Police and Fire Briefs for Aug. 27, 2012

Police arrest 49
on suspicion of DWI

Authorities arrested at least 49 people suspected of driving while intoxicated in East Baton Rouge Parish and booked them into Parish Prison between 2:30 p.m. Saturday and 2:30 p.m. Sunday, booking records show.

The high number of DWI arrests occurred after the Baton Rouge Police Department’s DWI Task Force and the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office set up a sobriety checkpoint Saturday night in the 600 block of South 10th Street at the Interstate 10 entrance ramp from Government Street, police spokesman Cpl. Tommy Stubbs said.

Those booked and the counts against them:

• Michael Barton, 44, 20220 Ravenwing Porter, Texas, first-offense DWI.
• Ronald Blanchard, 39, 17022 Gen. Pickett, first-offense DWI.
• James Broussard, 43, 38267 Susan Court, Gonzales, first-offense DWI and reckless operation of a vehicle.
• Kristen Campbell, 23, 5037 Nelson Road, Livonia, first-offense DWI.
• Darrell Carter, 29, 10795 Meade Road, second-offense DWI and reckless operation of a vehicle.
• Perry Caye, 25, 35291 Rose St., Slidell, first-offense DWI and driver’s license suspended.
• Marshae Celestine, 30, 234 Charles Edward Drive, first-offense DWI.
• Trevis Chapman, 31, 308 Crestview Drive, first-offense DWI, reckless operation of a vehicle and headlights required.
• Roderick Chase, 46, 1952 Maryland St., first-offense DWI.
• Bryan Coach, 31, 614 Moringside St., New Roads, first-offense DWI, possession of alcohol in a vehicle and disobeying a red light.
• Craig Comeaux, 31, 12116 Niece Road, St. Amant, first-offense DWI.
• Dustin Couvillion, 26, 330 Oaks Ave, Port Allen, first-offense DWI and driver’s license suspended.
• Ansley Crane, 27, 2112 Halcyon Downs Loop, Montgomery, Ala., first-offense DWI.
• Erica Curry, 49, 2045 Maryland St., second-offense DWI, reckless operation of a vehicle and drinking in a motor vehicle.
• Nicole Daniels, 27, 11888 Longridge Ave., first-offense DWI, possession of marijuana and reckless operation of a vehicle.
• Devoyal Davis, 41, 18141 Judy Drive, Prairieville, first-offense DWI.
• Wilbert Decuir, 51, 3155 Fairsfield Ave., first-offense DWI and drinking in a motor vehicle.
• Darrell Fortune, 55, 2827 Hollywood St., first-offense DWI and license plate switched.
• George Godrey, 26, 14086 Airline Highway, Gonzales, first-offense DWI.
• Kailey Guillory, 26, 12714 Darby Drive, Walker, first-offense DWI.
• Emile Hebert, 35, 15033 Cocdrie Ave., first offense DWI and no proof of insurance.
• Travis Joiner, 24, 42573 Jalmle Road, Prairieville, first-offense DWI and reckless operation of a vehicle.
• Randall Kirk, 30, 2725 Ray Weiland, Baker, first-offense DWI and failure to maintain control/careless operation.
• Kathy Lawson, 48, 43547 Brittnay St., Sorrento, first-offense DWI.
• Lance Ledet, 25, 1242 Crossbow Drive, second-offense DWI and reckless operation of a vehicle.
• Aubre Lindsay, 21, 19443 Indian Ridge, first-offense DWI.
• Evan Lynn, 38, 10067 La. 16, Amite, first-offense DWI, license plate required and reckless operation of a vehicle.
• Donald McPherson, 36, 11468 Pleasant Knoll Drive, Denham Springs, first-offense DWI.
• Bradley Messina, 27, 40467 Cross Creek, Gonzales, first-offense DWI.
• Jessica Neill, 31, 39192 McCrory Road, Prairieville, first-offense DWI and driver’s license suspended.
• Thuan Nguyen, 27, 3314 Burnside Drive, Gonzales, first-offense DWI.
• Nicholas Noto, 22, 10280 Winston Ave., third-offense DWI, resisting an officer, insurance required, driver’s license not on person and motor vehicle inspection required.
• David Nyguyen, 25, 11368 Buckingham, first-offense DWI.
• Ashley Paxton, 34, 724 Woodview Drive, first-offense DWI and careless driving.
• Steven Presley, 28, 16230 Philip Hickey, first-offense DWI and failure to maintain control/careless operation.
• Marshall Ratcliff, 37, 111 Oak Court, Monroe, second-offense DWI.
• Phillip Richard, 25, 10714 N. Tidecrest Drive, first-offense DWI, improper lane usage and equipment violation.
• Christopher Rippetoe, 28, 9287 Drew Court, first-offense DWI.
• Suryasish Sarkar, 28, 2136 Oakdale Drive, first-offense DWI.
• Brandon Savignol, 24, 12533 Coursey Blvd., first-offense DWI.
• Mathis Schofield, 39, 1336 Maximillian St., first-offense DWI and reckless operation of a vehicle.
• Elbert Sealy, 55, 38355 La. 42, Prairieville, first-offense DWI.
• Fredrick Smith, 27, 10041 Rhine Ave., first-offense DWI.
• Rodney Thomas, 49, 11624 St. Claude Ave., first-offense DWI and improper lane usage.
• Stacy Valentine, 46, 9302 Baronne Drive, first-offense DWI.
• Jared Varnado, 31, 2500 S.W. Florida St., Denham Springs, first-offense DWI and driver's license not in possession.
• Alexander Wade, 37, 233 W. Greens Drive, first-offense DWI, drinking in a motor vehicle and reckless operation of a vehicle.
• Rachael Wade, 40, 233 Greens Drive, first-offense DWI, reckless operation of a vehicle, backing unsafely and interfering with an officer.
• Carl Williams, 51, 2852 Amarillo Lane, first-offense DWI and driver’s license suspended.

Comments

1) Comment by CountryAttorney - 29/08/2012

And as for jedleland: from my understanding of the TLC, its not at all what you have described. Try picking up one of Mr. Spence's books before criticizing his methods. They are very cheap so I'm sure you can afford one.

2) Comment by CountryAttorney - 29/08/2012

@Jimmy: you say the founding fathers didn't have moments wherein they thought of restraining civil liberties. Just as an example, see the Alien and Sedition Acts. I'm pretty sure John Adams, who signed the bill into law, was a Founding Father, was a member of the Contenintal Congress, helped Jefferson draft the Declaration of Independence, and was the Second President of the United States. So at times in our history, our liberties have been restrained, for better, or as is most likely, for worse. But the bottom line is this: the law is the law no matter how you feel about it. Our role as lawyers is to fight to have laws that we see as bad overturned or changed in some way, and I'm with you on that. But as far as the current validity of DWI roadblocks, the law provides that they are constitutional. As I said in an earlier post, since you don't like it, I wish you luck in changing it.

3) Comment by jedleland - 29/08/2012

what kind of ridiculous way is this to spend an evening im off to bed good luck at your next tlc regional let me guess a ballroom in a moderatley priced hotel a comped notepad and pen with logo a pitcher of iced water afternoon snacks a featured speaker a q/a session and an exciting early bird registration opportunity right? ive seen my fair share of cheese over the years and sure dont need it with self loathing lawyers fake otherwise have fun though

4) Comment by jedleland - 29/08/2012

try being a pretend doctor instead of a pretend lawyer thats what i do you get a lot more respect

5) Comment by jedleland - 29/08/2012

see what i mean noone with any legal training would manage to waste a whole evening making sub marchiafava generalisations and exhibit no legsl knowledge at all beyond some sorry gerry spence fanboy idol. not cool. you give away your fakery with your own post no supreme court is ever overturned or reversed? sure but and this is important the case ok- ing dui checkpoints still stands doesnt it try going up against an actual judge and argue that your guy shouldnt be convicted if dui cause he was picked up at a checkpoint anc when the judge says hey you cant be a real lawyer or you would know that the supremd court made that legal you say hey but one day that might get reversed so you should dismiss these charges preemtively based upon a non defined and statistically highly unlikely hypothetical. try that scenario on with your boy spence and see him chuckle dome more your no more an attorney than me at least the other guy can offer a coherent basic legal argument but i gotta say we already have a marchiafava not sure any of us want his understudy

6) Comment by JimmyCee2 - 28/08/2012

@jedleland: You're the perfect patsy for your government -- a docile cow led to slaughter, smiling and thinking you're safe. Once a supreme court rules some issue as "constitutional," that's it, right? The law is thereafter carved in granite and it NEVER changes, right? No supreme court cases are EVER revisited or reversed or changed. Right? Given that "reality," we should never question the rules. Listen attentively to what your leaders TELL you is correct and legal and then simply obey -- always and without question, even if a bit of your individual freedom is carved away each time. My God, it's no wonder our national legislature can slap a name like "The Patriot Act" on the most disenfranchising civil liberty law since we locked up Japanese-Americans and have folks like you smile, accept it as if it makes them safer and submit meekly, as if it need never be questioned again. If the guys who founded this country thought like you, we'd all still be speaking with British accents. @CountryAttorney: If you think I have not answered any questions, then no answer anyone could possibly supply would remotely help you. Get thee to a TLC Regional. Quickly.

7) Comment by jedleland - 28/08/2012

look country guy at the other fellers quality of writing heck im no attorney but even i know dui checkpoints were ruled constitutional in the 90s so whats the problem? This joker inst a lawyer any more than me no lawyer with any training writes as poorly as that next youll be telling me other anonymous people on the internet arent what they claim to be say it aint so!!

8) Comment by CountryAttorney - 28/08/2012

The problem was that until now, you haven't answered any questions. I don't understand how you can say that you go into court and ignore legal arguments. Maybe you can teach me...I'm always open to learning something new. I mean that sincerely. But I don't have a problem with these DWI roadblocks. I do have problems with insurance roadblocks because I don't see the clear and present harm that an uninsured motorist poses to the public since every driver has the ability to protect himself with UM coverage.

9) Comment by jedleland - 28/08/2012

Funny thing about two lawyers in a p**sing contest you dont know who to boo

10) Comment by JimmyCee2 - 28/08/2012

@CountryAttorney: Lord, trying to answer your questions is like talking to the wind. Your technical legal arguments are irrelevant, but some lawyers take such comfort in them -- usually those who would prefer not to think beyond the open page of some supreme court opinion. The dry constitutional arguments are irrelevant because the means employed by the state agents in the scenario is the key, my friend -- not some banal hope that those actions might pass constitutional muster IF only every state actor behaves perfectly. You look at the evidence and ask: How was it obtained? Who did what, when and why? Under what authority? When you approach it that way, you view the scenario from the perspective of the accused, NOT the STATE...although your government always hopes folks will concentrate on everything from the state's perspective. Makes it easier for them that way. Gerry's Thunderhead Ranch is in Wyoming, not Montana. It's 9 miles east of Dubois in the Wind River Range of the Tetons, on the East Fork of the Wind River. I probably taught your mentor there. If you go, I will definitely see you. Once you're accepted, you can make your technical, legal arguments to Gerry...and watch him cackle. He's 83, but still sharp as a razor and teaching there every day the College is in session. In the end, you will laugh at such arguments too. Go to the website and start with the Regional in Key Largo on Discovering the Story -- a topic particularly appropriate to this discussion. You're right about one thing, though: With our government stripping rights away from the citizenry every day, and with most Americans letting them get away with it, my clients will need all the luck they can get.

11) Comment by CountryAttorney - 28/08/2012

I am aware of Mr. Gerry Spence's work and his methods and his impressive results. One of my mentors has been to his ranch in Montana and I do plan to go as soon as I can. Hope to see you there. But I don't know how you sending me to his home page is educating me. TEACH me something! I crave information! Again, you have failed to point out a viable legal argument against the constitutionality of these DWI roadblocks. I, too, wish your clients the best of luck...they may need it.

12) Comment by JimmyCee2 - 28/08/2012

@CountryAttorney: There are cost-effective Trial Lawyer College Regionals and I would commend them to your attention, as well as the full programs in July and September. I wish your clients the very best of luck.

13) Comment by JimmyCee2 - 28/08/2012

@CountryAttorney: I'll educate YOU a bit: www.trialalwyerscollege.com

14) Comment by CountryAttorney - 28/08/2012

The only presumption that I have is that the jurisprudence if correct. Your presumption about me is incorrect, however. I do PI plaintiff work and criminal defense. And yes, my clients, of which I have about 100-120, generally are pleased with their results. I'll educate you a bit. Warrantless searches are presumed to be unconstitutional unless they fit in to narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement. One of those exceptions is exigent circumstances. Drunk drivers pose a clear and present hazard to the motoring public. The only alternative to stopping this hazard is to make arrests after an accident, and by then the damage is done. You can't bring back the dead and you can't immediately heal the injured. DWI roadblocks that are conducted in the prescribed manner fit within this exception to the warrant requirement. Again, I invite you to do the legal research, as a learned attorney such as yourself is capable of doing. After said research is conducted, I further invite you to point out any flaws in my logic. You don't have to agree that the law is good, but reasonable minds must agree that the law is the law.

15) Comment by JimmyCee2 - 28/08/2012

@CountryAttorney: The problem with your assertion is that it presumes correct action on the part of the government without any knowledge of the facts and compares a demand that the individuals' rights be respected to "bellyaching." I would guess you're a prosecutor or some other government paid drone because you've got the mentality down pat. With that lay-down philosophy, I bet your private clients--if you have any--get a hell of a fighter for THEIR rights.

16) Comment by CountryAttorney - 28/08/2012

@Jimmy: did you do the research so that you can show me where I'm incorrect in my assertion? I also believe that the La. Sup. Ct. stated that it is best to have the operating procedure in writing. As you would have learned in law school (if you paid attention), if you change the facts, you change the result. Obviously, if you could show that the officers did not adhere to the guidelines set out in the jurisprudence, the stop would be unconstitutional and the court would have to exclude the evidence. Stop complaining about bad cops (which I agree we have), do your job as a lawyer, and prove your case. The courtroom and the legislature is the place in civilized society where grievances are to be heard. If you don't like it, win in court, lobby the legislature, or win the next election.

17) Comment by JimmyCee2 - 28/08/2012

@CountryAttorney -- Oh, sure, let's just assume those operating these roadblocks are all neutral and acting always in a non-randomized manner, that there's no exercise of undue or improper discretion. Let's not look at the evidence. Why should we? After all, we have your brilliant take on the matter -- supplied to us without ANY knowledge of ANY of the facts. I feel no reassurance in your judgment that law abiding citizenry has NOTHING to fear from their government. Having tried many of these cases and having thus looked at the actual evidence and the law, I can tell you that an astonishing percentage of these roadblocks are operated improperly -- even though the cops will lie to protect themselves and their procedures. (Before law school, I wore the uniform in this city and so this ain't idle chatter.) Of course, that will not matter to you until it's YOUR fanny in the crack. Then, a deliberate review of your rights under the law will be sooooo important. By that time, though...it may be too late.

18) Comment by CountryAttorney - 28/08/2012

Both the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana and the Supreme Court of the United States have held that when DWI and Insurance roadblocks are set up in a neutral and non-randomized fashion, they do not violate the constitutions of either this state, nor the United States. As long as the roadblocks are conducted in a manner that the police have no descretion to decide who is stopped, they are done legally. Stop your bellyaching. Don't drink and drive, and you will only be detained for a matter of seconds. The fact that there was enough probable cause to arrest 49 drivers in a single location is reason enough to set up the roadblock in the first place. Do some legal research and a rational person has no choice but to reach the same conclusion.

19) Comment by JimmyCee2 - 28/08/2012

While our cops stop, detain and search our law-abiding citizenry at supposedly constitutional "roadblocks," 49 people out of the multitude stopped are arrested and charged by their government w/ DWI. Every one of them is presumed innocent. Just because some cop on the side of the road says you did something wrong does not mean it is remotely true or susceptible of being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of the posters on this site make the leap that ALL are guilty, ALL are endangering public safety, blah, blah, blah. How can such sheep ever protect the rights sacredly delivered to the citizenry in this republic? You can bet if these reflexive posters were charged w/ some random crime by some erring cop, they would be bleating even louder about their "rights." As for the authorities involved in this dragnet -- First: Show me how you got the evidence. Second: Prove you secured it legally. Third: Get into the light of an open Court and prove your case against the citizen beyond a reasonable doubt...assuming you have any evidence left after the 1st 2 steps.

20) Comment by unitedstates1 - 28/08/2012

Perhaps he will one day strap his bug-out bag to his motorcycle and ride off into his sovereign sunset, lol.

21) Comment by gofigger - 28/08/2012

But we can't drug test welfare recipients?

22) Comment by Duckyluve - 28/08/2012

Been PEC'd lately????

23) Comment by nimby? - 27/08/2012

dead is dead , ain't no coming back ....

24) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 27/08/2012

Those who are willing to surrender essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither. Would that be the one?

25) Comment by LSUinVail - 27/08/2012

I do not agree with the knuckle heads who decide to do drugs and get behind the wheel...not a wise decision. But how are involuntary roadside "checkpoints" still legal and not rightly declared unconstitutional? Oh yeah, it's Louisiana...violation of civil rights is smoothed over and routinely acceptable thereby soothing the complacent sheeple. I think Benjamin Franklin had a quote pursuant to such a mind set.

26) Comment by jedleland - 27/08/2012

just give the guy the cop job he wanted years ago and it all goes away

27) Comment by jedleland - 27/08/2012

see you in laplace shoneys next time mark i was there at your first meeting of sovereign citizens remember? its been a few years but let me know when yall are getting together again

28) Comment by jedleland - 27/08/2012

man here i am taking the bait myself like a fool i'll never learn and mark has friends at the advocate so these will be removed anytime now to protect his fragile psyche more fragile than you might think (PEC?) so i'll take my own advice and drive sober and leave well enough alone not like people dont know his phoniness now cause its become legendary hasnt it?

29) Comment by jedleland - 27/08/2012

and are you still taking federal HUD money stolen from taxpayers like us to pay for those slums you own in gardere and how much was that hush money bribe you got to drop your frivolous lawsuit after your tanger outlet scam lawsuit theres another great mystery

30) Comment by jedleland - 27/08/2012

mark buddy ill help you out and save you some typing here we go may the chains of slavery rest lightly on your bones - thats one and how about land of the free? LOL in your dreams theres another one then there the one about 'as a younger man' ioh you already used that one am i missing any i think you have about 5 or 6 of them maybe someone else can fill in the blanks what a phoney folks if you just dont take the bait he goes away try it and see

31) Comment by nimby? - 27/08/2012

the dead have no recourse . I'm sure this action prevented several wrecks , possibility of injuries or worse . yes Mark , freedom comes with a price . the lives of my family and my self out weigh your right to ride "unmolested" ,....

32) Comment by swg1985 - 27/08/2012

"Whoever wrote this article for The Advocate failed to mention how many other citizens had their right to travel violated by this Nazi- esque roadblock." There we go. The troll shows his true colors.

33) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 27/08/2012

Whoever wrote this article for The Advocate failed to mention how many other citizens had their right to travel violated by this Nazi-esque roadblock.

34) Comment by unitedstates1 - 27/08/2012

MEM has a pull-down cut and paste menu of used and re-used messages. The previous comment he has used not long ago. He fancies himself a sovereign citizen, but mainly seeks attention.

35) Comment by swg1985 - 27/08/2012

Mark, what society do you live in? How are you less responsible than everyone else? It's always someone else's fault.

36) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 27/08/2012

What you people have done is trade your essential liberty to travel the roads unmolested for what you perceive to be safety.

37) Comment by Whatnow - 27/08/2012

markedwardmarchiafava, the cop hater. We know Mark. It's just no one is listening to you. If a drunk driver hurts or kills you or someone in your family, then you can ask who's rights were taken away.

38) Comment by swg1985 - 27/08/2012

Mark, ever think it was the fault of nutjobs like you?

39) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 27/08/2012

As a much younger man, I often wondered how this once-great Republic, with all the rights it protected, deteriorated into just another third world democracy with NO rights. After reading the posts below, well, let's just be polite and say The Great Mystery has been solved.

40) Comment by swg1985 - 27/08/2012

Breaking the law and violating rights are two separate things. They broke the law. They went to jail. What is the issue here? If you're trying to sound smart because there is nothing in the constitution about public safety, then you accomplished your goal. But there is also nothing in the constitution about me trying to shoot you with a gun. Or throwing you off a bridge. The things that prohibit those kinds of actions are called laws. They are voted on by our representatives and are in place to protect the safety of the public. Here, they are in place to protect me against drunk drivers. Keep your TV-drama knowledge of the constitution to yourself. Troll on brother.

41) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 27/08/2012

Be specific, just which right of your's did someone violate? Name both the person and the right in question.

42) Comment by MissCotillion - 27/08/2012

Good grief. Where were all these people? The casinos? good work by law enforecement keeping these drunk drivers off the roads. As for Mark, the troll, yes- they violate laws and my rights when they get behind the wheels of their cares and drive while drunk. I don't want them on the road with me, my loved ones, or anyone else.

43) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 27/08/2012

can any of you cop suckers point out one person above who actually violated the rights of anyone else?

44) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 27/08/2012

29 people you got to be kidding me? These clowns are not taking our laws seriously. Kudos to law enforcement for getting these idiots off our streets. Baton Rouge should be known for a drive drunk go to jail policy. Thanks law enforcement for an outstanding job!

45) Comment by gary - 27/08/2012

Finally, it appears that EBSO and BRPD is getting serious about DWI - it is easy to get around this - don't drink and drive.

46) Comment by ABayouBoy - 27/08/2012

I guess that all 49 flunked the test. Next time study harder! Next time learn the lesson - Don't drink or try to drive in EBRP. If the frustration with traffic doesn't get you, the boys in blue will.....Oh, I almost forgot, in that location, watch out for speeding bullets, too.

47) Comment by eastta - 27/08/2012

Holy Freaking Ghost!