He Was Better Off With The Cover-Up

A couple of weeks ago, Dan Bice, of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, wrote about Sheriff David Clarke trying to help a drunk driver out of a snowbank. Clarke then started with a cover up by putting the deputy who actually did her job under investigation for unknown allegations. Of course, this would cause one to speculate about what Clarke was trying to hide.

Apparently feeling the heat from this story, Clarke then tried to throw up a distraction by blasting a dispatcher for *gasp* doing his job the way he was trained to.

Now, Dan Bice finally gets Clarke to talk and give his side of the drunk driver story. First, Clarke gives some lame story that despite being there for at least a half hour, helping the drunk driver trying to get out the keys that he locked in his car, and then trying to push and pull the car out of the snowbank. During all this time, he somehow fails to notice the beer cans in the car or that the guy reeks of alcohol.

Then he comes up with this tidbit:

The sheriff said he called dispatch to get assistance from another officer. While waiting, Clarke said he requested Allen's license, and the driver gave him a state-issued ID instead.

Clarke said he gave the ID card to Santoro when she arrived and that she soon found out that Allen's license was suspended.

The sheriff said he then headed home, leaving it to Santoro and a second deputy to resolve the matter. Contrary to Allen's comments, Clarke said he wasn't in a hurry to get home; otherwise, he said he wouldn't have stopped. But he said his work at the scene was complete.

"I was done," Clarke said. "I didn't even follow up the next day."

Felber, the union rep, disputed the sheriff's statement that he called dispatch, saying there is no evidence for that. Felber also said Santoro was the first to ask Allen for his driver's license. Allen said the same thing, adding that he thought Clarke was going to let him go.

Asked about their statements, the sheriff responded with an expletive.

Not being satisfied with shooting himself in the foot like that, Clarke thought he'd go even further. He then criticizes the deputy for not collecting the beer cans, stating that the drunk driver could have gotten the charges dropped because of the "lack of evidence." Clarke then added that the drunk driver could still have the charges dropped if he appealed the conviction.

Only problem is that what Clarke is stating is not true. From Bice's column:

No doubt, the drunken driver appreciates the free legal help.

But, as it turns out, the advice is worth what Allen paid for it.

Chisholm said state law allows police to destroy evidence once a case is resolved. Since Allen was convicted in March, Chisholm said there would be no need to hang onto the cans after that, particularly on an ordinance violation.

In addition, the chief prosecutor said, Allen couldn't challenge his conviction based on the fact that the cops don't have his old beer cans.

"That's not going to cut it," Chisholm said. "The only reason the can is relevant is for a Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) stop motion, and he would have been considered to have waived that right by entering a plea."

Clarke would have been better off stopping with the cover up. The worst that would happen is that he'd have someone like me telling his 5.3 readers that Clarke isn't very good at his job. Instead, he goes ahead and proves it.