Rep Curry Todd Arrested DUI and possession of handgun while under the influence

[DaveTN]

Hmm. With the McNair thing, if memory is correct, the arresting officer asked him multiple times to take the breath test. Apparently, the arresting officer is supposed to ask once, and only once.

There are a lot of ways to throw this out. As you said, McNair did not exhibit a reason to be pulled over.

Lets see where this goes.

The Officers did nothing wrong in the McNair case. You can ask someone as many times as you want to take a breath test. It is a violation of law to refuse (Implied Consent), and you do not have a right to remain silent during the field sobriety test (that is considered a refusal).

The Defense argued that the cop was “looking†for McNair because he had been told he was driving drunk. Absolutely the cop was looking for McNair. He had been advised that McNair was drunk and got in his car and drove away. He didn’t need probable cause to pull McNair over; he already had it. Not only did he have probable cause to pull him over, he had a duty to the public to do so. Of course the DA didn’t make that argument because he wanted to let McNair go. That’s why he didn’t appeal the ruling.

The only mistake the cop made was thinking he could hold Nashville’s Golden Boy to the same standard you or I would be held to.

[chances R]

OK, Rep Todd screwed up. BUT, the media is focusing on the handgun. Let's get this straight. Rep. Todd endangered the public by driving a vehicle while drunk. NOT by handling or firing a handgun while drunk. Neither is acceptable, but many more people are killed and maimed by DRUNK DRIVING, for which there are numerous laws, commercials, etc. which address this. That is where the real problem is. But the liberal press is obsessed by the fact a gun was present, not brandished, not shot, only stowed away, and no harm to anyone. This is what really bothers me. WE need to somehow get the focus off the gun. This man could carry a gun anyway; he didn't need a permit, but that's obviously all we will hear.

Edited October 14, 2011 by chances R

[TGO David]

I'm not sure which is worse... the picture of a drunken Curry Todd or that picture of an emaciated Leann Rimes .

[strickj]

I'm not sure which is worse... the picture of a drunken Curry Todd or that picture of an emaciated Leann Rimes .

Kinda ironic when you think about it.

You'd have t be as drink as Curry to hit Rimes.

[Oh Shoot]

...You'd have t be as drink as Curry to hit Rimes.

I think you're there!

- OS

[DaveTN]

OK, Rep Todd screwed up. BUT, the media is focusing on the handgun. Let's get this straight. Rep. Todd endangered the public by driving a vehicle while drunk. NOT by handling or firing a handgun while drunk. Neither is acceptable, but many more people are killed and maimed by DRUNK DRIVING, for which there are numerous laws, commercials, etc. which address this. That is where the real problem is. But the liberal press is obsessed by the fact a gun was present, not brandished, not shot, only stowed away, and no harm to anyone. This is what really bothers me. WE need to somehow get the focus off the gun. This man could carry a gun anyway; he didn't need a permit, but that's obviously all we will hear.

A thread will go on for pages when a cop tries to protect or justify something a bad cop did; we all feel that if they do that they are bad cops and should be fired. Same thing here only worse; he’s not a law enforcer, he’s a law maker. I would not even attempt to justify or minimize what he did.

He didn’t kill anyone while driving drunk because he was stopped by the Police. He didn’t do anything stupid with the gun for the same reason.

The press didn’t make this up; he gave this story to them on a silver platter. Just as when the President of MADD was arrested for drunk driving.

The gun wasn’t “Stowed awayâ€. According to the story it was between the seat and center console; that’s a readily accessible carry position.

I’m not the DA or a juror so my opinion doesn’t matter, but from looking at his booking photo and the statements by the cops; he was wasted. But he’ll either get his day in court or get an opportunity to make a plea deal.

Make us all look bad? Trying to make excuses for this clown or whine about the media running with this story makes us all look bad.

[TGO David]

Today is a momentous occasion... I agree with what DaveTN just posted.

[robin48]

When you are in a position like that you are justifiably held to a higher standard. He should be treated as any other citizen.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[Fallguy]

I'm not sure which is worse... the picture of a drunken Curry Todd or that picture of an emaciated Leann Rimes .

LOL...well I removed the pics...(except for Todd)

[Fallguy]

The Officers did nothing wrong in the McNair case. You can ask someone as many times as you want to take a breath test. It is a violation of law to refuse (Implied Consent), and you do not have a right to remain silent during the field sobriety test (that is considered a refusal).

The Defense argued that the cop was “looking†for McNair because he had been told he was driving drunk. Absolutely the cop was looking for McNair. He had been advised that McNair was drunk and got in his car and drove away. He didn’t need probable cause to pull McNair over; he already had it. Not only did he have probable cause to pull him over, he had a duty to the public to do so. Of course the DA didn’t make that argument because he wanted to let McNair go. That’s why he didn’t appeal the ruling.

The only mistake the cop made was thinking he could hold Nashville’s Golden Boy to the same standard you or I would be held to.

First...I'm not saying the officer that stopped McNair is a bad officer or had an ill intent....

I don't remember everything the judge said, but I think some of this goes back to what we've discussed before about a LEO needing to witness a misdemeanor (DUI is a misdemeanor) to make an arrest without a warrant. Even though someone had reported him as DUI the officer didn't observe him driving erratically (at least not enough according to the judge) or doing anything else wrong. Although I agree had it not been him or someone with enough money or influence...probably wouldn't have gone that way.

I admit I could be wrong, but I don't think an unsworn tip or report gives a LEO PC without "some" observation on his part of wrong doing....

If call the PD and tell them "so-and-so" has drugs in their house...they can't just walk in and search without a warrant or observing something on their own to give them PC or RAS.

Again...not faulting the officer...

[mikegideon]

He didn’t kill anyone while driving drunk because he was stopped by the Police. He didn’t do anything stupid with the gun for the same reason.

.

Come on now. Do you really believe that law enforcement stopped him from doing something stupid with his gun? He got drunk and drove a car. The gun was just there. My money says that he wouldn't have discharged the gun unless he was defending himself.

This wasn't Curry's first night out.

[Mike.357]

Gotta agree with MikeG. This was not Todd's first attempt at drunk driving. Yeah drunk drivers all do it the first time once but if they get away with it then they keep on doing it.

I will venture a guess that Todd felt above the law due to his cop background and political career.

I doubt the gun was ever near as much a danger as the guys gas pedal.

[mikegideon]

Gotta agree with MikeG. This was not Todd's first attempt at drunk driving. Yeah drunk drivers all do it the first time once but if they get away with it then they keep on doing it.

I will venture a guess that Todd felt above the law due to his cop background and political career.

I doubt the gun was ever near as much a danger as the guys gas pedal.

I'm just guessing that the guy is a regular drinker, and probably doesn't go through a big metamorphasis with a change in BAC. Impaired, yes. An overwheming desire to shoot up the town, probably not.

[K191145]

Eh. Not good but I do not see how it in any way validates the anti-carry position. The moron got stopped for driving at 60 mph in a 40 mph zone and not for anything that happened with his gun, which was not even on his person but in the car he was driving. Crucify him for endangering lives with a car but not with a firearm. If anything it shows alcohol does not necessarily cause one to be a danger with firearms.

I'm assuming that he will loose his permit for a while and if he's convicted of DUI, it's proof that the law works. You're right about not having any real affect on carry laws, the general public will forget about it after a while. The media will hype it up now but even they will loose interest after everybody else does just like all the hype over the carry in restaurants bill when it was passed. I'll tell anyone reasonable that Curry driving a vehicle while intoxicated is far more dangerous than having a handgun in his car, and if he looses his permit and is convicted of DUI then the law is working as intended.

[chances R]

.....He didn’t kill anyone while driving drunk because he was stopped by the Police. He didn’t do anything stupid with the gun for the same reason.....

Make us all look bad? Trying to make excuses for this clown or whine about the media running with this story makes us all look bad.

Dave, Todd would have probably made it home without killing anyone with his car or gun. Rather a broad assumption he didn't because the Police stopped him on your part. But none the less, I'm glad he was stopped, and he will have his day in court. No sympathy from me, no excuses whatsoever. I don't tolerate driving impaired. IMO, the car was the most dangerous situation.

Society seems to overlook alcohol problems because so many people we all know are involved in these situations routinely. It is one thing to be high or drunk and shoot things up, but the press treats the presence of a weapon as the appearance of satan himself. That is all I was pointing out.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm assuming that he will loose his permit for a while and if he's convicted of DUI,...

Statute says it is suspended after any Class A misdemeanor conviction for duration of sentence, which as I understand it is also any suspended sentence duration and/or probation. A first time DUI conviction is generally 11/29 suspended.

- OS

[K191145]

Statute says it is suspended after any Class A misdemeanor conviction for duration of sentence, which as I understand it is also any suspended sentence duration and/or probation. A first time DUI conviction is generally 11/29 suspended.

- OS

Well I hope he is treated just like anyone else and not favored because of his political status which means a heafty fine, 48hours of jail or public service(road trash pickup), and a suspension of his HCP and drivers license. When that happens we can argue to rabid anti-carry zealots that the law worked and remind them that restaurant owners who serve alcohol to CAR OWNERS have contributed to more deaths and injuries than HCP holders ever will.

[Guest pfries]

Well I hope he is treated just like anyone else and not favored because of his political status which means a heafty fine, 48hours of jail or public service(road trash pickup), and a suspension of his HCP and drivers license. When that happens we can argue to rabid anti-carry zealots that the law worked and remind them that restaurant owners who serve alcohol to CAR OWNERS have contributed to more deaths and injuries than HCP holders ever will.

+1 Well said

[Guest rxdoc]

Just a question, if he is a retired LEO does he need a HCP to carry a handgun in TN?

---

I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.111597,-85.346081

[Guest db99wj]

Just a question, if he is a retired LEO does he need a HCP to carry a handgun in TN?

---

I am here: Google Maps

No, but he had one anyway, I guess due to his involvement of the handgun carry laws.

[Oh Shoot]

Just a question, if he is a retired LEO does he need a HCP to carry a handgun in TN?...

Is there a difference between "retired" and "ex" LEO under TN law, or federal one?

- OS

[DaveTN]

Is there a difference between "retired" and "ex" LEO under TN law, or federal one?

- OS

Under federal law there is. I’m a former cop but didn’t retire, so I don’t have any standing under the LEOSA that allows retired Officers to carry. It is my understanding that even after retiring you still have to qualify with the Department you retired from. I don’t know about Tennessee law.

He’s retired from Memphis PD, so maybe he didn’t want to deal with the qualification requirements.

Edited October 14, 2011 by DaveTN

[Fallguy]

Under federal law there is. I’m a former cop but didn’t retire, so I don’t have any standing under the LEOSA that allows retired Officers to carry. It is my understanding that even after retiring you still have to qualify with the Department you retired from. I don’t know about Tennessee law.

He’s retired from Memphis PD, so maybe he didn’t want to deal with the qualification requirements.

Correct.

More info can be seen here http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf

[Guest midnitelamp]

Too bad he did'nt take my advice, huh more beer straightjacket?

[Guest db99wj]

One of the news reports stated that he could carry without a permit due to his retired status but he also did have a permit.