A quick recap Of Randy Hopper Randy Hopper was a spoiled rich child from the Fox Valley who bought himself a Senate seat as a solid family man. The problem was during the recalls when someone unwittingly knocked on his door, his wife(who signed the recall petition) told them that they were searching the wrong place. The "man of the house"(term used loosely) Randy Hopper was no longer living there, he was now residing in Madison with is 25 year old lobbyist girlfriend Valerie Cass! Luckily for all of us in the State of WIsconsin Randy Hopper was successfully recalled and the true public servant Jessica King was elected to replace him!!
Fast forward a few months of unemployment later and Randy Hopper and his very young mistress were partying on a Sunday! The problem was Randy Hopper decided to hop behind the wheel after having a few too many. Randy Hopper was then arrested for Drunk Driving. Hopper, did as most all republicans do when they get caught red handed(1. Claim to be the victim, and 2. Hire a trial lawyer). Unfortunately his whiny claim of victimhood, and his excellent trial lawyer was able to get him off all charges of drunken driving. Seems republicans can skip out on any laws they feel like not adhering too.
The problem for Randy Hopper though, and the great thing for the rest of us, is that the special prosecutor Frank Endejan, has decided to appeal a judge's decision to dismiss a case against the former state senator.
Special prosecutor Frank Endejan, who handled the previous cases for the county, signed the notice of appeal. Numerous attempts to contact Endejan were unsuccessful. District Attorney Dan Kaminsky said the "decision to appeal is one made by the special prosecutor who by law performs all duties of the district attorney on the case for which he is assigned." Kaminsky said he consulted with Endejan regarding the appellate issues and procedure and put him in touch with assistant attorney generals who are experienced in the appeal process. "My understanding is that the appeal is intended to address the standard a judge should use in deciding whether an officer may request a suspect submit to a blood alcohol test," Kaminsky wrote in an email.
Let's hope justice prevails this time! Here is Randy testifying during his first trial.
Here is some advice that Mr. Hopper and his paramour had better follow in the future!
Correction: he's not from the Fox Valley originally! He's from Illinois! http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/bb/09bb/swf/1-98.swf
ReplyDeletethanks! No wonder he cant handle his alcohol!
ReplyDeleteOKay, I watched the dash cam.. and if I were on a jury I would not have convicted him--even out of spite.
ReplyDeleteHe looked to have passed the field tests-- are any of you over the age 40 and can you without daily practice stand on one leg for more than 15 seconds; are any of you 45 or older... These five years do make a difference for the desk bounded. Heal to toe--are you kiding me? He passed with a little oops on one pivot... try it--sober.
We can't hear him recite the alphabet. It is assumed he coud "sober"? I am not so sure.
More importantly they got a tip from a tell on your neighbor---the complaining party also signed the recall petition. And the husband is a Fond du Lac county public union worker.
The beauty of his arrest is that it was due to tell on your neighbor tactics-- conservative legislation, though not vetoed by libs.
Still, the cops did not have proof, did not witness bed-hopper's drunkedness. He appeared to have passed the field tests... Which IMO, is why the prosecution did not show the video during the trial. If it was a smoking gun(it isn't) they would have.
Frankly, the defense of the arresting officer, the complaining tell on your neighbor family all having signed the recall petition and the devisive rancor.. is a reasonable defense.
I do not live in Fon du Lac and I know who bed-hopper is and what he looks like.. I am surprised that a union public worker from Fond du Lac, and the complaining party doesn't.. He loses credibilty on that alone.
And as a liberal who (voted for Barrett in the recall and attended Madison protests) still believes in justice that would have been my input as a juror.
Actually the police were called when he was swerving all over the interstate. You are really giving them credit that they not only knew what Hopper looks like, what he drives and his license plate number. They really wanted vengeance on randy hopper.
ReplyDeleteHe refused to take a breathalyzer, how would that work for you> refuse the breathalyzer and do ok on the rest of the tests. Im sure that would be a quick way to get off all charges!
Hopper? I hardly know her!
ReplyDeleteJeff: The field tests were taken before the refusal.. as is procedure. There is a probable cause issue here: The cop did not see Hopper driving, did not see Hopper driving at the shopping mall, did not see Hopper driving whatsoever. He was walking in the grocery store parking lot. He was issued a ticket for left of center lane deviation--not reckless driving. The jury found him not guilty of the OWI and the Lane deviation. In a separate trial held after the OWI and the traffic violation trial, the judge dismissed the refusal because there was no probable cause to obain a BAC test.(The prosecution agreed to this unusual trial sequence)
ReplyDeleteThe cops had the legal authority to forcebly draw blood. State v. Bohling-- the threat of dissipation of alcohol justifies a warantless seizure (blood draw). They didn't do that. The prosecution did not use the dash cam video against Hopper--why not. If you watched it is obvious that it proves Hopper did not fail the preliminary field tests. If he had, rest assuredly the video would have been entered into evidence. It wasn't. It also wasn't entered and subsequently dismissed, either. The Judge used the testimony of the arresting officer that testified that there were not enough clues to say that Hopper failed the field tests. (That's like saying, he didn't appear to be drunk but I wanted to test his breath to make sure. Sliipery slope, doncha think?)
Shoddy arrest procedures, shoddy prosecutions are far too common in this country. The state has the burden of proof--we forget that. Any evidence that weighs in the favor of the defendent must be considered. Testimony that there were not enough clues to fail the field tests exclude probale cause for a breath test.
Bottom line: Even if Hopper was OWI, the police failed to garner evidence that he was, and the state didn't provide evidence that he was. At least the jury thinks so.
And for the appeal, the prosecution thinks there was probable cause to request a test "pure and simple". Well then, there was probable cause to draw blood.
Obviously the Prosecutor feels there is more here and that is why he is bringing the charges back up. As the story says:
ReplyDeleteAfter the jury reached its verdict Endejan told The Reporter that he could not present one of the tests for intoxication because an expert was not obtained for trial. He also said the jury did not see video of Hopper's arrest and that he knew the Fond du Lac Police Department disagreed with testimony of Hopper but opted not to call an officer to the stand to refute the former senator's claims.
I agree that shoddy arrest procedures and shoddy prosecutions are too common, unfortunately the people who get off from such tactics are the ones who can afford the best defense.
Had he gotten off because of poor procedures, I would actually be fine with that. What bothered me was his instant claim of victimization and that it was because he took their collective bargaining rights away. That was BS people called because he was driving like a fool. I am sure. like all drivers when stopped for drunk driving, can be believed when he said he only had one beer.
Jeff- I would concede that he got off because he had access to a good attorney. That's another problem with our justice system.
ReplyDeleteEndejan was not allowed the breathalzyer for two reasons: the test was refused by Hopper and not adminstered properly. Why didn't he secure expert testimony for trial? Not enough time? After the evidence was ruled inadmissible? He doesn't say why he did not admit the video into evidence, and he doesn't say why he didn't call Brown as a witness.
He left the door wide open for bed-hopper to whine it was a witch hunt. Bed-hopper may have used his "victimhood" as a defense, but without polling the jury we don't know if that played into the decision. More than likely it was because they didn't provide evidence.
Why did Endejan allow the implied consent refusal to go to trial before the OWI?