you do, as well, you'd feel the same way.

Sorry almeg and beeferer. Read that wrong.

No problem, outdoors. In fact, i sort of threw that out there (although it is true) in order to see what reaction would be. We have to make decisions as to how to conduct our jobs. Policing in small towns (like me) is quite a bit different from larger cities. Yet, we all walk a very fine line.

I don't know the right and wrong of how to "best" be a cop. Anything we do or don't do will be criticized by some.

My apologizes copperguy I assumed you were Janesville. Main st is a high crime area here...my mistake.

Tha fact is were never going to be able to stop drunk driving. Something that can be done to help slow it down is provide some kind of public transportation after the JTS stops running. There is no reliable taxi service in Janesville and I'm pretty sure safe rides is all but gone. I've called a taxi in Janesville befor and it took 2 hours to get picked up. Until reliable public transportation is here there will always be drunk drivers in the city of Janesville.

Can't say as I ever recall any crime in the parking lots for the bars.

On occasions where I received information about offenses (such as a probation or bail violation of "no drink," etc.,), I don't hesitate to check up on it. If things get loud, then I'll make a lap through the area. But, to sit and watch the patrons coming and going, nope.

I appreciate your efforts but to AVOID a known high crime area (assaults, thefts, OWIs)is not very responsible policing...my opinion.

My traffic stops come from observation of the driving behavior. Period. I don't stop for license plate lights out. I don't stop for bling hanging from the rear view mirror. My stops are based solely on driving behavior, which has resulted in many, many OWIs.

I make no apologies for my enforcement efforts.

Copperguy "If we avoid the bar parking areas during our shift (as I do)" are you serious? Please do your job and patrol the bar areas. Drunks kill many people in this county.

Mickey---Please stop being so dramatic.....Someone stopping on their way home after work and having 3 or 4 beers is no more a "potential murderer" than a soccer mom who is talking on her cell phone while the rest of her attention is focused on yelling at the kids she has screwing around in the back of her minivan.......Let's lock her up and throw away the key too:)

The only people whining about "entrapment" are those that must drive drunk.
Why else would anyone care that these potential murderers are taken off the roads?

Rep's drunk bus on call. I swing by them all. I even have a slogan "Don't risk it, you can't afford a ticket!" Sounds like a good entrepreneurship.
.
If there was an easy answer to make tavern owners,patrons and police/judicial system happy they would both go broke as you can't take from one with out affecting the other. Both parties involved in drinking and driving Madd & Tavern Owners Associations have answers but neither can hash out a solution with out compromise.

Rep_of_1--Yes, drinking is legal but as long as people drink there will be drunk drivers and therefore Leo and others like him will always have a job.

You see, rep, "leos" can do no right in some people's eyes. If we see someone stumbling out of a bar and offer them a ride home, we are accused of "drunk hunting" and hurting the bar business. If we avoid the bar parking areas during our shift (as I do), but stop someone in another part of town who happened to be at the bar (even though we didn't know that) we are accused of "drunk hunting." I know this from FIRST HAND experience.

So, what is the solution? To make no OWI investgations and just deal with the carnage later? Is that just?

Do the taxpayers have a responsibility to foot the bill for buses or taxis to be available in plentiful numbers to drive intoxicated people home?

Are "leos" to - first and foremost - keep themselves available as transportation to the intoxicated people, foregoing investigations and enforcement?

Are those who drink to the point of intoxication and impairment to be free of any responsibility to act responsibly?

What is the answer to this dilemma?

The word/terminology that would take the place of entrapment is STING!

Rep: My question was sincere. I do not know of an offense of "Public Intoxication." I see a lot of references to arresting someone for it, but the statute escapes me. As I alluded to in an earlier post about "entrapment," I think there may be some misperceptions. And, as anyone who has seen my posts in various forums, I absolutely DO strive to clear up misunderstandings of the laws, legal process, etc..

I can come up with two possible scenarios. One is "disorderly conduct." While DC is quite broad, simply being intoxicated doesn't seem to me to fit that one.

The other would be an "emergency detention," where an individual is so intoxicated that they present an immediate danger of harm to themselves.

In either case, being drunk and walking down the street - absent any violent or disruptice bevahior - is not actionable.

I, of course, will gladly admit ignorance if someone can point me to a specific statute for "public intoxication."

You state, "Not once has some one brought up the so called proper terminology for the arguments at hand." Yet, I have discussed the theory of "entrapment," as have others.

It seems you think I am being argumentative. If that's how it appears, then I apologize. My true intent is to do exactly as you say: to educate the participants where I can, and to have them educate me where needed.

JimPl--I agree. Everyones entitled to one mistake (that's how I look on first marriages) but after that first offense you should know better than to take that chance again.
916WI--That "machine" is not so ambiguous that it doesn't stand up in court. If it's accuracy was in question you can bet by now that some lawyer would have had it thrown out. This is exactly why a lie detector is inadmissable in court. It's NOT reliable. I don't care if somebody that's been drinking can recite the alphabet backwards. Alcohol impairs your judgment and you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car. Period.

davvic what keeps leo's in a job? Last I knew drinking is legal. However driving while over the limit not so much.

Copperguy no one has even been arrested or issued a citation for public intoxication? Give me a break. If you are a cop you're arrogant. I'm not the one with a criminal justice degree but that doesn't mean I don't have general understanding of the law and right and wrong. So much for public servants. You would think a blog would be a good place to educate people on the terminology and wording of the law. The reality our leo protectors and servants that they be, don't want us to know, let alone understand the laws to make it easier to prosecute.
Not once has some one brought up the so called proper terminology for the arguments at hand until then I rest my case.

In response to an earlier comment as to why Welte has so many more OWI stops than other officers, I'll state why this might be the case.
Welte is an experienced officer with seniority, which allows him to patrol in a rover car quite often. This means he isn't in one area of the city handling calls for service as a primary officer, but as backup officer. That allows him more time to patrol and be proactive.
He has also taken the initiative to take as much in-service training as is available to educate himself on OWI enforcement on his own time.
He takes the idea of protect and serve seriously and knows that drunks cause injury to the innocent. His department recognizes his dedication and professionalism and now the public is aware of it as well.
Also, don't think that he only handles OWI's. He is a veteran officer who handles every type of call, every shift. He just really digs traffic and is great at it.

Shawn Welte saving lives one stop at a time!

Like I was saying yesterday, the so called professional courtesy & nepotism is way out of hand!

I certainly commend Officer Welte's dedication, but I find it bizarre that he consistently writes so many more DUI's than his fellow officers. This seems to imply that the other officers are not doing their jobs. Also, with the increased arrest of private citizens on DUI, it has become apparent that the Janesville Police tend to protect their own officers (and families) who are likewise violators of the drink/drive laws. I never see the off-duty cops drinking O'Doul's at the bars!

Question: What is the statute number for the offense of "Public Intoxication?"

Every effort is made to find a "Responsible Party" to come and pick the suspect up either at the Police Department or hospital. I have been known to drive the suspect to their "Responsible Party's" nearby house instead of having them come and pick the suspect up. As a last resort, yes, they may have to be jailed for 12 hours.

I do not have a major problem with the OWI laws that exist in WI. Perhaps the felony penalty should kick in at 3rd or 4th offense. But I don't object to first offense not being criminal.

In many counties now, 2nd offense (a criminal misdemeanor) results in 20 days or so of jail upon conviction (with Huber). I do agree with the strenghtening of judicial sentencing guidelines.

And, although I know that OWI is a terrible problem with a huge toll for lives lost and shattered, I can't help but think of the cost to lock up 2nd, or 3rd time offenders for years on end in state prisons. I would love to see The Gazette do a story on how many people are convicted at each offense over a month or two, then calculating the prison costs over 5 years or so. And, when extrapolating that number out to all counties in the state, I think folks would be surprised. Maybe that's a cost we're willing to endure?

Even with the police doing their job, the "lawmakers" and "judges" won't....
I know, I have a relative that should have been in jail for DD a LONG time ago and is still driving.Cops did their job, the rest won't.
.
Highway roulette sure is fun for me and my family

What are they suppose to do with you if not lock you up for the night? Let you drive home? Or let you walk home (public intoxication)?

Many people put great efforts into their jobs/ specific tasks, right? I mean like the guy who builds something or the sales person, farmer, etc etc.....So now try doing those things and getting the microscope scrutiny that Officer Welte and all the others get. Thats what makes their job harder to deal with at times. It's not just people posting....everything is public and police are constantly under the microscope. They always get second-guessed by everyone too. It seems unruly to me the police have to deal with that and the incident(s) at hand. So kudos to them for dealing with the crap and doing good work!

I also think jail time for a first offense drunk driving is excessive due to the overall costs of keeping that person locked up. Instead, I would suggest a very long period of time where they lose their driving privilege. If they violate that restriction, then hammer on them with local jail time.

2nd offense conviction should start with mandatory jail time and the amount of time increase dramatically with each subsequent offense. Don't make an example out of one person who is convicted - make an example out of all of them.

Prevention--yeah, lock them up on a first offense after blowing a .08--really bright idea......Taxpayer dollars hard at work! Janesville is already broke and it's only going to get worse, but spending thousands of dollars warehouseing people that committed a minor traffic violations makes total sense......

Davvic--they should be entitled to a trial if they passed the field soberity tests. If I was sitting on a jury I would give those tests much more credibility than a number that a machine spits out. That number is way too ambiguous. That is one reason that if I ever get pulled over while drinking I would refuse the breath test. I don't care how long the automatic license suspension for refusal is for........

good job on trying to keep our streets safe someone has to

Many years ago, I worked at a bar. We saw first hand how big an impact enforcing drunk driving laws can have on folks. We experienced a significant drop in business when law enforcement in our area started cracking down on drunk drivers. While it was bad for business, it was the right thing for law enforcement to do.

I come from a LONG line of drinkers. Most of them thought nothing of getting behind the wheel when they were so hammered they could barely stand. I shudder to think how many close calls there were, accident-wise. I have zero sympathy for someone who gets busted for drinking and driving. While we could play "what if" all day long with far-fetched scenarios, I can't imagine a single realistic reason why someone needs to drive if they are intoxicated.

As for the entrapment issue...y'know I really dislike it when folks use legal terminology and don't have a clue what it really means. Reminds me of a scene in the movie THE PRINCESS BRIDE - "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Before y'all go around slinging these terms you've heard on Law & Order or CSI, you might just want to look them up to be sure you understand the meaning. Doing so might save you from some embarrassment.

To Officer Welte - you are doing an outstanding job. Please keep up the good work!

first of all Biggirl defends every "bad guy" on here. Drunk drivers, drug users, the day care worker that stole. I dont know whats goign on there, maybe its a code name for the DA. He seems to like to let them all go.
Drunk Driving is wrong no matter how you look at it. I cant believe there is actually an argument here!

Shawn King - alias - "King Of The Streets" How about you and a dozen or so police officers take back Milton Avenue on a Friday night. One officer will not be able to do it! It is so unsafe that we no longer travel on Milton Avenue on a Friday night. Help is needed - lots of it because there are excessive motor vehicle violations taking place.

rep_of_1--First of all as long as people continue to drink the Leos of the world will never be out of a job. Second of all how much of an impact would it have on a drunk if you busted him before he got to his car on a public intoxication charge? He'd have to appear in court at some later date and pay a small fine. Big deal. But if you wait til he's behind the wheel the consequences are much greater. Loss of license, insurance rates go up, somebody has to come and bail you out, lawyers fees, and a much stiffer fine. That's the bust they're going to remember and maybe they'll think twice before driving drunk again. And do you really think the average cop is thinking about the money a DUI will generate for the state when he's having to deal with some lush? I think not.More than likely "Leo" has been at the scene of one too many traffic fatalities caused by a drunk driver. Maybe he's seen first hand what some guy who "only had a couple of beers" can do. I wish we had a lot more cops like him but unfortunately as someone stated earlier they're busy answering all the other calls out there and I thank god they're out there.

mslindyk- Read it again. Slowly this time... .054 or .045 Got it now??

mslindyk- What are you talking about? .45-.54?!?!?!? Who? Where? What? Try again.

Saturday Morning, 2:00 am

Early Saturday morning a policeman waited across the street from a popular bar, hoping for a nail a drunken driver, possibly preventing a tragic accident.

At closing time the patrons came out and the officer spotted his potential quarry. One man was so obviously inebriated that he could barely walk. He stumbled around the parking lot for a few minutes, looking for his car.

After trying his keys on five other cars, he finally found his own vehicle. He sat in the car a good ten minutes, as the other patrons left. He turned his lights on, then off, wipers on, then off. He started to pull forward into the grass, then stopped.

Finally, when he was the last car, he pulled out onto the road and started to drive away.

The patrolman, waiting for this, turned on his lights and pulled the man over. He administered the breathalyzer test, and to his great surprise, the man blew a 0.00.

The patrolman was dumbfounded. "This equipment must be broken!" he exclaimed.

"I doubt it," said the man, "Tonight I am the designated decoy!"

916WI-Over the limit is "over" the limit. Why should they be entitled to a trial?

I just hope hes not like the officer in Chicago who had drunk driving arrest like this. He was found trumping up DUI arrest giving field sobriety test and saying people failed when they really didn't, then not having a breathalyzer with him.

I wonder if Officer Shawn and Elders & Zinicola (ad at bottom of page) have a partnership?? Just kidding. I think what this officer is doing it wonderful, and I think that it was a very smart thing to put in the paper. Don't say you weren't warned. ;}

See that's what's wrong with Wisconsin. 0.54? 0.45? Most people with a blood alcohol level that high would be dead. At half that most would just about be black out drunk. And this cop let you leave??? You should've been arrested. Don't take it the wrong way but that cop is not doing his job. Anyone at level - or even 1/5 it - should be arrested for drunk drving. It's the law!

Keep up the good work!! Drunk driving is taken way too lightly in Wisconsin, but it is clear this police officer is doing his best to end this problem.

I was pulled over for a unrelated reason. I was given a field test and then had to blow into the little breath tester. I had been drinking but did stop earlier in the night. The officer (county) did smell beer on my breath. He was not so nice but still was doing his job. I blew a .054 or.045 one or the other don't really remember. I was let go no citations and I went home as planed. And yes I told him I had a couple. He did hit me up on that one then I told him it was more.

I agree with Call1. I continue to state my views that 'responsible' people choose to walk into any building/house, typically a bar/tavern, and do the 'responsible' thing and drink. That's their choice. Then, they proceed to do the 'responsible' thing and drive when they are trashed. It only takes one... one drink, one act of drunk driving, one homicide by intoxication. What's wrong with locking'em up for a long time the first time?

I guess what I'm trying to prove is that an officer watching a bar that has full knowledge that person walking to there car that is drunk/impaired/not able to make the right decision of not driving is as much as the problem as it is the answer if the leo waits till the person gets in the car. So yes if you have prior knowledge and waited for some one to act you are reacting rather than being proactive. I've said it before and I'll say it again I don't condone drinking and driving. I also know reacting to a problem doesn't fix the problem. If the problem of drinking and driving was eliminated tomorrow a whole lot of leo's would be out of a job. So what incentive is there for them to work them selves out of a job as well...The judicial system is not out to fix the problem there is no money in that.

If you have reasonable suspicion that they are drunk(stumbling to their car) why not prevent the problem of drinking and driving and make an arrest on public intoxication first...the answer is that is doesn't pay. Owi violation or Bac violation is a huge source of funding in the courts and police department.

I can agree with some of your points, my main argument remains that an officer sitting outside a tavern and watching for drunks is not entrapment. can you agree?

I think your figure at 95% may be a little off but then again it may not. The part our state likes to point out is the percentage that do get pulled over the conviction rate is very high see my post below. I think beverage responsibility in a tavern/bar belongs to a patron and server. However if a bartender did only serve a small number of alcoholic beverages to customers per hour how long do you think that bar would be in business. I don't condone drinking and driving but I do understand the laws that are on the books. Thankfully we live in a free country and we all have our opinions.

They should, in a perfect world they should bust each and every person over the limit. your logic says its ok for people to leave a bar drunk and its wrong for the police to try and stop this?
.
Obviously they cant sit every night, calls come in, people in life threatening situations, child abuse, we simply dont have the funding to do all this AND bust every drunk leaving a bar, although they should it will never happen. By your logic its fine that probably 95% of drunk drivers never get pulled over?

Miltonalum you know as well as I, you could sit and bust people leaving a bar daily. You couldn't have a enough squad cars or officers to detain every one over the limit on a given night at bar time. If you theory holds true, why don't cops sit at every bar and tavern parking lot busting busting people night after night. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. It also proves neglect to enforce with first hand knowledge when some comes stumbling out to their vehicle and the leo didn't interfere because they wanted a drunk driving conviction.

I can't wait till they lower the legal limit again. I believe anyone drinking should not be behind the wheel of a car, truck, or bike. I think this officers attitude is right on target & wish there were more like him.

And for biggirl's comment regarding "innocent until proven guilty." A police officers job is to arrest, & detain law breakers, & make sure they have the evidence to prove they broke the law. In the event of arresting drunks (as someones already said in a different way).. its not rocket science. Drunks have gotten away with killing people & getting slapped on the wrists for far to long. Its way past time the court system's back these officers, & stop letting offenders have light sentences, then giving their licenses back to them 15 times. I say.. after their 2d offence.. they should never get their license back.. And if their caught Driving without a license drunk.. "Prison". And.. just a tab off topic a little.. If the offender is a habitual offender in this country illegally.. heavy Prison terms.. then when let out.. deportation.. (i know.. not a politically correct statement). How many children died last year because of illegals driving drunk in this country.. I can think of 5 right off the bat (children). So I.. like this officer..have no sympathy for drunks behind the wheel

rep_of_1 -Quote- "Actually there are entrapment laws on the books in Wisconsin. Waiting for someone to leave the bar parking lot is entrapment." -Quote-
.
Actually, you are 100% wrong.
.
Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal guilt.
.
Sitting in a parking lot watching for drunks has no effect whatsoever on whether that person would or would not have driven home. Your saying by definition that had the officer not been sitting in the parking lot waiting, John doe would not have committed the crime and got a ride home, but only because the officer was sitting there John decided to drive away drunk. It is in no way shape or form entrapment.
.
The officer didnt force 10 beers down his throat then put him in a car and tell him to drive away then bust him for drunk driving, that would have been entrapment.

Now that the Jville police have these cameras, per reports, there should be less of he said-she said.

At least show these guys/gals some respect when they pull you over. Even if they are jerks to you, the nicer you are to them, the less chance of getting more to be ticketed/jailed on. Just an act of manners is all. One phrase comes to mind... 'kill'em with kindness.' Sir and ma'am could also be an advantage-- again, manners.

Why doesn't officer Welte go after some of his fellow officers. I can say I have seen many drunk cops at the taverns, how did they get home? I am not saying every officer that goes to the bar gets drunk, but it is just amazing that as many officers we have and as many as we see indulge, never any DUI's?

I was in a not at fault accident in which both my vehicle and the other one involved spilled antifreeze all over the road. The accident happened about 4:30pm within the city limits while I was on my way home from work. I was asked to take a breath test despite telling the officer I hadn't had a drink in nine days. Of course I blew a .00. The at fault driver was not tested. When I asked why I had been singled out the officer told me he thought he smelled alcohol when he was speaking with me. I asked him if he knew the alcohol content of antifreeze and pointed out a large puddle of it at our feet.

They will pull you over for what ever reason the choose and it is your word against theirs and I hope when if i am ever pulled over they have their radio cam on.... I too have been pulled over late at night and asked to do a foeld sobriety test I laughed and politely did one then when asked to blow I asked why I passed the field test He said I didn't, well again to my amusement I consented and passed that one I then asked do we need to go to the toxalizer at the station now and laughed again. He than asked me if I was on any drugs I laughed and he let me go as I had nothing to drink or use. Never did find out his reason for pulling me over.

I don't think a lot of people understand the reasons why you can get pulled over. Do you have something dangling from your rear view mirror? Obstructed view. Are stickers misplaced on your back plate? Is your GPS stuck in your window? Or even your I-PASS? Obstructed view. They can pull you over for all of those. If they see you pull out of a bar and start to follow, they can pull you over for all of those things, then go from there. I laugh when people say they were pulled over for no reason at all. They have to have a reason. Light out on your license plate? Yep, that too. I was sitting at a stoplight the other day and all the cars surrounding me could have legally been pulled over, including mine (rear view mirror bling).
I do wonder if it's illegal to have your I-PASS in the window of your vehicle in Illinois. I mean, that is where they say you're supposed to put them, but is it considered an obstructed view?? Hmmm.

Yea, it doesn't take a lot, either, if you chose to be 'responsible' and drink. If you think you are responsible enough to drink, then you SHOULD be responsible enough to know that it is not responsible to get into the driver's seat and drive once you've been drinking. That's a major DUH! You are only asking for your butt to be in the dog house, or the slammer.

Idiots, I say, idiots!

Great job Officer Welte! Keep up the good work!
*
DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!

rep: Please give us a statute or case citation, and I'll research it. My guess is that we're confusing "lack of probable cause" with "entrapment." The fact that someone leaves a bar is most certainly NOT probable cause nor even "reasonable suspicion." The officer must have more than that to effect an investigative stop.

If you know of a statute or case that equates seeing someone leaving a bar with "entrapment," in the Justice's eyes, I will happily acknowledge it.

After I got out of the Corps back in 72 I was caught first time DD. The judge(God bless him) said 7 days in jail deferred. Not allowed in taverns for 3 month, no driving but you can keep your license for work, (if stopped for violation, 7 days.) He said, "if I ever see you in front of me again." Then he just looked at me with those eyes. I never seen him again. :>)

I was given the opportunity to drink in a controlled environment and see just how much it took me to be legally intoxicated. I didn't pass any of my field sobriety tests or the breathalyzer test and I "thought" I felt fine. I was wrong! I think a lot of people would be surprised how much just a "few" drinks can affect them. Please don't drink and drive. Find a designated driver.

Congrats, Officer Welte--keep it up! I hope that other officers from around the area will rise to this challenge as well.
On the down side, almost all convicted offenders will end up with is a fine, some forced evaluation, or home detention, which will not dissuade many from doing the same thing once again (and again, and again)!
And for those of you who were arrested for OWI and spent a lot of money on a lawyer to be found not-guilty--don't worry, odds are high (wow, just like you!) that you'll be caught again. I'd put a phat wad down on that bet!
However wasteful and self-destructive excess alcohol intake WILL prove, the law allows all the pathetic irresponsible drunks ("But it's a disease!"--yeah, sure it is) out there to down all the alcohol they want (this side of being sent to detox), but if that's you, how about resisting the temptation to drive your car, beat your partner, fight with others, harass your ex-whatever (who was apparently smart enough to dump you before you completely poisoned his/her life too), be a loud obnoxious bore, self-mutilate, claim your suicidal (and thereby waste the very limited resources set aside in hopes of helping those who actually are), take hostages and barricade yourself with a firearm in a residence or business, or fall in the river while urinating (the last one, however, is at least marginally acceptable and would make a good story)? Seems simple enough, doesn't it? That's one upside of heroin--at least the users aren't out there driving around when they're high (they're laying in the bathtub aspirating their own vomit!).
And if you are out drinking somewhere and there's even a chance that you're drunk, be responsible enough to call a friend (if you have any left who will still answer a call from you at 2 AM--hint, hint) or a cab, find a room, or walk. You are (chronologically at least) an "adult" now, and supposed to be RESPONSIBLE of your OWN BEHAVIOR! COPS AREN'T CABS, and government shouldn't have to babysit your ignorant, immature as(inine behavior)!
PS Just in case you haven't realized it yet--alcohol abuse won't make your problems go away, it'll only waste your money, ruin your body and mind, and increase your disfunction. Oh yeah, I know, "I'm not an alcoholic...!" If you ever have to provide that response to someone who's concerned about yout self-destructive behavior, then it's likely you indeed are one (but then again, if you don't go to the meetings, perhaps you're just a "DRUNK"!)

Actually there are entrapment laws on the books in Wisconsin. Waiting for someone to leave the bar parking lot is entrapment.

2cents...

...just where is the entrapment of which you speak?

If a cop watches you stumble to your car, get in and start said car, there is no entrapment.

IF, on the other hand, a cop keeps offering you drinks to ge you drunk, THEN talks you into getting behind the wheel of you car...THAT would be entrapment.

Just waiting for you to do something stupid isn't. It may not be cricket and it may not be kosher, hell, it may even be against other laws, but it still isn't entrapment.

Yes, on more than one occasion I have given an intoxicated person a ride home (while I was on duty) in order to keep them from driving. That has always been an option with me.

On another note, I have been in a bar even up to closing time and been sober. It's about being able to temper your consumption...about being responsible.

A friend of mine recently called to have me pick him/her up after being arrested for OWI. Believe me, I would much rather have had him/her call me for a ride from the bar instead of from the Police Department or hospital.

id vote not guilty for you mickie:)

true story: i actually was found not guilty by a jury of my peers on my first drunk driving arrest. when the law was .1 i blew a .12 at the police station...an hour after i was pulled over. so my lawyer hired a toxicologist who testified that based on what i drank just before i got in the car(i testified to having 2 beers and a 2 oz shot of tequila in the half hour before i drove), my weight, and what i ate that evening...that when i was actually driving and by the time i would have gotten home by BAC would have actually been closer to .08. our first witness was the cop. do you need to be certified to give a field sobriety test? cop: 'yes'. are you certified? cop 'yes'. were you at the time of arrest certified? cop 'no'. NOT GUILTY:)

First, to my2cents: Entrapment arises when law enforcement plants the idea of committing an offense. What you describe is far from that.

916WI: Did you know that we can NOT allow someone to drive who has a .04% BAC or higher? That is one reason why we might have a subject give a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) even if we do not have probable cause to arrest for OWI. Cops can not arrest on a PBT alone. (There are some cases where we may not conduct SFSTs, such as a person so intoxicated that they cannot stand, or perhaps someone who has been in a crash and cannot perform the tests.) A PBT is NOT admissible as evidence of BAC in court.

I have NEVER arrested someone for OWI who was between .08% and .10%. The people I have investigated were either below .08% or above .10%.

copperguys, you are incorrect about only getting a brethalyzer after failing a Field sobriety test, 3 times i have been pulled over coming home late from work and gotten asked to take a breathalyzer before anything. I complied and blew zeros and one of the times i was issued a speeding ticket which i deserved but i definately did not take any field sobriety test prior to breathalyzer.

-Quote- "it doesn't take a gennies to figure that out." -Quote-
.
The correct term is genius, genius. It ads to the credibility or your argument when spelled correctly.

Thanks Officer Welte, from the family of a drunk driver victim!

My2cents......good point.....The reason the city doesn't step up and do something like offer bus rides because it would go against their best interests to do so. They make a small fortune off of arresting and prosecuting DUI/OWI cases under the pretense that they are out there protecting the public. The police are there to protect and serve. A taxpaying citizen should be able to call a cop if they have been drinking and in need of a ride. Can any of the police officers commenting in this blog discuss whether or not this is an option and why the city, if they are so worried about drunk drivers being on the road, has not offered some type of bus service?

hey my2cents: there is already a program called a Taxi service. See either you can call a taxi or you can ask the bartender to call the taxi, they come to the bar and pick you up, and take you home. IT's FREE! and still people get busted for trying to drive themselves home. that is why no one has any hard feelings about them getting busted. It is a conscious choice they are making and a choice that might cause others who did not make a choice to get injured or die. They need to learn a lesson and i hope they do lose their jobs. Because there are plenty of people looking for jobs right now, and i am sure many of them are not convicted drunk drivers.
.
Plus, i am sure it is not like the first time they get busted is the first time they have tried to drive home. It has happened many times and they finally got caught. No sympathy!

Micky.....I would let him off based solely on the fact that he passed the field soberity tests. By passing the tests, at least in my eyes, he wasn't drunk. The .08 number should not be a determining factor. Five years ago it was a .1.....Now we're saying that we got it wrong back then and people are driving drunk at a .08......What scientific tests have proven the .08 to be the magic number? Yes, I have had a friend that was pulled over after having exactly 4 beers, passed all the field soberity tests, and ended up blowing a .1 and getting a OWI. If that did go to trial and I was sitting on the jury, I would have let her of in a heartbeat. As far as "copperguys" statement about a breath test being done only after field soberity tests have taken place, I have been pulled over twice in the early hours of the morning and have immediately been asked to do a breath test. Once by Rock County and once by the Darien PD. I blew both times knowing that I didn't have a drop of alcohol in my system. I blew a 0.0 both times and was let go without any tickets getting issued.

Yea, it doesn't take much for ah cop to sit outside across the street and wait for people to pull away from the bar. I'm not saying its ok to drink and drive but come on people its called in-trap-ment. Of coure the officers are gonna tell ya you have a lic plate light out or you were speeding. I think its crap. People who are in a bar between 11pm-2:00am are not sober, it doesn't take a gennies to figure that out. So I guess my thoughts are why even have bars in the first place with a .08 law. None of these drivers are gonna blow lower then that anyway. Why not just give the police a school bus and send mr top cop out n about so he can make the news paper again for doing his job. I aggree that drinking and driving is wrong and is a very stupid thing to do but its never gonna stop. Why can't the city of Janesville come up with a soultion to the propblem or at-least do something to help. Like have a city bus that runs from bar to bar getting people home? If people can buy a drink for 2.50 why can they pay ah buck or whatever for a FREE SAFE ride home. It is the city that give a liquor lic to the bar owners right?

Major Dan Lonsdorf with the Bureau of Transportation Safety, "The counter to that is that we have the highest conviction rate in the country. If you get arrested for drunk driving you are going to get convicted." Seems that this guy thinks so too...

The weltenator strikes again. Great job, great article brotha!! Keep up the great work!

Cheif you're wrong. The conviction rate is 93.3% once caught. The gap is getting narrower. The is no getting out of a BAC or OWI in Wisconsin.

-quote- "but blows a .08 and still gets arrested definitely should have his day in court. If I was on that jury, there is no doubt that I would render a "not guilty" verdict......."
.
.08 is drunk, whether its 2 beers or 50 beers he should not be driving, thank god your not on a jury.

916WI- also .08- is .08... He would get guilty from me..Why would you think he shouldnt..Now .07 isnt considered illegal- but .08 is..I dont understand your argument. So if it is illegal to sell pot, but I only sell a small joint-then I should be considered not guilty..?..

Well, I am not a huge drinker..But if I ever drink and drive, get pulled over by officer Welte- I am saying I had 3 just to see his expression..

Thank You Officer Welte and all the rest of the J'ville PD who are active in this pursuit. I will happily see an increase in my property taxation for your great duty mindedness. Positive results get my positive attentions.

Thanks again!

916WI: If someone blows a .08, they had more than 3 or 4 beers. Problem drinkers all over (including some friends of mine) talk about how little one has to drink to have a .08 BAC (blood alcohol concentration). Well, it's more than 3 or 4 beers, unless maybe that's in a half hour. At any rate, those who have been trained as Breath Examiner Specialists have had to drink in a controlled environment to see how different BAC levels affect you.

.08% is drunk AND impaired. Period. At a .04% BAC, I was amazed at how intoxicated I was.

Furthermore, officers make the determination of impairment from the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. Only AFTER the SFSTs are done (and we have probable cause to make the arrest) do we actually sample the individual's breath/blood for the exact BAC. And, PAC (prohibited alcohol concentration) is NOT the same as OWI. They are two separate charges. OWI is based entirely on one's level of impairment...NOT on BAC. A PAC citation can be issued regardless of impairment, and an OWI citation can be issued regardless of BAC.

Biggirl-where did you come up with that comment about 90% conviction rate...you must have pulled that out of thin air. It is not nearly that high. It appears you have some drunk driving in your past and never seen the carnage it creates? Officer Welte would arrest his own grandmother if she had too many martinis and that is the way it should be!!

From what I notice every day driving in Janesville, I'd say there are plenty of drunks out there. My wife always says that I attract idiot drivers wherever I go. People run stop signs & stop lights, go straight in turn only lanes, cut me off, speed like there's no tomorrow, stop at green lights, follow cars in front of them through stop signs, engage in lane deviation, (Don't EVEN get me started on talking about people on cell phones), you name it- I'm there when it happens. I told her I might as well paint a bulls eye on my car. Luckily I learned to drive overly defensively a long time ago when I moved to this city. It's a relief to me that we have Officer Welte on our side. (For the good of the community, I'd be willing to let him drive my car while on patrol and I'll bet dollars to donuts that he'd up his quota by 20% or more!) Perhaps he should hold regular symposiums for JPD, BPD, MPD and all other area PDs to share his knowledge and tactics to make the roads safer in all area communities. As far as biggirl's comment, well if people aren't drunk and they drive the way they do when I see them, then they need to be arrested for driving like a sausage. And by the way biggirl- are you paranoid for a reason?

i have a vision of this cop hitchin up his belt and snifflin his nose as he approaches the car...barneyesque;) but thats awesome this guy is all out about this. the SICK part is his 46 arrests were 10%. that means 460 DD arrests by the city of janesville last year?? over one a day?? good thing it only takes an i.d. verifying you are 21 to get this drug...

No Micky....not the woman who thought she was in Brodhead, but the guy who stopped on his way home from work had 3 or 4 beers, gets pulled over, passes all of the field soberity tests, but blows a .08 and still gets arrested definitely should have his day in court. If I was on that jury, there is no doubt that I would render a "not guilty" verdict.......

biggirl- what part of innocent do you see here? He arrests drunk drivers..Most of the time they have to blow immediatley or give blood to confirm blood alcohol content..Are you saying the 62 yr. old drunk woman who believed she was in Brodhead needed a trial to determine if she was truly indeed drunk..LOL..Dont drink and drive, no worries, no trials..

Maybe the gang and drug units should work with the same amount of zeal(or overzealousness) of Officer Welte. Oh, that's right, Janesville doesn't have gang or drug problems.

biggirl, If you have a problem with the people he arrests or the way he does it, theres one way to avoid it, dont drink and drive. Its not like he is arresting sober people getting off work. Drunk driving is pretty cut and dry, you either are or you arent, his attitude towards the people he arrests that are drunk is 110% justified, i wish it was a bit more harsh to be honest. You would fully understand if you had lost someone to a drunk driver perhaps.

Kudos to Officer Welte! It's good to know that someone is looking for the drunks and busting them. There are no excuses for drunk driving. Laws are way to lenient as well. Bust them over and over...they don't learn a darn thing.

He is just doing his job. Nothing more.

Whatever happened until innocent until proven guilty? I guess when there is a 90% conviction rate all of this stuff is just quaint. I'm sorry, but this officer's attitude toward the people he arrests is disturbing.

Police officers, judges, government leaders, County officials, community leaders, no matter who you are expect no mercy when driving drunk. Last week a off duty policewomen in St. Louis Mo area killed 4 college students and injured the driver. The officer had 12 years clean record on the force. In Muscatine Iowa a judge was picked up a third time for drunken driving. The judge is looking at 5 years for his 3rd strike.

Good job on his behalf and for the community as a whole Thank you. On the other hand how many did he assume were and had to let go? Just curious.

We need all you low life drunks off the street .keep up the good work Officer Shawn Welte .

Now if we can get a DA and judges with the same mentality towards drunk drivers.

Good job!

Thanks for being proactive buddy! Keep up the great job.....