Sgt. Will Manion and officer Patrick D'Arrigo are veteran but very different San Jose cops: Manion, a former homicide investigator, was once a rising star, an easy shot to be captain. D'Arrigo is a cop's cop, content to stay an officer but no one's fool.
Today they're joined in an unusual purgatory: They're both on administrative leave as District Attorney Dolores Carr reviews whether they should be charged with trying to cover up the drunken driving of an ex-cop last March.
You can understand why the DA might want to look at the case: The errant former cop, Sandra Woodall, had crashed into two cars. She had sworn at officers. And a paramedic and an EMT said she reeked of alcohol. Despite all that, she was not asked to take a Breathalyzer or blood test. She wasn't asked whether she had been drinking.
Manion and D'Arrigo, who were among four officers at the scene, did not handle the affair well. They should face an administrative penalty, probably a suspension, if for no other reason than the episode has brought shame on the department. But they're guilty of no crime. This should be easy for the DA: Let the criminal case drop and turn the matter back to Police Chief Rob Davis.
I say that for two reasons. The first is practical. The DA has no chance of getting a conviction on this case. The second reason is one of equity. A criminal charge would simply be overkill in the Department of Second Guessing.
Since this story broke, I've made fun of the "egg roll'' theory of the accident, a police version that suggested that the crash was caused because Woodall was distracted by dipping her Jack-in-the-Box egg rolls into ranch dressing as she barreled along in her Cadillac Escalade.
It's one thing, however, to question how the cops handled an accident that involved one of their own. It's another entirely to say they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of obstructing justice.
"With lavish doses of hindsight, would everyone have covered themselves better if they had said, 'We better get a tech out here and put a needle in her arm when the opportunity allows?'"‰'' asked Craig Brown, the two cops' attorney. "Yes, sure. But evil and sinister motives? Trying to obstruct justice? I don't think so.''
During the past three years, I've covered two big cases in which cops were accused of misconduct. One involved two Palo Alto cops charged with roughing up a black man; the second involved a state drug officer who fatally shot a fleeing man in the back. The first ended with an infraction, the second with an acquittal.
It's no accident that both those cases were defended by Brown, who knows his turf well. Juries find it hard to convict cops, even when the evidence is against them.
In this case, the evidence is mixed. Brown says the other officers at the scene have told investigators that they saw no evidence of alcohol. The paramedic and EMT disagree. Now you can conclude that this is simply a case of officers closing ranks for one another. But there's another reason why this shouldn't be criminal. It's too unfair a penalty.
Every cop makes dozens of decisions during the day — to arrest this person, to let another go. The prospect of rewarding bad judgment with a jail term would make the job almost impossible.
Yes, Manion and D'Arrigo made mistakes at the scene. And maybe they gave subtle preference to one of their own (Woodall is now an investigator with the DA's office).
But the two cops, and particularly Manion, have paid a price for those mistakes in their careers. The path to captain looks pretty distant now.
Both still have much to offer the city. Call off the dogs, give them a suspension, and get them back to work
Showing posts with label Sandra Woodall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sandra Woodall. Show all posts
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
District Attorney Reviewing Evidence of Officer Cover Up
Santa Clara County District Attorney Dolores Carr is now reviewing evidence of whether a pair of San Jose police officers tried to cover up the drunken driving of a former cop, the Mercury News has learned.
Carr will determine if the two officers broke a law and should be charged with a crime.
The county's top prosecutor can decide to charge them, decline to charge or present the case to a grand jury to let it decide if charges are warranted. A decision may not come soon.
The office may wait until a pending drunk-driving charge being prosecuted by the state Attorney General's office against Sandra Woodall is complete, according to Assistant District Attorney David Tomkins, who is reviewing the case.
Woodall, a former San Jose police officer who now works as an investigator with the District Attorney's office, is charged with drunkenly smashing her Cadillac Escalade into two cars, causing minor injuries. The officers being investigated may be looking at criminal conspiracy or other charges because reports seem to show that they overlooked plentiful of evidence that Woodall was highly intoxicated. They did not test her blood alcohol level or even ask her whether she had been drinking.
No matter what Carr's decision, many will be watching closely to see how she handles the controversial case. The suspect in the DUI is her own employee. And Carr has been targeted by some critics who suspect that she is too close to the police department — something she strongly denies. Her husband and stepson are officers.
Tomkins said: " I routinely review allegations of criminal wrong-doing of police officers. I don't see this as being any different.'' The office has two pending felony cases against officers, including one - ironically — against Woodall's husband, who is charged with time sheet fraud.
Many in and out of law enforcement said Thursday that they thought Carr's office would fairly evaluate the case.
"I'm very confident we've done a thorough, professional and objective investigation," Assistant Police Chief Dan Katz said. "And we have full confidence the District Attorney's office in their review of the case.''
It was the police department brass that launched the criminal probe of their own officers, assigning two veteran investigators to gather evidence.
San Jose's Independent Police Auditor Police Barbara Attard said: "I have confidence the District Attorney will make the right decision to ensure public confidence in the criminal justice system and its fair application to persons regardless of their status or employment.''
The two officers at the heart of the controversial case — Sgt. Will Manion and Officer Patrick D'Arrigo — are on paid administrative leaves.
Attorney Craig Brown, who is representing the officers, said they are "good, honorable well- respected officers who absolutely would not have put themselves, their families and their careers at risk to cover up a suspected DUI for a former police officer.''
Brown emphasized the word "former" and added that neither officer were friends or even close with either Woodall or her husband.
The investigation stems from a multi-vehicle accident on March 25. Woodall hit two cars on Branham Lane and Pearl Avenue, police said. Woodall told medical responders she was just out of rehab, had consumed alcohol earlier in the evening and was so disoriented that she didn't know what year it was, according to reports and witnesses.
Both the paramedic and the EMT on the scene who treated Woodall noted the strong smell of alcohol on her breath. One reported that he told the officers that Woodall was drunk, something Brown said the officers "bitterly" dispute.
But neither Manion — the police supervisor on the scene — nor any of the other officers noted these things. And at one point, Manion seemed to the medical workers to be coaching Woodall to answer their questions, according to a police report. He later tried to prevent them from bringing her to a hospital, they alleged.
Brown said: "There are reasons to question the veracity and credibility at least one — if not both — of the paramedics."
Backed up by some other officers at the scene, Manion's account was that he had no evidence at the time that Woodall was drunk and he was trying to determine whether she could be brought to a hospital against her will. Some officers concluded that the collision could have been caused because Woodall was eating egg rolls from Jack in the Box while she was driving.
D'Arrigo, also at the crash scene, allegedly told the mother of one of the victims that too much time had passed to give Woodall a blood test. The woman thought she had spoken to the officer less than two hours after the accident.
The investigation into the case didn't proceed until after a resident complained to police commanders that no charges had been filed even though there was evidence Woodall was drunk. Carr then referred the case to the California Attorney General's Office.
That office filed felony drunken-driving charges against Woodall in early July. Woodall has pleaded not guilty. Her next scheduled court date is later this month.
http://www.pr.com/press-release/
Carr will determine if the two officers broke a law and should be charged with a crime.
The county's top prosecutor can decide to charge them, decline to charge or present the case to a grand jury to let it decide if charges are warranted. A decision may not come soon.
The office may wait until a pending drunk-driving charge being prosecuted by the state Attorney General's office against Sandra Woodall is complete, according to Assistant District Attorney David Tomkins, who is reviewing the case.
Woodall, a former San Jose police officer who now works as an investigator with the District Attorney's office, is charged with drunkenly smashing her Cadillac Escalade into two cars, causing minor injuries. The officers being investigated may be looking at criminal conspiracy or other charges because reports seem to show that they overlooked plentiful of evidence that Woodall was highly intoxicated. They did not test her blood alcohol level or even ask her whether she had been drinking.
No matter what Carr's decision, many will be watching closely to see how she handles the controversial case. The suspect in the DUI is her own employee. And Carr has been targeted by some critics who suspect that she is too close to the police department — something she strongly denies. Her husband and stepson are officers.
Tomkins said: " I routinely review allegations of criminal wrong-doing of police officers. I don't see this as being any different.'' The office has two pending felony cases against officers, including one - ironically — against Woodall's husband, who is charged with time sheet fraud.
Many in and out of law enforcement said Thursday that they thought Carr's office would fairly evaluate the case.
"I'm very confident we've done a thorough, professional and objective investigation," Assistant Police Chief Dan Katz said. "And we have full confidence the District Attorney's office in their review of the case.''
It was the police department brass that launched the criminal probe of their own officers, assigning two veteran investigators to gather evidence.
San Jose's Independent Police Auditor Police Barbara Attard said: "I have confidence the District Attorney will make the right decision to ensure public confidence in the criminal justice system and its fair application to persons regardless of their status or employment.''
The two officers at the heart of the controversial case — Sgt. Will Manion and Officer Patrick D'Arrigo — are on paid administrative leaves.
Attorney Craig Brown, who is representing the officers, said they are "good, honorable well- respected officers who absolutely would not have put themselves, their families and their careers at risk to cover up a suspected DUI for a former police officer.''
Brown emphasized the word "former" and added that neither officer were friends or even close with either Woodall or her husband.
The investigation stems from a multi-vehicle accident on March 25. Woodall hit two cars on Branham Lane and Pearl Avenue, police said. Woodall told medical responders she was just out of rehab, had consumed alcohol earlier in the evening and was so disoriented that she didn't know what year it was, according to reports and witnesses.
Both the paramedic and the EMT on the scene who treated Woodall noted the strong smell of alcohol on her breath. One reported that he told the officers that Woodall was drunk, something Brown said the officers "bitterly" dispute.
But neither Manion — the police supervisor on the scene — nor any of the other officers noted these things. And at one point, Manion seemed to the medical workers to be coaching Woodall to answer their questions, according to a police report. He later tried to prevent them from bringing her to a hospital, they alleged.
Brown said: "There are reasons to question the veracity and credibility at least one — if not both — of the paramedics."
Backed up by some other officers at the scene, Manion's account was that he had no evidence at the time that Woodall was drunk and he was trying to determine whether she could be brought to a hospital against her will. Some officers concluded that the collision could have been caused because Woodall was eating egg rolls from Jack in the Box while she was driving.
D'Arrigo, also at the crash scene, allegedly told the mother of one of the victims that too much time had passed to give Woodall a blood test. The woman thought she had spoken to the officer less than two hours after the accident.
The investigation into the case didn't proceed until after a resident complained to police commanders that no charges had been filed even though there was evidence Woodall was drunk. Carr then referred the case to the California Attorney General's Office.
That office filed felony drunken-driving charges against Woodall in early July. Woodall has pleaded not guilty. Her next scheduled court date is later this month.
http://www.pr.com/press-release/
Friday, July 04, 2008
Was Drunk Officer given Favorable Treatment?
More than three months after San Jose police failed to test a former cop for intoxication or cite her after a serious multi-car accident, the state Attorney General has charged Sandra Woodall with felony drunken driving.
Woodall, 39, now an investigator with the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office, is expected in court July 10.
The charge begs a larger and so far unanswered question: Did police officers at the scene of the March 25 nighttime accident intentionally do an incomplete job while trying to protect Woodall from criminal charges?
Soon after realizing one of their own was involved, both police and the district attorney's office agreed to ask the state prosecutor to look into the case, realizing there was a potential conflict of interest.
And there were private worries by officials about whether Woodall was given favorable treatment by fellow cops.
Woodall's husband, Jason, is a sergeant at the department; her father-in-law is Jack Woodall, a former lieutenant at the police department and also a district attorney's investigator.
Officers did not conduct either a field sobriety test or take Woodall's blood, although they had a statement from a witness who claimed to have overheard Woodall talking about drinking. In car crashes, it is common practice to ask for a blood sample if there is probable cause that the driver may be intoxicated.
When asked if state investigators had determined if there was any misconduct on the part of the police, Attorney General spokesman Abraham Arredondo said that he did not know and was not sure it was an issue that was investigated.
"We were asked by the DA's office to look at the DUI because this woman is an employee of the DAs' office and a former police officer," Arredondo said. "When they had that conflict they sent it to us."
"So our people looked at it, reviewed the police report and we decided to file felony DUI charges, there is nothing else that I know of."
A copy of the charges were unavailable today.
Police Sgt. Michael Sullivan said from the moment command staff learned of the case through a citizen complaint they have been "extremely concerned" that the incident may not have been handled properly.
"This why the police department immediately reached out the District Attorney's office and the Attorney General," said Sullivan.
Police confirmed they were investigating what happened that night to determine if the officers acted inappropriately.
Nick Muyo, a spokesman for the district attorney's office, declined comment, other than to say that Woodall has has been put on administrative leave.
On March 25, Woodall was driving a black 2006 Cadillac Escalade eastbound on Branham Lane, police said, when she rear-ended a 1987 Ford Escort driving in the same direction.
The Escalade drove over the median and hit an oncoming 1995 Volkswagen Jetta. The Jetta hit a parked car and the Escalade ended up partially on the sidewalk. All three drivers - including Woodall - complained of minor injuries and were eventually taken to a local hospital, police said.
The case might simply have disappeared had not an outraged victim called top police officials to complain that nothing was being done.
The officials then reviewed the case and recognized the name of the former officer.
They called the DA's office, which - fearing a conflict of interest - forwarded the matter to the state attorney general's office.
If the officers are found to have botched their response to the crash or to have attempted to cover up the Woodall's potential culpability, they could face discipline ranging from extra training to termination.
The officers who responded to the crash, who have not been identified publicly, remain on active duty.
Woodall, 39, now an investigator with the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office, is expected in court July 10.
The charge begs a larger and so far unanswered question: Did police officers at the scene of the March 25 nighttime accident intentionally do an incomplete job while trying to protect Woodall from criminal charges?
Soon after realizing one of their own was involved, both police and the district attorney's office agreed to ask the state prosecutor to look into the case, realizing there was a potential conflict of interest.
And there were private worries by officials about whether Woodall was given favorable treatment by fellow cops.
Woodall's husband, Jason, is a sergeant at the department; her father-in-law is Jack Woodall, a former lieutenant at the police department and also a district attorney's investigator.
Officers did not conduct either a field sobriety test or take Woodall's blood, although they had a statement from a witness who claimed to have overheard Woodall talking about drinking. In car crashes, it is common practice to ask for a blood sample if there is probable cause that the driver may be intoxicated.
When asked if state investigators had determined if there was any misconduct on the part of the police, Attorney General spokesman Abraham Arredondo said that he did not know and was not sure it was an issue that was investigated.
"We were asked by the DA's office to look at the DUI because this woman is an employee of the DAs' office and a former police officer," Arredondo said. "When they had that conflict they sent it to us."
"So our people looked at it, reviewed the police report and we decided to file felony DUI charges, there is nothing else that I know of."
A copy of the charges were unavailable today.
Police Sgt. Michael Sullivan said from the moment command staff learned of the case through a citizen complaint they have been "extremely concerned" that the incident may not have been handled properly.
"This why the police department immediately reached out the District Attorney's office and the Attorney General," said Sullivan.
Police confirmed they were investigating what happened that night to determine if the officers acted inappropriately.
Nick Muyo, a spokesman for the district attorney's office, declined comment, other than to say that Woodall has has been put on administrative leave.
On March 25, Woodall was driving a black 2006 Cadillac Escalade eastbound on Branham Lane, police said, when she rear-ended a 1987 Ford Escort driving in the same direction.
The Escalade drove over the median and hit an oncoming 1995 Volkswagen Jetta. The Jetta hit a parked car and the Escalade ended up partially on the sidewalk. All three drivers - including Woodall - complained of minor injuries and were eventually taken to a local hospital, police said.
The case might simply have disappeared had not an outraged victim called top police officials to complain that nothing was being done.
The officials then reviewed the case and recognized the name of the former officer.
They called the DA's office, which - fearing a conflict of interest - forwarded the matter to the state attorney general's office.
If the officers are found to have botched their response to the crash or to have attempted to cover up the Woodall's potential culpability, they could face discipline ranging from extra training to termination.
The officers who responded to the crash, who have not been identified publicly, remain on active duty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)