Democracy In Albany - New York Politics || Unfounded

Unfounded

By DIA, Section News
Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST

An albany police officer showed up to work drunk. How do we know? Because his boss made him take a breath test and he failed. Guess what happened to him

Police union leaders publicly challenged the validity of the Breathalyzer results which allegedly showed the officers were impaired because the machine had not been calibrated and had been taken out of service because it was not working properly, they said. They also questioned whether Pickel was properly trained to administer a Breathalyzer test.

Szelest received a letter last May clearing him of any wrongdoing. "The investigation has shown that the allegations against you were closed as unfounded, where the review shows that the act or acts complained did not occur or were misconstrued," Chief James W. Tuffey wrote in the letter, a copy of which was provided to the Times Union.

Yup. He got an apology letter from the chief.

Drove drunk to work, blew over the limit, gets an apology. Fuck it, why not promote him while we are at it.

Let's stop being so coy. How about the common council just passes a new law that says any member of the APD is above the law.

< Albany County Legislature | Convention Center Economics >

Menu

+ create account
+ faq
+ search

Login

Make a new account

Related Links

+ what happened to him
+ Also by DIA

Unfounded | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden)

They already did that (none / 0) (#1)
by alfrednewman on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:34:10 PM EST

Its when they signed the contract.
"What? Me worry? " "whatmeworry.alfred@gmail.com"

ah ha (none / 0) (#2)
by DIA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:55:50 PM EST

but the mayor negotiates the contract. So I guess we have him to thank. Actually its not a guess. This is the mayor's bit. He owns it.

[ Parent ]

ah- yup (none / 0) (#3)
by alfrednewman on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:08:30 PM EST

So if the supervisor wasnt properly trained to administer the test I wonder if they have a list of just who is.

Seems to me that if I had a DWI conviction I would be very interested in getting my hands on that list.
"What? Me worry? " "whatmeworry.alfred@gmail.com"
[ Parent ]

sorry (none / 0) (#4)
by DIA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:41:36 PM EST

as a citizen the laws actually apply to you. Nice try.

[ Parent ]

: ah-nope (none / 0) (#5)
by alfrednewman on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:14:44 PM EST

Never got caught DWI.
It was a rhetorical question.
"What? Me worry? " "whatmeworry.alfred@gmail.com"
[ Parent ]

i got that (none / 0) (#6)
by DIA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:50:58 PM EST

i'm saying as any citizen it would seem like we all would want to know which cops were trained to adminster the tests and which weren't. Perhaps on their badges it could say "i have no idea what i'm doing and it doesn't matter if you are drunk because the charges won't stick". My understanding was that all cops were trained to do their job. Apparently chief tuffey sez some cops are not trained to do their job. I join you in wanting to know which ones are trained and which ones aren't.

And then in all seriousness, I think the chief should be incredibly embarassed. We've got members of his force that can't get people to blow into a machine properly (according to him) but are perfectly qualified to fire a handgun on a crowded street.

: Not all cops are trained in everything (none / 0) (#10)
by wredlich on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:21:42 AM EST

There's special training to be certified as a "Breath Test Operator". Not all cops get that training and certification. There are many things officers can be trained in. An undercover narcotics investigator would not need breathalzyer training, for example, while a road patrol officer would not need special training in crime scene investigation.
It is a good issue though, to see what kind of training officers get, and whether they should get more. It's my impression from talking to older cops (in various departments) that they used to get a lot more training. Training has been cut back dramatically. -Warren
Albany Lawyer Warren Redlich Blog: Albany Lawyer Blog
[ Parent ]
: More obfuscation by Tuffey and Measley (none / 0) (#17)
by Breakupthemachine on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:05:25 PM EST

The whole issue of the sgt not being properly trained or the machine not being calibrated is smoke and mirrors to misdirect the audience. Ladies and gentlemen, the police make arrests everyday for DWI against people who refused to blow into a machine. Its called common law DWI and is based on the officer's observation of glassy eyes, slurred speech, unsteadiness on their feet, smell of an alcoholic beverage on their breath. So, who is kidding who here. This is nothing more than Tuffey and Measley demonstrating that the APD no tolerance policy is more show than go. Just like the Chief's personal investigation into the missing machine guns which he started after being ridiculed for first stating they were not a priority for him.
~~~~In Vino Vertas~~~~
[ Parent ]

I think the real problem (none / 0) (#7)
by alfrednewman on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:35:32 PM EST

is when a "supervisor" is apparently doing something that, according to the union, he didn't know how to do.

Shouldnt this guy know if he is qualified to administer the test or not? I can accept, or better, understand, the "machine was faulty" argument. I cannot accept or understand that the supervisor is in a position where he didn't know what he was doing.

There are a couple of other points that kind of bothered me. Without going back and reading it, wasnt this the case where the supervisor waited a couple of days before reporting the incident?

It really sounds like the supervisor intentionally balled this one up so that the two police officers could not be properly delt with.
"What? Me worry? " "whatmeworry.alfred@gmail.com"

It's not that simple (none / 0) (#11)
by AlfredMoisiu on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:24:35 PM EST

Looking at a event based on the hindsight and a news report oversimplifies the situation.

Check out this blog:
http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com

Check out some of the cases -- it really is difficult sometimes to do things perfectly. When I worked for government in one of my first supervisory roles and had to fire someone in a seemingly open and shut case: the individual was sleeping at work, drinking at lunch and fucking up their work.

Yet firing this individual took almost a year, and easily occupied 40% of my time for awhile.

[ Parent ]

whoa (none / 0) (#12)
by DIA on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:55:52 PM EST

a government employee was sleeping at work and drinking at lunch. And this is news how?

[ Parent ]

: Thanks, Al (none / 0) (#13)
by one flew east on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:49:09 AM EST

I got your point, even though I guess some people didn't.

[ Parent ]

Probably (none / 0) (#14)
by Tom Paine on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:01:28 PM EST

Probably what happened (just my guess but it's as good as anyone else's here) is this:
a) The cop was obviously falling-down drunk. He had to be or the supervisor would not have had the balls to give him the breathalyzer.
b) The test was administered correctly by the supervising cop.
c) The drunk cop blew way over the limit, i.e., he really was drunk

NOW the APD has a problem. So they fix it by constructing an alternate story:
d) Saying the machine was not maintained; whether it was or not is immaterial.
e) Saying the supervisor wsn't trained. Whether he was or not, and whether it takes a lot of training to administer this test or not, doesn't matter.
f) Throwing out the results, i.e., no more problem.
g) Ensuring the officer in question's silence by giving him an apology.

Everyone looks better this way don't they?

I suggest my version is one that the Mayor, the Chief, the Department, the officer, and the union can all get on board with for their own reasons.

But one thing we can guarantee is we will never know what really happened.

[ Parent ]

On Being Coy (none / 0) (#8)
by Roscoe on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:49:25 AM EST

What I don't understand about this series of alcohol and drug incidents involving the police is why the Mayor and the Common Council don't severally propose and enact an ordinance which deals with it in a forthright manner: a zero-tolerance alcohol and drug policy. If there are contract issues, then make it stick on the next round of negotiations, without ANY additional concessions. Make the ordinance applicable city-wide, as to all agencies and departments, and give it real teeth.

As to the City School District, require compliance by all personnel, as well. I'm surprised this isn't already the case. I'm also surprised it hasn't been brought to the Board table by BOTH the Board of Education, and the School Administration.

: Accountability (none / 0) (#15)
by Tom Paine on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST

Well, here's a suggestion: they don't have a straightforward policy and honest reporting on it because that would involve the concept of accountability. No one wants that.

[ Parent ]

Innocent until proven guilty? (none / 0) (#9)
by AlfredMoisiu on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:07:25 AM EST

If you subpeona breathalyzer or speed radar records and find that it wasn't maintained, you're going to get off.

Unfortunately for you, DIA, evidence that you collect can't be used against you if it's inaccurate.

Due process can get in away with things -- and when people try to get around it, you end up with things like guantamano.

Common Council needs to step up (none / 0) (#16)
by albarbor on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:22:46 PM EST

The bottom line is if you come to work as a police officer and report for duty with any alcohol in your system it should be an automatic suspension. We throw our neighbors and kids in jail for something like this, but the police officer receives an apology from the city. Now imagine if he had to use his weapon while under the influence. Private citizens are given DUIs and they don't have the powerful police union standing up for them. Mayor Jennings needs to step in on this one.

Unfounded | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden)

create account | faq | search