Letters from the issue of Thursday, June 12, 2008

Upon her release from jail the following morning, on the advice of my attorney, we immediately had her blood and urine tested at an independent lab. A week later, the test results confirmed what we already knew: My daughter was not under the influence of anything.

Yet, at her hearing, the prosecutor didn't bother to bring in the police test results because he presumed her guilt, too. When we presented our test results to the judge, he ordered the prosecutor to retrieve the police results, and after confirming that my daughter had been wrongfully arrested, he dismissed the charges and immediately gave back her driver's license.

While I have no tolerance for drunk driving, I do believe that until an officer has clear evidence of intoxication or impairment, the driver deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I have friends in law enforcement who've told me that their job is just to make arrests. The more the better! If some of them get tossed in court [unjustly], oh, well.
Michael Bell, Bakersfield

Dirty cops in AZ: Cops in this state are dirty. It's a shame, but you have to move to Mexico to get away from their corruption!
William Parker, Phoenix

This is nothing new, people: First, as an attorney I can tell you this kind of thing has been going on for years. The only difference is, it gets more press now.

Cops have always been taught to report bloodshot, watery eyes, and smells of alcohol, regardless of the situation. And any sobriety test is developed to fail the suspect.
Name withheld by request

The real drunks are getting away: When five officers spend this much time arresting a sober driver, you can bet that they've missed dozens of other drivers who were actually drunk or driving recklessly.

Until DUI laws make sense again and the blood-alcohol limit is raised to a reasonable number, the police will be harassing people who've had a couple of drinks (or none), while those who are actually drunk get away.
Name withheld by request