Criminal Justice

NC Sheriff's Lying Invalidates 100+ DWIs, Makes Roads Less Safe!

Who watches the watchers? In this case, the court did. And what it saw was appalling.

|

WRAL

Meet Deputy Robert Davis of the Wake County, North Carolina's Sheriffs Department. Because he is a liar, a judge recently dismissed over 100 cases involving people charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and another 75 cases involving other traffic offenses.

Last week, District Court Judge Jacqueline Brewer disqualified Deputy Robert Davis as a witness after determining that he had lied in at least three cases. Freeman then dismissed other cases in which he was a witness. 

"He violated the defendants' rights," Freeman said. "He was untruthful on the stand."

Wake Sheriff Donnie Harrison said Davis, who had served more than a decade with the sheriff's office, was fired after the information came to light.

Read more here.

The good news is that a lying cop is being held accountable for "testilying." The bad news, as Popehat's Ken White put it on Twitter, is that "legitimately drunk drivers he arrested now have a clean record. Because he lied. Thanks asshole."

Back in 2005, I interviewed Fox News Senior Legal Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano for Reason. He talked about how his encounters with obviously lying police pushed him in a libertarian direction.

Reason: Let's talk about the evolution of your views. During your college years in the late '60s, you wore a "Bomb Hanoi" T-shirt and supported Richard Nixon's law and order campaign. You write that eight years on the bench as a superior court judge in New Jersey turned you into a "born-again individualist," and Fox News Channel viewers can see you regularly argue in favor of restrictions on cops and law enforcement more generally. How did serving on the bench change you?

Napolitano: I had a realization that many [law enforcement agents] were lying. Some of them would acknowledge, not to the extent that I would have them charged with perjury, but in the wink and the nod in a conversation with them afterwards, "Well, we almost don't care if you found out that we kicked in the taillight." "We knew," they'd suggest, "from the profile–Mercedes Benz, New York plates, African-American driver, coming off the George Washington Bridge–it was more likely than not that drugs were in there, and we don't even care." They took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they're violating that oath when they violate the rights of the driver of that car.

Whole thing here.

NEXT: Will the FBI Share Its IPhone-Cracking Methods with Apple?

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. The good news is that a lying cop is being held accountable for “testilying.”

    Well, kinda. I don’t see anybody saying they are going to charge him a hundred counts of perjury.

    1. Damn, I was just going to say this. I don’t see anything that holds him accountable for what he did.

    2. Well, he did lose his job. That means he can no longer assault anyone who doesn’t obey his every whim, and then lie about it, knowing he will be believed. His entire way of life and self identity has been taken away from him. So at least there is that.

      1. For how long, though?

        1. NC state constitution bans collective bargaining for public employees, including cops, so he won’t get it back.

      2. Until he gets hired by the next county over.

        1. Sadly, this is the one case where an officer won’t get rehired. It’s known as a “Brady Problem”.

          If he had negligently or maliciously killed an innocent person, he’d get picked up by another department no questions asked.

    3. That’s because you can’t punish a title. If he was sworn in as Deputy Robert Davis, he was acting as a Deputy Sheriff which is a title – a paper entity. A paper entity cannot be held responsible. Actually, that title was punished, in a manner, by being fired.
      However, Deputy Robert Davis is always a man and the man can be held responsible for his actions. The current and previous victims of his actions while acting as Deputy Sheriff can come back and sue him as Robert Davis, not Deputy Robert Davis, and require compensation for any damages that his actions caused.

  2. …”legitimately drunk drivers he arrested now have a clean record. Because he lied. Thanks asshole.”

    This is exactly what the public needs to hear in order for them to give two fucks about testilying. Their own self-centered interests in stopping it.

    That said. Until the drunks committed an actionable offense against a true victim, this is pre-crime policing. And you just pandered to it. Thanks, asshole.

    1. Exactly; that jumped out at me as well. Considering the damage DUIs have done to the 4th Amendment along with the fucking drug war, anyone who cheers on drunk driving arrests is either a fucking moron or doesn’t give a fuck about actual civil liberties, not to mention being innocent until proven guilty of actually harming anyone.

    2. I agree.

      It’s not that “pre-crime policing” doesn’t work. It is simply immoral.

      If I pass a law that restricts you to your home whenever you aren’t grocery shopping or traveling to and from work, it would likely reduce real crime. But…

      1. it would likely reduce real crime

        Only if you exempt the people enforcing the law from the definition of crime.

        Making more laws doesn’t reduce crime. It just shifts who the perpetrators are.

    3. Maybe reckless driving was the cause. I don’t necessarily think reckless driving is victimless even if I avoided a head on collision, let’s say.

      1. I don’t necessarily think reckless driving is victimless

        Define reckless driving.

        Is it the same for everyone? Are the standards for white haired knuckle peeker the same as for Mario Andretti?

        Does the cop decide what’s reckless? No chance of that being abused.

        Nope, it’s a slippery slope to tyranny.

      2. How? If no one is harmed, how is it not victimless?

      3. If someone is driving reckless they are putting the public at risk. However until there is a victim, they haven’t harmed anyone, so you have only the word of a cop. That leaves room for abuse.

    4. Came here to say the same basic thing. Though the pre-crime complaint is interesting. Isn’t it an offense against victims to put their lives in undue danger? There has to be a cutoff at some point where you are allowed to act in your defense before the recklessly-driving drunk successfully plows you down. I’d call it more of a case of hysterics and emotional lawmaking going way too far. Not to mention just plain bad science with the BAC silliness.

      1. There has to be a cutoff at some point where you are allowed to act in your defense before the recklessly-driving drunk successfully plows you down.

        I suggest getting a tracked vehicle.

      2. There is no offense until there is an actual victim. Once that minimum baseline has been met, we are free to discuss aggravating circumstances.

        The person who gets loaded and runs over a clerk biking home from the night shift is not appreciably different than the soccer mom doped up on her kid’s Ritalin and checking Facebook who plows through a bus stop.

        /my logics, let me show you it

        1. I admit it is a tough and problematic issue. But I’m not seeing your response resolving it.

          A man pulls a gun and points it at you. At what point are you a victim who is allowed to use force against him in your defense. When the bullet touches your skin?

          1. No, when he pulls the gun and points it at me.

            1. I agree. Though you haven’t been physically harmed and are only acting to counter a risk of being harmed.

          2. We’ve gone from culpable negligence to criminal malicious intent.

            If the distinction is not now clear, once pointed out, then this conversation is an exercise in futility.

            1. I agree that there is a clear distinction. I do not agree that this resolves the issue since it is still an example of prevention of physical harm.

              Does debating principle upset you for some reason or are you such a smartass dick when talking to everyone?

              1. Any offensive intent is in your head.

                1. ok that would be option #3.

        2. And I completely agree about there being no difference in culpability from equally reckless behaviors other than drinking. Was that even directed at me? I cited emotion, bad science, and hysterics in attacks on the current law. Not sure what you get from that regarding what version of the law you think I support.

          1. I think, and feel free to correct me if my analysis is off, that where we are diverging here is in the manner of self-defense. You are including “the long arm of the law” or government action as a manner of self-defense.

            Take your example of the man pointing the gun at you. At what point does the government step in to stop him from doing so to defend you? At the point of the gun purchase?

            Et cetera.

            1. No I’d say the state involvement is a separate issue, and agree it is a dangerous one, as always. Especially when operating under the moral hazard that they profit by serving “justice” for people who never asked for it.

              Require other drivers press charges and be the witness, and we’re back to the question of when are they harmed.

    5. DUI laws and the BAC “limit” have been bullshit since the beginning. It’s what Epi said, the 4th amendment has been completely ignored. CA’s retarded implied consent law also craps on the 5th amendment, because you’re looking at automatic fines and license suspensions before you even see a judge, simply for refusing one of those (infallible!) chemical tests. Because refusal is an admission of guilt, you see. Thanks MADD, you assholes.

  3. Just a bad apple. All other cops are as honest as George Washington. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  4. Speaking of making things less safe:

    Local rag runs breathless article about our local inventor coming up with the cell phone gun

    But Nord Bence of Protect Minnesota has her doubts. “Anytime a child sees a phone ? they’re used to playing Candy Crush on it ? we have to be worried.”

    She said a phone gun, due to its easy accessibility, could also be used by men to intimidate women in domestic violence situations.

    Right to the kids and women argument. They also try to say that it will make the cops’ jobs much harder now. Like the cops are shooting people with phones already.

    1. Maybe don’t leave your gun phone lying around if you have kids. Otherwise I don’t see a problem.

      1. It’s a stupid idea and an ergonomic nightmare. Otherwise I don’t see a problem.

        1. I keep shooting myself when I take selfies.

          1. How do I make a Kickstarter to get these phones into the hands of selfie aficionados?

        2. So I can put you down as not wanting one?

    2. You know what else is easy to conceal and potentially lethal?

      Oh, right, an actual gun.

    1. If they were all white lies, Davis should be charged with HATE CRIMES.

      1. Cultural appropriation!

  5. What if, the government lied?

    1. What if,

      Hmm, the hanging comma?

      Is that like “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” where the first half of the sentence really has no bearing on the 2nd half of the sentence?

      1. Or simply a pause placed within the sentence to accentuate the Judges shtick?

        I no grammar good.

  6. The bad news, as Popehat’s Ken White put it on Twitter, is that “legitimately drunk drivers he arrested now have a clean record. Because he lied. Thanks asshole.”

    Do we actually know this? Were the convictions of drivers involved in crashes expunged? Or are we just assuming the validity of bac levels as definitive indicators of “drunkenness” and “peril” despite a complete lack of other evidence?

    1. How many were “legitimately drunk”?

      And what happened to “Better ten guilty men go free . . . “?

      1. Apparently that was just backwards. The precautionary principle is now applied to every facet of life, so if you can’t prove you’re 100% safe, you’re assumed guilty.

      2. “Legitimately drunk”, is that like “legitimate rape”?

        Can you be drunk but not legitimately drunk?

      3. I don’t think Ken is angry that some potentially innocent men go free.

        My guess is that he, being a former federal prosecutor and not a Rumpole style purist, wants the genuinely guilty to be punished. And, in my experience, not an unusual attitude of prosecutors turned defense attorneys.

        1. I don’t think Ken is angry that some potentially innocent men go free.

          No, he’s angry that that the State had insufficient evidence to convict someone. At least a handwave in the direction of “And that’s the way its supposed to work” would be nice.

          But, yeah, once a prosecutor, always a prosecutor.

    2. I detect irony in pope hat’s comment. Fighting fire with fire. How many times do we hear law enforcement try to justify illegal checkpoints in the name of safety? If they are so concerned about safety then why do they jeopardize their convictions? But you are correct. We don’t know that they weren’t all just bullshit charges.

  7. Well, he did lose his job.

    Stay tuned. I’m sure the union is beavering away at returning this fine civil servant to his rightful place in society.

    1. Stamping on a human face, forever?

    2. NC state constitution bans collective bargaining for public employees, including cops, so no he won’t get it back.

      Might get hired somewhere else.

  8. Were they all transgender?

  9. May law enforcement officers lie? Yes
    Here’s the reason why:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LXY3aXg2Ts

    1. I’ve always wondered if they actually teach them to fill out false reports, tamper with evidence, and commit perjury while in the Academy, or if it is something they learn on the job.

      1. What they train them to do is always have the magic words in their reports, to prove out every element of a crime.

        Whether those magic words line up with reality is not really a consideration.

        1. As far as the courts are concerned, reality is whatever the cops say it is.

        2. Always yell “He’s coming right for us!”

        3. Look how often the same words come up in the stories we see here.

          I’ve noticed how often people need to be subdued because they are “flailing” their arms. Not hitting; or throwing punches; or swinging their arms. Somehow police all around the country are using the same relatively uncommon word in their reports.

          1. You are lucky there are heroes in blue saving you from random arm flailings. -PoliceOne

  10. Can you be drunk but not legitimately drunk?

    Can you be “legally drunk” but still perfectly competent to drive home without posing any threat to anything or anyone?

    [SPOILER ALERT] Yes.

  11. The bad news, as Popehat’s Ken White put it on Twitter, is that “legitimately drunk drivers he arrested now have a clean record. Because he lied. Thanks asshole.”

    As much as I like Ken White, sometimes he’s a fucking idiot. This is one of those times.

  12. Curious. What fraction of the profiled drivers actually had drugs? If it is half of them, then my outrage meter falls.

    If it is 5% then I am pretty pissed.

    Ignoring the idiocy factor of the drug war.

  13. “legitimately drunk drivers he arrested now have a clean record.”

    OBJECTION! Witness states facts not in evidence!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.