Drunk driving

Texas Judge Pleaded to Cop Not to Arrest Her for Alleged DUI, "It'll ruin my life"

|

sober as a judge
booking photo

On Saturday night police in McAllen, Texas, pulled over Nora Longoria, an elected appeals court judge. According to police, an officer pulled her over after seeing her Lexus going 69 miles an hour in a 55 mile an hour zone. The officer's police report says Longoria appeared to be drunk and showed him a badge to tell him she was a judge. He says she failed a field sobriety test when he tried to arrest her and admitted to drinking five beers in the evening but not in the last three hours.

The Valley Morning Star reports:

When the officers told her that she was under arrest, Longoria became distraught and said, "Please let me go home. I live a couple of miles away … you are going to ruin my life. I worked hard for 25 years to be where I am today," the court document states.

During the exchange of words, Longoria refused to let the officers place the handcuffs on her and told the officers that they would have to drag her to the patrol car. The police officers and the sergeant told the judge that if she kept refusing their orders they would charge her with resisting arrest, at which point she let them place the handcuffs in front of her and they took her to the police station where she refused to take a breathalyzer, court records show.

Longoria was released on her own recognizance the next morning, charged with a misdemeanor. Longoria might consider reading the case to abolish drunk driving laws. Then again, she probably has an election to win again at some point.

Advertisement

NEXT: Gay Marriage OK'd in Oklahoma by Federal Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. you are going to ruin my life

    Of course she knows exactly what the system she is a part of does. Of course she does. Scumbag.

    1. She might be able to find work as a stripper. Just sayin’.

      1. She does have the dead look in her eyes.

        1. Well, her life is over.

          1. Nah. She’s already got the job. Had this happened before she got the job, then there’s a possibility it could have kept her out. But she’s in. Like Flynn.

            1. But she’s in. Like Flynn.

              You,mean she’s fucking teenagers?

              1. You,mean she’s fucking teenagers?

                That’s a cougar face if I’ve ever seen one.

            2. But she can’t go to Canada any more. No more poutine. Her life is over.

              As a general rule, Canada does not allow persons with DUI’s to enter their country, although travelers who require in-depth information regarding the process of applying for a waiver or other admissibility questions can reach the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) during regular business hours

              1. Why would anyone want to go to Canada?

                1. That’s a question for Smilin’ Joe or Rufus, not me.

                2. Whistler Blackcomb. That is all.

                  1. Yeah, why would you want to go to Utah or Colorado when you can ski on rocks in ice storms?

                    1. Dude, the best ski week I ever had was at Whistler. I like Utah, but when it’s good at Whistler, it’s unbeatable. Lower altitude means less fatigue, so you can go at it all day. I almost got to 100,000 vertical feet in 1 day. Not to mention the lower drinking age…

      2. But she’s over 26. I thought that was the cutoff.

        1. Only in the major cities. I’m sure there’s a joint on I-95 in Florida somewhere that will take her.

        2. Well, she certainly isn’t going to be working somewhere with a nice lunch buffet.

        3. The New Orleans Saints could grandmother her in.

    2. See Bobbie Bridge.

  2. ? you are going to ruin my life.

    Said every defendant in front of her on a DUI charge.

    1. “Well maybe you should have thought of that a little earlier YOU LAWBREAKING SCUMBAG” *bang* “Next case.”

  3. When I was a clerk in Texas, I remember a guy who had been convicted of his third DUI. He faced life in prison even though there was no accident and nobody hurt. Judge Roy Bean was a Texan after all.

  4. Having just had my car totalled and escaping near-certain death by about two feet in a head-on with a drunk driver cruising at 40 mph on the wrong side of a divided thoroughfare, I’m not so sure that DUI laws should be repealed.

    No doubt the administration of justice is grotesque, but DUI is a crime.

    1. Is it less of a crime for someone to drive sober on the wrong side of a divided thoroughfare?

      1. Good point. Perhaps we arrest people for driving recklessly and not base it on arbitrary blood alcohol limits.

        1. if it were about curbing behaviors, we would penalize the behaviors accordingly. It’s about making money off those with something to lose.

          1. Thats exactly right if the you don’t have anything to take the state seems to be let you slip through the cracks.

        2. I know it’s a crazy thing to admit on the internet, but I’m not sure what to think on this. I’m leaning towards the idea that DUI should be an aggravating factor in the sentencing of whatever crime is committed, but not a crime itself. Criminalizing potential is quite a slippery slope.

          1. Criminalizing potential is quite a slippery slope.

            That’s what the Drug War is all about.

            1. And anti 2nd amendment activism.

            2. Not really sarc. Possession of alcohol is not illegal and neither should drugs. But being so reckless as to get to up from the flo up rises to the level of disregarding your fellow man’s life to such a degree, that it becomes a crime. I figured all the smarties here could see the nuances involved, but apparently not.

              I for one think if you didn’t hurt anyone while you were drunk, then punishment should be light. But I do also understand the consequences of having no DUI crimes. Basically, you can get as drunk as you want, drive over a crowd of people, and if you’re judgment proof, then nothing at all will happen to you.

              1. Basically, you can get as drunk as you want, drive over a crowd of people, and if you’re judgment proof, then nothing at all will happen to you.

                If you’re that judgment proof, is a DUI charge going to make the difference?

                1. You, the victim, get some solace knowing that the offender is going to jail. And the possibility of jail time is a deterrent. To think that jail is never a deterrent, then imagine a world where the worst thing a thief can face is a civil lawsuit.

              2. Basically, you can get as drunk as you want, drive over a crowd of people, and if you’re judgment proof, then nothing at all will happen to you.

                No. Nobody here is against sentence enhancers for driving when drunk. You’re projecting.

                1. No, I’m not. This article referred to a 2010 article to abolish all DUI laws. Maybe you’re projecting.

              3. At some point, gross negligence and disregard for the safety of others is criminal.

                It is reasonable to prohibit driving while intoxicated just like it reasonable to prohibit firing a rifle straight up in the air in a populated area. The wrongful act is in reckless endangerment. The act is greatly exacerbated if it causes actual harm, but it wrong even if no actual harm occurs.

      2. The sober driver can legitimately claim that there was no mens rea in his driving on the wrong side of the road, that it was an negligent error without criminal intent.

        The impaired driver had no business driving. He intentionally operated his vehicle in a condition that any reasonable person knows would greatly increase the probability of making such error. At some point, negligence is criminal. Whether this is at 0.08, or 0.16 as was the guy who hit me, is debatable.

        To tell the truth, I feel sorry for the guy who hit me because the US justice system is so grotesque. I bear no ill feelings towards him. Even though the collision created a huge hassle of getting a settlement out of his insurer and loss of a car that I really liked, at least he was insured.

    2. If all DUI laws were abolished, what would your recourse be if a drunk driver drove his car through your living room? Your right to call him a fag, buy some dope and then drive to the local abortion clinic?

      1. So driving into your living room is only illegal because of DUI laws? You must have lots of unwanted, but sober, guests.

        1. Don’t you realize, Scientist? The demon rum makes driving recklessly so much worse. Because animism.

          1. In that case, they should leave the driver alone and prosecute the empty bottle. They call them spirits for a reason, people!

            1. The Spirit of Jack Daniels fucked up my toilet last week. How do I press charges?

              1. Don’t bother getting the justice system involved. Just take the (presumably) empty bottle out to the desert and execute it. Bring home a few shards as a warning to its friends.

            2. No one needs a rum bottle over 3 ounces.

        2. It’s not a crime if it was due to negligence. Do I need to go into the whole criminal versus civil legal thing?

          1. Criminal negligence is a crime.

          2. F- repeat Criminal Law 101.

            1. Oh dear. Negligence is not a crime. You are confusing two separate concepts that contain different words 1) Negligence ( a civil concept) and 2) Criminal negligence ( a criminal concept).

              F – Repeat English 101.

              1. Negligence is one of the four mens rea levels in criminal law. “Negligent homicide” is a thing, for instance.

                Wanna get smacked down some more, or have you had enough? I find morons on the internet are generally willing to dig themselves deeper and prove their stupidity over and over, and I welcome that here if that’s the way you want to go. You might have to pull a Tulpa and get a new name!

              2. “It’s not a crime if it was due to negligence.”

                -you

                “A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.”

                -Model Penal Code

                I move for a directed verdict against the moron.

                1. Texas Penal Code 6.02:

                  (d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:(1) intentional;(2) knowing;(3) reckless;(4) criminal negligence.

                2. Texas Criminal Code:

                  (d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.

                  Texas Civil Practice Code:

                  (11) “Gross negligence” means an act or omission:(A) which when viewed objectively from the standpoint of the actor at the time of its occurrence involves an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and(B) of which the actor has actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.

                  WOW
                  SO DIFFERENCE
                  MUCH PERRY MASON

              3. 1) Negligence ( a civil concept) and 2) Criminal negligence ( a criminal concept).

                I hope you don’t think adding “criminal” to NEGLIGENCE somehow means you think you “won”, because that would be fucking saaaad.

                1. And he claims to be a lawyer! I think he might actually be Tulpa, as Tulpa’s thing was claiming to have jobs he didn’t have.

                    1. You’re both idiots. Ever lawyer understands when you use the term “negligence,” you are referring to civil liability for accidents which caused another to suffer injuries. To try and parse and mince words by suggesting that I’m conflating a civil liability with a criminal liability is sad.

                      Neither of you proved anything other than you like to argue something you clearly don’t understand. You must be law students. I’ve litigated for decades and have received MILLIONS for my clients. I passed the TX and LA bar exams back to back by studying at home. What have either of you two done?

                    2. Ha ha. hi, Tulpa!

                      “To try and parse and mince words by suggesting that I’m conflating a civil liability with a criminal liability is sad.”

                      No, actually, you said, “It’s not a crime if it was due to negligence”, which is flat fucking wrong.

                    3. I did say that Tone Deaf. And every lawyer knows that simply writing “negligence” means civil negligence. It’s really that simple. Not sure why you can’t accept it though.

      2. That’s positive law thinking.

        What difference does it make whether he was drunk or not?

        He drove through your house and he’s responsible for the damage.

        1. So you think there should be no such thing as crimes? Everything will be settled through lawsuits? Murder, robbery, getting wasted and plowing into a crowd of people? So if the defendant is broke, and all you have as a remedy is a civil suit, you’re ok with that?

          Somehow I expected…more around here.

          1. gross or criminal negligence.

          2. Conversion is a tort.

            Battery is a tort.

            Trespass is a tort.

            The fuck you got against the common law?

            1. You aren’t too bright are you? Common law and civil law are two different legal systems. I know as I am a licensed lawyer in Texas, DC and Louisiana. Louisiana is a civil law system while Texas is a common law system. Neither distinction has anything to do with whether wrongs are redressed civilly or criminally.

              1. Dang, where did you go to school? Cooley?

              2. I know as I am a licensed lawyer

                Bob help us all.

              3. LA is the only state with the civil law, and it’s entirely irrelevant.

                You really stepped in it this time. Let’s have a lesson!

                “So you think there should be no such thing as crimes? Everything will be settled through lawsuits? Murder, robbery, getting wasted and plowing into a crowd of people? So if the defendant is broke, and all you have as a remedy is a civil suit, you’re ok with that?”

                What’s prima facie unreasonable about this, as the common law already has torts for all these things? Battery is a tort, wrongful death is a tort, conversion is a tort.

                Besides being a complete strawman (no one EVER said crimes shouldn’t exist; that was all you, new Tulpa!), this ignores that tort law is BETTER for the victim as the standard of proof is preponderence.

                Lesson over.

                1. We are talking about deterrents and punishment for certain kinds of conduct. It was posited that all DUI criminality should be abolished. Ok then. If a guy could go out and get wasted and kill a crowd of people, and all he would possibly suffer is a civil suit — and he’s broke btw — then you would be ok with that? That’s ALL I was positing.

                  And you’re dumbass goes and tries to lecture me on “criminal negligence” and “common law has torts for this…” What good is a tort remedy if the drunk driver has no fucking money?!

                  1. NOPE. We said that DUI should not be a crime, not that plowing into a crowd of people should not be a crime. You fail Reading.

                    Go away, Tulpa.

                    1. Here goes my last attempt at a breakthrough:

                      If someone accidentally plows into a crowd of people, you want that to be a crime?

                      If someone gets shitfaced drunk, and then plows into a crowd of people accidentally, you want that to be a crime? Or not?

                      Do you not understand how being drunk while driving makes it more likely to run people over? And that therefore, legislatures want to deter it by making it a crime?

                      Your position would make things that are otherwise civil liabilities turn into crimes.

                2. What’s prima facie unreasonable about this, as the common law already has torts for all these things? Battery is a tort, wrongful death is a tort, conversion is a tort.

                  They can also be crimes too. Go back to junior high Civics to learn about the difference between civil and criminal law.

          3. Somehow I expected…more around here.

            See ya.

      3. If all DUI laws were abolished, what would your recourse be if a drunk driver drove his car through your living room?

        How do you remember how to breathe?

    3. Driving while impaired is a crime. DUI is an arbitrary means of prosecuting people who may or may not be impaired.

      1. It’s primarily a simplification of the evidence required to convict. A reckless driving charge is harder to prosecute. DUI, not so much.

      2. But blood alcohol limits are as close as we can come to an objective, empirical way of determining if someone is likely impaired. If we eliminate those laws and consolidate them into an umbrella of “reckless driving”–how do we define reckless driving? The subjective determination of some cop? Are you comfortable with that?

        1. It’s already that way. A cop can nail you for reckless driving at any time. The DUI is extra sauce added by vindictive politicians at the behest of special interests like MADD to super-punish the sinners…I mean drinkers.

          1. further, how can we determine that a person with who blows above the legal limit is “impaired”? We can all agree, some drivers are so bad they shouldn’t drive sober or drunk. Surely, the opposite scenario exists where some people are still good drivers above the limit.

            1. As you said above, it’s not about impairment. It’s about setting arbitrary numbers (that they are constantly pushing to lower), over which people can be extorted from. The money train surrounding DUIs is sickening. It’s an entire industry. And it has absolutely nothing to do with justice or preventing accidents.

        2. The subjective determination of some cop? Are you comfortable with that?

          With today’s technology, why not? If all the cop cars have cameras, and if every officer wore one, then wouldn’t there be video evidence to corroborate the cops word?

        3. Well, reckless driving is already illegal so why not just stick with that because DUI laws just give cops another pretense to pull someone over.

          And determining whether someone *may* be drunk just from driving behavior is even more subjective.

          Furthermore, you can reduce the reckless determination to whether or not their action is an imminent threat to nearby motorists (i.e. track the vectors). So a guy who swerves across 4 lanes in the middle of the night with no one around would NOT be reckless.

        4. In my state you can blow a 0.0 and be convicted of DUI. The per se limits are in place BECAUSE it was too hard to prove impairment of people with BACs well in excess of the old 0.1 standard that they initially pushed to set the per se standard at..

      3. Driving while impaired is a crime.

        What is impaired? Driving while a bit sleepy? With a painful sunburn that limits your motion? Are these criminal acts?

        1. Dogs in the front seat, for sure.

          1. Dude, make your wife sit in the backseat.

            1. She’s better at driving and easier on the eyes. I am happy to let her drive.

    4. DUI should be roughly equivalent to reckless endangerment if it is coupled with improper driving.

    5. Did making DUI a crime stop the driver from being drunk? If you had died would the law have really protected you in any way?

      1. Or, would the crash be any less horrible if the person had been on the wrong side of the road because they were sleepy or distracted or British?

        1. Or, FSM forbid, SE Asian

          1. the hollor….the hollor…

  5. I’m guessing that this judge has a reputation for not showing sufficient professional courtesy to police in court. What goes around comes around.

  6. What a cunt

  7. Well, she’s an appeals court judge, so it’s probable that she’s either asked,to,see,cases,where she faulted the investigative process or threw our evidence the cops had collected in a way she questioned.

    IOW, this was probably a case of Contempt Of Cop, writ large.

  8. The officer’s police report says Longoria appeared to be drunk and showed him a badge to tell him she was a judge.

    Judges carry badges?

    1. Judges have a lot more privileges than you think they do. Like prosecutors, they are often automatically granted concealed weapons permits, they are given a ton of deference by the lawyers (for both sides) that know they have to appear before them in their court, etc.

      My grandfather’s brother was a judge in New Jersey. He had serious juice.

      1. Apparently she didn’t have enough privilege in this case. Then again charged does not mean prosecuted, and prosecuted doesn’t mean convicted.

  9. Any relation to Eva?

    1. The picture would suggest no.

  10. charged with a misdemeanor only? Why not full DUI?

    1. A1.) Maybe she wasn’t drunk
      A2.) System taking care of its own

      1. A3.) many states do not allow for a felony charge if the suspect refuses to take a breathalyzer. However, the forefeet their license for a year and the penalty is the same as a guilty plea as it applies to the DMV reinstatement process.

        Jesus, people. Read almost any “cop got pulled for a DUI story. A common theme,is their refusal to take a breathalyzer.

        1. You lose your license either way for six months in FL. So don’t blow unless you’ve had nothing to drink and haven’t chewed any gum with sugar alcohols in them. And you think they’ve calibrated their machine recently. There is no upside to blowing once they’ve decided you’re a possible DUI. Getting your license suspended is the best possible outcome once they start talking breathalyzers and FSTs.

    2. Wait, what? DUI isn’t a misdemeanor anymore?

    3. In most states the first and second DUIs without serious injury are misdemeanors. Technically. Since they follow you around and can never be expunged, they might as well be felonies.

  11. So it turns out all drunk-driving female judges aren’t in Florida. It seemed that way for a while.

  12. Wait. We seem to be taking the cop’s side of the story. Any particular reason? Are Texas cops more honest than other cops, as in, always and impeccably so?

    1. Yeah, she made have made one ruling too many against the Thin Blue Line.

    2. We also see the photo. And the alt-text.

  13. Driving under the influence is absolutely a crime and should be illegal, but the means of enforcement should not involve some arbitrary cutoff number and instruments with extremely dubious QA/QC and usage practices.

    1. So maybe a reaction-time test, of the sort that Johnny Fever got better at the more he drank? Then it’s no longer about drinking, and instead about actual ability to drive safely.

    2. Driving under the influence is absolutely a crime and should be illegal

      A crime should have a victim, and with DUI ***Per se**** there is none.

      It’s been demonstrably proven that texting is more dangerous than DUI. Do you want the same draconian nonsense brought down on that too?

  14. Nora Longoria

    Too bad it’s not *Longora*. “Nora Longora” rolls off the tongue.

    1. Now I’m laughing

  15. She should have thought about what the consequences may be before setting out for the evening. Not everything gets excused with a “Do you know who I am?”

    “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.