Yes, I was the "butt" that made the two county reference. I will say it again--I think this situation involving our resident wordsmith is pathetic. To chase this girl down ultimately involving two 911 dispatch centers because you think she is a drunk and then pull over in a bar and have a drink while you're hoping to see her get arrested for OWI, is just sad. She apparently was NOT drunk or OWI otherwise she would have been arrested on the spot. Your saving grace is this claim of her being sited for "borderline" Well, guess what?? YOU could have easily been sited for "borderline" the minute you walked out of that bar after finishing your wine. It only takes 2 to 3 drinks to register a .08 therefore 1 or 2 could put you at a .04.....Please--In the future leave crime fighting to professionals--put your effort into chasing orange balloons. With a little bit of luck, someday you might be successful and catch one:)

hannah, my question was an honest question to copper, it was not about you. i only asked because that what i said in the other blog , then got curious to see if thats really what a police officer preferrs or something we were just taught wrong. as far as me making a statement about you driving through two counties i never said that, another reason your creditibility gets questioned , you say people said things to you that s in type for everyone to read but it doesnt exist. once again you have turned a blog into the hannah hour, kudos to you . now slowly take your hands away from the key board step away and drive to therapy.

I think Oswald did it all by his lonesome.

This started out as such a peaceful day! I know it's early, but I got out my Christmas MP3 player today. There's a new album coming in a couple weeks, and I have to clear out some songs to make room for it. Funny how I haven't been able to get through Crosby/Bowie's tune in one listen!

I meant Rogain (sp)? HaHA ... Only a joke ! .. Life is to short to take everything to heart . Lighten up ! We love you Hanna !

Good Lord! It's NOT ripping. It's an observation! It's real, and it's sincere. I appreciate your concern and willingness to get involved, but you seem to be taking it WAY too personally! That's all.

LOVEISGOOD: Make sure you buy my book when it's published, "Forget Kindergarten. Everything I Need to Know I Learned from my Dogs!"

MEDICINE !!!!

LOVEISGOOD: Before this conversation started, I had a full head of hair. I now look like Charlie Brown!

About the DA, my point was that it was not your place to determine what, if any, charges should be issued. Just like when I arrest someone or refer a case to the DA, and he doesn't charge or charges something else. That's HIS job, just as it was the OFFICERS' job to handle your case.

As to the report, it all depends on the jurisdition and how they do things. In some departments, officers key in their own reports. In some jurisdictions, officers hand-write and a clerk keys in from those hand-written reports. In some jurisdictions, officers dictate and a clerk transcribes. In the last two instances, the officers get the finished reports for edits and corrections. It is not unusual for even simple reports to take weeks to finalize.

This begs the question of why you need to see the reports. I personally think it's a bad idea for a witness to read the reports, and always caution witnesses not to talk to one another. The officers need to get INDEPENDENT witness accounts, and courts need to get INDEPENDENT testimony. In fact, I WILL NOT read other officers' reports on cases in which I'm involved. My testimony is my own, and is NOT influenced by anyone else. I recently had a defense attorney come after me on the stand when I said I hadn't read other officers' reports. But, it's the truth.

Again, hannah, it's done. You seem obsessed with it, and that is a bit frightening.

Copper , I Hope you are a parent . If not , you should be . you're an excellent teacher with lots of patience ! We need more of you in our little world !

You called in the complaint. They were acting on your complaint. You were the one who saw her actually driving. Yes, you COULD be called. Unlikely, but possible.

Again, that points to your not having the training or experience to do their jobs from your armchair.

Would you be what? They investigated and issued a citation. Case closed. It's over. As I stated previously, they have the training and experience to conduct the investigation and arrest/cite or not. I don't second guess the District Attorney for not issuing charges that I thought should be issued. That's his job. Why would you have the knowledge or experience to believe the mishandled the case?

Her car was parked. There was no need for lights. I saw a guy driving very bad, raced to catch up to him, and only did so as he pulled into his driveway. I got out, made contact, conducted a complete OWI investigation, and arrested him without ever turning on my lights or even calling dispatch. The first they heard from me was when I called in "10-95" (person in custody). Caught heck for it, but that's the way things work in policing.

My point, hannah, is that you did your part. Others can agree or disagree with WHAT you did and HOW you did it. So be it. Everyone has their opinion. Bottom line is that you did your part. Everything else was up to the officers. I'm not going to analyze the entire thing. I can take issue with one or more of your statements and/or actions, but that's irrelevant. You really do seem to be taking it way too personally, in my opinion. It was a law enforcement case, and it was handled by law enforcement officers addording to the law, departmental policies and procedures, and officer experience. Make yourself detailed notes in case you are subpoenaed to testify. Otherwise, your part in it is done.

Now that this settled can we get to the JFK assassination?!

Any theories?

It depends, hannah. Different neighboring jurisdictions have differing written and unwritten agreements. There are WAY too many variables to go into here. Short answer is, sometimes. There are jurisdictional expanders that come into play based on when/were an offense occurred, etc. Just as the actual investiagtion itself, there are MANY questions we have to answer on the spot and in a hurry. To the average citizen who watches CSI, it sometimes seems we don't know what we're doing when, in reality, those tv shows give the public a false sense of reality policing.

etown: To quote from the law books," It depends on the totality of the circumstances!" To expand a little on what you said, not only do we have the weaponry (usually) to deal with a situation, but we also have the training in tactics and the law to help guide us.

My general advice is to make the call, and then keep a safe distance. For traffic infractions, some people will follow and update, others will not. I, personally, think one's duty as a citizen ends once they've made the report. Not only do you run the risk of endangering yourself by following, but you can also cause the offender to drive even worse once they know they're being followed.

That said, if you have a really dangerous driver, then I say follow as long as you feel comfortable. But NEVER get involved. And never become a danger by your own driving/actions.

Sir Robert Peale, the "father of modern policing," used the phrase, "The people are the police, and the police are the people." Look him up on wikipedia. I believe strongly in that principle. Citizens are a critical component in policing. But, they are not PAID to take the risks that cops are.

Heck, if you help me out, I will try to get you a reward through Crimestoppers!

Again, your own safety is paramount to catching the bad guy. Even we have to make decisions as to when to disengage.

copperguy, you are very good at explaining what you do and why you do it . but i do have one question, if you see a crime being committed , the first thing you should do is call 911 , once they have enough information , lic plate # description, should you then follow them , or step back and let the police department do their jobs. im not asking because you wrote thats what you did , you are trained for these situation, im asking about the common person here. i say step back , you may get more then what you asked for or injure innocent people. and the more distractions for the officer s the more your putting them at risk. is this right?

One final thought to address your "need to know" about this case, Hannah. As a cop, I DO have a "need to know" whether my suspicions are correct or not. If anyone would want to know whether their 911 call about an erratic driver turned out to be an OWI, it would be a cop. Yet, I have NEVER followed up on any of my such calls. Heck, one night on my way home from work, I stopped for gas at a quick shop. As I walked in, the cashier ran out chasing a guy (about 12:30 am). The guy jumped in his vehicle and VERY NEARLY ran the cashier down. I identified myself, and the cashier said the guy had stolen a 12 pack of beer. I got involved for ONE REASON: The guy showed total disregard for the safety of others by the way he almost ran over the cashier.

I had my weapon on me, but was in plain clothes. I told the cashier to call 911, which I did also from my cell phone. I followed the driver, who ran three VERY BUSY red lights, but while ensuring my safety and that of others. I lost track of the guy because of his driving, but less than a minute later, the cops had him (I had given dispatch the license number). I arrived on scene, and positively identified him.

I didn't ask the guys name, didn't get the officers' names, didn't get a case number. I have no idea what the outcome was. I did my part, and that's all that mattered. I suggest you do the same. Don't make it personal.

There is not likely to be any video prior to the emergency lights being switched on and/or the time they rolled up on the vehicle.

I have done my best to explain that you don't know enough to second guess the officers. Based on what I have gleaned from your postings about the log and such, there is no doubt in my mind that the officers handled the case appropriately. Not that all cops do, but these quite apparently did. There's nothing that would make me curious enough to spend more time on this one, nor should you. She didn't drive away, so your mission was accomplished.

Tanks Copperguy ...hickup .. I mean thanks !
ha ha .. just a joke everyone !~

O.k. I have to ask .. Hanna , how do you know the case # on this ? Do you know this person ? Do you hate this person ? I feel that you are gong over board on this for some reason . Drunk driving is very serious but this to me is over the top ..? Help me understand .

Hannah: I should probably just let this die. Alas, I will attempt to clarify.

"Borderline" could have meant borderline PAC...in other words, somewhere in the .06%-.07% range. PBT machines are not calibrated before and after each use, the way an Intoxilyzer is, so there is some unrelability in their readings. I will only use a PBT to help me determine if the impairment is due to alcohol or drugs. If drugs, then I get a blood test instead of breath, even for first offense. Before I ever get to a PBT, I have already decided whether or not to arrest.

"Borderline" may also have meant that the number of clues from the SFSTs were just short of the "magic number" that establishes presumptive evidence of OWI. A person CAN be arrested for OWI(alcohol) even if their BAC is less than .08%, but this requires a SOLID number of clues from the SFSTs. Since they DID NOT see her drive, they would have NO officer observations to back up the SFST results. I won't even attempt to address citizen complaints and their relationship to reasonable suspicion/probable cause.

So, we don't know which "borderline" they were referring to. Bottom line is that if they had a solid OWI case, they would have arrested. On that, I have ZERO doubt.

etown: LOL. Cop, trying to help the public understand the law!

We could hash and rehash all day and all night. I wasn't involved, don't know exactly what happened, and have not seen the reports, logs, or video. And, as I said in my very first post to you today, I do SOMETIMES feel sorry for you, because I know you do incur a lot of criticism.

The bottom line is that we can all poke holes in each other's opinions, theories, and guesses. I often make posts clarifying law, legal procedure, etc.. I SOMETIMES post about my opinion. When I post my opinions, others are free to disagree, pick at, or otherwise take issue with what I post. And, sometimes they will do so unfairly. This is especially true if my own post was unfair. I have never complained about someone treating me unfairly over one of my opinion posts. Nor will I.

You invite criticism by posting your opinion. Don't be offended when people take you up on that invitation. Just in my dialog with you today, you have changed your story significantly when I have called you out on your differing statements. I'm not bashing you for that. I may not let it go unnoticed, but again, that's something you (and I) invite when we post opinions.

As I said, "Move your head!"

copperguy , you are one of two things. either a police officer , or a lawyer. if your a police officer i hope we never meet lol, and if your a lawyer can i have your number...........some people need to learn to comprehend what they are reading, where s magnum pi when u need him lol

Hannah: Read my 2:16 post again. At .04% - .07% a police officer CAN NOT allow a person to drive. It doesn't establish presumptive evidence of OWI the way a .08% does, but we still CAN NOT allow them to drive.

For a person who holds a Commercial Driver's License, their Prohibited Alcohol Concentration IS .04% (regardless of whether they're on duty time or private time).

And, as pointed out by ihavealife (as quoted by gazettefan), an OWI case typically results in two citations: one for OWI, and the second for PAC (prohibited alcohol concentration). OWI is based on the Officer's observations of the person's driving ability and performance of SFSTs. The PAC citation is based SOLELY on the BAC. A person CAN be convicted of OWI even if they have a BAC lower than .08%. I have a bit of a clarification on that post though. An OWI citation is ONLY written if there is a solid OWI case. There really isn't a "borderline" OWI citation. "Borderline" was PROBABLY referring to the PAC aspect. A person CAN NOT be sentenced for BOTH OWI and PAC from the same case.

This is ihavealife's post from the shutdown blog. It's a good one:

"916WI...Yes there is a ticket for"almost drunk driving".I believe it's called OWI... means UNDER the limit of DWI 0.08.So it's possible the police let her call to get a ride home !!"

As far as "down time" at work, my job was technical (computers). Yet, on many occasions when I was without any task, I would clean windows, rotate files to storage, even cleaned telephone sets a couple of times. There are ALWAYS business-related things one can do.

If her BAC was above a .04%, then, regardless of her driving status, she would not have been allowed to drive. That's the law. We have ZERO discretion in that.

Someone posted a link to the squad camera footage from the Woods stop. I can tell you that, the footage I viewed did NOT establish probable cause to arrest. There had to have been more based on footage that was not shown. We must establish a certain number of "clues" from the threee court accepted tests (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, Walk-and-Turn, and One Leg Stand.) in order to establish PC. There are exceptions, such as the suspect is too incapacitated to perform the tests safely. But, the short segment of the one Leg Stand that was shown did not establish that exception.

Hannah: Today, at 11:44 am, you wrote, "I didnt say they didnt do their job." Yet, in your 1:50 pm post, you stated, ""borderline" yea SURE." My question to you is, which is it? Unless you have satisfactorily completed NHTSA's class on OWI detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, you are in no position to make such a call. Police Officers are trained and tested in "Court Noticed" standards and procedures using citizen volunteers who are brought to specified levels of intoxication in a controlled environment. Those who go on to become Certified Breath Examiner Specialists also get first-hand experience in the effects of alcohol at varying levels of concentration. I can tell you with absolute certainty that I am incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle at a BAC of .04%. I also know how the courts have ruled on various cases establishing reasonable suspicion, probable cause, presumptive evidence, etc.. I doubt that you have such qualifications. If you do, then my apology.

I must admit that I got a little too focused on the point I was trying to make about EVERYONE being entitled to their opinion (even if they disagree with one's own). Hannah posted the story about her calls to 911 in order to scoff at the concerted effort of law enforcement to get drunk drivers off the road. She used her story to say that cops aren't serious about drunk driving. What seems to be lost there is the fact that police officers have been given direction and mandate from the courts (not to mention statutes and the Constitutions of Wisconsin and the US) as to how to conduct investigations. Because an investigation that is conducted in accordance with those directions/mandates does not result in an arrest, our claims to be serious about drunk driving enforcement are a farce?

copper that is the point everyone has been trying to make and all we get is a repeated version , or versions of what happened. but i must say that is a very nice try . just to show you why we question it the post at 1144 said i believe this is the car parked over here. she wasnt even sure if she was turning in the right person?

Hannah: I did not imply - nor did I state - that you did anything wrong by calling 911 for the erratic driver. I was unable to see the comments of those who responded to your posts, so I don't know what anyone else said. In your posts, you seemed to complain that the officers left before her driver arrived. You mentioned that one of them left with his "lights on." I gather that you meant his emergency lights. The presumption I would make is that their contact with the driver in question was complete, and they received a priority call. Further, if the officer cited her for OWS, that is an offense that requires operation of a motor vehicle. So, they must have given credence to your report of her actually being the driver in question (or she was "operating" as defined by the courts at the time they had contact with her).

A "borderline 10-55" could be someone who perhaps gave a PBT of .06% or .07%. Few officers would conduct a more extensive investigation with that level. However, we cannot allow someone to drive if their BAC is above .04%. That is not the only explanation for the order that she get a different driver. She didn't have a valid license. I will not allow someone to drive away from a traffic stop if they are suspended or revoked.

As to your blogging, that is between you and your employer. I was "raised" professionally in a mega-corporation, and exposed to some excellent managers. Perhaps that explains my work ethic. I never had "down time" when I was at work. If I didn't have work of my own to do, I would ask my supervisors where else I might be able to help out. Rather than killing time as I saw fit, I sought ways to add value to my employment. As a business owner myself, I would expect (demand?) that my employees use their work hours to better my business. Again, though, that is between you and your employer. My point was that you expect the highest ethics of others, but do not demand the same for yourself. You demand the right to your opinion, but deny others the same right.

Your business owner can do whatever he or she wants, since it's their business. As for me being the "blog police," you are ignoring the real point of my posts. I have never criticized you - or anyone else - for grammar, spelling, etc.. You want to gain attention by posting your opinions. That's fine. But, don't be upset when the attention you get isn't the sort that you want. As I posted on another forum recently..."If a man throws a spear at your head, move your head."

and whats the original story about again?

Hannah: I SOMETIMES feel a bit sorry for you because people (including myself) take you to task for some of your comments. Having said that, you have to realize that you have a reputation for interjecting your opinion and (sometimes) calling others "stupid" on the basis of your views. So, in large part, you invite the attacks. As long as you demand the "right" to voice your opinion on stories and the people in them, you should expect others to exercise their "right" to disagree with and even attack your opinions.

I went back and read all of your posts about the 9/19 incident. I cannot find fault with your concern about the driver in question. I, too, have called in suspected drunk drivers while off-duty. The one MAJOR difference is that I make the call, cooperate with dispatch, and then continue on my merry way. Once I've made the report, it is in the hands of the on-duty Police Officers to conduct the investigation. I don't stick around to make sure the officers do their job correctly. If I am needed for follow-up, they will call. If I am needed for court, I will get a subpoena.

I'm curious about something. On week days, I work at home in my own small business. At my leisure, I will check out stories and forums, and make posts. My business allows me that luxury. I notice that the times you posted for your calls to 911 were around 4:15 - 4:30 PM, and you said you were on your way home from work. During that particular business day, you made 17 forum posts throughout the day. A Chief of Police in a nearby village is facing possible termination for sending what amounts to 3 pesonal emails in a day (which could EASILY be done on one's lunch break), where the Village Board determines this to be "time wasting."

If I had an employee who spent as much time as you appear to engaging in the sort of discussions you do, that would be of GREAT concern to me. You seem to want to hold others to high standards of responsibility. So, I wonder, how do you square the use of your employer's time with your expectation of others? You may see this as an attack. Given your demands of others, though, I think it is a legitimate question.

Hanna , I read all your other posts . I think the comments on the other emt blog were removed for a reason . Drop it ! ... Time to move on ..

Detox????
Looks like it is time for Wood to move up the political ladder to the national level.

Hanna , I felt bad for you at first but now it seems you are begging for attention ?

it was so good

Hannah - why don't you tell us your story about the "drunk Driver" you almost caught the other day I was so good last time.

We can't kick him out of office, the unemployment rate in Wisconsin is already too high. Let's rent him a room in the hotel across the street from the Capitol Building and put one of these "doggie shocker" collars on him. If he strays more than a block from the hotel or the Capitol, he gets zapped.

Likely to have no problem finding "a jury of his peers" here in the binge drinking capital of the US! A true Wisconsinite!

Everyone has their day in court. Until then...

This guy has some problems. I have not considered him a Representative of me or anyone from the state since learning about his third arrest for OWI. He claims he spilled the prescription pills he just had filled the day before, he also claimed he was looking at a map, and that is why he was almost involved in "numerous" accidents before being pulled off the road. It is obvious that Jeff Wood has some issues. Jeff Wood is not only an embarrassment to the state, but he is a ticking time bomb on our public roads.

Rep. Kim Hixson and Sen. Judy Robson, I am asking you to do something about this black eye for our state. He needs to be shown the door. I do not want another dime of Wisconsin taxpayer money to go to someone who selfishness will eventually hurt or kill someone if he is not stopped.

link to a dash cam footage of the traffic stop from wqow 18 Eau Claire
http://www.wqow.com/global/video/flash/p...

"Hillbillies up there"???. I don't think this an up there problem..This is an example of the people of the entire state.

Some one else to look up to

gpawcat
Good thing it's only his 3rd. If this was his 4th, he'd be in trouble.
+
So now the taxpayers will have to foot the bill getting his butt to work in a limo .

SwissChick: The case from December has not been resolved. Until/unless he is convicted on that offense, he has two prior convictions, making this (as well as the other pending case) the 3rd.

If he is convicted of either pending offense, that will be his third. If he is convicted on both, they will be SENTENCED as 3rd and 4th, depending on which is resolved first. The penalty is determined by the number of previous convictions AT THE TIME of the "present" conviction.

Does that make sense?

I just read on another news site he mistaked his meds for tic tacs.

gpawcat he would only be in trouble AFTER the new bill passes. for now hes got a couple more chances to prove he's got a problem with substance abuse...speakin of which...this HIGHLIGHTS the ignorance of the pharmaceutical drug companies and the dr's they pay to sell their drugs. this guy PROVED long ago that he has issues with substance abuse yet he can go get an addictive script from his dr cuz he's got 'anxiety'. ughhh.

Really???? You have got to be kidding me!!!!Isnt there code of ethics???? I thought that taking driving priviliges from illegal aliens would stop people from driving drunk. Ha Ha.

Wouldn't this be his fourth as his third was in December??

He's lucky he's still alive. Depending on the strength of the scrip, that amount in that short time could kill a person. I think it's time for the Rep. to resign. He's obviously got a problem that needs dealing with. I know if I was in his district I'd demand his resignation.

Good thing it's only his 3rd. If this was his 4th, he'd be in trouble.

Ah yes. The people we elect to represent us.

WANNABE30-------MAYBE? MAYBE? Maybe an understatement!

Wow sounds like he may have a problem