The Roar
MADD, What Happened
I have witnessed the seemingly overnight and phenomenal growth of MADD from its original ten members to it’s current National membership roster. Along with corporate sponsorships MADD now even entertains their own DUI grading system over the various State and local law enforcement agencies.
MADD’s immense network now can place representatives in courtrooms across the country to ensure that DUI offenders receive a proper verdict. However, as a recent event suggests, maybe MADD picks and chooses which case to intimidate.
Just after midnight, on April 30th, it seems that two Philadelphia police officers observed a vehicle proceeding in the wrong direction on a one way street. After stopping the vehicle, both officers noticed that the driver appeared to be glassy eyed and smelled of alcohol. The ensuing breathalyzer test turned up a .16 result, or twice the legal limit.
The Philadelphia Daily News reported the results of this DUI case in an article written by Mensah M. Dean on November 2nd. In that essay, it seems that this .16 BAC defender benefited when the “judge threw out all the evidence in her drunken-driving case.” It just so happens that the defendant is none other that Rep. Cherelle Parker, who happens to hail from the same Northwest Alliance political camp as does Judge Hayden.
Now, a case with such incriminating evidence, there had to be substantial questions which led the judge to dismiss the charge. The judge cited “credibility concerns” related to the two officer’s testimony. Cited was officer Stephanie Allen’s “first that no other cars were on the street, but changed her testimony during cross-examination.” Wow, that should exonerate Rep. Parker.
As a lifelong Philadelphia resident, Deputy Attorney General Marc Costanzo stated, “I understand how things go around here. No, I’m not surprised.”
My question is not about Philadelphia’s political shenanigans but to the AWOL status of our heroines of DUI safety. The attention getter in this case, from a MADD standpoint, should be the breathalyzer result. Of course, there is also the matter of an elected representative being the possible offender. Obviously, water too deep, even for the mermaids from MADD .
In spite of appearances, there still might be a positive or teachable moment. Contrary to what many now believe as the only enforcement tool against DUI offenders, a police check point, which is a politically correct rendition of the term roadblock, was not in use. Oddly enough, probable cause led to the vehicle stop as the officers observed the vehicle being driven opposite to the one way street sign, Yes, this is the procedure which worked up and until the MADD influence appeared on the scene. This enforcement practice is in accordance with our Constitutional safeguards enumerated in our Fourth Amendment, something which MADD obviously deems expendable.
In conclusion, Deputy Attorney General said it best when he stated, “I’m a little surprised that a city judge would find two police officers who testified – in my opinion – consistently about an incident less credible than someone who blew a .16 blood alcohol reading.” I’ll drink to that!
Jim Bowman, Author of,
This Roar of Ours