It took less than one drink to get Shannon Wilcutt busted for felony DUI

Comments (86)

• Chris 06/16/2008 4:16:37 PM

  I dont feel completely sorry for this woman. You should NEVER drive when taking medication. PERIOD! Says so right on the bottle. If she just had oral surgery and just taken the pills how could she know what kind of effect they would have? As for the man who reported her, she did run a stop sign. So good for him. But I think the DUI charges have gotten way out of hand. This is the best money making scheme the state has ever come up with. They get the support of the community saying "throw those drunks in jail" while taking mass quantities of money away from people who are innocent. I bet that most of those officers have had a beer at dinner and then drove their car home. Under our law that is a big no no. You telling me Napalitano doesnt have the occasional glass of wine with dinner? I better see her taking a cab home. I dont advocate drinking and driving but have you seen those people texting and driving? They are just as inattentive and slow to react. I am sick of the guilty till proven innocent approach. They immediately take your license away even if you have only been charged with DUI. (not convicted) Why are we punishing people before they are even prosecuted? hmmm

• John Henry Phelan 06/15/2008 4:02:44 PM

  Wilcutt should sue Steven Ceballes for slander, liable and intentional infliction of emotional distress to get back those attorney fees plus damages. He lied about her to the police and he lied in the report about the wine. Why is she not doing this? Why is Ceballes not charged with making a false police report about the wine? If Ceballes had a shred of decency he'd at least offer to compensate Mrs. Wilcutt.

• Joey 06/14/2008 12:15:10 PM

  Breathalyzers are junk science. They are totally flawed, by design. Not only do they do a poor job of detecting alcohol, they create the "score" using an absurd, inaccurate assumption about body weight and body chemistry. It seems like every citizen assumed these devices are the "truth" and cannot be questioned. Please do a Google search about this and you will be shocked to find out how poorly breathalyzers do their job--not at all in fact. They are, by design, going to infate scores and catch innocent people!

• Joey 06/14/2008 12:14:26 PM

  Breathalyzers are junk science. They are totally flawed, by design. Not only do they do a poor job of detecting alcohol, they create the "score" using an absurd, inaccurate assumption about body weight and body chemistry. It seems like every citizen assumed these devices are the "truth" and cannot be questioned. Please do a Google search about this and you will be shocked to find out how poorly breathalyzers do their job--not at all in fact. They are, by design, going to infate scores and catch innocent people!

• Joey 06/14/2008 12:13:52 PM

  Breathalyzers are junk science. They are totally flawed, by design. Not only do they do a poor job of detecting alcohol, they create the "score" using an absurd, inaccurate assumption about body weight and body chemistry. It seems like every citizen assumed these devices are the "truth" and cannot be questioned. Please do a Google search about this and you will be shocked to find out how poorly breathalyzers do their job--not at all in fact. They are, by design, going to infate scores and catch innocent people!

• Glad I don't live in AZ 06/12/2008 1:39:47 PM

  The facts disclosed in this story don't surprise me, given AZ's draconian DUI laws and the incompetence of the police I had contact with the one time I was there... I was visiting a friend in AZ in June of 2006. I was driving a new pickup that I had just purchased which didn't have license plates on it, (in Montana, if you order personalized plates, they give you a print out to fold and attach to your back window until you get your plates, it's rather casual). I was stopped by an officer for, allegedly, not having license plates. It took the cop over an hour of my explaining that, no license plates in MT are not issued by the state, but by the county. He ignored that and tried to get through to someone in MT MVD about car licenses - which they know nothing about. He refused to call the county about the plates. Eventually, someone in his department or the DPS, (there were about six cops on scene from the PD, SO and DPS by this time), recalled that, yes, that was how MT licensed new vehicles. The cop was really pissed that he had to let me go. So, after losing his big bust, he decided I was speeding and wrote me a speeding ticket. Mind you, he had never even mentioned speeding before this. Problem was, it was impossible that the cop could have clocked me at all on his radar gun, because I was never at the place he claimed I was speeding. I tried discussing the ticket with the county attorney - I knew I was right, that the cop had only issued the ticket because he lost a bust for driving without license plates and I wanted to avoid a court appearance. The county attorney was a complete idiot, he knew nothing about how radar functions, he *said* that it *didn't matter,* because speeding tickets were just issued to make money. Tired of talking to the idiot, I went to traffic school Things got worse there. The person teaching was an ex-cop turned prison guard. The "school" was attended by about 20 people, including me. 18 of the attendees were from out of state or where driving cars with out of state plates when they were ticketed, (realize the odds of a ratio of 9:1 for AZ vs. out of state drivers actually happening, by chance, are astronomical, which tends to indicate that the cops stop people with out of state plates more than people with AZ plates). The "things" that the "teacher" taught were bizarre. He claimed every driver was responsible for stopping whenever they come upon an accident. I asked him if that included the freeways, during rush hour, in Phoenix. He said, "yes." [If this is true, then you can blame the 10K drivers who all have to stop, by law, when they see an accident on the 10 at rush hour in Phoenix for your hours long delays.] He also claimed that speeding in a school zone was an automatic felony arrest with one charge of "child endangerment" for every child present. That committing any traffic infraction or violation with a child in the car meant you would be arrested for felony "child endangerment" - he was a little more than fixated on child endangerment. When asked for specific laws to back up his statements, he said he didn't have to provide any. Later, he said he would look them up and send them to me. Surprise, surprise, he never did. I will never drive in AZ, again. It is clear that cops, from the local yokels to the county sheriff's department to DPS are either incredibly corrupt or incredibly stupid. County attorney's have no idea of what is involved in the laws they are supposed to prosecute. All they cops and the county are interested in one thing - writing tickets and taking money from people from out of state. As far as your draconian DUI laws, YOU, the citizens of AZ are responsible for that. Given the behavior during my bogus stop, it is clear that cops in AZ are not interested in the truth or justice, they just want to arrest and abuse people. You could stop them, if you wanted to. So, if you don't like your DUI laws, deal with your legislature and get them changed. If not, don't be surprised when your cops go nuts and overcharge every time they stop someone.

• gary 06/05/2008 7:20:04 PM

  I understand cops being very, very cautious with a kid in the vehicle. Imagine what would have happened had the driver been impaired or on drugs and they let her leave and she got into an accident. We do have to realize the cops are in a no-win situation here. They err on caution. However, after the fact, and with all the information they should drop the charges. http://www.arizonaautoinsurance.cc

• Marcy 06/04/2008 7:11:39 PM

  The real story here isn't the DUI laws but that cops regularly fabricate evidence and judges and juries give undue weight to what cops make up on the witness stand.

• TJ 05/30/2008 1:09:50 PM

  It shames me as a human to read about "falsely accused/punished" people in circumstances like these when children and adults who cause worse damage and deaths are not given anything more then a slap on the wrists, or fines so small it is equivalent to a slap on the wrist. When I was a California High School student in a driver's education class (through the high school, as early as age 16, or within 16 at end of class) we were taught road safety before we were ever allowed in a "training car" (the old Buick's with an extra-break pedal on passenger side for examiner), this included a very heavy hard-bound book, the states driver's license field test book, randomized paper driving tests, video "road" tests, and "reel" movies of actual crash scenes of DUI's... All this BEFORE we were allowed in the training car, let alone on local and eventually highway roads. I don't remember what the DUI limit was back then, I just remember the numerous pictures of people in various places strewn across the road ways. One in particular was a motorcyclist whose head was on one side of a fence and his body was still trapped under his motorcycle. Sad thing was, he wasn't the DUI driver, she was still buckled inside her car with the airbag blown - ALIVE. about that same time SADD, MADD, PADD, and other groups regard "Against Drunk Drivers" were formed, and legislatives representatives were slow in responding to laws for such offenses, in fact they still do! So these stories shared here do not surprise me...just shamed as a human, because I can not understand why innocent folks should "still" be punished (the 3rd driver was actually a passenger in the car if I read your article correctly, even though it was a "past" offense) for the wrong doings of others after twenty plus, count them 20 + years since I was in high school. It also should not surprise me that certain legal issues are still an issue, because as driver #2 pointed out, her friend in law enforcement "told her" she shouldn't have any issues, yet she still did. This advice was coming from an insider and the 2nd driver still got screwed from the legal system. Makes a person wonder just how much "the good 'ole boys" still have their hands in other folks pockets to allow the wrong doers to get off so easy (or easier), while the innocent / changed folks are paying for something they haven't done (or thought they'd cleared up). Our justice system is not about Tolerance, it's about a lack of Tolerance, a lack of trust, a lack of understanding, a lack of change, and worst of all a lack of humanity! So many "if's" or "could have" but very little else in the way of offerings in the first driver's case. If the businessman was so concerned about the "safety" of others, why didn't he ask the restaurant server/manager to assist the woman, or ask her to have someone else take them home because he was "concerned" about theirs (someone else's) safety? Why deny he had misjudged the situation and/or offer to get assistance with his claims before involving the police, and then afterwards when he "knew" the truth?? Then there is the second driver - the one with the recovering back surgery and the can't miss concert who had to rubberneck another situation.... I'm sorry she was wrongly accused and hurt worse in the jail cell (esp since actual wrong doers get "bonded" out sooner), but on that same note, if it was my back (don't even talk to me about hindsight, I am quite aware of the pain the L4/L5 herniated disk can put on the spinal cord, and effects on other body parts) that needed a prescribed pill to get through the day after major surgery (don't fool yourself w/laser surgery), I would be missing that concert! And as the designated driver and being very tired from both the excitement of the concert and my back recovery, I would have been making a call for the local taxi company. However, all of this does not in any way change the fact that the law enforcement wronged what this driver did / didn't do. They should have pulled her over, did the test(s), fined her for illegal land use and offered to follow her home / call her a taxi. Since all three were exonerated of their wrong doing, they should be refunded for their "wrongful " bills and paid for by the accusing parties (individual(s), legal, county, and state), after all isn't that what they do with folks who are wrongly accused of murder, robbery, and other harsher crimes (at least those who haven't already died in prison, or killed by inmates)? Tax payers are "always" paying for the actions of the law, why do you think so many criminals (not looking at the death penalty) would prefer jail time to fines (free tv, free food, free room & board, free exercise equipment / accessories, etc)? Did you notice I said criminals - actual wrong doers? People who know they are in the wrong and don't care? People who do the time, get out, and commit another act of crime... all to get the "free" stuff. Only a rare few of those criminals have morals, and are "attempting" to change their lives while they are incarcerated - sometimes they get out and make the change, sometimes the change is made on deaths door. What a pity this "change" can't be made before others and criminals end up in jail. What a shameful pity.

• 7 12/31/1969 5:00:00 PM

  7

• 7 12/31/1969 5:00:00 PM

  7

• 7 12/31/1969 5:00:00 PM

  7

• Neva L Losh 05/27/2008 9:24:31 AM

  finally told her what she was doing. She also never drives when taking any kind of drug that impairs her judgement or reactions. The fact that there is no alcohol showing in blood is of no consequence in these cases.

• Interested party 05/26/2008 5:05:26 PM

  This is an interesting article. It is my opinion that the police deparments of the USA now work directly for the insurance companies, due to MADD, which is not an organization of mother's, but an insurance company lobby. Police now ONLY are interested in arresting even people who have one or two drinks, or are speeding - hopefully over the limit as well. This at the expense of all other police work. If you watch people drive in the Phoenix area, most roll stop signs, do not use their blinkers, and often cut you off, but I have yet to see anyone be ticketed for these accident causing offenses. Of course people should not drive drunk, and there must be penalties. But they must be relative to the crime, as your article says. And the science of proving someone is over his or her personal limit needs to be used, not an 0.08 for everyone ... the weight of the person alone makes this very specific value an unfair measurement, in fact discriminates against women. Personal freedoms are under attack in this country, and this is just one example.

• Bil 05/26/2008 1:32:27 PM

  Just because you pulled my comment about the BEER ADS doesn't mean it didn't happen, you Stalinist Wannabes.

• Bill 05/26/2008 11:47:15 AM

  Lovin' those mixed messages! WTG with the BASS ALE ads accompanying the story. God, what a fricked up hypocritical bunch of snooping squealing arse-wipes we've become. We get what we deserve RIP America.

• Dick C. Flatline 05/26/2008 7:45:19 AM

  The problem here is that for several decades, government agencies as well as businesses have been legally required to hire ANYONE *EXCEPT* the person most qualified for the job. And....MONTHS to get test results back??? Obviously, we're not allowed to hire the most qualified COMPANIES, either! Welcome to the idiocracy. And keep chanting your little mantra: Well, it didn't happen to ME!

• Owen 05/26/2008 6:58:40 AM

  Point Zero Eight BAC was removed here in Australia many years ago at the same time they introduced Random Breath Testing - Guilty until proven innocent - the police can pull you over anytime they want to perform one of these tests, they don't have to have a reason,try that for a loss of civil liberties.

• Robert 05/26/2008 12:19:02 AM

  I really hope that Steve's business, Horticulture West, suffers as a result of his stupid mistake. Let him know what you think - steve@hortwest.com

• David Hina 05/25/2008 11:53:52 PM

  too bad arizona is not as tough on the real criminals

• David Hina 05/25/2008 11:53:43 PM

  too bad arizona is not as tough on the real criminals

• Larry 05/25/2008 10:16:13 PM

  Well, the reason no one points out how the police are misused as tax collectors is, one, hardly anyone thinks that is wrong, two, the only people challenging anything are dopes like those WTO rioters who make the police look good, and three, our "leaders" are too busy hustling money or boozing it up with their friends or playing with their male or female prostitutes to worry about their constituents. If they aren't careful, there's going to end up with some mindless French Revolution action where people just go out screaming "get the ." Get with it, guys. People are getting tired of these mindless laws you pull out of your ****.

• John 05/25/2008 9:59:14 PM

  I am suprised that more people havn't realised that the police are no longer here for their protection but are realy nothing more than Bullying Tax Collecters. So why does anyone expect honesty? The police quite understand that the legal fees are worse than the fines. This makes our legal system nothing more than an armed government sponsored extorsion system. Each of these poor people were just allowed to pay their STUPID TAX. Not for doing anything wrong, but merely for being stupid enough to be noticed.

• Larry 05/25/2008 9:46:15 PM

  I'm sort of curious about this "businessman." Seems like someone ought to be digging around him. What kind of "business" does he run, someone so ignorant and careless of the implications of his actions that he would pull a trick like this and then run off like some sort of mangy dog. Tell you one thing, I was a little interested in relocating to Arizona once, but now, forget it. If I want to locate to Mexico, I'll go to the real one where it's cheaper. Boy, what a crum-bum state you guys have. And I thought Washington was punk. Phew! (Please excuse my rambling)_

• Frank 05/25/2008 8:13:28 PM

  The statistics you see about drunk driving are vastly inflated. If a passenger in a car that is rear-ended while stopped at a red light has had a few, the accident is counted as an alcohol caused accident. On and on, this happens. It is a government scam, no more no less.And good people are being hurt very badly.

• Ahmed 05/25/2008 7:48:04 PM

  "Life sucks" just about sums it all up. I'm too cynical for suicide at this point even.

• anon 05/25/2008 8:49:36 AM

  Hey, let Steve know what you think: http://horticulturewest.com There's even a form where you can enter some rants on their contact page!

• Jimmy 05/25/2008 4:40:27 AM

  Great. These poor poor women, deprived of their Vicodin lunches, restricted from hauling their brats around with them unless they're sober. How can we inflict such cruelty on these people? After all, she was just dabbling in a "Mother's Little Helper" as Mick liked to call them. I've had some tickets in my life. I was never treated in any way other than with courtesy and respect. I hadn't had a mimosa and vicodin fueled lunch. If my BA level had been checked it would have been 0.0. I'm no prude, a narcotic and some booze is fine by me, a great way to sit and watch TV. Only an idiot would try to drive like that and then seem indignant because the police were so mean to her. For those of you that compare the police actions to Hitler's Germany...please shut up. You make light of the holocaust and disrespect the 6 million who died by making such a nonsensical comparison. You tell us that you too believe it's OK to drive if you're just a *little bit* impaired. I know, I know...you believe you're a better driver with just a little booze in your system and the cops should ignore you because you can judge how impaired you are better than others can. Maybe next time she finishes that mimosa and then hits you head on. Ahh, justice.

• $weet T 05/24/2008 8:12:30 PM

  That's why you should never tell cops anything!!! Even if they ask you if you're drunk or have been drinking, the correct answer is NOT "no," the correct answer to that and any question is "I have nothing to say"! All you are required to do is present the papers they ask for. Never say anything else!

• Jeremy 05/24/2008 7:42:53 PM

  Look, there are two sides to every story. Without knowing ALL the facts in the cases presented in this article, I can't make a judgment either way. But having just sat on a hung jury in a DUI case, I can say this with confidence: if you get *convicted* of driving under the influence, you are almost definitely deserving of the conviction. Getting arrested under suspicion is another thing entirely...cops can be overzealous. But if you're innocent, you don't have anything to worry about, other than the loss of time and money--which sucks, yes--but if inconvenience means fewer people get killed by drunks or drug addicts on our highways, then so be it. In the case I witnessed as a juror, the young woman on trial weighed 110 pounds and had consumed 5 beers (that she admitted to) the night she was pulled over. Even using the defenses expert witness's "best case" math with regard to alcohol absorption and burn-off, etcetera, it was clear once you ran the numbers that a) she was over the legal limit, and b) she must've consumed more drinks than she admitted to on the stand. And yet, she walked. Why? Gee, I don't know. Might have something to do with the fact that in the U.S. 10-20% of the population are alcoholics (juries must vote to convict unanimously). So to me, where there's smoke, there's fire.

• patrick 05/18/2008 12:37:34 PM

  well, now the innocent members of society are starting to suffer. suffer what, fascism, naziism, what ever you want to call it. The government of this country has finally turned the corner and is becoming a totalatrian type of governmen. Will we the people have to draft a copy of the declaration and serve it on the "government". That's what "we" did a couple of hundred years ago. I'm all for it...let's start over and having learned the lessons of the past, create democracy again, in it's newer, fairer form

• Bryan 05/14/2008 4:13:02 PM

  As the story says, we were looking to adopt from CPS (older children). We were actually selected to adopt two children in Tucson (9, 11 brothers) who had been in the system for 5 years. In the middle of it all, the adoption agency (ARISE) called us and told us they are recommending to the judge NOT to certify for adoption. We'd been going through this process for 14 months (it takes longer to get certified for adoption than it does to go thru a DUI case... funny, huh?). They didn't like that Shannon was CHARGED, who cares if it was thrown out. We find out this Friday (5/16) if the certification is granted or not. I know what some of you must think "But all charges were dropped, why such a rucus?" Well, that's how the adoption system works [we've been through it before]. Even being CHARGED with any of a 100 different listed crimes (see ARS 8-108) means you are DISQUALIFIED TO EVER adopt. Of course, DUI is not on that list but who cares, right? In all probability, these boys will wind up "graduating" from the foster system. The gift of DUI keeps giving...

• Bill 05/01/2008 4:42:30 PM

  All of you pure idiots defending the rat who called the cops and insane cops themselves should be ashamed of yourselves. Your comments show you know nothing about DUI, law, driving, the history or the founding of the country that gave you life. You all remind me of how the Nazis were able to rise to power in Germany. You disgust me with you subservience, your licking of the boots of your masters. When they come for you, and if this state of affairs continues, they will, don't come crying to the rest of us.

• sara 05/01/2008 9:20:48 AM

  I get a kick out of your articles everytime I read them Sarah. They all just sound like a bunch of bullshit! You need to just quit and find something else to do.

• Thomas Fife 04/16/2008 2:42:19 PM

  You had me agreeing with you until you began the pity party for the actual drunk drivers. Boo Hoo. My daughter, the designated driver, was the only person that had not been drinking in two vehicles when a drunk driver crossed the interstate median in Pueblo, Colorado in 1994; traveled 1000 meters and struck her head on. She was the only one who died. The other driver went to prison for six years, but nothing changes the fact that she is dead, and I have an 18 year old grandson that does not remember his mother. I miss her every day. Save your compassion for the miscarriages of justice, not for the drunk drivers that have not killed anyone, yet.

• Jennifer 04/15/2008 4:21:36 PM

  This law and enforcement is completely stupid and obviously slanted by special interest paranoia groups. God save us from those who think they know better - aka Nazi Public Heath Professionals. I was actually hit and nearly killed by a drunk driver, scarred for life even. However, I do NOT support this nonsense at all. I spent 3 years and thousands of dollars of my own money recovering from it and still think that this is absolute nonsense. To treat people like this is just plain offensive and I suspect may not stand up to Constitutionality. These are not the first stories like this I have heard. We spend way too much time worried about a tiny percentage of the driving population yet we hand out drivers licenses to the most scary sober drivers I have ever had the terror to behold. Perhaps we should focus on actually requiring people to really learn to drive, graduated drivers licensing for new and young drivers and restricted licensing for those who are advanced in age and real penalties for moving violations. Sane and reasonable solutions to the epidemic of bad drivers on Arizona's roads. Oh wait, all of these are special interest groups that have not been demonized in slick advertising campaigns. Yet again, America over reacts and rational thinking looses out.

• Concerned parent 04/14/2008 9:37:18 PM

  DITTO! to #3 Randy Jones: "that's all this city cares about is putting you through hell for the smallest thing and taking all of your hard earned money....I'm moving!!!!!!!!!!!!! Take Randy's advice - he's right on! This situation with moms and families at risk, in the state of Arizona is so serious that the jokesters above don't realize the destruction they have caused this young mother and her children. The criminal justice system is broken and you've all used it as a weapon to destroy her and her children.

• AZ Mom 04/14/2008 9:26:18 PM

  Correction to above: Mimi's not Chili's -- worse yet because Mimi's is known as the best BREAKFAST and lunch restaurant around! The "business man" following her around and reporting her to the police is a perverted creep and should be investigated himself!

• AZ Mom 04/14/2008 9:23:19 PM

  #46 Bryan -- you also hit the nail on the head. Great comment and advice! Lives are being destroyed by knee-jerk laws written in the heat of emotion and to line one's pockets. This is ruining the quality of life in the state of Arizona. As the word gets out fewer young families and professionals will move to this state. Now we understand why there is a shortage of teachers, nurses, caregivers and day care workers -- they are very much at risk for having their lives destroyed in this state. Now even stay-at-home moms can't go to a Chili's in their on their way home without being at risk! These people who vote knee-jerks laws in will not get my vote and I'll actively spread the word. They are not serving the public -- only themselves.

• AZ Mom 04/14/2008 9:15:46 PM

  #35 by Christine Cokely: " I also found it interesting that, the bill to increase penalties for DUI, and the bill to extend last call for alcohol to 2:00am, were passed and in effect within one month of each other. Gee, funny how the same groups were backing both bills. That’s because these groups make $$ off of DUI’s; attorneys, substance-abuse programs, breathalyzer providers, insurance agencies, etc." My comment to above: I also saw through what the legislators were doing with harsher DUI and extending last call to 2:00 am in the Scottsdale bars. Those that are responsible for this should also be called criminals -- there is malicious intent here. Scottsdale also was adding extra officers to catch those that came out at 2:00 am. What a sham -- should be a fraudulent scheme! Do the legislators and those who profit by all this think we are stupid and not paying attention? Christine went on, "I am glad New Times published this story, if only because most people who know anything about the system are afraid of being labeled “baby-killers” if they point out the injustices. Go ahead and call me a “baby-killer”; at least I’m not lobbying for laws that deliberately set people up for DUI, so I can make even more $$ under the guise of saving babies… " Using children and babies as fearmongering to get votes and to get draconian laws passed should be a crime in itself and also part of a fraudulent scheme for MONEY! The mothers, children and babies of the State of Arizona don't mean a thing to this state or we would not have the critical issues facing them as the government breaks apart the families and children. Arizona moms need to pay attention to this. They are all very much at risk and those who are divorced with child custody battles, even more vulnerable. The essence of the this case is family custody cases at their worst!! We are not fooled.

• Bryan 04/14/2008 12:37:52 PM

  To: Antonik Wakfer Amen! You've spelled it out perfectly. Drinking and driving is stupid. No one disagrees with that. However, if you are caught "borderline" or even suspected, instead of some kind of matching punishment, you are utterly and totally destroyed financially and civilally. You'll have a permanent record that'll make sure you go no where in life, and any money you once had... you no longer have. Heard about some of the other states changing the drinking age back down to 18? I wonder if they're doing this to try and increase their DUI income. I wouldn't doubt if Az changes the drinking at to 12 so they can rake in more bucks. Bryan

• azme 04/09/2008 8:50:48 PM

  my uncle is a police officer and at one of our cousin's birthday parties he gave us the dirty truth about traffic stops. He administered field sobriety tests on 8 of our family members and not a single one passed. Hard to believe since we were all stone cold sober. He told us never to submit to field tests and gave us excuses to use.

• Louie Tovar 04/08/2008 5:51:03 AM

  Bottom Line is that cops suck!!! Check out www.badphoenixcops.com if you don't believe me. These cops have to use some senseability.

• Marcy 04/06/2008 6:44:06 AM

  The article could be summarized into the following points: 1) Cops lie, frequenty 2) People under suspicion need to STFU and stop taking field sobriety tests 3) The presumption of innocence is a joke

• Kitty Antonik Wakfer 04/04/2008 11:54:27 PM

  Eric in #32 had a very good suggestion - regarding videotaping of all police stops. In fact this technology is something my husband Paul Wakfer has recommended in his essay, "Social Ordering Technologies" ( http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Ordering_Tech.html ), by everyone for everything that takes place around them when they leave their own property as a means of being able later to review for any number of reasons. Technologically it is actually possible now for a service to exist to which all such data could be transmitted to a central receiving station for later retrieval. Think how handy it would be to have objective evidence in any number of circumstances - especially of harmful incidents or accusations of such. The comments in #34 regarding "DUIs generat[ing] a lot of income for the cash-strapped cities and there is a lot of government funding that goes with these DUI arrests" goes right along with my understanding of lots of traffic ticketing in towns both in central AZ and even many years ago when I lived in NJ. (Previous husband was law enforcement officer in both locations.) The towns/counties/state own the virtually all the roads and set the rules - it matters not to those who see opportunities for cash inflow whether the rules make any real sense for maintaining safety while keeping traffic flowing. #35 - Thanks, Christine Cokely for not being anonymous like virtually everyone else here. #36 - Absolutely, Bryan, the cop who stops you is NOT your friend. S/he is only interested, at the very least, in making sufficient "public contacts" so that hir personnel jacket does not contain any reprimands from hir superiors. If s/he can make lots of "successful" DUI arrests or other money-making traffic violation citations, all the better. **Kitty Antonik Wakfer

• Ima Fake 04/02/2008 6:02:37 PM

  Wah, I'm innocent. Wah, I'm old. You people make me sick. If you want to live in a free country, go back to where you came from. This is the USA. You will do what we say and like it.

• DanR57 03/31/2008 6:27:23 AM

  Imagine that! Who would have believed that anything like these examples could have happened in alcophonic Arizona. After all, the police, other law enforcement, the court system and their benevolent partners in MADD are only looking out for everyone else's best intrests. And they will see those peoples' best interests done to them no matter how it affects them. Of course we all know that Big Brother--oops; Big Sister...well, maybe Big Mama--truly knows what's best for everyone. And anybody that opposes Their methods for "encouraging a healthy lifestyle" in in fact a sociopath. :)

• InTheKnow 03/27/2008 3:22:51 PM

  #38: Actually, what you don't realize is, the "concerned citizen" was picking up on her, she refused him, then called the police on her and LIED to the police about her drinking, and all sorts of other stuff. No cop saw her drive. No mention of her driving being impaired in any way whatsoever. So, how do you defend your argument? Or are you just posting to be antagonistic? Her hydrocodone bottle simply said (according to the script submitted to the courts, it is in the records) "Use caution." She did. Proof? Well, no accident, no observed driving problems whatsoever. Further proof? All charges dropped. Even more proof? Cops handed her keys back to her and said "have a nice day" after they drew blood. Even mooooooorrrrrreeee proof? Third party, independant expert witness [a witness actually used by the prosecutor!] states "No problem" with any levels of drugs or alcohol. Okay, Mr. Expert, how do you defend your argument? Or can you? ... this should be interesting. School me! InTheKnow

• CHUCKLING TOO! 03/27/2008 1:47:37 PM

  "Ha ha. What I find amusing is that this wilcutt lady got lucky and didn't get a DUI. But instead of being thankful, she ran out and whined to the New Times and now all her dirty laundry is being aired out on the internet. When I first read this article I just thought, huh, sucks for you lady, but at least you didnt get a DUI (oh, and what retard thinks citrus would soothe a sore mouth?). Now I know about her crazy ex, her infidelity, and how many enemies she has. Thanks for the good laugh." I SECOND THIS! I've had more fun reading the bantering back and forth between the ex's more than the original article. DUI is driving under the influence of alcohol AND/OR drugs. You can still be convicted if your results are less than .08 if impairment can be proven. My hydrocodone bottle warns NOT to operate motor vehicles until you know how you will be affected blah blah blah... She admitted she drank alcohol AND took drugs... lab reports confirmed it... Who cares if it was 'less than' IF she was still impaired enough that a 'concerned citizen' report it. As a DUI victim on December 5, 2003 who's experience was life altering....My hat goes off to YOU sir. THANK YOU! for choosing to get involved. *applauds*

• anonymous 03/26/2008 3:57:08 PM

  #34 Scared Straight hit the nail on the head - it's all about money, as law enforcement hunts down it's own taxpayers who pay their salaries. The area gets sicker by the day. Police and undercover agents hunting down easy targets - moms with kids, those frequenting the restaurants the area is known for, rather than hunt down the violent and those causing real problems in the city. We need to have the harsh sunlight shine on the "undercover agents". This sounds like Hitler's Nazi Germany to me. Thanks for informing the public on the "undercover agents" being deployed in the affluent suburbs.

• Bryan 03/26/2008 3:13:35 PM

  Christine, You've reiterated a lot of what we've learned during this ordeal. The $12k LESSONS LEARNED that I can pass on to everyone else is (some of which you've already stated) 1. By the time you are asked to do a field sobriety test, the officer has already pronounced you guilty. PERIOD. He's looking for more hard evidence. NEVER EVER DO A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST, NO MATTER WHAT! The officer will LIE TO YOU THRU HIS TEETH and tell you that if you don't, you'll go to jail. BALONEY. What you DO have to do is the Breath test and the Blood test. You CANNOT easily back out of either one of those. Don't worry, the breath test is meaningless and rarely used in court. 2. Never answer or talk to the police officer. "Had anything to drink tonite?" -- respond: "Sorry, I respectfully decline to answer your question without a lawyer present." He could ask "Weather's been hot lately, huh?" Response: "Sorry, I respectfully decline to answer you question without a lawyer present." He'll want to make friends with you, be opened about things, to try and get you to spill your guts. Common interview psychology. The only thing you DO answer is confirmation of your name, address, and vehicle ID. Anything else, REFUSE TO ANSWER... but be respectful. Being disrespectful will give him an excuse. Remember, the officer that pulls you over IS NOT YOUR FRIEND, HE IS YOUR ENEMY. Don't forget that. A lesson we learned the hard way, but one we'll never forget. Basically, IF YOU DID NOT CALL THE POLICE, THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIEND. 3. Never plead guilty to ANYTHING, EVER. I don't care if they caught you with 3/5th of Jake Daniels sitting between your legs, a loaded hand gun on the floor, a tied up person in the trunk, and enough alcohol fumes coming out of your mouth to lite up a rocket, DO NOT PLEAD GUILTY. 4. If you are charged, it'll be more charges than you expect. Simply put, if you break a single law [no matter what it is], you'll be charged with MULTIPLE counts. Take J-walking... "J-Walking, Endangerment, Disturbing the Peace, Interference with Traffic" are the charges you'll get. It's unconstitutional, but hey, welcome to the Nanny State. 5. If you ARE guilty, and you know it, refuse the breath and blood tests. Sure, you'll lose your license for a year or 2, but that pales to the tens of thousands of dollars in fines, jail time, and... you'll still lose your license. 6. If you are INNOCENT, NEVER PLEAD GUILTY, NEVER TAKE A PLEA BARGIN, NEVER SETTLE FOR LESS THAN COMPLETE EXONERATION OF THE CHARGES like we did. They gave 3 charges to my wife over this. Two of the charges were gambits. Just little "toys" they could use. "Plead guility, we'll drop two charges". Well, those two charges wouldn't stand up for 1 minute in court anyway, and the prosecutor knows that. It's a GAME to them, remember that. They do this for a living, you don't. Shannon's final "meat" charge was "Driving while impaired to the slightest degree." This isn't even a DUI charge per se. Well, define "Slightest degree" please! You can be impaired to the slightest degree from a) drinking too much water, b) driving while depressed, c) talking on a cell phone, e) etc. It's a "catch all" that allows a police officer to do as he pleases. We got an expert witness, a third party doctor, to examine the evidence. The doctor responded there was no evidence that she was impaired by any contents of her blood. Also, they had nothing on paper saying she did anything other than run a stop sign in an empty parking lot. BFD! Bryan W.

• CHRISTINE COKELY 03/26/2008 11:02:24 AM

  I got a DUI four and a half years ago. I was guilty, and have no complaints about the price I paid for my crime, which included a $1200.00 fine, a $75/month for a breathalyzer in my car for a year, 10 days in Tent City, $5000.00 in attorneys’ fees, $400.00 of substance-abuse classes, and an increase of $1200.00 per year in auto insurance. Since then, I have not and will not drink and drive; not only because of the price I paid, but because I truly realized how dangerous it is. I deserved my punishment. But while in “the system”, I learned a few things most people do not know. One of the most interesting is, field sobriety testing is not a pass/fail proposition. The police administer these “tests” for evidence-gathering purposes ONLY; you cannot “pass” a field sobriety test. If you think that, after performing these tests at optimum levels, a police officer is going to release you, guess again. Once an officer has administered these tests, you will be taken for a breathalyzer or blood test, NO MATTER WHAT. The only reason field sobriety testing is done, is to create evidence that can be used against you later. And although your scores on these “tests” may be optimal, the tests themselves are so ambiguous that the results can be easily spun as a prosecutor sees fit. Even a completely sober person may not perform well… If you are guilty (and be honest with yourself; you know when you are), and it is just a straight DUI with no accident or injury involved, it is a waste of $$ to hire an attorney. Just allow the system to process you through, because that is what will happen anyway, but at an additional $5000.00 cost to you. There is nothing an attorney can do for you. I also found it interesting that, the bill to increase penalties for DUI, and the bill to extend last call for alcohol to 2:00am, were passed and in effect within one month of each other. Gee, funny how the same groups were backing both bills. That’s because these groups make $$ off of DUI’s; attorneys, substance-abuse programs, breathalyzer providers, insurance agencies, etc. I am glad New Times published this story, if only because most people who know anything about the system are afraid of being labeled “baby-killers” if they point out the injustices. Go ahead and call me a “baby-killer”; at least I’m not lobbying for laws that deliberately set people up for DUI, so I can make even more $$ under the guise of saving babies… Christine Cokely

• Scared Straight! 03/24/2008 11:58:37 PM

  Sarah, Thank you for the insightful article. It really shows that even though we all know the dangers of driving, we really need to make sure the people (police) who are supposed to protect and serve us are following the law. While I don't feel Mrs. Wilcutt's judgment was the best that day, i.e. taking prescription drugs and drinking, I do believe the evidence shows she was neither intoxicated nor guilty of DUI. It also seems like the police rushed to judgment. I am also not a proponent of drinking and driving, but I do sympathize with Mrs. Wilcutt. I have seen the statistics and know that drinking and driving can be deadly for everyone. Unfortunately, I don't think the Wilcutt’s case and others is about protecting and serving as it is about making money for these cities. This article couldn't have had better timing! Saturday, I was out eating dinner with some friends when we struck conversation up with the person next to us. It just happens that this person was an undercover officer for Chandler…yes, Chandler. We talked about the dangers of drinking and driving in Arizona and how tough the police and laws are here. I told him I have never seen such an overwhelming focus on DUI like here in Arizona. I had previously lived in CA where the police were focused on other things like violent crime. The officer went on to say it will only get worse. He said that DUIs generate a lot of income for the cash-strapped cities and there is a lot of government funding that goes with these DUI arrests. He went on to tell us how our police (Gilbert) are targeting and charging people with DUI while not following the code of law they are supposed to enforce. He talked about several areas where police DUI misconduct was evident and expressed concerned that the law is not being followed. He gave an example of how an officer from another city was arrested (he didn't pull his badge) in Gilbert for DUI but was under the legal limit. The Gilbert police still took him to jail and booked him for DUI. I also told him how I have seen (what looked to be) undercover officers in and outside of several local restaurants watching people go in and leave. I have had restaurants tell me to watch myself outside the restaurant. I have seen (what looked to be) undercover officers at a popular sushi restaurant in Mesa texting unmarked cars outside. I have seen people followed out of shopping malls and-my guess-pulled over. Steven Ceballes, may not be at your restaurant, but don’t worry…plenty of officers are there to take his place! Whether it’s Mrs. Wilcutt or you, it sounds like we are all waiting to become a statistic and income for the police. You can have your case judged, juried and decided right in front of your eyes. If it can happen to another officer or a person who has had a sip of mimosa, it can definitely happen to everyone else! Once it does…“Then you really might know what it's like... to sing the blues!”

• Bryan 03/24/2008 2:22:03 PM

  To #26, #27: Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! You guys are living the Jerry Springer dream! I didn't know they ran internet into double wide trailers. To #32: Think about this-- if you think this is a nanny state now, the legislation is changing the law to 0.02 alcohol, and they are going to require a teaching certificate to home school your children. Piece by piece, your freedoms are outlawed. My Wife and I have never been arrested, have no criminal record, nothing. But, with the way things are going every good citizen will eventually be a convict. Going to jail is not the result of bad behavior, it's a statistical inevitability. Keep a bag packed. Bryan W

• eric 03/24/2008 11:43:25 AM

  you know ive been stopped like the second woman in scottsdale, and they tried to say i was dui...but after the field test, i blew a 00...i see what this is about, because ive been party to it before, well "victim" in a sense. Several times ive been pulled over for things that are so assenine ive had a prosecutor laugh at them...like changing speed to rapidly from 55-57, riding too close to the right side of the lane, the list goes well on...but i have a solution to the problem, anytime a cop makes an arrest it has to be videotaped from start to finish..oh wait, they have cameras already..so why arent these available to defendants in traffic stops?? id like to see that happen, it would create more accountability and could be a good preventative tool for officers who think their interpretation of the law is good enough to arrest someone, rather than uphold the law as it is..

• cheese with that wine? 03/24/2008 9:35:08 AM

  Ha ha. What I find amusing is that this wilcutt lady got lucky and didn't get a DUI. But instead of being thankful, she ran out and whined to the New Times and now all her dirty laundry is being aired out on the internet. When I first read this article I just thought, huh, sucks for you lady, but at least you didnt get a DUI (oh, and what retard thinks citrus would soothe a sore mouth?). Now I know about her crazy ex, her infedelity, and how many enemies she has. Thanks for the good laugh.

• AZ Observer 03/24/2008 8:40:59 AM

  And you all think it can't happen to you? What a mean-spirited bunch. You are all exposing the sick and depraved mentality that exists here. I'm afraid it's the tip of the iceberg of the destruction in the divorce and family court system. Using lawyers and friends to DESTROY the "other side". Leave this Mom and her kids alone -- their lives have been deeply harmed by those who are pursuing her.

• AZ Mom 03/24/2008 8:36:30 AM

  Strangers stalking Moms and kids. Sounds like the stalker is the sick one here. Moms in AZ beware -- you are very vulnerable to have your life destroyed in this family-UNfriendly state, where moms and kids are at risk for destruction. The authorities and elected officials only care about money and power, not whose lives they throw away in the broken criminal justice system. Shame on all the people trying to destroy lives here.

• Whatever 03/24/2008 7:46:13 AM

  Since you brought it up. There is nothing in the courts about your ex doing anything. There is one drug (minor most would say) charge from 13 years ago that can be now be dismissed. There is nothing else in the court system for him. I am tired of you lying to everyone. He didn't do anything to you and you know it. If you really believe that he did, then you need some therapy to deal with lying to yourself. You slept with the whole neighborhood while married. Your friend Sonia knows. We have the emails where you told her everything. Isn't that how you met your husband, while still married? There are plenty of people you cheated with that have spoken to us about it. Did you think they would keep your secret? They didn't. You are one to talk. You were there too. He wasn't with her alone. You weren't concerned enough to have a blood test done. Why is everything awful AFTER you are supposedly done with it? You didn't mind at the time. Planned a vacation, in fact. Doesn't look a thing like him, btw. Have you seen him recently? I have. Looks just like her husband. If we are talking about patterns, then I should warn your husband. She will cheat on you. She will spend all your money. These thing will happen. They are her pattern. If you feel that you can change, then stop defaming my husband and believe he has changed too. And move on with your life. You got the kids, you took all his stuff, just stop already. You sound bitter and I can't figure out why, because this was what you wanted. Just let it go.

• What is wrong with people? 03/24/2008 6:36:52 AM

  WE DO NOT KNOW THIS BUSINESSMAN. We don't know anyone in the police. None of you find anything wrong with drinking after oral surgery? Not at home? With a child? Then taking Hydrocondone and driving? It couldn't have been that Mrs Wilcutt TOLD the police that she took a Hydrocodone before driving. And it couldn't have been the COPS discretion to take her in! That's what the police do. She WAS endangering her child by driving like that. Especially here in the Valley where people drive like maniacs. No, it MUST have been the ex. Right. Sorry to disappoint you. We've been to busy.

• jen 03/24/2008 12:17:23 AM

  I have never met Ms.Wilcutt, but her story fascinates me. It’s why I will not even have one drink, and drive, because a DUI could ruin my job. I’m wobbly on my feet and can slur my speech dead sober, so I wouldn’t have a chance with even one drink. I did some research on court websites, typing in her name, and only one case came up. The one mentioned in the article. For a drunk/druggie, that’s a pretty good record. http://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/notification/casedetail.asp?cs_id=kgssqges&crt_name=Maricopa%20County%20Superior I verified it on clerk of the court minute entries and on maricopa superior case lookup

• Jones 03/23/2008 10:40:06 PM

  Message #22 mentioned a possible connection with this stalker and with the mentally wacked out ex-husband. Have you folks look into investigating this? Also, what about the police? I'd look for a connection there first. How come you can't sue someone to get your money back? I can't believe you can just be accused and then go into bankruptsy just to prove your innocense. I'd be interested in knowing a little more about this exhusband guy writing up here, he really seems to have an axe to grind! I can see why Shannon left him, it's not what we gals call a "real keeper". GJ

• Funny 03/23/2008 12:30:46 PM

  Has he told you about his domestic charges? Time in prison? Not just against Shannon, but other girls too? Did he bother to tell you about all his illegatimate children? Ask him about Serena, you'll note a similarity with her child and your husband, LOL! A lawyer was never used to severe his parental rights or the divorce. It's in the paperwork who is representing the parties. The paperwork says Per Se, which is SELF. We have lots of photos of women and children he has beaten, care to take a gander? Text msg us your email (you know the phone number). We will be happy to educate you. You are a statistic in the making... you heard it here first. Congrats on the new child!

• New Wife 03/23/2008 12:10:31 PM

  Her Ex-husband is not obsessed with her. He hasn't done anything to her. Shannon is the one who made his life a living hell. She lied to the courts, took all his money (for a lawyer) and forced him to give up his parental rights. That is the ONLY thing he thinks of concerning Shannon...his children. He loves them and wants the best for them. He knew that continuing in the manner it was going, that Shannon would never stop fighting and put the kids in the middle. So he bowed out. For whatever reason, he thinks Shannon is a good mother. For what it's worth, picking up the New Times on Thursday was the first we heard of Shannon's arrest. We didn't send anyone to spy on her, we have far better things to do in our lives. We have been moving on and living our lives with our beautiful new daughter. Anyone who has a baby knows you have more and better things to do than plot some tired-out revenge on an old ex who you never think about anymore. The only reason replies were even made to this is because of more lies. I am sick of all the lies. Stop lying. Just stop. Go on with your life. That's what we're doing. Remember there are three sides to every story. His, hers and the Truth. Everything is not Black or White.

• maryis 03/23/2008 12:29:35 AM

  Hmmm, after reading the comments, it makes me wonder if "Mr. Businessman" who followed her might have been a friend/cohort/fellow obsessive and friend of her busted ex-husband. I wonder if anyone has investigated THAT possibility that she was set up but good by an obsessive ex-husband who wants to continue to make her life a living hell. As far as stories like this go, they just make me sick to my stomach. My friend's daughter-in-law decided to have an affair and was arrested after crashing her car. Her blood alcohol content was just a tenth of a point less than an extreme DUI. She lost her license for a year and was put on probation. She continued to drive WITH my friend's grandchild in the car. To make sure that my friend's son didn't take his child and move out of the mess she had made, she had a friend burn her with a lit cigarette and then went to the police and said that my friend's son had abused her and attempted to rape her. He was arrested and his life turned into a living hell - barred from their home, she sold his belongings, moved her boyfriend in with her and tried, unsuccessfully, to sever her husband's parental rights. Thirty thousand dollars later, he was able to gain partial custody of his child... while little Miss DUI received free legal counsel because she was a 'victim.' She has gone on to have three illegitimate children, has a thriving business on ebay, and collects welfare money without the state's knowledge of her business. When reported to the police for driving without a license, with a child in the car, with discarded beer cans visible on the floorboards, no insurance, etc. etc. etc., the police said to 'back off' or risk being incarcerated for harrassment. And then I read a story about Ms. Willcutt here along with the others and it just blows me away that the courts spend countless hours on non-cases while ignoring the real dangers to children and to society.

• Bryan 03/22/2008 10:19:31 PM

  Ernest, You're right. After doing a year's worth of research in DUI, alcohol control, etc., I was surprised to find out how much MADD is involved. I don't like drunk drivers, I believe the laws are too soft as it is now. I think the bigger issue is motivation on behalf of the police when it comes to drinking. MADD is pushing to have the legal drinking limit dropped even further. I've discovered, through research, that Scottsdale, Sun City and a few other towns will charge you with DUI if you are at 0.05 or above, not 0.08! Also, don't forget all the fun things you get to suffer from after being charged. Shannon had 12 months of "pre-trail services." That means random drug and random alcohol testing EVERY WEEK! She'd have to leave work, drive all the way downtown, take a piss test at TASC, then go to the courts and take a breath test. Once a week for 52 weeks. Well, she's no drug addict or alcoholic [unlike the psychotic moron in this group claims] so she passed with flying colours, so to speak. Never a problem. She also had to stave from alcohol until trial. Not even communion at church was allowed. ALL ALCOHOL. Then the legal fees. Phillips and Associates were our representatives and, yes, they did an AWESOME job. We have no complaints about them, I even recommend a friend over to them recently for another issue. We paid the entire penalty as if she was found guilty except for having to have jail time (which she DID have while be held after being charged) or an SR-22 for car insurance.

• Ernest Barteldes 03/22/2008 8:47:32 AM

  MADD is now populated by holier-than-thou citizens who think that alcohol is the devil in a bottle. Their efforts have done little more than benefit insurance companies, who by the way are among their biggest donors. Think about that

• BW 03/21/2008 12:00:37 PM

  To TNT (msg #15). There's more to this story than that story implies. There is a reason why the witness followed her, we're currently looking at our options. He also lied to the police about everything that occurred. The reports are public record. He wasn't being a "good Samaritan", that much I am sure. I wish I could talk more about it but the lawyer wants me to be quiet about it. To SeenItAll (msg #14). SendItAll, you are right, she had 0.022 with 28 ng of hydrocodone. What's not discussed is 28 ng of hydrocodone is NOT therapeutic levels. Therapeutic levels begin at 30 ng, Drs. like to have an adult at around 50 to 100 ng. Essentially, 5mg of hydrocodone with 500 mg of aspirin is nothing more than ... an over glorified aspirin. The bottle also states "Use caution when driving", unlike some other pain killers that flatly state "DO NOT DRIVE" on them. We're not upset with the prosecutor, they (She) did their job. They are very aggressive, so if they drop a case, they really meant to drop it! They'd rather waste the time and money and take their chances in court, but fact is, if they really know there is no hope, there is no evidence, and it would ultimately make them look bad then, yes, they'll drop it. This is what happened. We're not happy with the witness or Chandler PD's unprofessional, sophomoric behavior. We're okay with the prosecutor. The case was dropped with the following reason: "In the interest of justice." We just got the paperwork yesterday. Finally, #4, #10, #12 and #16 -- The yellow pages are full of psychiatrists than can help you with your psychosis. We'd like to thank Mrs. Fenske for her fair, balanced approach and professionalism. BW

• Shannon 03/21/2008 11:57:32 AM

  A Former Friend- Well who lost parental rights of their children due to drugs and violence? YOU! I can see you are still harboring feelings, I feel sorry for your current family that you can not focus your attention on them, although you have always had an issue with this. I have never been in trouble in my life for anything and I happened to run across a pervert that wanted his five minutes of fame. Well, at least I have no domestic violence charges on me (you have 2 that I know of) and I have not served time in tent city for drug possession as you have. Who is calling the kettle black??? I pray that you can find peace within yourself one day and move on with your life and the people you should be concerned about in your immediate life. God bless you and watch over you and your family. :)

• WTF 03/21/2008 9:05:05 AM

  Even the smallest amount of alchol intensifies the effects of Vicodin so I am pretty sure she was driving impared. There is a warning on the bottle so she knew. I do not feel sorry for this lady,she got what she deserved.

• Stupid People 03/21/2008 4:05:55 AM

  Bryan, you act like there's only one person who knows your wife. I've run into plently of people that know Mrs. Wilcutt was both a drunk and drug addict. If you would like to be in denial, so be it. And please stop telling the lies that your wife told you to the whole world. He didn't touch her. She was scratched by the kid. HE called the cops on her, because she once again wanted to get behind the wheel of a car in a messed up state WITH HER KIDS! Besides, you shouldn't be the morality police. Your wife was MARRIED when you met her and throughout your dating. I am glad there are people like the man who followed her and showed her to the cops. Everyone in this article was guilty of driving while impaired. And NO one should get away with that with a kid in the car!! Besides what kind of idiot drinks orange juice after oral surgery? Duh. Why not just grab fast food and go home like a normal person?

• TNT 03/20/2008 10:20:20 PM

  I read the first 3 paragraphs thinking the businessman should mind his own f@#*in business. After reading further he should have. Noboby likes a tattle tale.

• SeenItAll 03/20/2008 9:08:19 PM

  "Hey Mr.... B.A.C. stands for "blood alcohol concentration". Her BAC-at an .02- indicates she had only one drink, which is consistent with her own statement. If you want a full report, get a copy of her DPS drug report-it's public record. That will show you she had drugs in her system along with the alcohol." She had 0.022 BAC, and 28ng/dl of hydrocodone. Hydrocodone is not illegal to have in your blood, alcohol is not illegal to have in your blood. BOTH are not illegal to have in your blood. What is illegal is whether they impaired your driving, alcohol is not 0.08 or over, and your prescription was legal. By the way, 0.02 is actually 1/2 of 1 can of beer (lite beer). A full beer gets most people up to 0.04. Note that the so-call stalker witness said he only saw her run a stop sign IN A PARKING LOT. No law against that. She drove all the way to the mall with NO PROBLEMS according to the witness' statement (also public). So, you'll have to 1) explain how she was impaired, and 2)why the prosecutor dropped the case "based on a lack of any or all evidence, and in the interest of justice." Go take a look at the court papers, I did.

• AZ Native 03/20/2008 5:46:17 PM

  Be the case that it may be, people should fight absurd charges should they be charged. If they are innocent, let them prove it. Police now have more powers than the general public knows. If a police officer stops you and suspects ANYTHING, he may detain you, or even place you under arrest, search your person, and vehicle, LEGALLY. After 9/11 the laws have given almost ABSOLUTE power to police and law-enforcement personnel. Once you get into this situation, you'll know what I'm talking about. Be prepared to fight a lentghy and costly battle with the court system if you choose to prove your innocence.

• intheknow 03/20/2008 5:43:45 PM

  Hey Mr.... B.A.C. stands for "blood alcohol concentration". Her BAC-at an .02- indicates she had only one drink, which is consistent with her own statement. If you want a full report, get a copy of her DPS drug report-it's public record. That will show you she had drugs in her system along with the alcohol. Drugs + alcohol + 4 year old son = impaired. That's a good woman to allow for adoptions of our children... Get your facts straight before you go spouting off.

• A friend 03/20/2008 5:32:48 PM

  Funny, the BAC doesn't seem to support what you are saying. You can't lie about those things. Care to elaborate more? Every story I've read over the years on NewTimes, there's always some lunitic moron looking for attention. I think the psychiatrists called it narcissism. If we had verified names, addresses, etc., nuts like this wouldn't be posting.

• intheknow 03/20/2008 5:14:44 PM

  The author has completely altered this news article from the facts. She was as drunk and drugged up as any saturday night bum down on central, but the author should have you feel sorry for Wilcutt, "who lives on a quiet street in south Chandler". She took drugs and drank alcohol with her 4 year old son, and then DROVE. No wonder the witness did not want his name used, his statement would have been altered before it hit the print media-that's for sure. I have usually agreed and generally gave credit to the New Times for telling us the truth. I now realize they will alter any fact or police report to make a story. Shame on you New Times......And trust me, I KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS STORY-AND THE TRUTH WAS NOT TOLD !

• Jones 03/20/2008 5:05:52 PM

  Wow... goes to show they're just tryin to take your money and throw everyone in jail. didn't they say like 10% of america is now behind bars? even if she finished that drink she still would have been legal. I think MADD is try to get alcohol completely outlawed.

• Bryan 03/20/2008 4:45:04 PM

  "Well, I know Mrs. Wilcutt personally and at one time was a really close friend of hers. She is a Drunk and a Drug Addict, I have seen her personally drink to excess and 'other' illegial drugs plenty of times..." Note: This is Shannon's ex-husband, who beat her and her (then very) young children and was incarcerated. Shannon has no history of drugs or alcohol. He has a restraining order for stalking her. Not too different from the man who stalked her from Mimi's cafe.

• Glen 03/20/2008 3:58:57 PM

  This guys wife is a baby. Dont drink and drive with kids. Yeah, its a messed up story but she still ordered a drink while her kid was with her and after being messed up from the dentist! "ooo how about i pop a pain pill too! how dare the cops arrest me!" hahahaha retard

• Concerned Friend 03/20/2008 3:26:23 PM

  With a friend like #4, who needs enemies!

• Phyllistine 03/20/2008 10:59:51 AM

  If it were only against the law to drive impaired if you hit someone or something, we wouldn't need a separate DUI law -- you could just be held responsible for the losses you caused. However, endangering others is also against the law. Our common interest is in preventing some crimes before they happen. Although bringing this matter to light is important -- many people need to be more careful when driving on medication, and conversely, maybe we are over-enforcing and over-prosecuting all DUI charges without regard to the circumstances -- sometimes things are tricky, and you need a lawyer, and you probably can't get the government to pay you back. Them's the breaks.

• A Former Friend 03/20/2008 10:11:39 AM

  Well, I know Mrs. Wilcutt personally and at one time was a really close friend of hers. She is a Drunk and a Drug Addict, I have seen her personally drink to excess and 'other' illegial drugs plenty of times. How ever she managed to get out of this is beyond me. Your a very lucky woman, and I am pleased that there some people who will be watching her from a far to make sure she gets what should be comming to her. I pray for her children when they are with her in the car together.

• Randy Jones 03/20/2008 9:46:18 AM

  that's all this city cares about is putting you through hell for the smallest thing and taking all of your hard earned money....I'm moving!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Horrified AZ Mom 03/20/2008 9:21:02 AM

  This is truly chilling to think moms and their children are being watched and stalked. This sounds like the days of Hitler and all the do-gooders who enabled him into power. It is truly time for changing the sick mentality and abuse of power in this state and county, that encourages destroying women, children and families by throwning them into the criminal justice system. This is a heartbreaking story that I hope you follow closely. This woman and family need help, since the attorneys will rip them off. She will now become another felon who cannot vote!

• concerned citizen 03/20/2008 9:14:42 AM

  Sarah, thank you for the outstanding article on life in Phoenix suburbs. It is chilling to think that moms and their children are being watched and tracked. Who would be creepy enough to turn this mom in? Does he realize he has destroyed this woman's life and that of her children and family by throwing her into the broken criminal justice system? I wonder if the "stalker" was a "rep" for those who profit by this. Moms in AZ -- this state is very unkind to moms, their children and families. The zero tolerance mentality in this state is beyond belief. Soon there will be no one left to pay for the damage by draconian policies and harsh mandatory sentences while mere mortals play God.