shiawasseecounty.net

Doctors vs. Prosecuting Attorney. Whom should be more privileged? Whom should have charges dropped or plea bargained? Can't we all just forget that the county prosecuter caused an accident, left the scene of said accident and has an alcohol problem? Should all carreers be fully restored? Should Randy tuck his tail and resign?

Colbry should resign and the doctors should still go to trial.

It should be noted that there are only rumors that alcohol was involved. We have one or two individuals who seem to have connections inside the sheriff's department, claiming to have either seen the deputy's report or have spoken with someone who did see it, stating that the incident was alcohol related. If that is the case it would appear that a serious violation of confidentiality has occurred within the sheriff's department. I have trouble giving credibility to people that are willing to violate confidentiality requirements, and leak information in order to bolster their own importance.

First of all it is not against the law for an officer to "leak" info. They are allowed to discuss a case that they are not investigating but have knowledge of.

Secondly, I think that the charges agaisnt the doctors should still stand. However, the whole case ad evidenced used should be looked at with a magnifying glass. HE prosecutor has to green light any type of investigation like this. Was the prosecutor under the influence at any time during the ongoing investigation that may have had an impact on these charges in reference to charges? Was he under the influence during pre lims? Every case he was active on isnt safe due to his carelessness.

I am a huge supporter of Dr Huff. I still think that the case should move forward. After being their for his 1st pre lim I wasnt convinced that he broke a law and that he is covered under 3 separate entrapment defenses. My facebook discussions have them highlighted.

I do feel it is a personal vedetta due to the loss of asst pros. Edwards. She should be recused from each case due to her owm personal feelings.

One of many, with a little research you can get the police report on Colbry off the internet.
www.tracview.com

No citation was issued, and William Gibson said he was place in the car without handcuffs. Also Gibson said Coblry's car jerked forward as the cops went towards the vehicle, like he was going to run again. The cop ran up and ripped him out of the vehicle.

Laws I know he broke.
Drinking and Driving (Reports says it)
Failed to Yield (03 Hazard)
Hit and Run
Speeding 70 in a 55
Reckless driving
Refused Breathalyzer
Police report says he wasn't wearing a seat belt. (Restraint 09)

And no citation.
Click it or ticket

I have no interest in paying to see a traffic accident report involving anyone else. Since you are the person who claimed to be privy to the actual report at the sheriff's department, why don't you publish the report free of charge. The system that you are pushing is only as good as the data entry process.

I never stated that violating confidentiality in this case involved breaking any specific law. I do know from my own previous experience working with defense industries under contract to the Federal government, that breaking confidentiality can result in one being convicted of a felony and imprisoned. Even company confidential documentation can result in that. When you get into government classified documents, the penalties get more and more severe as the classification level increases. Most employers that deal with confidential information require their employees to sign contracts regarding how confidential information is to be handled, and the consequences of breaking that confidentiality are specified in the employment contract. Most of the time the minimum consequence is termination of employment. The willingness of people to violate confidentiality speaks poorly of their trustworthiness, and thus of their credibility. If I can not trust them, why should I believe anything they say. In the case of public information, there are approved methods of obtaining that information, that protect the employer and the employee, as well as any person involved in the report. It is too early for Freedom Of Information Act to come into play in this case, because the investigation is not complete and no conclusions can be legitimately drawn with partial information.

What we have here seems to be a vigilante operation intent on whipping up a lynch mob. It is clearly an attempt to try the prosecutor in the court of public opinion, before all the facts are known and the legal process can run its course. The motivation for that seems to be that prosecuting popular local doctors against the will of the people, justifies taking any action that may delay justice for those doctors. Of course that implies that some people believe the doctors are guilty, and they don't want those doctors being tried and convicted. If they really believe that those doctors are innocent then they would want that trial to occur quickly so they could be exonerated.

One of Many, I agree with your novel on "confidential documentation ", but my post was not towards Randy Colbry. I don't believe a lynch mob needs to go after anyone. I believe that foul play has already happen in regards to this investigation, and believe we are being fed lies from the people that we vote in to office. The police report is a well documented, with three eyewitnesses. There is no question of guilt, and a trial will show that. But why was he not put under arrested, why was he not served a citation. The only reason for this is who he is.

Apparently you didnt read my reply in its entirety. I agree that the trials should continue unless gross misconduct can be proven. The Dr I support is still in the pre lim stage. It is still up to Judge Dignan to determine if a crime was commited.

Please reference where there would be a confidentiality clause within a publicly funded sheriffs dept.

A little something from an article I read..

Horroc, one of your previous posts clearly states that the deputy's report indicates drinking and driving, yet you also state that no Breathalyzer test was performed, so the determination of drinking and driving is entirely subjective on the part of the deputy who filed the report. Does that report indicate that the deputy smelled alcohol in the vehicle or on the person? Without the objective test report from the official lab stating whether alcohol was in his system or if there was some other substance that impaired his abilities, it is just a matter of opinion.

If the Sheriff does not have a confidentiality policy regarding incomplete investigations, he has left the county wide open for lawsuits regarding the violation of civil rights of people who are noted in those police reports. Once investigations are complete and facts are known and supported with evidence, then releasing those reports under the Freedom Of Information Act would be appropriate. Allowing unsubstantiated and unverifiable allegations to be made against anyone is irresponsible and could result in taxpayers' paying for losing lawsuits on the basis of defamation.

From what you post it sounds as though you have yourself seen and read the deputy's report. Are you a deputy, a clerk or maybe a snoopy janitor that works in the Sheriff's department?



Your allegation that there were three eyewitnesses to the drunken aspect of this charge is suspicious. Did any of these eyewitnesses smell alcohol on the clothing or the breath of the prosecutor after he was extracted from his vehicle? If not then the allegation of drunkenness is nothing more than the suspicion of the deputy that filed the report. There are other potential causes for the impairment of ability that can explain the effects that were observed.

In some states refusal to take the Breathalyzer test on the scene of the stop, is deemed to be sufficient evidence of intoxication, and results in automatic conviction for driving under the influence. That is because those states have an implied consent clause in their law, stating that acceptance of the driver's license mandates a driver submit to that test when requested by an officer, and failure to do so is the equivalent to a confession. Some states allow a driver to refuse a breath test and request a blood test at a hospital, while other states allow the police officer to draw a blood sample on the scene. The point is different states have different laws with different consequences for different actions.

Colbry obviously violated numerous provisions of the law. What we don't know is if that was because of voluntarily impairing his ability to drive by using mind altering substances, or if he was having a medical emergency of some sort. It is not unusual to hear of people passing out while driving, or becoming very erratic in their driving and having accidents due to strokes, low blood sugar or epileptic seizure. I know people who have seizure disorders, and they are prohibited from driving for a certain period of time following their latest seizure. Once that period of time elapses they are once again allowed to drive. Other potential medical issues could be a sleep disorder such as sleep apnea, which when undiagnosed and untreated can result in people going to sleep in broad daylight while actively engaged in conversations or other activities including driving.

When extenuating circumstances such as these are discovered by medical testing, often these people are not held criminally liable for the damage they have caused. In most cases they are held civilly liable for damages, and their insurance pays the victims. It is not unheard of for these people to be accused of driving while drunk, before the results of the medical tests are available.

I had a set of grandparents that were killed by a drunken driver. That person had a history of epileptic seizure. He was tried on a manslaughter charge, but was not convicted because the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it was drunkenness that caused him to lose control, rather than an epileptic seizure. I have no fondness for people that drink and drive. If they have been shown to be intoxicated by objective test, and driving while in that condition, I would prefer that they permanently lose their driving privileges. If driving while intoxicated they injure someone, they should be incarcerated just as though they used a deadly weapon such as a knife or a gun to attack someone.

What I am opposed to is the premature conclusion that alcohol was the cause of the accident in this case. Note that I said PREMATURE conclusion. Once the test results are in we will know how to proceed. If the prosecutor was driving while intoxicated, then he should resign and should also receive a jail sentence.

I am sorry for my mess up. The witnesses are shown at the accident and not the mile and half were Colbry was picked up. So they would not be able to know if Colbry was drunk. They do know that Colbry hit the 55 year old man and ran. In regards to the police report, section 34 of the UD-10, Yes is indicated under alcohol and test type is blood. Witness 1, William Gibson, saw Colbry taken to the police car and he was unable to walk on his own.

With or without alcohol in his system he should have stopped, and he should have went to jail for not stopping.

It appears that the police report is indicating the officer's suspicion of alcohol and the type of test for alcohol that was performed, not the result of the test. Unless there is something further to indicate the reason for the officer's suspicion, no conclusion can legitimately be derived from the report.

When people are not in full control while driving, the officer needs to determine if they need medical assistance immediately, and if the officer is not certain an ambulance should be called so an EMT can assess the individual. Even if the officer definitely smells alcohol, that does not eliminate the possibility that a serious medical condition needs to be dealt with immediately. You don't want someone suffering a stroke or going into a diabetic coma to be sent to the jail instead of to the hospital.

I totally agree with your point One of many, but after he is medically fit to leave the hospital he should have been put in a cell.