Nashville DUI Officers Warned to Arrest More People - Or Else

[TMMT]

Nashville DUI Officers Warned to Arrest More People - Or Else

DUI Officers Warned to Arrest More People - Or Else - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports

Metro police say their specialized DUI units are finding fewer drunk drivers to arrest.

But if you think they're celebrating that drivers are finally getting the message, think again.

In fact, a NewsChannel 5 investigation discovered supervisors are now warning some officers that if they don't find more people to arrest, they could be in trouble themselves.

Police insist that's not a quota, but NewsChannel 5 Investigates found an innocent man who isn't convinced.

Our cameras were there as 18-year-old Martin Bills went to court to get his good name back.

It's a name that was taken when a Metro police officer arrested him back in April on DUI charges. His employer suspended him, and the U.S. Navy told him his plans to enlist would have to wait.

"It put my life on hold for about three weeks now," Bills said. "I can't go to work. I can't make money."

Bills was stopped on Briley Parkway by an officer assigned to a DUI task force that makes repeated traffic stops, hoping to catch drivers who've been drinking.

"He automatically right off the bat asked me had I been drinking, had I been smoking," the young man recalled. "I said no. He continued to ask me and ask me."

What followed was the kind of field sobriety tests we've all seen on TV -- tests that the officer claimed Bills flunked.

"He said my eye was twitching and my leg was shaking -- that's why he took me in. I mean, I can't help that I'm nervous that I'm getting pulled over," Bills said.

The officer booked him on suspicion of being under the influence of marijuana.

Read arrest affidavit here

But before being taken to the Metro Jail, Bills agreed to submit to a blood test.

The tests all came back negative.

View results of blood test taken by Martin Bills

"It showed on my tests that I have not been using drugs at all," he noted. "I'm getting arrested for being sober and driving. That's it."

While we'll never know what the officer was really thinking, critics inside the police department point to a pressure on officers to generate numbers -- numbers that police brass can use to brag to the public about all the drunk drivers they've taken off the roads.

A short time before he resigned, former Metro Police Chief Ronal Serpas declared in a news conference, "I'm going to admit for the first time on television there is a quota. The quota is we want to get every drunk driver."

Serpas always insisted there were no arrest quotas.

But NewsChannel 5 Investigates obtained several recent memos in which a DUI lieutenant warned officers that they could face disciplinary action if they did not start arresting more people.

"Self-motivated officers ... should more often than not be able to arrest 2 DUI offenders each 8.5 hour shift," one memo read.

That's "not a quota," the memo claimed, "but simply a benchmark."

But then it added, "If improvement does not take place, additional corrective action will occur."

Read the memos from Lt. Kenneth Walburn

NewsChannel 5 Investigates had asked Serpas, "You don't see that as a quota?"

"No," the chief answered. "What the lieutenant is saying is that we have an expectation that the only thing you do all day is find DUI offenders and obviously there is some expectation that we should be able to see so many of these on average."

Veteran Nashville lawyer Gary Blackburn disagreed.

"Oh, it's plainly a quota," he said. Blackburn said that setting an expectation of the number of arrests per shift clearly puts pressure on officers every single night.

"If you're trying to average two per night and you are in the last hour of your shift and you have none or you have one, then what is your thought process going to be? Because if you don't make the second one that night, do you have to make three the next?"

Add to that, a financial incentive.

On March 31st, patrol officers who get overtime to chase DUIs were told that the lieutenant "will begin looking at individual officer performance.... Those officers who consistently perform at high standards will be given preference" for the overtime.

Read memo about preferences for DUI overtime

Three days later, one of those officers arrested Martin Bills.

Blackburn said such measures make it more likely that officers will arrest people whom they would otherwise let go.

"It's wrong to pressure hard-working, stressed-out officers to make decisions based not on whether they genuinely perceive the motorist as being intoxicated, but on whether they have to meet another quota for that night," he added.

"The result will be inevitably that some innocent persons are going to be affected by this."

One officer who received a warning was Wallace Taylor, who's been repeatedly honored as one of the city's top DUI officers.

But police said that they just don't buy that there are fewer drunk drivers. They said other officers are able to meet the "job performance standard," so every officer should.

Experts added that defense lawyers can use such mandates to attack the credibility of DUI officers in court by suggesting they're just trying to save their own jobs.

Martin Bills' father, Everett, said, "It makes me take another look at the way they do business."

When Bills and his father showed up in court, even though blood tests showed he was clean, the prosecutor told him he'd have to wait at least four months for the charges to be dropped -- unless he pleaded guilty to something else.

He pleaded guilty to speeding -- even though the officer never even charged him with that offense.

"It's gotten out of hand now," Martin Bills said. "So it's just time to end it all now and move on with my life."

[TMMT]

When Bills and his father showed up in court, even though blood tests showed he was clean, the prosecutor told him he'd have to wait at least four months for the charges to be dropped -- unless he pleaded guilty to something else.

He pleaded guilty to speeding -- even though the officer never even charged him with that offense.

WTH!??!?!?

[Guest crotalus01]

Mr. Bills shoud SUE the DOG**** out of the Nashville PD, the City of Nashville, the ******* cop that arrested him AND the prosecutor.

Unbelievable.....

[Tango down]

A lawyer definately needs to be retained. Wow.

[NextExit]

Must have something to do with TN being the most corrupt state!

[Mike.357]

I am curious TMMT, why do you post Cop news on a gun forum? The occasional bit would not even make me notice really but you do seem to post a lot of it.

I guess I just wonder why you do not post it on a forum that is anti cop, or pro cop or just a cop forum.

It does not bother me or anything I am just curious.

[Smith]

NEVER plead to something if you are innocent. I have seen it backfire too many times with folks thinking it will make life easier. It usually does not. Unless you're guilty.

[Guest lci419]

Quote:

When Bills and his father showed up in court, even though blood tests showed he was clean, the prosecutor told him he'd have to wait at least four months for the charges to be dropped -- unless he pleaded guilty to something else.

He pleaded guilty to speeding -- even though the officer never even charged him with that offense.

WTH!??!?!?

It's called revenue generation. Nashville's got a lot of bills to pay...

[Guest gts]

...and I am a douche for my biases??????

Everyone gets so defensive for the police...what a difficult and dangerous job they have...as if they can do no wrong...yet something like this is simply not deniable...it is happening...proven by their own documents.

Law enforcement has become a business. It has rewards and penalties. Your rights and the protection thereof are not a priority of the police. And one of these days it will effect you (us), hit you close to home per se...in the gun safe, actually.

Like I've stated previously in other posts, keeping the peace and enforcing law are not similarities. There is a difference in between the practices. Let's put an end to this nonsense and quit funding programs like DUI Task forces, Drug Interdiction Teams, and anything else with a moniker or abbreviation.

[Erik88]

I am curious TMMT, why do you post Cop news on a gun forum? The occasional bit would not even make me notice really but you do seem to post a lot of it.

I guess I just wonder why you do not post it on a forum that is anti cop, or pro cop or just a cop forum.

It does not bother me or anything I am just curious.

+1

[Daniel]

...and I am a douche for my biases??????

Everyone gets so defensive for the police...what a difficult and dangerous job they have...as if they can do no wrong...yet something like this is simply not deniable...it is happening...proven by their own documents.

Law enforcement has become a business. It has rewards and penalties. Your rights and the protection thereof are not a priority of the police. And one of these days it will effect you (us), hit you close to home per se...in the gun safe, actually.

Like I've stated previously in other posts, keeping the peace and enforcing law are not similarities. There is a difference in between the practices. Let's put an end to this nonsense and quit funding programs like DUI Task forces, Drug Interdiction Teams, and anything else with a moniker or abbreviation.

You are a douche for being a racist POS.

[strickj]

You are a douche for being a racist POS.

[Fallguy]

Let's try to keep any direct attacks on people out of this....of course at the same time, let's not try to invite any either.

Thanks....

[MCSCOTT]

I'm not really sure what my take on all this is. I don't totally agree with setting quotas for officers, but at the same time I know of some officers who just overlook alot of small crimes to keep from having to do paperwork or go to court as much. With that being said, it's no different than my boss telling me that I need to get a certain amount of work done each day, because if he didn't set a limit there would be some days that I would do nothing at all. (I know this, because he hasn't set a limit and there are in fact some days where I do nothing at all. )

Not sure why he wasn't charged with speeding, but I'm guessing the officer believed him to be under the influence and chose to press that issue more than the speeding violation. There are seemingly innocent people who get arrested every day for situations like this, which is why they have the blood tests and other methods of determining whether someone is truely under the influence or not. It is also a big portion of why we have the court system, because if only the guilty people got arrested then all that would be needed is someone to determine the punishment for certain crimes. Simple fact is, had the guy not been speeding in the first place the officer would have had no reason to pull him over, so either way you look at it he wasn't completely innocent. I know that nothing is certain, but common sense tells me that for the most part if I don't break any laws to start with, then I most likely wont have to try to defend myself against other charges as well.

[Worriedman]

If they need to pick up a certain number of DUI's, why not set up on the streets next to the establishments that serve alcohol?

Could TWRA charge them for hunting over a baited field if they did?

[Smith]

I'm not really sure what my take on all this is. I don't totally agree with setting quotas for officers, but at the same time I know of some officers who just overlook alot of small crimes to keep from having to do paperwork or go to court as much. With that being said, it's no different than my boss telling me that I need to get a certain amount of work done each day, because if he didn't set a limit there would be some days that I would do nothing at all. (I know this, because he hasn't set a limit and there are in fact some days where I do nothing at all. )

Not sure why he wasn't charged with speeding, but I'm guessing the officer believed him to be under the influence and chose to press that issue more than the speeding violation. There are seemingly innocent people who get arrested every day for situations like this, which is why they have the blood tests and other methods of determining whether someone is truely under the influence or not. It is also a big portion of why we have the court system, because if only the guilty people got arrested then all that would be needed is someone to determine the punishment for certain crimes. Simple fact is, had the guy not been speeding in the first place the officer would have had no reason to pull him over, so either way you look at it he wasn't completely innocent. I know that nothing is certain, but common sense tells me that for the most part if I don't break any laws to start with, then I most likely wont have to try to defend myself against other charges as well.

Problem is that other jobs don't give people criminal records that impact the rest of their life. Sounds like a good argument but they are worlds apart. It's like equating the presidents job with the guy who runs the Mapco on the corner.

As for the rest if you can't do you job of a LEO without quotas, you don't need to be a LE. Not having "anything to do" should be the goal of the job not the exception. It's like in private security. The less that happens the better you are doing.

[MCSCOTT]

Problem is that other jobs don't give people criminal records that impact the rest of their life. Sounds like a good argument but they are worlds apart. It's like equating the presidents job with the guy who runs the Mapco on the corner.

As for the rest if you can't do you job of a LEO without quotas, you don't need to be a LE. Not having "anything to do" should be the goal of the job not the exception. It's like in private security. The less that happens the better you are doing.

Again though I'll say that the criminal records are given by the courts, not by the LEO's, and if innocent people were never arrested then we wouldn't need the court system.

I do agree with your opinion the LEO's shouldn't have to be given quotas, and that not having anything to do should be the end goal, but sadly this is not the mindset of all officers. Some look the other direction, and act like all is well, so that they have to do less work.

[Guest Keinengel]

As i was reading through this i was pretty pissed about the whole sitaution until i read the "Innocent" guy's name. I went to high school with that kid. He was a freshman when i was a senior and the only reason i know him is because he was in JROTC that year. I'll be honest, I would have pulled him over on suspicion of being a prick.

[Smith]

Again though I'll say that the criminal records are given by the courts, not by the LEO's, and if innocent people were never arrested then we wouldn't need the court system.

I do agree with your opinion the LEO's shouldn't have to be given quotas, and that not having anything to do should be the end goal, but sadly this is not the mindset of all officers. Some look the other direction, and act like all is well, so that they have to do less work.

But even an arrest can be detrimental to a lot of people. We live in a day and age where it is the charge not the conviction that carries the intial weight and unfortunately that weight carries a lot of momentum. I can tell you as a Pastor if I were arrested for a DUI (even though I have never had one drink in my life) there wold always be that hung over me. Now that is an extreme example, but many would be in a similar boat.

I agree on the second part that when politics gets involved bad things happen. Thanks Serpas.

[MCSCOTT]

But even an arrest can be detrimental to a lot of people. We live in a day and age where it is the charge not the conviction that carries the intial weight and unfortunately that weight carries a lot of momentum. I can tell you as a Pastor if I were arrested for a DUI (even though I have never had one drink in my life) there wold always be that hung over me. Now that is an extreme example, but many would be in a similar boat.

I agree on the second part that when politics gets involved bad things happen. Thanks Serpas.

I do realize that even just the arrest carries alot of weight, and that people's opinions in cases such as yours often ignore the findings of the court system. My opinion is simply that if you aren't breaking a law to begin with, then you wont have to worry about being arrested for something else that you may or may not be doing. This kind of situation is one of the biggest things that keeps me from going over the speed limit most of the time. The cost of a ticket or court costs are no big deal at all to me, but the fact that I could possibly be arrested for any number of things, whether I'm guilty or not. I know from past experiences that simple things like the fact that I pick beer cans and bottles up out of my ditch at home all the time, and often throw them in the back of my truck until I find a dumpster or trash can, could lead to me getting arrested for suspicion. Heck, just last week me and my g/f got into it because apparently I smelled like I had been smoking marijuana. I'm someone who doesn't drink or do anything like that, but whatever I got into that smelled like it could have caused me to get arrested, if I were pulled over for breaking some other laws to start with.

In this particular case, the guy was speeding. The officer believed him to be under the influence. The blood test proved that he wasn't, so to me whether or not there is a quota on arrests shouldn't really come into play in the issue because quota or not the officer was only doing his job.

[Guest Drewsett]

I don't see TMMT necessarily as posting alot of cop news...he just posts alot of news period. Maybe he likes to talk about it? What does it matter?

I do think there have been some highly inappropriate posts from some rather surprising sources in here. Not my place to be a moderator though.

As far as the OP is concerned, if there are legitimate complaints against an officer performing his duties, it would seem to me that the various police forces around the country would want to remove the offender from their midst, not knee-jerk close ranks and refuse to answer questions or worse.

Oh, did I mention I'm glad Serpas is gone?

EDIT: Oh and MCSCOTT, if he was speeding, why wasn't he charged with it? The prosecutor told him it would take up to four months to get the charges dropped unless he pleaded to something. In his haste to join the Navy and be able to get back to work, is it inconceivable that he would take a speeding conviction to do so immediately? That's what it sounded to me like what happened.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Drewsett

[Tim Nunan]

I am curious TMMT, why do you post Cop news on a gun forum?

ROFLMAO. Using this logic why the threads on dieting, looking for a plumber/electrician/mechanic, CB radios and a multitude of other non firearm related issues?

[MCSCOTT]

EDIT: Oh and MCSCOTT, if he was speeding, why wasn't he charged with it? The prosecutor told him it would take up to four months to get the charges dropped unless he pleaded to something. In his haste to join the Navy and be able to get back to work, is it inconceivable that he would take a speeding conviction to do so immediately? That's what it sounded to me like what happened.

Don't get me wrong, I got the same meaning from the article as well as the fact that he wasn't charged with it, I just don't see how he could come up with being guilty of speeding unless he was in fact speeding. From the article, it tells how the officer gave him a field sobriety test and from his eye twitching and his leg shaking he believed the guy to be under the influence. If this is the case, that would mean it wasn't until after the guy was pulled over that the officer made this determination.

I guess this is another case of the whole story not coming out in the article, because there has to be a reason for the officer pulling him over in the first place. If he wasn't in fact speeding, then there has to be some other reason for the officer to pull him over. If there was no other reason, then I would be able to see where he could file complaints of lawsuits against the officer. His admission of guilt to breaking the law (even if it was only in order to speed things up) should cancel out any chance of filing a lawsuit or even a complaint.

Simple facts:

He was pulled over for doing something. (The article doesn't mention what exactly.)

The officer believed him to be under the influence.

The blood test showed he wasn't, so his innocence in the matter would have come out in court.

The system is definately flawed, but this is how things work if you break a law and an officer believes that you have broken other laws as well. If the officer didn't have a reason for pulling him over in the first place, then he should be in alot of trouble in the matter. However, with the guy admitting that he was speeding, even if he only admitted to it in order to speed up the process, then the issue should be left at whatever the judge decides to do toward the speeding charge, and the entire subject from then on should be dropped.

Just my .02 though, and I do feel bad for the guy for being arrested for not doing anything. Last time I got pulled over was just for a warning for my tail light being out. Even after the officer told me he was only pulling me over to let me know about it, I was overly nervous for no reason. Had he given me a field sobriety test, I doubt I could have passed it even though I wasn't under the influence of anything, and it could have been me in this guy's situation. Personally I would have considered that to be my own fault for my behavior at the time though, and would have seen no reason to fault the officer for taking me to jail.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

I am curious TMMT, why do you post Cop news on a gun forum? The occasional bit would not even make me notice really but you do seem to post a lot of it.

"General Off-Topic"

Nuff-said

Keep it coming TMMT...

[E4 No More]

WTH!??!?!?

Why would this surprise you? Nashville traffic court isn't interested in justice; they are interested in revenue collection.