Food for Thought
Alcoholism is an insidious disease that knows no boundaries of age, sex, race, economic class, religion, or occupation. It is one of the most destructive forces in our society, not only harming the alcoholic, but everyone around them: spouses, children, family, friends, business partners and co-workers. Like most people, I have seen it and have felt its effects—in my case, a severely alcoholic friend, and my beloved late grandfather. I know firsthand that alcoholics will drive drunk, lie, cheat, steal, and commit fraud and other crimes, and even injure those who love them most, just to get a drink when they “need” one.
In discussing the sociological effects of the disease with an expert, Dr. Garrett O’Connor, the CEO of the Betty Ford Institute, I discovered that the vast majority of alcoholics never admit to the disease and do everything they can to hide it. Of the small percentage who seek help from AA and others, only a tiny fraction of those actually fully recover from the disease—the rest fall off the wagon and go right back to it. Their loved ones and friends—the innocent victims—often join them in a long term state of denial that facilitates the individuals’ growing problem, making them “enablers.” These enablers, unfortunately, often do everything they can to avoid what’s staring them in the face, making them willing accessories. Their refusal to face facts and find out what options are open to them (such as organizing an intervention) does no favors for the drinker and they are only postponing the inevitable while everyone goes through hell, sometimes for decades.
Alcoholism is a serious enough problem in anyone at any age, no matter what they do for a living. Co-worker enablers only compound the problem. Alcoholics and enablers are even more dangerous when they are the ones who are meant to protect us: doctors, pilots, paramedics, fire fighters and, especially, armed police officers. An alcoholic or enabling police officer is a danger not only to themselves and their fellow officers, but the entire community who count on them for protection.
The current case in point is that of ex-SJPD officer Sandra Woodall, the wife of an active SJPD sergeant. On March 25, Woodall, who now works for the DA’s office, caused a very serious multi-car crash that could easily have resulted in fatalities. Fortunately, it didn’t, but there were injuries. According to the paramedics on the scene, Woodall said that she had just come out of rehab, and she smelled strongly of alcohol and admitted to them that she had had “a lot” to drink. Nevertheless, the supervising officer on the scene, Sgt. Will Manion, who obviously knew Woodall, did not administer the blood alcohol test that is required, and apparently did everything he could to try and prevent Woodall’s drunkenness from becoming public, thereby obstructing justice. (A citation wasn’t even issued at the scene, even though Woodall was speeding.) The only reason the incident has come up at all is that a vigilant citizen raised a stink because the police were doing nothing about it. So now, not only is Woodall in deep trouble, so are the officers involved in the very serious cover-up. Every one of them put the community in danger and violated the trust of the citizens by their badly misjudged actions.
The state attorney general’s office has filed felony drunk driving charges against Woodall, and the case will take its course in the courts. Late yesterday it was reported that the SJPD has launched a criminal investigation into the conduct of Sgt. Manion and another officer who have been put on paid leave, and the SJPD Internal Affairs Division and the Independent Police Auditor are involved as well. This is all as it should be.
Moving forward, there is a bigger issue here that needs to be studied. Is this a one-off or is there a history of similar incidents? Presumably, since Woodall was in rehab, it is likely that she has a history of alcohol abuse going back to when she was on the force. I have been told by a retired police officer that alcoholism is not uncommon within the SJPD, something that doesn’t surprise me. (According to Dr. O’Connor, it is a major problem on big city police forces.) That also indicates that there are plenty of enablers on the force too. The public needs to know how deep this goes and what the SJPD is doing to protect us from the officers who have the disease and the others who turn a blind eye towards it. This is a problem that requires a vigorous outside investigation and I think Mayor Reed and Chief Davis owe it to the city’s residents to initiate such a study and make a full public report.
‘Experts’ in alcoholism are likewise enabling some very destructive attitudes about this ‘disease’ that seems to affect a handful of people, while the rest of us seem immune.
Nonetheless, your analysis and recommendation makes sense.
Why doesn’t SJPD have a policy about investigating their own in the field? Does the SJPD leadership really want patrol officers to be put in the position of arresting a sergeant’s wife? As soon as the SJPD officers realized the many conflicts in this situation involving Woodall, they should have called another agency such as the CHP to handle.
A reporter once asked W.C. Fields if he had an alcohol problem. His prompt response: “Only when I can’t get a drriiiink!”
Hey, every cop show on T.V. for the last 40 years has scenes in “cop bars” where they get tanked and drive home. If Hollywood’s discovered it, it must be true.
I thought SJPD were warriors of justice who wanted to wipe the imbibers from the face of the Earth? This doesn’t make sense.
“Presumably, since Woodall was in rehab, she must have a history of alcohol abuse going back to when she was on the force.”
That’s a presumption that borders on the irresponsible. Do you have any proof that she was abusing alcohol “when she was on the force”? If so please share.
This incident is bad enough without idle speculation about something that may, or may not, have happened years ago.
Stick to the facts please.
#6 Reader
My presumption, based on circumstantial evidence, is that if Woodall, by her own admission, just got out of rehab and immediately went back to drinking and driving, she obviously has a history of substance abuse problems. That’s what they treat in rehab. This type of behavior doesn’t appear out of the blue overnight; that would go against the insidious nature of the disease. Therefore, since this incident is a matter of publc interest, it is not “bordering on the irresponsible” to ask why the police officers on the scene would act in the way they did, knowing Woodall’s history that, according to the attending paramedics, she related to them at the scene. The truth will certainly come out in the wash of Woodall’s trial and we will see who has been irresponsible.
#2 Kenny
I should have pointed out that my expert friend, Dr. O’Connor, is the new CEO of the Betty Ford Institute. You can’t get more expert than that. I will add that fact to my piece.
Jack:
If the cops broke the rules, they should pay with their badges. There should be no special treatment for members of law enforcement and their family and friends.
Pete Campbell
Much of the discussions in the past several weeks have circled around one issue: alcohol. This one substance has caused more debate and thought, on this site than any other has. It’s the booze causing problems outside of downtown nightclubs, music in the other park, and with our representatives in city government. How interesting it is now, that the State Attorney General is investigating this most recent incident. I have heard no complaints of the state getting involved in this local matter. How different it was a few weeks ago when the Downtown Association was crying of involvement of the SJPD going to the state (ABC) and not conferring with them first. Now, no one is upset that the state is getting involved in another matter stemming from alcohol.
Alcohol causes more problems, crimes, mental disorders, violence, family dysfunction than any other substance available (legal or not). It is my hope that the SJPD will not ease up on the enforcement of the alcohol issues in the downtown area. The current atmosphere will test the city council and the SJPD on whether they have the confidence to continue their enforcement of the drunks, irresponsible owners, and troublemakers in the downtown core.
The issue of trusting our city representatives and police is also of great concern. I would be more concerned if we heard nothing of issues of violating the public’s trust. The fact that it is in the public view, the entire police report is online, and comments have been made by those involved, allows me to maintain my trust in the police. I am somewhat concerned of the lack of leadership in the police department. The Chief of Police should be publicly commenting on this issue of alcoholism, and the perception of unfair treatment/police misconduct. It is his responsibility to restore the public’s confidence in his force. At the same time he should be kicking some “ass” internally. He and his chain of command are solely responsible for allowing this behavior. If there was any mishandling at any supervision level those persons need to be disciplined, demoted, or terminated. If anyone did anything illegal they should be charged criminally and fire. Again, it is up to the Chief to publicly, loudly and clearly restore and maintain the publics trust in OUR police department.
Now, as responsible citizens, it is our duty to let the system work. The receipt of a simple traffic ticket is a slow and long process, it takes months to get adjudicated This incident appears somewhat more complicated. I will wait and see.
If we give intelligent and concerned comment it can make a difference in the end. Those who do, want to trust in our police officers to enforce the law. Those who don’t, never did.
Thank you Jack for writing a piece on substance abuse, and enabling. Like you, I grew up with a Mother who had a problem with prescription drug addition and graduated into alcoholism. My ex husband was both an alcoholic, and drug abuser. I joined CODA, and Al-Anon to try and understand why I attracted so many addicts, and how to stop enabling them. I went to AA and Nar-Anon to understand addiction from the addict’s point of view.
I also did research into possible medical reasons for addiction. Many of us come into this world with a predisposition for addiction, and I am one of them. So I steer clear of drugs and alcohol because I carry the wonderful gene of addiction. As to the addicts in my life, I pray for them, keep surface relationships with them, and chose my close friends very carefully because enabling is an addiction in and of its self.
It is amazing to me how many people have serious substance abuse problems. I wish I could say it is limited to one profession, or one race, or one age group, or religion, or city, or country but it isn’t. We are living in high stress times and addictions are getting worse.
If you need help with a spouse, or a loved one that is involved in substance abuse, or if you are addicted, I’ve posted some websites to help. You have nothing to be ashamed of so don’t hesitate to reach out to these groups, they are or have been where you are!
http://www.al-anonfamilygroups.org/meetings/meeting.html
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/en_information_aa.cfm
http://nar-anon.org/index.html
http://www.joy2meu.com/tough_love.htm
Let me just say that the 12 Steps and their programs saved my sanity and my life. Two of the 12 Step Program’s sayings, “You are as sick as your secrets, or Denial isn’t just an Egyptian River,” is absolutely the truth.
#7 Jack: I think you missed the point.
The issue raised in #6 is not if this arrest is a matter of public interest. Obviously it is.
Nor does the issue raised in #6 relate to how police officers on the scene handled the incident, what paramedics overheard or any of the other troubling aspects of the March 25th incident.
The issue raised in #6 is your assertion that Woodall has a history of alcoholism that extends all the way back to the time she served on the SJPD. You offer no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to support a claim of alcohol abuse dating back to an earlier time.
The evidence gathered on March 25th suggests that Woodall was intoxicated at that time and that she told paramedics that she just got out of rehab. However your article takes the evidence of March 25th and extends it back to an earlier time by saying that Woodall “MUST (emphasis added) have a history of alcohol abuse going back to when she was on the force.”
This may be true, or it may not. The point is there is nothing from the March 25th incident to support such a claim.
#12 Reader
I have thought about it and you are correct. I should have said “most likely” or “probably,” not “must.” I will change it.
Thanks. Even the best editors miss things, especially when they edit themselves!
Fair enough, Jack. I still believe there is an institutional fallacy in our approach to the topic, highly related to calling it a disease. Similar to Kathleen, I have a mother, father, and ex-wife who have fallen subject to this behavior, and am likewise wary of predisposition.
Refering to a set of behaviors in the third person may help Dr. O’Connor treat individuals, but it has a highly deleterious effect on our collective sense of personal responsibility. Which I gather is the point of your column.
Part 1 of 2…
—Jack Van Zandt’s police friend reveled that “Alcoholism is not uncommon within the SJPD?”
That would be interesting were it not for the fact that alcoholism is “not uncommon” in journalism, business, the armed services, professional athletics, the entertainment industry, politics, the clergy, and any other mainstream vocation. Furthermore, as long as we continue to staff our police departments with Homo Sapiens, none of the typical problems that plague our species will ever be “not uncommon.”
—Jack Van Zandt’s doctor expert reveled that alcoholism “is a major problem on big city police forces.”
Interesting, but since the issue is the San Jose police department, and not big city forces in general, the relevance of the expert’s generality should not be assumed. As a matter of fact, there is very little evidence that alcoholism is anything close to a “major problem” at SJPD, although admittedly the problems caused by a single case are major to the individual and his/her family and friends, and sometimes, obviously, the problems of one individual can impact the entire department. The SJPD, as do most of the departments in this area, screen prospective hires for alcohol use through background investigation and psychological evaluation. That a small minority go on to develop a problem during their careers is a reality that no one can change.
Part 2 of 2…
The Woodall case seems, to me, to be a perfect storm situation: a common but complex issue: drunk driving, intersects with a a factor that is never beyond questioning: police decision-making, only to be hit broadside by a concept ripe for controversy and exploitation: professional courtesy. Allow me to dissect, if you will:
DUI: A black and white issue for some, but in truth an issue in which the officer’s judgement and discretion are critical. The reality is this: in a single generation the public’s attitude has evolved as much as has the blood alcohol level, and given that today’s limit (.08) is about one-half the measure of what it used to be (.15), huge differences of opinion exist about what constitutes drunk driving, how serious an issue it is, and how the police should treat violators. And guess what?—the opinions of police officers are just as diverse as the public’s, running the gamut from “Book ‘em all” to “Calls are backed up, cut him a break” to “I’d rather be out there catching crooks.” Sorry MADD, but there are still a lot of citizens getting breaks, and their getting them is consistent with the law.
Decision-making: No matter what you might think after having read the details of the Woodhall case, for the officer on the scene—the only person with the authority to arrest and the only person accountable if an arrest is made in error, there is, besides the factors indicating guilt, the responsibility to consider mitigating factors (factors with which, if an arrest is made, the arresting officer will be aggressively confronted during cross-examination). There are a hundred potential factors, but the one that seems especially applicable in the Woodall case is that of injury or underlying medical condition. To be specific, a young adult not knowing what year it is (as she reportedly admitted) is not a symptom typical of alcohol intoxication, but it is typical of people suffering from a traumatic brain injury, mental illness, or any one of a number of serious medical conditions that can cause behavior that mimics intoxication.
Bottom line: until the entire incident is exposed in a forum where the officer can defend his judgment and actions, we can’t know that he got it wrong.
Professional Courtesy (get ready with your screams of DOUBLE-STANDARD!!): Not only does the possibility that Sandra Woodall received special treatment not bother me, I actually find it comforting. As far as I’m concerned, any group of people who work together under stress and are subjected to constant resentment and frequent attack by outsiders, and then fail to form bonds which translate into extra courtesy and special consideration for each other are deficient human beings. That a cop might stop another cop for a traffic offense—even DUI, and not consider extending to him or her a level of consideration above the normal would indicate to me that either there was something wrong with one of the two cops involved, or that the fraternity that has sustained the profession for generations is undergoing a slow death.
Nevertheless, there will always be people who insist that authority be practiced with impersonal perfection, but those people almost never get into law enforcement or, once if they do get in, quickly flee up the chain to the comfort of command where they can barter for personal gain instead of brotherhood.
But even those who support the concept of brotherhood must agree that the level of consideration extended must be reasonable. In the Woodall case, it very well could be that by her own actions the only special consideration she was entitled to was compassionate treatment and a phone call to her husband. The sad truth is that all Sandra Woodall accomplished by her conspicuous, irresponsible behavior was to bring extra suspicion upon the motives and actions of the officers on the scene. After all, it is an everyday occurrence that officers make decisions and reach conclusions at accident scenes that are contrary to what someone else—the other driver, a witness, or even a paramedic—thinks should be done. But because of her conduct, every decision that day became suspect, despite the fact that for the cops on the scene, not citing an at fault driver or giving the drinking driver the benefit of the doubt constitute business as usual.
This case, despite the Mercury’s crusade to turn it into an indictment of the entire police department, does not seem serious enough to ruin the life and career of a very good police sergeant. At this point it seems that, at worst, he went too far in trying to help someone (Woodall) in a way that he thought would not victimize anyone else (fault was already decided—the other drivers do not need an arrest made or citation issued to get their compensation). If that turns out to be all that he did, if no CRIME was committed, then expose him, expose his mistake of judgment so that others may learn, but don’t forget his unblemished record and considerable abilities.
Whether Ms. Woodall is a recent alcoholic or a long-term alcoholic isn’t really the issue.
She was most likely, and by her own admission, DUI at the time of the collisions.
Her statement that she “just” got out of rehab and that she had consumed “a lot” of alcohol prior to slamming her vehicle into a couple of other vehicles makes it abundantly clear that her bit in rehab produced no results.
The fact that her former colleauges rallied around to protect her, just as the cops who showed up when the deputy sheriff slammed into bicyclists near Stevens Creek Reservoir rushed him from the scene to avoid field sobriety tests and embarassing questions, is the real issue here.
We all strive to protect our friends. But the motto “Protect and Serve” speaks to what cops are supposed to do do for the public, not what they do to keep their peers out of trouble. Two paramedics were clear that they smelled alcohol on Ms. Woodall’s breath at the scene. The tests at the hospital backed the paramedics’ version up. The seasoned cop who failed to cite her for even a speeding ticket and failed to administer field sobriety tests on scene needs to get his ticket punched. Instead, he’ll probably get a disability retirement, or a “censure” in his jacket.
The public has the right to have cops treated equally under the law; not to have their buddies get them out of scrapes.
And while I’m at it, why don’t most cops EVER signal a lane change or a turn? They’d cite me if I drove like they do. And if I’d had one glass of wine, I’d likely get popped for DUI.
There should be a protocol that WHENEVER a law enforcement person is involved in an accident, another agency is IMMEDIATELY called to pick up the investigation. Even they might consider the person one of the clan, but at least they would be one agency removed.
I am a huge fan of cops and the difficult work they do for us all. But they must be held to at least the standard to which the rest of us are held.
#3- Steve,
I agree with you 100% about involving the CHP, or the Sheriff’s Department in cases like this. As Frustrated Finfan so aptly points out, these men and women go through things together that ordinary professionals don’t, including having a narrow, critical focus on any mistakes they may or may not make.
I must say that I will withhold my judgment on this case until all the facts are in. I don’t know how badly injured this woman was at the site of this accident, if she may have had a stroke, or what else took place that led to the Sgt. or Officers on the scene to take the actions they did.
I want to say that I am very proud of the work SJPD does. I have complete faith that a proper investigation into this matter will be done by them. I also feel that the Police are always being punched around, and tried in the media in ways that I find very disheartening.
The media has become both judge and jury in matters they have no expertise in, and I am very concerned about that. They write stories that aren’t always factual, and if you like me, have ever been interviewed by one of these hot shot reporters, you know first hand that most of the time you are either misquoted, your comments are taken out of context, or they just plain lie.
The media has way too much power. We have become a nation of lazy mindless people who read and believe everything we hear and see on TV, in magazines, or in the paper. We seem to have become a nation who loves to hear the dirt on people we don’t like, or envy because it seems to make us feel better about our own lives. I find it sad to think that we have lost our compassion for one another, and have forgotten that we are all in this life together. And yet we wonder why our youth is so lost and screwed up.
#16 Finfan: I won’t scream “double standard” but I will say that the officers who helped Woodall did much more than extend “extra courtesy and special consideration” to a fellow cop. If the charges are true the police quite possibly aided and abetted in the commission of a crime. That’s good reason for disciplinary action, even termination.
When you say “the other drivers do not need an arrest made or citation issued to get their compensation” you seem to assume that compensation is their only issue. What about the issue of accountability for a criminal act? If a drunk cop crashes into me and sends me to the hospital you can be damn sure I will expect that cop to be charged with the full load she/he has coming including jail time.
My neighbor knows this guy who knows a doctor who knows a dailykos blogger who says that most leftist bloggers are heavily doped up on prozac.
He thinks that there should be a full investigation of these bloggers given their propensity to believe anything written on counterpunch and indiscriminately smear any persons or institutions to the right of the world workers party.
With a large force full of drunks; maybe its been the police officers peeing and puking in the downtown doorways downtown and not the nightclub patrons. All while they use pay officer work to pad their paychecks!!!
Mr. FinFan #21—the unions have complicity with the attorneys with respect to the difficulty of dismissing alcholics. Don’t forget The Congress. Since the ADA classifies alcoholism as a “disability” there are even more hoops through which employers must jump to get rid of a boozer.
There is a large chasm between “a little wiggle room” and a person who admits that she has had “a lot” to drink. It is not the cop’s right to decide whether someone is guilty or innocent; and it is the cop’s responsibility to administer the law by adminsitering FSTs to anyone who admits to having had “a lot” to drink and has just injured people in two other vehicles. Once someone has admitted to a probable crime, discretion not to act all but disappears.
MC,
By the numbers:
1. The culpability there belongs solely to the driver. There is no evidence of any attempt to deflect from her the responsibility for the carnage.
2. Paramedic service is a business, complete with a sales component. Sometimes people need to be warned, lest they wind up in a neck collar taking a very expensive ambulance ride, only to arrive at the hospital without an injury.
3. Those tests are administered only after the officer concludes cause exists. If the officer doesn’t reach this conclusion, no test is mandated. It’s the officer’s call.
4. If I might reference your neighbors blasting stereo: if it bothers you it has the potential to be a crime; if it doesn’t, there can be no crime. The distinction is in your head. If Sandra Woodall’s driving and demeanor was perceived as DUI by the officer, then he makes the arrest; if he views it as primarily the result of a head injury or mental instability or something else, then he does not arrest. People can have been drinking, smell of alcohol, be disoriented, and still be under the .08 limit. If that’s what the sergeant concluded, then, even if he got it wrong, he broke no law.
5. Keep in mind that “what they’re looking at” is the result of the public outcry continuing unabated even after it was announced that an administrative investigation was under way. The criminal investigation is the second alarm. Right now, if the chief and his staff thought it promising to “look at” the officers for conspiring to hornswoggle they would, so desperate are they to insulate themselves from the searing heat of this scandal.
Obstruction of justice is their best bet, for sure, but as I posted previously, good officers routinely obstruct the the path of justice and detour offenders in the direction of helpful and responsible parents, school officials, counselors, etc. If the officers are charged with this crime, then the evidence had better be compelling, or we will know that the chief abused the law for his purposes and deserves to be fired.
In accident investigations, for one officer to be told that this or that fact or element will be covered by another is routine—an expeditious method for dividing up the workload. But it is easy to imagine how this standard operating procedure might leave some officers, especially subordinate officers, vulnerable to allegations that they obstructed justice for neglecting to include in their reports certain facts or observations that they were told would be covered by others. This has the potential to be a real witch-hunt.
In many ways I agree with Frustrated Finfan. I think to hold a Police Officer, a mere human being who does a job that could get his or her head blown off daily, to a higher standard of behavior than we hold other professionals, or ourselves is unrealistic and quite frankly unfair. After reading SJI over the past few years, I am a bit surprised to see the way many of you view our dedicated Police Officers. It seems a bit hypocritical to me to demand so much of them, given how little we know about this case so far. I guess I’d like to ask you if you would really be as ethical, and walk the same stringent line you are proclaiming this Sgt., or these Officers should have?
Getting back to some of Jack’s column, I think a vital component that is missing in this discussion is were these public servants enabling this woman, were they covering up for her because she was once a Cop, or because her husband is a Cop? Truth is we don’t know yet. Or may be we never will. But the bottom line is this, if you readers don’t think these Police Officers have their own way of dealing with partners who screw up on the down low, you are very wrong.
These Officers don’t want to be embarrassed by screw ups, bad Cops, or bad publicity. These Officers need to depend on their partners to survive on our streets. Like with any fraternity there is always a price for bringing down your brothers or sisters. On several occasions, I’ve seen good Cops completely ignore a bad Cop that has brought shame to their profession. It wasn’t a pretty sight, but it worked. The screw up got the message loud and clear. Imagine how you’d feel if you knew respected members of your profession were just tolerating you in public, and obviously shunning you at the same time.
People must understand the reality of professional courtesy. It happens; I’ve heard many stories from cops about it. Those who complain about any form of professional courtesy are jealous, unrealistic, and have never placed themselves in harms way for another. I do not mind the police taking care of their own as long as it does not border on a serious criminal offense. For citizens who have never served, (military, police, fire) the day to day dangers are enormous. And with those you have served with and survived life-threatening conditions, the bond is unbreakable.
Ever since men (& women) have served together for a cause greater than the self has, they will forever look out for one another. I submit the following:
“My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian.’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.’
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.”
-Shakespeare, Henry V
Mr O’Connor,
I agree with you that there is much guilt to spread around regarding the disability issue, but in defense of the unions, their obligation to act in the interests of the employee-member limits them in much of what they can do to uphold standards of conduct.
Regarding wiggle-room, I wrote that to address the issues of camaraderie and professional courtesy—not the Woodall case, which I think will challenge anyone’s definition of professional courtesy. Still, even in that case, we are asked on one hand to put great credibility in her admission of having had “a lot” to drink, despite the evidence that she couldn’t credibly report what year it was. For all we know she might’ve admitted to the sergeant that she didn’t know what country she was from, which would’ve hardly justified his arresting her for illegal immigration. I suspect a police lawyer would have a very good chance of successfully defending the sergeant, should he be administratively charged.
Rather than the one the Mercury News has put in our heads, imagine this scenario: Ms. Woodall breaks her sobriety, takes a sip from a bottle but in disgust spits it out on her blouse; she then gets her junk food to satiate her craving and sets out on the road, driving and eating and trying to place a call on her cell; due to inattention she causes a big accident, hitting her head on the dashboard and suffering a traumatic brain injury; she then makes statements to the paramedics, who’ve noticed the odor of alcohol.
Along comes the police officer who, sworn to objectivity and laden with responsibility, can jump to conclusions only at his own risk. With an open mind he digests the information presented him and concludes that the driver had probably been drinking, but:
1. given the potential impact her suspected brain injury has had on her statements and behavior, and
2. the fact that he detects little or no odor, and
3. the fact that through personal connections he knows her to be prone to instability, and
4. the presence of evidence that she may have been distracted by eating,
he decides to discount the drinking aspect and place the blame for the collision on driver inattention.
Now consider this: of all the conclusions he could reach, the decision not to arrest is the one that for him is the safest. He cannot:
1. be sued for false arrest (as he could should her blood alcohol come back at, say, .00), or
2. be accused of subjecting her to the slip and fall dangers involved in performing field sobriety tests, or
3. risk blame for causing her additional injury or aggravating existing conditions should she, upon being placed under arrest, resist and have to be forcibly restrained, or
4. risk being ridiculed and losing professional status for arresting a fellow sergeant’s wife after mistaking a brain injury for drunk driving.
On the flip side of the coin, making an arrest means that, if everything works out perfectly, justice will be served. The injured parties will get no extra money, Ms Woodall, whatever her problems, will not go away forever, nor will she get any treatment that is not already available to her.
As you can see, the “responsibility to administer the law” can get a bit complicated out there on the street.
#28: Finfan: While I appreciate your apparent first-hand knowledge of law enforcement practices, as a layman it seems to me that the scenario you describe above seems to bolster the argument that the officers should have performed a sobriety test.
Such a test could determine if her apparent disorientation was caused by 1) a whack on the head or 2) Jose Cuervo and his friend Bud.
Also in the unlikely event that a suspect who smells of alcohol and acts disoriented is actually suffering from traumatic brain injury it would seem that the test could protect the suspect from a false drunk driving arrest.
In the Woodall case it would seem that a preponderance of the evidence would suggest that a sobriety test was in order.
MC,
My scenario, a collage constructed from real-life arguments and allegations, “seems” to you to bolster the argument for a sobriety test. But I suspect that were a jury hearing this case they would be offered the opinion of an expert or two who would contradict your conclusion and agree with the sergeant. And that, MC, is the nature of the beast. Police officers are given great latitude in performing the duties, not because we prefer it that way, but because they must have it in order to confront the many can’t-win situations that are part of their unique jobs.
Nonetheless, we are not as far apart as you may suspect. In 9 out of ten cases I would accept that the evidence, when viewed in total, would demand a field sobriety test be administered. But I am convinced that the one out of ten exception is possible and can be successfully presented to a jury. Whether this case is the exception or the rule will require that another judgement call be made, one that is sure to be unpopular with somebody.
By the way, I appreciate the exchange.
#22 Finfan: I would say that there is more than a mere “possibility” of a crime being committed in this case. You suggest that in order for a crime to have been committed:
1. Someone must have done something. A drunken 3-car accident would seem to qualify as a pretty obvious “something.”
2. Told someone else to do something.Reports indicate the Police tried to dissuade the paramedics from taking Woodall to the hospital.
3.Or neglected to do something. Such as a field sobriety or blood alcohol test?
4. Acting in such a way that was inconsistent with their sworn duty. If they break the laws they are sword to uphold would that not qualify?
At the least the officers are probably looking at Obstruction of Justice.
Mr O’Connor,
As an attorney you are certainly aware that an employee of a government agency who develops a substance abuse problem cannot be dismissed outright. No, agencies lost that right some time ago in a battle with… attorneys. A substance abuser can no longer be condemned for “conduct unbecoming” because that diagnosis was replaced with “job-related substance abuse” in a battle with… you guessed it, attorneys. Thus, thanks to attorneys, agencies now have to play ring-around-the-rehab until the employee’s misconduct crosses out of the safe confines of his/her “disability” and into the agency’s termination zone.
I seriously doubt that there is a large government agency in this state that isn’t nursing along a few boozing time-bombs who are trying to hang on long enough to retire on a tax-free disability pension. I’m sure no one is happy about it, least of all those employees who continue on, carrying the load, so that they may one day get a pension—fully taxable, of course—of their own.
“Striving to protect our friends” is a description wholly insufficient to describe the camaraderie of those who, as part of a force, wage war, police the streets, protect our borders, or fight fires together. Theirs is a camaraderie as old as mankind, and the belief that it might be ordered or legislated out of them is the mark of someone who doesn’t understand it. Telling an officer on Tuesday that he has to treat with cold objectivity the officer who saved his ass on Monday might sound reasonable in a class on ethics, but it loses its reasonableness as soon as it touches the street. They risk their lives together; we owe them a little wiggle-room.
As for the right of the public, all they have a right to is a police department that strives to be as as good as is humanly possible. Remove the built-in tolerance for basic human needs and behaviors and you will very quickly find yourself living amidst either chaos or a police department that behaves like an army of occupation.
MC,
As I admitted, the level of consideration due Ms Woodall was considerably less than what was allegedly extended. And, if what is alleged is accurate, a mistake was made, one for which the supervisor on the scene must answer.
You are also right about the possibility of a crime having been committed, but that would require that something happened besides the sergeant deciding that an arrest would not be made. Police officers have the discretion to make such decisions—they do it everyday. If there is a crime involved, then someone must have done something, told someone else to do something, or neglected to do something, acting in such a way that was inconsistent with their sworn duty.
But before we get too carried away about the officer’s actions in this case, let me remind you all that many, many people have over the years benefitted from the willingness of police officers to destroy evidence of felony possession so as to spare the public—and protect the futures of young people, from the horrors of our unrealistic drug laws. Of course, the exercise of that kind of discretion doesn’t get complaints.
Don’t get me wrong, MC, I fully understand everyone’s objection to the idea of this driver escaping prosecution. The public’s desire for justice is no secret, it’s just that there is a huge gap between their perception of justice and what the cop has come to know, which is that innocent people who receive full compensation for their damages and injuries are much more fortunate than are the tens of thousands who get hit by the unemployed, uninsured, and undocumented.
#30 Finfan: I think you are correct in your assessment that this case offers a good attorney ammo to raise a reasonable doubt. However if this ends up in court I would not count out the prosecutor who would seem to have a very strong hand. And yes, no matter what the eventual outcome it will be unpopular with somebody. That, too, is the nature of the beast.
I suppose time will tell how this plays out.
My main concern is that justice be done and that this episode not create greater distrust of our police department. Unfortunately the comments here, and elsewhere, suggest the PD has lost credibility on this one. And that, finfan, is bad for everyone in San Jose.
Have a good weekend.
Police work is a profession with extraordinary high rates of divorce and suicide. It has extraordinary rates of job related physical problems including heart disease, cancer, and crippling back problems. Cops deal with horrifying situations on a regular basis for years, so the rest of us don’t have to. Cops deal with many in society who hate them for any reason they can find. The cops deal with a media that thrives and prostitutes itself on a story such as this before an officer has any due process and a chance to defend himself. Is it really a wonder that alcoholism could be a problem with some officers? Alcohol is used as self medication for emotional and physical pain of which is in large supply at our police department. We have a city council and mayor who while saying they support the police department have not added a single officer in over 14 years, leaving SJPD with an extremely overworked and understaffed department. We have certain council persons including a former SJPD officer who receives a job related medical retirement, and another who writes a blog for SJI, who now want to cut medical benefits to retired officers and current officers, basically telling them to deal with their own job related physical and emotional problems. Is it a wonder that alcohol becomes a viable option to some officers? Are they not human like the rest of us?
Jack states, “Alcoholics and enablers are even more dangerous when they are the ones who are meant to protect us: doctors, pilots, paramedics, fire fighters and, especially, armed police officers.” I totally agree with that. I would also throw in judges, lawyers, district attorneys, and defense attorneys. Of this bunch, I would trust police officers more than any of the rest of them to do the right thing, as evidenced by their self-scrutiny in this current situation. All of these professions deal with protecting the greater good of society. All of these professions tend to protect their own. They are all families of sort and that is what families do. We all tend to circle the wagon when one of our own family is in trouble. How many of these professions would have the brutal honesty and integrity to open an investigation on one of its own, knowing the predictable pain it would cause to its own organization?
I commend the SJPD, and police officers in general. They are noble and honorable men and women. Even with their blemishes, 99.9% of the time they do the right thing but we don’t hear about much of that. Instead we have papers like the Mercury and self interest groups such as the “Independent” Police Auditor, or lawyers, masquerading as public watchdogs, who make a living out of the .01% they can catch police officers in a screw up.
Alcoholism is a symptom of a disease. If Jack and others want an outside study of alcoholism at the SJPD, it needs to focus on the cause of this disease and what working conditions are driving some to turn to alcohol. Cops are humans with the same weaknesses we all have. Superman is a fictional character.
Not many people are accusing the police of generally doing the wrong thing. The concern is that the police seem nearly incapable of policing themselves.
Fair enough. Most of us aren’t capable of policing ourselves. This is why we have police, after all.
But it does mean we probably need a stronger independent role for police auditors. Automatic reviews of cases where police interact with officers or their families would be a good start.
This isn’t for the purpose of bashing the police. It’s because police are human, and therefore need to be policed, too.
#33 states, “The concern is that the police seem nearly incapable of policing themselves.” If that was true we wouldn’t be discussing this incident as it was initiated internally within the police department.
#33 also states, “Most of us aren’t capable of policing ourselves….we probably need a stronger independent role for police auditors.” Our “independent” police auditor is anything but independent. Her offices anti-police and subjective bias is as big as the nose. Just look at her history before coming to San Jose. We need a watchdog group to police the anything but “independent” police auditor.