Bench Notes: CSI Episode Reviews

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
 Loading ...
For a synopsis and review of this episode please read here.

OK. So I finally convinced my wife to watched another DVR’ed episode of CSI New York. Unfortunately we happened to hit on one that seemed to be a “Part 2″ in two different ways. It seems it was the season opener for Season 4, as well as a related to a previous episode that happened 1 year earlier - an unsolved homicide.

The episode itself progressed like most CSI shows do. There wasn’t any crazy endangered species DNA break-through in this episode, so maybe that’s the exception in CSI NY - I don’t know. My wife though made the comment that things always seem to fall into place very conveniently for CSI NY. I agreed, but I don’t see where that was any different than any other CSI franchise, or episode. The easy way cases progress is one of those things that drive people who actually do this for a living crazy - along with the incredibly fast turn around times, and the absolute top of the line equipment that is always laying around just waiting to be used and never backlogged.

There was some interesting special effects as Mac was figuring out the blood spatter pattern. I thought it was well done.

Really the only thing that made me laugh in this episode was at the very end, when the armed suspect was being chased by police, the CSI shot him in the leg, instead of center-mass. I don’t know what they teach New York City cops, but most officers I know will shoot to kill an armed suspect who isn’t following verbal instructions - as well they should, public (as well as their own) safety and all. But when I saw the shooting take place, and where he was wounded I laughed out loud because I couldn’t get Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon 1 out of my head*:

Roger Murtaugh: See how easy that was? Boom, still alive. Now we question him. You know why we question him? Because I got him in the leg. I didn’t shoot him full of holes or try to jump off a building with him.

Martin Riggs: Hey, that’s not fair. The building guy lived.

*Movie quote from here.

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
 Loading ...
A couple of weeks ago I arrived to a court testimony appearance for a DUI case. When I got there the state’s scientist was still sitting out in front of the courtroom, waiting to testify. Don’t worry this isn’t a “waiting game rant”, actually the amount of time I waited was fine in this case.

The state’s scientist said “Hey I know you.” And sure enough, we did know each other back from when I work for government agencies. I never worked directly with this particular scientist, but we had spoken a few times in the past, and knew each other.

He jokingly mentioned there was nothing wrong with his analysis in this case, and he didn’t know why the case was even going to court. I replied there’s nothing overtly wrong with the analysis. He chuckled and said the last few cases he’s been called on to testify in he didn’t have any idea why. The readings weren’t close to any kind of legal limit for example.

He offered the suggestion that when cases like these go, it’s a failure of either the prosecutor to offer an acceptable plea bargain, or it’s a failure of the defense attorney to tell their client to take it.

I said I agree. Then I let him know that there are a few courthouses he probably doesn’t frequent due to jurisdiction, that the “Expect the Max” motto has made it’s way into the courtroom. Prosecutors there are offering “max” sentencing (time in jail/fines) as the plea bargain. Well why would anyone in their right mind accept a plea bargain that gives them the maximum penalty they can possibly get? Better to roll the dice, and hope for the fumble as they say.

I said the third option is that the defendant just plain won’t take it. For example, I testified a couple of weeks earlier on a case where a controlled substance was found in the person’s blood sample. In Arizona that’s pretty much an open and closed case for the state - unless something wrong is found with the analysis. The defendant was apparently very difficult, ended up switching court appointed defense attorneys a few times when they suggested they take the plea bargain. The bargain being a reckless driving charge, a minimal fine, and maybe a day in jail. The differences being a lot less $$$ in court fines. Usually a plea to reckless driving is a win-win for both sides. The prosecutor doesn’t have to waste time and energy in court (the state loses money on DUI trials, they make money when someone pleads guilty), and the defendant doesn’t get a DUI on their record.

Fast forward to a few weeks later, I’m called in to testify in another DUI case. The defense attorney asked me if I could show up early because the prosecutor wanted to talk to me before trial - pretty common stuff. So I showed up early, and saw the prosecutor in the hallway (we knew each other from when I regularly testified “for him” when I worked for the government), also we are both big Apple/Mac guys.

Well the prosecutor asked why I was there so early. I said it was because the defense attorney said he wanted to talk to me. He said ohh, not really - he figured I was going to just talk about the regular topics that could go wrong with blood DUI analysis. I replied “No, actually there IS something wrong with this case, let me show you.”

After about 5 minutes, busting out the calculator, performing analysis I doubt many government scientists even know how to do, I had shown the prosecutor that I was going to testify that based on the problem I detected while reviewing the case material, there was a 1 in 9 chance the reading was at or above a 0.080, and a 8 in 9 chance it was in fact below a 0.080.

The prosecutor looked up at the defense attorney and asked if his client would be interested in a reckless driving charge. I also explained to the defense attorney that getting me copies of materials to review in advance doesn’t cost any extra, and it can lead to agreeable solutions to cases without having to go to trial.

It was very odd to have a reckless charge offered after a full day of court the day before, but the prosecutor knew that I knew my science. Knew I was someone who could explain my points to the jury, and knew I wasn’t just making things up (he did check with the state scientist who did the analysis, but i don’t know the details of that conversation).

So plea bargains happen. And they aren’t bad things. If it weren’t for plea bargains, the legal system would come to a screeching halt. Courts would be overloaded, and chaos would ensue.

So next time you get upset, hearing about someone you “knew” was guilty getting away with a plea bargain, remember you probably don’t know all the facts of the case, and when a prosecutor offers a deal it’s for a reason. Better to “win” a lesser charge, than risk losing a greater one. One in the hand versus two in the bush so to speak.

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
 Loading ...
A friend of mine sent me a link with the following video clips from YouTube. Remember, I’m not a lawyer, and as such I don’t give legal advice, but here is a set of interesting clips. The first is from a defense attorney’s perspective, the second is from an investigating officer’s perspective. Listen to what they have to say, and be sure to talk to a lawyer if you are ever questioned by police.

Remember even police do this. I’ve seen cases of officer involved shootings, or internal affair cases, where the police officer was absolutely in the right, did nothing wrong, but they weren’t going to answer any questions without a lawyer being present. Cops don’t even answer other cop’s questions, they must know something.

Defense Attorney’s Perspective

Investigating Officer’s Perspective

Now never saying anything to police isn’t what one should take away from here. For example, I was visiting my home town last weekend. I ran into a sobriety checkpoint. There must have been 20 officers lined up, I was waved up to the front of the line and asked a series of questions.

You have anything to drink tonight sir?
-No sir.

Are you headed home sir?
-No sir.

Headed out to a party tonight sir?
-No sir. (while my 6 year old son and his 62 year old grandmother are in the car)

Have a good night sir.

I answered the questions because I knew I wasn’t going to incriminate myself, and I hadn’t done anything wrong. Now if I had been asked to exit the vehicle and perform FSTs, I would have refused, even though I hadn’t had any alcohol to drink in probably 3 months.

(No Ratings Yet)
 Loading ...
For a plot summary, see this link.

There was a lot of firearms related shooting in this case. I’m only going to comment on the parts that I find don’t agree with my experience to reality.

1) When Ryan told the older brother that people don’t go to prison for accidents (referring to the brother “accidentally” shooting his younger brother). It was a clear case of the shooter not meaning to shoot the victim, but that doesn’t mean the shooter isn’t going to get charged.

I worked a case where someone was looking to make sure his firearm was unloaded. There was plenty of evidence to support that is what happened, but the weapon discharged. The bullet perforated his couch, and carried on into the neighbor’s apartment. There happened to be children in the other apartment, and the man checking his firearm was charged by the prosecutor’s office with 5 felony counts.

2) When Horatio shot the shooter who shot Eric in the leg (the first one with the rifle), they showed a slow-motion close up of the projectile and it was a full metal jacketed bullet. Most law enforcement agencies that I’ve ever dealt with in the United States use jacketed hollowpoint projectiles for handgun rounds. Reason being they are far safer than the full metal jacketed ones in a traditional urban setting.

It’s always interesting to see what other countries are doing when it come to DUI enforcement. Italy is upping the penalties for driving while intoxicated. Read the article below, but here are some differences between here and the U.S.A.:

“Legal limit” 0.05 v 0.08 (assuming your state doesn’t have a “slightest degree charge”)

Charged with 0.15 and above and the police can confiscate your car.

Get convicted of 0.15 or above and the police can KEEP (or auction) your car. If they did that here, all the used car dealers would go out of business as police auctions would be the cheapest way to purchase a used vehicle.

Fines seem significantly steeper.

Bigger fines if you refuse a blood test (in Arizona if you refuse, they take your license away, get a search warrant and an officer can stick a needle in your arm, even if a few of his buddies have to hold you down)

Also note the 0.05 “legal limit”. That’s coming here soon as well most likely. They might skip the 0.05 and go straight to 0.02 (or detected) like many parts of Europe. We’ll see in a few years.

What isn’t written about is ignition interlocks. I wonder if that is because they don’t use them, or simply because the law regarding their use didn’t change.

Complete article below, originally posted here:

Italy ramps up penalties for DUI
Rules now in effect apply to everyone driving in the country
By Sandra Jontz, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Sunday, June 8, 2008

Penalties for violating Italy’s driving-under-the influence laws keep getting stiffer, including longer jail terms and the confiscation of vehicles.

Fed up with the number of drunken-driving incidents, Italian government officials have imposed the penalties to bring down the number of traffic casualties, said to be one of the highest in Europe. The changes went into effect in May.

Police can confiscate the vehicles of motorists who drive under the influence of drugs or whose blood alcohol levels exceed 0.15, according to changes made to Italy’s Article 4 “rules of the road.” Those motorists also face up to a year in jail.

The confiscation can be permanent if a person is convicted of the infraction, unless the vehicle belongs to someone else. Confiscated vehicles can be auctioned off or used by the police, according to information provided by Italy’s Ministry of Interior.

The changes follow the adoption of stiffer penalties last summer. Anyone who drives in the country is subject to the law.

Other penalties for those driving under the influence in Italy include:

* A blood-alcohol level of more than 0.05 percent is considered legally intoxicated. Drivers with a level of 0.05 to 0.08 face fines ranging from 500 euros to 2,000 euros, one month confinement, and community service.
* Drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 to 0.15 face up to six months of jail — an increase of three months over last summers’ changes — fines ranging from 800 euros to 3,200 euros, and community service.
* Those driving under the influence of drugs face up to a year in jail and a fine of 1,500 euros to 6,000 euros.
* Drivers refusing to have their blood-alcohol tested face fines from 2,500 euros to 10,000 euros.
* Drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs who flee the scene of an accident in which there are injuries, or those who stop but fail to help anyone injured as the result of the accident, face up to three years in jail.

Though not related to the Italian government’s stiffer penalties, the U.S. Navy has again launched its annual information campaign, “Critical Days of Summer,” which runs from Memorial Day to Labor Day — historically when most alcohol incidents occur.

Navy Region Europe started an effort three years ago to distribute key-chain Breathalyzers, and has distributed more than 5,000 to sailors in Europe. Surveys showed that 63 percent of those who self-tested positive for being over legal driving limits made other arrangements for transportation or decided not to drive, said Lt. Cmdr. Wendy Snyder, spokeswoman for the command.

The Navy base in Naples, Italy, recorded a 33 percent reduction in alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents between 2006 and last year during the “critical days of summer,” she said.

I’ve been qualified as an expert many times in the area of the effects of alcohol on a human. I’d bet this guy was impaired enough by alcohol to exhibit “impaired judgment”.

Originally posted here

(Full article below)

Crew on Stuck Naked Man: ‘This Is First Port-a-Potty Rescue’

Saturday, June 07, 2008

LEBANON, Pa. — Rescue crews had to cut apart a portable toilet to rescue a man who got stuck naked inside the potty.

Authorities say 31-year-old Shannon Hunter, of Lebanon, used his cell phone to call 911 on Sunday from inside a portable toilet.

Police say Hunter had been drinking and had taken off his clothes. Somehow, he immersed himself in the holding tank.

Deputy fire commissioner Chris Miller told WPMT-TV, “I’ve been on the job in one form or fashion for 21 years, and this is the first port-a-potty rescue I’ve ever had.”

Police charged Hunter with public drunkenness and creating a health code violation, but they have no idea why he was in the toilet with his clothes off. They say he didn’t suffer any serious injuries.

Taking pictures of your six year old girl brandishing a revolver (even thought it was unloaded) = bad judgement.

Taking those pictures with a stolen cell phone that was eventually recovered = stupid.

Being arrested as a felon in possession of a firearm for the above = priceless.

Read the whole story here.

Psychological torture employed on high school students by police, following a new MADD program “Every 15 Minutes” designed as a more effective “lecturing” technique about the costs of drunk driving.

This is another example of where I appreciate the goal MADD and the police had in mind, but the ends do not justify the means. If my child was in one of these classes I would have already contacted a lawyer and yanked my student out of a school which apparently isn’t concerned with the student’s emotional and mental well being. How much is a student going to trust police in the future, after one came in and lied in order to deliberately shock students into compliance?

What road was paved with good intentions?

(Full article below originally posted here)

El Camino teens face heavy emotions brought about by drunken-driving dramatization
By Pat Sherman
TODAY’S LOCAL NEWS

May 30, 2008

OCEANSIDE – It was an elaborate hoax, but 36 students at El Camino High pulled it off with potentially life-saving consequences.

The result was a soberingly realistic dramatization about the dangers of drinking and driving, delivered with surprising professionalism.

Many juniors and seniors were driven to tears – a few to near hysterics – May 26 when a uniformed police officer arrived in several classrooms to notify them that a fellow student had been killed in a drunken-driving accident.

The officer read a brief eulogy, placed a rose on the deceased student’s seat, then left the class members to process their thoughts and emotions for the next hour.

The program, titled “Every 15 Minutes,” was designed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Its title refers to the frequency in which a person somewhere in the country dies in an alcohol-related traffic accident.

About 10 a.m., students were called to the athletic stadium, where they learned that their classmates had not died. There, a group of seniors, police officers and firefighters staged a startlingly realistic alcohol-induced fatal car crash. The students who had purportedly died portrayed ghostly apparitions encircling the scene.

Though the deception left some teens temporarily confused and angry, if it makes even one student think twice before getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated, it is worth the price, said California Highway Patrol Officer Eric Newbury, who orchestrates the program at local high schools.

“When someone says to me, ‘Oh, my God, you’re traumatizing my children,’ I’m telling them, ‘No, what I’m doing is waking them up,’ ” said Newbury, whose father was killed by a drunken driver.

“If you don’t do your job as a parent … the only thing I can do is either arrest them and take them to jail or scrape them off the ground and tell you, ‘I’m so sorry.’ ”

Standard speeches don’t usually get the desired reaction, Newbury said.

“If I sit there and lecture somebody in a nice way, it’s going to go in one ear and out the other,” he said. “In today’s world, where they have all sorts of gore and fantastic things that kids can access on the computer, if you want to compete with that, you have to jar them emotionally.

“I want them to be an emotional wreck. I don’t want them to have to live through this for real.”

A few teachers chose not to take part in the production. The ones who did monitored the situation closely. Students who appeared overly distraught were taken aside and told the death was not real.

Senior Brittany Bennett, 17, editor of the school newspaper, played one of the alleged deceased and took the role of a reporter at the accident scene.

Bennett said some students gradually began to discover what was happening on their own.

“Some people were comparing notes, text messaging each other, like, ‘So-and-so died,’ and ’so-and-so died,” she said. “The wheels were starting to turn.”

The 36 students who participated later attended a retreat at the Carlsbad Inn, where they tried on “beer goggles” that mimicked the sensation of having a .25-blood alcohol level.

Counselor Lori Tauber first approached the school and students about bringing the presentation to El Camino. Tauber’s two daughters attend the school.

Tauber said she is aware that drinking and driving is occurring among the student population.

“I just know in my heart this was worth it,” she said.

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
 Loading ...
Original article here:

At first glance I thought this was a lame excuse for underage drinking and driving. But then I read further and saw that the alcohol was measured by using a portable breath tester. These devices usually use a fuel cell system and have no provision for detecting “mouth alcohol” (via a slope detector). That being said it’s entirely possible, depending on how long after her last kiss she was tested that she could have actually ingested no alcohol, and the reading obtained was entirely from kiss someone who was drinking.

This is just ONE of the problems when police use portable breath testers on juveniles. The state usually argues (successfully) that a portable breath tester that usually isn’t admissible in court, can be admissible for showing the “presence of alcohol” in juveniles, since the device doesn’t have to be accurate, only show if alcohol is present or not.

But in cases like shown in this case it is possible for a positive reading from someone who didn’t drink anything at all. Similarly, if someone were to drink a “non-alcoholic” beer, and immediately get tested with a portable breath tester, there is every chance they would have a positive reading. Non-alcoholic beers usually have very small amount of alcohol present. The portable breath tester has no way of even attempting to determine if the alcohol it reads is coming from someone’s breath, or from their mouth.

Hopefully the police followed up with a real alcohol test. Something like a blood test, or even another breath tester that was administered after a 15 minute deprivation period. If not, I hope the teen’s family gets themselves a good attorney, and a good scientist, so the trier of fact can at least hear about the inherent problems with relying on a portable breath tester - even if they ignore the issues.

ANN GIVENS
May 30, 2008

They say a lover’s kiss can be intoxicating.

Gianna Vigliotti, who was pulled over by police as she swerved in and out of her lane on Northern Boulevard in Manhasset Friday night, said that’s exactly what happened to her, according to court documents.

After the 17-year-old from Glen Cove recorded a .15 percent blood-alcohol level in a portable breath test - nearly the twice the legal limit of .08 percent - she told the officer who pulled her over, “I didn’t drink! I was kissing a boy who was drunk,” according to the police report.

It made no difference to Officer Michael Pallazzo whether Vigliotti’s speech was slurred from smooching or from swigging. When he found four full beer bottles under the passenger seat of her Volkswagen and an empty beer can in her purse, he placed her under arrest, court documents said.

She pleaded not guilty the following day, and was released to probation without bail. She is next due in court June 18.

Vigliotti’s attorney, Dennis Lemke of Mineola, said his client and her family are devastated by the charge.

“To now have it publicized is not only embarrassing, but demeaning as well,” he said. “We expect it to be resolved in the near future.”

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
 Loading ...
Originally posted in New Times here:

I heard about this arrest right after it had happened. Mr. Squires was worried he would need my assistance looking over the laboratory data in case it came back with ANY alcohol at all, since he KNEW his wife hadn’t had anything to drink. He asked me because I was the scientist that he had used in the earlier trial where his client beat an extreme DUI charge (still found guilty on the regular DUI charge), and knew first hand about my knowledge of blood alcohol analysis.

I suggested he wait until the lab reports come back, because I didn’t think the LAB would be up to any monkey business.

But being pulled over, arrested for DUI, and having less than 0.08 (or even 0.00) blood alcohol concentration happens a lot more frequently than most people would believe. From my experience working in the east valley, easily 15% (or more) of the time, the blood results come back under 0.08 - many times 0.00.

The important part to remember from this article is that in Arizona at least, you do NOT have to perform FSTs, and you really shouldn’t. There are no criteria for “passing” FSTs. There are only criteria for failing them. And if you don’t “fail” the results are “inconclusive”. I repeat, talk to a lawyer in advance, but there is no benefit to performing FSTs. If the officer wants to arrest you and stick you in the arm with a needle, (s)he’s going to do it anyway, and even stone cold sober people can perform “poorly” on FSTs. Don’t make your defense any harder than it already is going to be by giving them ammunition.

I’m glad to hear Mrs. Squires is in the clear now, and I hope there is some serious investigations going on at Mesa PD. Hopefully someday the Squires and the rest of the community get an apology.

(Full article below.)

---

Heather Squires was arrested for DUI without drinking a drop of alcohol

By Sarah Fenske
Published in the Phoenix New Times on May 29, 2008

Heather Squires was the designated driver. Never exactly a fun thing, but a college buddy of her husband’s was driving up from Tucson to celebrate his acceptance into law school. So when her husband, Jason, asked, Heather said yes.

At Chuy’s in Tempe, Heather’s brother and her husband and the soon-to-be-law-school student knocked off four pitchers of beer. Everybody was having a great time.

Around 9:30 p.m., they decided to head home. So they piled into Jason Squires’ new pickup truck. As planned, Heather drove.

They didn’t get very far.

A motorcycle cop spotted the truck as Heather drove through the intersection of Baseline Road and Mesa Drive. Not familiar with the truck, she’d failed to flip on her lights. Soon the cop was flipping on his — and they were flashing.

Heather was ordered out of the vehicle and almost immediately handcuffed. She was taken to the Mesa Police Department and charged with both driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol content over the legal limit. The truck was searched, then impounded.

Party’s over.

Heather Squires was no different from any of the thousands of people who’ve been charged with DUI this year in Arizona. They drank, they got busted, and now — thanks to the toughest DUI laws in the nation — they can expect jail time, big fines, and an ignition interlock.

Except for one thing.

Heather Squires’ blood alcohol content that night was 0.00. The records prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that she was an exemplary designated driver.

She hadn’t had a drop to drink.

Heather Squires is a 29-year-old legal assistant, but with long blond hair and wholesome good looks, she resembles nothing so much as a fresh-scrubbed high school student.

So it doesn’t surprise me that the Mesa policeman’s first question was, “How old are you?” On a dark night, it would be easy to assume she was underage and out past curfew.

The problem is, she wasn’t. Wasn’t underage, wasn’t past curfew, wasn’t drunk. Wasn’t even drinking. The arrest should never have happened. And though Mesa police quietly dismissed the charges against her a month later, I think her case still raises serious questions.

Let’s face it. The DUI situation in Arizona is out of control. As I reported earlier this year, drivers are getting popped after just one or two drinks, with blood alcohol contents far below the legal limit.

But Heather’s case is the only one I’ve seen in which the driver drank nothing. It certainly makes me wonder whether her treatment was related to the fact that her husband, Jason, is a DUI attorney based in Mesa.

A few months before Heather’s arrest, in fact, he helped a client beat the rap for extreme DUI at a jury trial, even though records suggest the guy was guilty.

The officer who arrested the guy? Bond Gonzalez — the same cop who would arrest Heather Squires.

I would call that a remarkable coincidence, except I’m not so sure it is a coincidence. The truck, after all, was registered to Jason Squires. And when Gonzalez began questioning Heather, Jason immediately identified himself from the back seat, as Gonzalez’s report confirms.

Gonzalez wrote in the report that he did not recognize Squires for quite some time. In fact, when Squires showed his bar card to verify that he’s an attorney, Gonzalez wrote that Squires was attempting to claim he worked for the county attorney.

I find the officer’s report a little disingenuous.

The Squireses agree that, upon his pulling them over, Gonzalez was almost immediately hostile. Rather than ask Heather Squires whether she’d had anything to drink, he ordered her out of the truck. Then he immediately ordered her to do a field sobriety test.

Sensing trouble, Jason Squires advised her to refuse.

“I didn’t like the way this was happening,” he explains. “At that point, I’m not going to trust him to be fair.” It didn’t help that the area where they were standing was covered in thick gravel and Heather Squires was wearing strappy heels. As any DUI lawyer knows, that’s setting a driver up for failure.

Now, the law is clear. If you refuse a blood test, the police confiscate your license right away and suspend it for a year. By refusing, you’re admitting guilt.

But that is not true for field sobriety tests. They are supposed to be optional.

That’s not how Gonzalez handled it. When Heather Squires refused the field tests, Gonzalez said he had no choice: “If you’re not going to do these, I’m putting you under arrest.”

“What for?” Jason Squires asked, incredulous. He knew his wife hadn’t been drinking.

Within minutes, she was in cuffs anyway.

The Mesa police are equipped with portable Breathalyzers — a test that would have shown immediately that Squires was not intoxicated. But Gonzalez never administered one.

And though Gonzalez’s supervisor showed up, he never administered a breath test, either.

In total, five cops reported to the scene. (Nice use of Mesa’s tax dollars, eh?) And not one of them did anything to stop the madness. Not one of them noticed that the woman they were arresting was as sober as an undertaker.

The next day, Jason Squires filed an Internal Affairs complaint, alleging retaliation. He and Heather say there will be a lawsuit.

The Mesa police see things a bit differently. Detective Steve Berry, a spokesman for the department, tells me that by refusing the field test, Heather Squires “forced” Gonzalez’s hand.

“He had to look at the totality of the situation,” Berry says. “You have a car where the other two individuals are clearly drinking. He smells alcohol. And then you have someone driving without their headlights, not willing to do field sobriety tests — he’s left with few options at that point.”

Berry adds that Gonzalez likely had no idea whom he was pulling over. Yes, police typically run license plates before making a traffic stop, but they’re mostly checking to make sure a vehicle isn’t stolen. He’s skeptical that Gonzalez actually recognized Squires’ name.

But as scary as it is to think that the police harassed the wife of a DUI lawyer, I think the other option is almost scarier.

And that’s this: In this time of anti-DUI zeal, are police so eager to make arrests that everyone on the road at night is presumed to be a drunk driver?

It’s interesting to read the affidavit that Officer Gonzalez wrote that night about Heather Squires, intending to ask the Motor Vehicles Division of ADOT to yank her license. (He never mailed it — possibly because of the blood-test results.)

It describes “bloodshot and watery eyes.”

“Flushed face.”

“Strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from breath.”

All this on a woman who was sober.

Anyone at that scene should have noticed that Heather Squires didn’t smell of alcohol, that her eyes weren’t bloodshot, that her face wasn’t flushed. She wasn’t, after all, drunk.

But that’s not what they wanted to see.

There’s no one who understands that better than Jason Squires.

Two months ago, when Squires questioned Officer Gonzalez in court for that extreme DUI arrest he’d made, Gonzalez admitted that he’d pull people over at night for things he’d never bust them for during the day. And when a juror asked if he had a quota, Gonzalez replied that he liked to arrest three people per night.

So what if some of them are sober, right?

One month after her arrest, Heather Squires is still nervous behind the wheel.

“Particularly when I’m in Mesa,” she admits. “Like, I would not want to call them in an emergency — the people you think are there to help you and assist you are not.” Even knowing that she was sober, she says, she agonized over whether the charges would be dismissed.

Keep in mind, this is coming from a woman whose husband handles DUI cases for a living. Most of us would have been on our own.

Honestly, I don’t want to believe that Officer Gonzalez sought out the lawyer who beat him in court — and then penalized his wife when she’d done nothing wrong.

But a rogue cop is almost preferable to a system that’s stacked against motorists who want nothing more than to get home at night. Those people might not be as sober as Heather Squires proved to be, but after one or two drinks, I’m willing to bet that they don’t have bloodshot eyes or reek of booze. You’re still going to read that in the police report.

That’s how the system works these days.

“We have to fight this,” Jason Squires tell me, “for all the people out there who can’t.”

It’s going to be a lonely fight in this teetotaler’s paradise. But if nothing else, I bet he’s got the Mesa PD’s attention.

Drive carefully, Jason.