Judge: ‘In the tapes I saw some evidence of impairment’ as he orders DUI case to trial
August 20th, 2009 by TCPalm.comVERO BEACH — Jury selection begins Monday in the DUI trial of Indian River County Administrator Joe Baird and prosecutors will get to use key evidence the defense wanted excluded.
County Judge David Morgan refused defense attorney Bobby Guttridge’s request Wednesday to toss out the May 16 arrest, which the attorney said was based on an invalid stop.
During the 2 1/2-hour pretrial hearing, Morgan said a police video of Baird’s roadside sobriety tests shows “some evidence of impairment.”
Also, Morgan is allowing use of Baird’s statement that he was headed to the Long Branch Saloon when he was stopped in Vero Beach on a Saturday night.
That, said Morgan, might show an “impairment thought process.” A reasonable person would conclude that Baird wasn’t going to the bar just for the ambiance, the judge said.
Baird, 52, refused comment on the judge’s rulings, on advice of his attorney.
“We’re disappointed, but not shocked” by Morgan’s rulings, Guttridge said.
Assistant State Attorney David Dodd declined comment.
Guttridge still plans to take the case to trial and that could take two days after jury selection. Baird has pleaded not guilty.
Morgan asked for extra jurors to be called for jury selection on Monday. At Guttridge’s request, jurors will be questioned individually whether they have been affected by extensive pre-trial publicity of the case.
In the hearing, Guttridge contended that Baird’s driving around 10:30 p.m. didn’t warrant his being stopped by police officer Lt. Matt Harrelson on 21st Street in the Miracle Mile Plaza.
Harrelson said he began following Baird’s 2000 Jeep Cherokee on Indian River Boulevard because the Jeep’s brake lights stayed on after going south through an intersection where the stop light just turned green.
Harrelson followed - within a car’s length - after the Jeep turned onto 21st Street and strayed across the roadway striping as the vehicle sped up, the officer said in court.
“I heard his engine getting on (revving),” Harrelson said. The officer estimated Baird was going 43 mph in a 30 mph zone on 21st Street. And the brake light was still on.
After several blocks, Harrelson turned on his patrol car lights and stopped Baird without incident.
The officer smelled alcohol and called in another officer, Jeffrey Bryson, to do sobriety tests, including counting backward from 44 to 29.
That was recorded on a police video and Morgan said it showed “both the officers and Baird in a very professional fashion. Instructions were done in a pleasant way.”
Baird refused a state-required Breathalyzer test and his driver’s license has been revoked.
Baird drank some beer at Waldo’s Restaurant around noon the day of his arrest, according to Guttridge. But the attorney refuted a State Attorney’s Office investigator saying Baird may have drank beer at the What A Tavern before 3 p.m. that day.
Baird told police he did drink later at a community fundraiser he attended in the Wabasso area before his arrest.
Morgan suppressed a police statement that Baird may have had a cup of an alcoholic beverage in the Jeep. “There is no direct evidence of that,” Guttridge said.
By Elliott Jones, TCPalm.com
Tags: alcohol, arrest, attorney, bars, beach, car, communication, court, drinking, driver, driving, dui, engine, engineers, extension, fundraising, green, investigation, jeep, judge, jurors, jury, police, restaurant, saw, trial, video, warrant, zoning
Subscribe to TCoastTalk's RSS Feed
Browse the photo galleries here
August 20th, 2009 at 11:04 am
The police stated he may have had a cup of alcoholic beverage in the jeep ??? what’s that ??? either he did or didn’t. Anyway Baird will plead out before trail and do the required dui stuff then be back on the road again. Till Next Time .
August 20th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
By refusing the Breathalyzer he gave up his license for a year. Given his job you would expect that he knew that and he
was willing to give up his license for a year- probably assuming he would get a work permit- but avoid the DUI charge. It seems to me that someone who did that much
thinking about what he would do if caught driving drunk must drive that way quite often. A beer at 3PM will never
result in a DUI at 10:30PM so he probably had a few at the fundraiser plus his go cup.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
good for the judge being able to see beyond the money and position of this drunk driver,I admire you for doing the right thing.
August 24th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
What’s with following within one car length by the officer? This makes any driver nervous and distracts them from driving normally. Even at 30 mph, 3+ car lengths is required. I often hit my brakes and accelerate to put distance between myself and a tailgater. The “may have been a cup of alcoholic beverage” in the Jeep statement should not have been admisable or even stated without substantiation! Chalk another one up for MADD’s PAC and turning our Civil Police Force into a Profit Center!