Spokane7
50°
December 1, 2010 in City
Prosecutor unsure if felony DUI will stick against Crabtree
The deputy prosecutor who didn’t file a felony drunken driving charge against a man with a history of dangerous crashes said she’s not sure she has enough evidence to make the charge stick.
James L. Crabtree, 49, appeared in court Tuesday and was told that a previous judge’s order that he not drive was lifted because prosecutors had not filed charging documents. Deputy Spokane County Prosecutor Mary Ann Brady said she expects to eventually charge Crabtree with something, but possibly not the felony driving under the influence charge being sought by investigators.
“Until I can get more reports, I don’t know if can charge felony DUI,” she said.
The latest scrape with the law for Crabtree – who worked as a Spokane County Sheriff’s deputy from 1983-86 – came on Nov. 17 when he was arrested near Broadway Avenue and Pines Road after motorists reported him passing out and for rear-ending another car.
Other motorists blocked in Crabtree’s Cadillac and deputies arrived and found an open container for Four Loko, a caffeinated alcoholic beverage now banned in Washington. During booking, jailers found one prescription narcotic in Crabtree’s pocket.
Brady said Crabtree denied taking any prescription drugs but acknowledged drinking a couple beers. Deputies noted that he had slurred or slower speech.
A breath test showed he had a blood alcohol content of .065 percent, which is below the legal limit of .08 percent. Despite the slurred speech, he performed acceptably in some sobriety tests. Deputies also called in a Washington State Patrol trooper to perform tests to see if Crabtree was under the influence of drugs.
“That resulted in a non-conclusive finding. I have to find out what ‘non conclusive’ means before I go forward,” Brady said. “But even if I don’t charge felony DUI, I can always charge negligent driving. That’s not off the table.”
If charged, it would be at least the fourth time Crabtree has faced criminal charges since he received a deferred prosecution in 1997 for DUI.
On Dec. 16, 2001, Crabtree was under the influence of cocaine when he slammed head-on into the Sheriff’s patrol car.
While awaiting sentencing on vehicular assault charges stemming from that crash, Crabtree was arrested for selling cocaine.
He was sentenced in 2003 to five years in prison despite pleas from current and former law enforcement officials for leniency. Crabtree had only been out of prison for a short time before he got arrested for a second drunken driving accident, in October 2006.
Efforts late Wednesday to contact Crabtree for comment were unsuccessful.
Closing Geiger: Wise or worrisome? 
hawken on December 01 at 7:12 p.m.
There’s a whole bunch of you knee jerk analysts (along with the SR) out there whom owe this prosecutor and Tucker an apology.
I didn’t vote for Tucker, but that’s beside the point.
What many of you apparently don’t understand, is that a prosecutor has a dual responsibility:
1- To prosecute the guilty based upon evidence that a person is guilty according to the “elements” of the crime as defined by the legislature.
2- To insure that justice is adjudicated.
What goes on in this blog is too often likened to a “high-tech lynching.”
Here’s a “heads up” to the newbies or uninformed.
I have been very critical of both Spokane County Law Enforcement, and Tucker.
So,,,, Please,,,, sit on your anticipated, false accusations that I am a blind supporter of both.
I’ve see the same “high-tech lynching” relating to police officers whom have recently and legitimately used justifiable, deadly force in the performance of their duties.
Nevertheless, I remain a critic of law enforcement when criticism is due. In this case it is not.
misjustice on December 01 at 8:23 p.m.
You sit on it, so to speak.
lowtechmaster on December 01 at 8:47 p.m.
Fact is, a multi-convicted DUI is back on the street driving. I wonder if the citizens who phoned him in would agree with the Asst. Prosecutor, or with Hawken. Or if any one, including the officer nearly killed by Crabtree, would. He MUST be taken off the street. And he needs to be put away. The citizens need to be protected from him. How many times does he have to be arrested and convicted (not only of DUI but of drug crimes) to give him a LOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGG sentence? And why, with his prior record, was he even out on the street now…and allowed to drive?
hawken on December 01 at 9:00 p.m.
lowtechmaster
Surely, you don’t reject that we are a nation based upon law and not lynch mobs.
The cost, is that often the guilty go free. Our laws are made to protect the innocent, even at the risk of the guilty going free.
I’ll defend that on behalf of the innocent.
I have many years of experience in state law enforcement and have seen, more than I like, what I believe to be , the guilty going free.
No doubt this is frustrating. You sound like an active police officer. If that is true, I understand. Nevertheless, we are a nation of laws.
opiemuyo on December 01 at 9:05 p.m.
Nice spin control by the prosecutors office, now if they say it enough it will become the truth no doubt.
hawken on December 01 at 9:16 p.m.
Steve: Here is a major problem you have with your lynch mob attitude.
‘A breath test showed he had a blood alcohol content of .065 percent, which is below the legal limit of .08 percent.”
This is not spin….
lewis8457 on December 01 at 9:18 p.m.
what is the purpose of this story? They already let the guy walk. We can only hope the next time he is in jail it isn’t for killing someone connected with DUI.
hawken on December 01 at 9:26 p.m.
Lewis… I expected more of you….
They didn’t let the guy walk… the elements of the crime are not provable because they don’t exist.
The fact that he didn’t meet the minimum BA of .08 is a huge obstacle to overcome and makes it not prosecutable on its face.
The evidence simply wasn’t there to prosecute nor convict him… no matter what his criminal history.
I’m sure that many police officers knew this guy by name and his criminal history, and wanted him prosecuted. Nevertheless, the evidence simply isn’t there.
The last thing we want is a prosecutor charging people without reasonable evidence.
Ron_the_Cop on December 01 at 10:22 p.m.
Hawkin,
See my comment in the other thread. This case appears to have problems. This was a case that deserved a little extra hustle by all of LE and the Prosecutor’s Office so that he was arraigned on some charge pending the real case coming together or not so that the driving restrictions would have remained in effect.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/dec/01/paperwork-no-show-frees-suspect-with-dui-history/?comments#c225779