BN Roundup: Neuheisel's New Vest, Walker Arrested For DUI & Holiday Notes

by Nestor on May 29, 2009 5:12 AM PDT in News Comment 17 comments

Let's start our Friday roundup by checking in with Coach Neuheisel's trip to the Middle East. David Raih, who I am assuming is a hard working intern at the Morgan Center is going to be posting periodic updates (in a bloggy kind of way) from the trip in the official site. He posted his first update yesterday from McConnell Air Froce Base. You can read his entry over here. There were couple of details that caught my eye. The amount of responsibilites an intern like David has on this trip:

My responsibilities have been:
Packing - 14,000 t-shirts from all universities into A-3 bags (large undertaking)
Shopping - snacks, supplies, paper products, power strips, beverages, tape, etc.
Intercom System - setting up a portable system for inter-flight communication
Cell Phones - activating 20 Sprint Blackberry's for free phone calls home for all troops
Bios - Compiling all crew and coaches bios into a book for everyone on flight to read

And about the subject matter of this post's title line:

Tonight we were fitted for our PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) - bullet proof vests and helmets to be worn on the ground.

So while the coaches from cross-town are going through all kinds of PR gymnastics to deal with the mountain of blockbuster scandals, our football coach will be out in the Middle East in a bullet proof vest and helmet, putting in his 2 cents to fire up our troops. I will take that comparison.

Staying with football some bizarre news out of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Apparently DeWayne Walker, who is now the head coach at NMSU was arrested for DUI during Memorial Day weekend but the charges were later dropped:

Walker was stopped at around 12:30 a.m. Saturday for driving his black GMC Yukon the wrong way — westbound — on Lohman Avenue, according to police reports. Police report Walker smelled of alcohol and told the officer he drank three beers at Hotel Encanto, where he had been since about 9:30 p.m. When asked for the vehicle's paperwork, Walker allegedly told police he didn't have any, since the car was new, and offered to walk home because he didn't want any trouble, according to the report.

Taking three sobriety tests, Walker exhibited a total of nine signs of intoxication, according to the report.

In the horizontal gaze test, in which Walker was asked to keep his eyes on a light on the tip of the officer's pen, the officer noted that Walker moved his head and was unable to follow the pen smoothly.

Asked to perform a walk-and-turn test, Walker did not count his steps out loud as instructed, was unable to touch heel to toe on all steps, stepped off the line and raised his arms on one step, took an extra step and stopped walking before he was told to, according to the police report.

After the third sobriety test, the one-leg stand, in which Walker swayed and put his foot down before he was told to, according to the officer's report, he was arrested for DUI at about 12:49 a.m.

However, two breathalyzer tests taken 20 minutes after arrest at the Doña Ana Sheriff's Department (both machines at the police department were not working) indicated Walker's breath-alcohol content was .01, so low that police decided to release Walker on his own recognizance.

Walker was apparently cited for driving the wrong way on a one-way street per the report. Not sure if I want to add any commentary to that report.

Moving on, I will end with a good note on Holiday. Holiday recently gave an interview with DraftExpress.com. Looks like Holiday has taken note of the recent criticism directed at him from here and other places about his comments in the press. He is finally making some sense when talking about his experience at UCLA:

DX: Overall how did you feel about your season at UCLA?
JH: It wasn’t to my liking; it wasn’t up to my standards. At the same time though, I loved it, it was a learning experience. Even though I felt I played out of position, it was something new that I have to learn to deal with. I know that I can play off the ball now and that I don’t always have to have the ball in my hands. I learned that when I’m off the ball I can still be a leader, I can direct people in ways that can help the team succeed.

DX: Were there ever points during the season where you wish you had gone to a different school where you would have been the focal point of the offense?
JH: No, it never did. I chose UCLA because I thought it was the best place for me. You know North Carolina was in my top three and they won it all this year. Even though they won it all, I still don’t feel like it was the right place for me. Washington was interested and they had a good year as well, but I felt like UCLA was the best fit and I still think it was.

That's much better Jrue. You can read the whole piece here. However, despite those comments, there was one perplexing response from Jrue when asked to compared experiences from high school to college:

DX: You said that you didn’t live up to your own expectations for this season. Given that you’ve only played this season at the college level, how much stock do you think NBA teams should invest in your high school ranking and how you performed at that level?
JH: I don’t know, I really couldn’t tell you. High school and college basketball are two completely different systems. College is obviously a lot harder than high school. People change a lot during that one year, some people get worse, but for the most part players get better. Most of the time in college you’re not the man anymore, you don’t get to do what you did in high school because you didn’t get the ball as much, or didn’t play as much, whatever it is. I’m not really sure if the NBA even looks at what you did in college; when you come to these camps you get to lay it all out for everyone to see.

Aaah. I am not sure where Holiday is getting the information that NBA doesn't look at what a player did in college. That comment is obviously totally baseless given the feedback former Ben Ball warriors such as as JF, LRMAM and RW have gotten regarding the defensive fundamentals they learned at UCLA. And if Jrue thinks he had a rude awakening in college where he wasn't "the man anymore," then he better brace himself for the next level where everyone is the man and much more cut throat than what he experienced in college.

Still I was encouraged by Holiday's comments regarding his UCLA experience. They are much more positive than what we were reading from him few weeks ago. As mentioned above, it sure looks like he and his folks around him have taken note of the fact that UCLA alums and basketball fans here and other places will not sit back and stay quiet if there is any perceived slight to our alma mater's hoops program. Hopefully the latest message we are now getting from Holiday re. his UCLA experience will remain the same from here on out. It's something that will help rebuild the strained relationship from last few weeks.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The So Called "Field Sobriety Tests" Are Notoriously Unreliable

There is no basis in science or fact to support their use.

There are many sober people who, for physiological reasons, cannot pass them.

I just went up to a website that calculates blood/alcohol levels. Taking DW for his word, 3 beers in 3 hours, and assigning him a weight of 200lbs (I don’t have his actual weight), his blood alcohol would have been .010 — exactly as tested. (I took a screen shot of the test data but could not figure out how to post it here.)

FYI — in most states the charge is driving under the influence of alcohol. Exceeding a certain test level (New Mexico is 0.08) is presumed to be under the influence. However, one can be under the influence with a lower BA is one’s driving and other behavior indicates that one is “drunk”. However, since the field tests are notoriously inaccurate, and officer observations easily challenged as subjective, in most places BA rules.

I hope this doesn’t stigmtize DW. At worst, he should be known as Wrong Way deWayne.

sjh

by Class of 66 on May 29, 2009 6:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Completely Disagree

66, usually you’re right and I tend to agree with you, especially since you’ve been around a lot longer than I, but on this one, I have to completely disagree with you.

Yes, some field sobriety tests are notoriously unreliable, and yes, some people cannot pass them for valid reasons. but the three standardized field sobriety tests (or SFSTs) have been studied in great detail by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Back in the 1960s and 1970s, a lot of officers were using a variety of tests, none of which were standardized and were often poor indicators of impairment. However, that said, the three SFSTs, are very good indicators of impairment, and have been scientifically validated by NHTSA. In particular, the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) is a very good indicator of impairment, as it is something that is completely involuntary, is naturally occurring in something like 1% of the population, and when used by an experienced and trained officer, a very strong tool to help determine impairment.

Moreover, officers don’t use FSTs alone in making the decision to arrest one. Rather, they use the totality of the circumstances presented to them: the manner the driver was driving, objective symptoms of intoxication (such as red, watery or glassy eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol on breath, etc.), and the subject’s performance on the FSTs.

Here’s how I see this situation: DW was driving on the wrong side of the road, which, relatively speaking (and I have worked on hundreds of DUI cases) is pretty egregious. That’s a strike against him. Now, I don’t know what OSIs he was displayed, so that’s information I’d like to have. His performance on the FSTs is pretty crappy too, so I’m thinking he is looking good for the DUI.

Oh, but the breath test you say? True, it was .010%. But ask any experienced CHP officer (these guys are DUI pros), and they’ll tell you if a guy who did that bad on FSTs and had a terrible driving pattern only blew a .010%, they’d expect drug impairment. Often, an officer will pull someone over, see symptoms of impairment and the driver will totally tank the FSTs. But, come time for the breath test and it’s .000%. But, once the blood or urine test comes back, guess what: things like methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, vicodin, codeine, THC, etc. show up.

I don’t know New Mexico DUI law, but in most states, there is no “drunk driving” offense on the books. Rather, as in California, there are two crimes: driving under the influence of alcohol, drug, or combination of alcohol and drugs (Vehicle Code Section 23152(a)) and driving with a blood alcohol level above 0.08% (Vehicle Code Section 23152(b)). Hence, if NM law is substantially similar to most states, then DW might have been looking at a straight DUI without the 0.08% charge.

Truth be told, this case sounds like this Barney Fife Sheriff’s Department didn’t know what it was doing when it came to a DUI investigation. Had this been on the 405 and the investigation done by CHP, it would have been done right and we’d know if it was just low booze (and DW is uncoordinated and a terrible driver) or if was drugs.

by Bellerophon on May 29, 2009 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We Will Disagree -- Respectfully

Personally, and supervising students who were trying the cases, I have successfully challenged field sobriety tests — in fact, I cannot recall a case a student lost that was based on any of those tests. Jurors tend not to trust them, the “science” upon which they are based, or their application by the officers involved. Said another way, you may find the science compelling, I don’t, but that does not matter; jurors ultimately make those decisions and my experience is that a well prepared defense lawyer can beat the tests.

I agree with most of the rest of your post. I think egregious driving is sufficient to invoke other testing — and driving down a street the wrong way — although possible the innocent practice of a lost driver — is sufficient to stop and test.

And, I agree with you that there can be combinations of alcohol and or drugs and other substances, some legal, that will support a “driving under the influence charge”.

Those combinations are testable. And, DW was not tested.

So, at the end of the day, DW was properly released.

Having spent so much time in the criminal justice system, both working in prosecution and defense, I place a strong value on not wrongfully stigmatizing one who has not been proven guilty. And, I think the article that is at the base of this post puts a blot on DW’s name.

If, in the end, it was a Barney Fife deal, that should be the focus of our attention, not DW.

sjh

by Class of 66 on May 29, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, having spent so much time in the public health system

I place a strong value on not putting innocent lives at risk. Legal experts can debate the facts and validity of everything until the cows come home. Two things seem true here: DW was drinking, and he was at least somewhat impaired. I wouldn’t have wanted someone I care about driving down that same street (going in the right direction) at 12:30 am. He’s lucky all he as to deal with in this situation is being stigmatized.

Next time, call a cab, DeWayne.

by godblesstyus95 on May 29, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We will

I think challenging FSTs is quixotic for defense attorneys now. I agree that there was a time that they were pretty unreliable, but I think improved training and research has helped make them solid investigative tools: I’m not saying they are the end-all, be-all, and I wouldn’t want any juror to convict solely based on those results.

To be fair, the officers do ask a standard series of questions before FSTs re: injuries, illnesses, etc. so that if someone has a bum knee, is diabetic, etc., the officer can take that into account and give the subject a fair shake.

In my experience, albeit limited, no judge has excluded FSTs for being scientifically unreliable, and jurors consider them as another piece of evidence. I do find the science convincing, and I understand you don’t, and that’s fine, because I think both of us agree, as opposites in the system, that neither of us want convictions based solely on the FSTs alone.

Now, I do agree with godblesstyus95 and Fox 71: I think the fact DW drank anything and then drove, even if he wasn’t legally impaired, showed incredibly poor judgment on his part. In that sense, I think he does deserve a bit of stigma, because, again, I think drinking anything and then driving is not a very wise decision, one that has far more risks than benefits (if there are any benefits at all).

And I agree with you: I f**king hate Barney Fife operations. There are a lot of highly-trained, professional officers who take their job seriously and want to do a good job. But there are a lot of lazy ones who don’t mind cutting corners or if the ends justify the means. That kind of crap infuriates me.

We have more in common than you think. ;)

by Bellerophon on May 30, 2009 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We Have More Common Ground Than You Think, Too.

I am totally intolerant of people who drink and drive — and I say drink and drive rather than drive under the influence because I believe the standards about what is presumed to be under the influence are too lenient. I think people should not drink and drive, period. (It may be an easy position for me to take because I don’t drink, but I feel strongly that if I did, I would not drive.) I also think people should not drive while eating, shaving, putting on make-up and holding a cell phone to their ears.

One of my biggest fears for my 17 year old daughter is that she find herself in the car of a kid who is under the influence. That’s why we’ve gotten her a very safe car and we encourage her to drive her friends rather than drive with them. And, we demand that she be at home no later than 11:30 so that she is off the road before bar time.

I once was appointed to represent a man charged with a homicide for a crash in which he killed a pregnant woman and her young son. The allegation was that he was under the influence. I was able to force a plea bargain to a lesser charge by destroying the “science” relied upon by the prosecution and its chain of custody. I felt sick after the judges ruling and have never represented anyone in an “impaired driving” case again.

However, I remain troubled by the way the police go about putting these cases together — and the field “tests” are at the heart of my concern. With all due respect, you have cited a “police/prosecutor’s” desk book as evidence that the tests are valid. Independent, “unsponsored” research disagrees with some of the statements in the book. However, we do agree that the real key to testing — whatever the test — is the administration of that test in the field. A “standard series of questions” is not much of a protection when the answers are judged subjectively — as are the results of the performance based tests. And, building on a comment you posted in another thread, this is an area where equal protection because of discrimination in prosecution is often at issue; some departments decide test performance on the basis of race. White people are either driven home or allowed to get rides home while people of color are taken into custody.

I prefer states that demand real tests like blood tests and condition one’s license on taking a test administered by medical personnel. Yes, that still leaves the field officer the discretion as to who gets tested and who does not, but it takes away the subjective interpretation of the “field tests” as the basis for his or her subjective decision.

Finally, we do not see this from different sides of the bar — I have spent a good bit of time working with prosecutors, most recently with United States Attorneys prosecuting both corrupt elected officials and a large steroid ring. My bottom line whether I am prosecuting or defending is that justice demands fairness and accuracy.

sjh

by Class of 66 on May 31, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

At 12:30am

I would probably fail most “field sobriety” tests, without alcohol or drugs…

Note further that DW is not from that area and it makes total sense that he was probably lost.

Nothing to report here. Move along :)

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on May 29, 2009 8:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

ditto

When I moved to SF, if it weren’t for a navigation system that knew which were the one-way streets, I would have been driving against traffic at least a dozen times. And even with a nav system, nearly drove on the wrong side of the road when a 1 way street turned into a 2-way one. All sober too!

Re: Jrue’s comment on performance in college not being looked at – maybe he was watching the Raiders in the NFL draft and assumed it was true in the NBA.

by Harsha on May 29, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The first time

I drove through the Lincoln tunnel into NYC I was so excited to see the Big Apple that I unknowingly turned down a one-way street. Greeted with by row of oncoming lights, I managed to maneuver my car into an adjacent bus lane. Scared out of my mind, I was approached by an officer, who much to my surprise used his cruiser to stop traffic, let me reverse out of the lane, and helped me find my way to the National History Museum. So, of course, it does happen (both horrific sober driving, and kind officers).

I agree with 66. After reading the article on DW, I had a sour taste in my mouth. Why release this information about his test? Is it really all that relevant when charges are not brought against him? Should it be made public? In my opinion, no.

That said, he is a public figure, and in light of this he should protect himself against situations such as this.

B.F.

by eubruin on May 29, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I’m sure the crowded, congested, concrete jungle that is Las Cruces, New Mexico is particularly difficult to navigate for the newbie ;-)

by godblesstyus95 on May 29, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's exactly the point...

All of us who were driving down the wrong side of the street in broad daylight (yes, I did it too near Venice several years back until a kind, homeless gentleman flagged me down, pointing to the traffic waiting at the opposing light!) really have no excuse to have been driving on the inncorrect side. In the middle of the night in that “congested, concrete jungle that is Las Cruces, New Mexico”, I’m sure that, aside from the street signs, it was much more difficult to distinguish wrong way from right.

by westwood78 on May 31, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

all I know is that.

Had he still been coaching for us. The LAME Times would attack with all the subtlety of an trained K9 unit. They would trumpet the end of civilization with this one indiscretion; while the Trojans routinely run afoul of the law with barely a peep out of them.

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on May 29, 2009 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Something else,

And in this I have to agree with JH. The NBA won’t care much about his lack of production in the college ranks IF he goes on and plays head and shoulders above the competition in the Association. I wish him the best. I really do.

While some have soured on him due to recent behavior and comments made in public; I understand that his success or failure will reflect upon UCLA either positively or negatively. I would prefer he does well and bring us Positive PR rather than the negative kind.

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on May 29, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe the only negative PR

is what potentially comes from Jrue’s mouth. Whether he does well or flops in the NBA is irrelevant from a negative PR standpoint. Obviously, him doing well doesn’t hurt us. Doing poorly only underscores the point that he left too early and wasn’t as good as advertised. One year cannot turn a superstar into a failure (even Lavin couldn’t do that), so no one in their right mind could say that Howland or the program ruined Holiday.

Not to mention, if Holiday flops, maybe the next Jrue Holiday that comes along won’t be so quick to jump after a so-so freshman year.

In my mind, if Bruin fans really want to root for ex-Bruins in the NBA that would shine the best light on Howland and the program, I would root AS HARD AS HELL for Mr. Darren Collison.

by godblesstyus95 on May 29, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is the alcohol

Sure, the sobriety tests might be unreliable. Sure, Coach Walker may have been new in the area and might have been lost. Sure, he might have had slurred speech and an unsteady gait and smelled of alcohol. And with all that he might have been acquitted if he had been tried. The charges may be reinstated. A lot of if’s and might be’s.

The 800 lb gorilla sitting in the corner has been overlooked, though, and that is the fact that Coach Walker admittedly consumed alcohol and then drove. Although lots of people do it, it is a horrible lapse of judgment. I had that same lapse of judgment in 1991, and, like Coach Walker, was furtunate not to have killed anyone.

I hope Walker (and everyone who reads this) takes a lesson. Don’t ever, under any circumstances, drive after you’ve consumed alcohol. I have no problem with that rule now because I don’t drink. Anything. Ever. I have been the designated driver for 18 years. My life has been much better since I stopped drinking. I urge everyone to give it a try. Next time there is a get-together which generates drinking (and maybe overdrinking), just don’t. You’ll be interested to see how different things look when you’re not tipsy. You’ll find that guys who are blotto aren’t as funny as they think they are. The next morning you’ll not only remember the party, you will not have lost your wallet and you won’t have a hangover.

Please try it.

And Coach Walker, please learn the lesson I learned. Don’t drink. Anything. Any time. Just don’t.

End of pontification. Sorry, but it’s a big deal to me.

by Fox 71 on May 29, 2009 8:15 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

100% agree with you

Quite possibly the wisest advice ever given on BN.

I won’t say folks should give up the spirit, but if you’re going to drive later, don’t drink. It’s not worth it.

by Bellerophon on May 30, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

If you don’t have enough self control to drink moderately and call a cab when needed, then there are many other important things that you shouldn’t be trusted with. Alcohol is not the only thing that causes car accidents. If someone has an accident while simply being distracted, you can’t tell them to stop ever thinking again.

Moderation is the word. Alcohol has its place, just not with driving.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on May 31, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs