By Emerson Drake
1/26/11
In the past few months, two Modesto Police Officers have been charged with and/or convicted of drunk driving. One of the officers (Todd Parsons) pleaded guilty to DUI, with a blood alcohol of 2.5 times the legal limit. He drove his personal car off Scenic Drive, breaking both of his legs and his jaw, after leaving a party.
While recuperating from his injuries, he has been allowed to work at a desk, even though he needs assistance to use the rest room. Interestingly enough, even though he can manage to get to the office and do desk duty, he was unable to get to the court house where he was supposed to testify in a legal matter.
The other MPD officer was Mario Gonzales, who was recently stopped by CHP while driving drunk.I have several concerns regarding how these two incidents are being handled by the city and the lack of consistent policies.
1. I am concerned that anyone who has a DUI conviction can continue to drive city vehicles. I understand the DUIs were the result of off-duty behavior, however in the private sector, anyone who drives a company vehicle would not be allowed to do so after a DUI conviction. If driving that vehicle were an essential job function, the fact that they could no longer drive it would result in their termination.
What happens to the city’s insurance rates when people who drive city cars have a DUI conviction? Does our lawsuit liability (gross negligence) increase when we knowingly allow employees convicted of drunk driving to continue driving city vehicles?
Why is someone who is not capable of performing their job functions being allowed “desk duty” in order to avoid using their sick leave? The only purpose of this is to allow Officer Parsons to save his sick leave in order to spike his retirement. Is desk duty offered to all other officers who are physically unable to perform their jobs? How long is desk duty appropriate? 2 months, 6 months, a year?
Why is Officer Parsons only convicted of a misdemeanor when normally a DUI involving injuries (even to himself) is a felony?
There is no policy concerning city employees (with class C licenses) who drive city vehicles after receiving a DUI conviction. Apparently it is up to individual supervisors to determine what, if any, action would be taken against the employee. This leads to inconsistent treatment of employees, which increases the likelihood of discrimination lawsuits.
Why would we want a police officer on the street and making arrests for drunk driving, when he has been convicted of the same crime? If a police officer were convicted of other crimes, such as burglary or rape, would he still be allowed to work in law enforcement?
Do we really want police officers who make poor decisions in their personal life to continue to be officers? If he makes poor decisions in his personal life, it is reasonable to assume he would make poor decisions in his professional life.
I believe law enforcement officers should be required to have a commercial license. After all, they are routinely required to pursue suspects at high rates of speed and often have to use maneuvers to stop speeding vehicles. They are trained to do this, but are only required to have the same license you and I have.
I think it is only a matter of time before one of these officers uses poor judgment in his professional life.
It may cost the life of someone you love.
