Spokane7
30°Quick links: NCAA tournament • Gonzaga hoops • Easter photo contest • Washington Legislature • Idaho Legislature
A police sergeant was granted deferred prosecution for a drunken driving charge on Friday. Brad Thoma also had a misdemeanor hit-and-run charge (failure to remain at the scene of an accident-attended vehicle or other property) dismissed under the misdemeanor compromise statute.
He could have tried for deferred prosecution on the hit and run charge had it stuck. More than 90 percent of deferred prosecution cases are drunken driving charges, said Deputy Prosecutor Brian O’Brien. Prosecutors have little say in the procedure; they can object if someone doesn’t meet the requirements but the requirements are pretty all encompassing for first-time offenders.
“We don’t have an ability to really participate as advocates for or against,” O’Brien said.
The judge who approved this was Douglas Robinson, a visiting judge from Whitman County.
Robinson is in Spokane County District Court once every two months or so to hear cases that are deemed to have a conflict with regular Spokane County proceedings. (For example, Robinson also handled the sentencing Friday of a man accused of harassing a city of Spokane snow plow driver.)
Robinson, who later said he didn’t know Thoma was a police sergeant, praised Thoma for opting for the deferred prosecution.
Robinson called the deferred prosecution, which includes two years of intensive alcohol rehabilitation, “a wonderful opportunity.”
“It’s just a matter of how much dedication you want to give,” Robinson said. “If you take advantage of it you will look back from now and think this is one of the best decisions you’ve made.”
He dismissed the hit-and-run charge (the charge was not eligible to be a felony because the victim wasn’t injured) after reading a letter he said was from Prickett indicating she “is not interested in seeing the case pursued. They have been fully compensated,” Robinson said.
Prickett said she felt she was misled by lawyer Rob Cossey’s office regarding the intent of the letter.
Read more here.
Reporter Meghann Cuniff writes about public safety news from the Inland Northwest and beyond.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2010, The Spokesman-Review
Follow Meghann on Twitter
Rifleman__Dodd on November 16 at 2:33 p.m.
“Robinson, who later said he didn’t know Thoma was a police sergeant,”
Wasn't all the hand pumping upon the verdict a clue or all his homies in their SWAT sweatshirts sitting in the front row a clue to this judge?
Differed prosecution package lists employment, criminal history etc. etc.
Two years huh? Previous article said five. I'm still wondering if Thoma should have an alcohol interlock on his patrol car. If it was you or me, it would be mandantory.
Flag as inappropriate
Meghann Cuniff on November 16 at 7:19 p.m.
It's five years of probation with at least two years of required alcohol rehabilitation.
Flag as inappropriate
biasedopinion on November 16 at 7:23 p.m.
Rifleman__Dodd “I'm still wondering if Thoma should have an alcohol interlock on his patrol car. If it was you or me, it would be mandantory.”
No it wouldn't. An easy search would show that your assessment is inaccurate.
RCW 46.20.720
The device is not necessary on vehicles owned by a person's employer and driven as a requirement of employment during working hours.
Flag as inappropriate
biasedopinion on November 16 at 7:27 p.m.
Meghann, thanks for including details in your report that adds some clarity as to why he was allowed to do a deferred prosecution.
“Prosecutors have little say in the procedure; they can object if someone doesn’t meet the requirements but the requirements are pretty all encompassing for first-time offenders.”
Flag as inappropriate
Lewis on November 16 at 11:26 p.m.
If there is no interlock on his car then he should not be allowed to drive while in treatment too much of a liability. He is a professed alcoholic driving a city owned car. Which is no normal car they have high-speed engines and other fun goodies that make them deadly in crashes with average cars.
I am really surprised we haven’t heard that the chief has fired him. I guess I give her too much credit.
Flag as inappropriate
Lewis on November 16 at 11:34 p.m.
Any first time offender will tell you this is something that was pulled out of a hat and not your average run of the mil guys know anything about. A good friend had a DUI many years ago and it cost him a pretty penny to get his license back. I am sure he would have jumped at a deferred prosecution.
biasedopinion The main problem i have in even considering your point of view is the reputation and credibility of the SPD has fallen so far in my eyes. I don’t believe anything they or anybody even associated with them says.
Flag as inappropriate
Lewis on November 16 at 11:43 p.m.
Also this officer was really lucky he ran into an honest person that day, because since he ran from the scene and did know if she was badly injured she could have screamed whiplash and cleaned his clock.
I would have, the minute I heard he was a cop I would have had a after accident spasm right where I stood, my back, my back!
Flag as inappropriate
Rifleman__Dodd on November 17 at 12:38 a.m.
Biased thanks for the RCW info, but i would like to know how does the car know if he's working or who owns the car? I just dont want another drunk on the road wether the law gives him an out or not. Could you imagine an STA alcoholic driver buzzing around town with your kids in the back and no Breathylzer interlock to keep them safe?
Two years of treatment to get clean and sober is a long time to be behind the wheel of one of the taxpayers/citizens squad car.
I'd hope the Chief would man-up and fire the guy, but then the Guild would just appeal and run the City as always.
I used to say that the CDA cops go bar hopping and the SPD cops like to go Night Clubbing, but I was wrong…
Flag as inappropriate
biasedopinion on November 17 at 7:20 a.m.
Lewis, we do not have to believe the SPD or anything they say.
However, we do have to believe what is written into law (RCW) and its application (prosecutor's remarks)
As to your friend “many years ago”. Maybe deferred prosecution was not an option? If it was, maybe he did not qualify for it. Maybe there was more to the story then what he shared? Maybe he had other driving offenses that you were unaware of?
This is not about your friend's DUI “many years ago”. It is about how DUIs are handled today. What the courts are doing TODAY. As Meghann has pointed out in her article the prosecutors “have little say in the procedure.” This would seem to indicate that preferential treatment was not given because of his “cop” status.
However, regardless of the facts presented via state law and the prosecutor's comments you refuse to believe it……and albeit irrational, that is your right.
Flag as inappropriate
Lewis on November 17 at 11:11 a.m.
biasedopinion how the heck can you keep defending this officer with written law? Which you and I both know can be interpreted several ways depending on whose mouth it is coming out of.
The friend was coming home from a card game, at 2 in the morning he was on a motorcycle. He stopped at turn signal and it would not trigger because he was on a light vehicle. Any body that rides a motorcycle knows what I am talking about. He finally just went and got pulled over. The cop smelled alcohol and that was it. I am not condoning his actions just telling what I know. And that is just explaining to you what I saw a good working family man pay his due while a local police officer that has had some issues in the past gets off. Are you going to tell me with a straight face this was righteous?
You are right the circumstances were different he was not an off duty cop, and he did not rear end some poor person and drive off. And he was not driven home by a kind police officer.
He did pay out the nose to retain his license because it was his first offense. I remember because he had to give the lawyer his Motto Guzie (spell police please forgive me spell checker does not know the correct spelling and neither do I) because he did not have 5 grand lying around.
You don’t seem too understands there is no law the cops in this town can not break and get away with even in a monkey court. They know the sleazebags to hire and they know the loopholes. And if they don’t they can simply go talk to the chief like Torok did several years ago when a transient in his custody ended up dead.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaki…
Chief Anne Kirkpatrick said she ordered Sgt. Dan Torok to issue a statement about his actions; the contents of the statement, however, can’t be used against the officer in a criminal investigation.”
So baisedopinion you can site the entire wording you want the situation is this since 1991 the SPD have either killed or severely injured 41 people during confrontations. This number does not account for the kids they beat up down at riverfront park July 4 2007. And 99.9% of the time an officer got caught and had to go to court he got off. Now are you really trying to tell me that the law is written to include all of us or just those of us with out a badge?
If you don’t believe the number go to David Brookbanks web site and get informed.
The law side can stand on the corner all day and yell that the law was righteous. But the sad truth is we have a professed alcoholic cop that paid nothing for his offense so he has learned nothing other then he can get off. This same officer is out there right now driving a city owned police car possibly intoxicated. And if they find him drunk in the motor pool we will not know anything about it.
His sentence was a scam. Who is watching to make sure he stays clean? The cops?
Flag as inappropriate
ebyrnes on November 17 at 9:25 p.m.
This situation creates a serious credibility gap: (1) This offender was clearly treated differently than a civilian would have been by the WSP and the courts because of his employment in law enforcement; (2) Why on earth didn't the judge ask more questions of this offender when deciding on deferred prosecution? (3) Why didn't the prosecutor introduce the position of public trust that this offender held and violated as an aggravating circumstance of this crime? (4) Chief Kirkpatrick promised greater police accountability at the beginning of her tenure - Is keeping this offender, whose attorney purposefully duped the victim of this crime in securing his own lenient treatment, a sufficient violation of the public trust, that Chief Kirkpatrick is sworn to uphold, to hold this offender accountable by dismissing him from the force - or will he continue to be paid more than twice the median Spokane income after repeatedly (his crime and duping his victim at trial) violating our trust?
To date this appears to be business as usual for the SPD though one can hope that Chief Kirkpatrick will think of the citizenry with sufficient respect to hold this offender accountable.
It is not a typographical error that I use the word offender rather than officer - if any of us citizens committed this crime officers would call us offenders.
Flag as inappropriate