Spokane7
50°
December 2, 2010 in City
Evidence lacking for DUI charges, official says
Case on hold while deputy prosecutor awaits reports
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 I 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 for rear-ending another car near Broadway Avenue and Pines Road after motorists reported him passing out.
Other motorists blocked in Crabtree’s Cadillac, and deputies arrived and found an open container of 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 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 nonconclusive finding. I have to find out what ‘nonconclusive’ 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 a 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 another DUI accident, in October 2006. Efforts late Wednesday to contact Crabtree for comment were unsuccessful.
Closing Geiger: Wise or worrisome? 
mikeln on December 02 at 2:21 a.m.
Most people that have mouthwash on their breath provide enough evidence to be charged, this is B.S.
lewis8457 on December 02 at 7:27 a.m.
just another smoke screen. Come on SR you are better then this running their excuses for incompetence.
He is back on the streets driving he could easily kill someone while the prosecutor finds the report.
Anybody else they take your license when you go to the drunk tank.
bszottlinger on December 02 at 10:53 a.m.
A few questions.
On what date and time was the paperwork submitted to the prosecutor?
On what date and time did Ms. Brady review the case?
If there was concern regarding a “nonconclusive finding”, was Officer Thornburg or the WSP contacted to clarify the issue and at what point?
Was Ms. Brady present at the arraignment?
Are the witnesses who observed Crabtree “passed out” credible?
What were their observations?
How long was Crabtree “passed out”?
When a suspect says he did not take prescription drugs does that mean he is telling the truth?
Does the arresting officer have enough background and experience to identify “slurred speech” and other DUI identifiers?
How much time passed between the BA and the WSP observation?
Does the fact that the vehicle contained a can of Four Loko have any bearing?
Can a DUI history be used to help establish the standard necessary to file charges?
Was there enough PC to obtain a search warrant for blood?
Given his previous record was Crabtree on parole/probation and if so, could a hold have been obtained?
CONCERNEDREADER on December 02 at 12:39 p.m.
Mary Ann Brady is an excellent and tough prosecutor. If the evidence warranted filing, she would have filed….this is not an excuse or incompetence… he was below the legal limit regarding alcohol and the narcotics report was nonconclusive…and simply because charges have not filed does not mean that they wont be….prosecutors do need evidnce after all to support charges….
Ron_the_Cop on December 02 at 2:08 p.m.
All good points Brad,
See my post in the other thread:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/dec/01/prosecutor-unsure-if-felony-dui-will-stick-against/?c=226210&comments=1#c226210
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
bszottlinger on December 02 at 2:11 p.m.
Concernedreader:
Help me out with this one. I am not questioning Ms. Brady’s ability.
At what point if a case is lacking a factual basis for filing, would the prosecutor contact the investigator and advise him/her the case was lacking and needed more investigation?
Apparently that was not done in this case, had it been done perhaps there would not be such a brew-ha-ha and the investigator’s comments to the press would have been different.
These articles seem to demonstrate a lack of interaction between the DDAs and the investigators regarding cases like this, if that is not the case please let me know.
I do not know what the time periods are but if the prosecutor read the file the day it was received, could she have recommended that the investigator obtain a search warrant for a blood sample from Mr. Crabtree?
Then again, you would think that if the investigator had a concern for the case he would have requested an audience right away.
I think you can see my point. When there is no system in place for interaction between prosecutor and investigator in high profile cases, or cases likely to be high profile, this is what you get, regardless of the competence of the DDA or the Investigator.
If my suspicions are correct this certainly is not the fault of the DDA or the Investigator, the fault is in the process. Am I out of line?
hawken on December 02 at 5:21 p.m.
Ron-The-Cop
I have tracked and read every single post you have made on this topic… along with all of your links to previous posts. I have read them all.
Hugh?
Thank God, you are retired! You demonstrably have a hard time logically, assessing the “elements” of a crime as a former police officer.
Here are the facts:
1- As much of a potential threat this man is, considering his past criminal history, the elements of the crime have not been substantiated to date.
2- One’s criminal history, does not automatically prove him guilty of new charges, no matter how much the law enforcement community and public might like that to be so.
3- Prosecutors understand this. Most on this blog apparently do not.
4- Lynch mobs are not the standard of our nation. We are a nation of law.
5- My good buddy, Brad, the attorney that he apparently is, asks a whole bunch of questions. No problem. However, those same questions would presumably be asked by any competent, attorney, defense or prosecutor.
6- Unless, you all are willing to trash Mary Ann Bradley, a well respected prosecutor, then everything else is academic.
7- As I have said before, on other posts, relating to this same issue: A prosecutor has a dual responsibility:
A. Prosecute criminals whom based upon evidence, have committed a crime as per the elements of the crime, as established by the state legislature.
B. Insure that justice is administered, according to the elements of the crime. In other words, a prosecutor cannot simply charge and prosecute anyone simply because the police file charges.
This, my friends, is the rule of law.
Ron_the_Cop on December 02 at 7:57 p.m.
Hawkin and Brad,
I tend to go with Brad. As I said before a little talking between LE and the Prosecutor’s Office with some hustle and creative thinking may have gotten a charge filed that would have restricted Crabtree’s driving until it could be determined a more serious charge could be filed if the evidence warranted it.
bszottlinger on December 02 at 10:05 p.m.
Hey Old Buddy,
Here are the facts:
1- As much of a potential threat this man is, considering his past criminal history, the elements of the crime have not been substantiated to date.
2- One’s criminal history, does not automatically prove him guilty of new charges, no matter how much the law enforcement community and public might like that to be so.
(Criminal History can be used in establishing probable cause, in a search warrant for example. It can also be used to establish conditions of release.)
3- Prosecutors understand this. Most on this blog apparently do not.
(I think Ron and I have a good understanding of the elements necessary to establish probable cause and what elements are necessary to file criminal charges. We might even know how to amend a complaint once it has been filed.)
4- Lynch mobs are not the standard of our nation. We are a nation of law.
(That we are, but some of the laws need to be extended before Jan 1, 2011, or a lynching may be in order)
5- My good buddy, Brad, the attorney that he apparently is, asks a whole bunch of questions. No problem. However, those same questions would presumably be asked by any competent, attorney, defense or prosecutor.
(We are only wondering if there is a system in place that allows interaction between the prosecutor and investigator in cases like this so the questions can be asked. Alternatively, if what I have been told by people “in the know” is true and investigators simply submit their cases at the reception area of the prosecutor’s office to a receptionist who date and time stamps the submission, puts the case in a file and at some point down the road depending on the volume of submissions it is reviewed by a prosecutor, then that is not good.)
6- Unless, you all are willing to trash Mary Ann Bradley, a well respected prosecutor, then everything else is academic.
(Note that neither Ron nor I have trashed Ms. Brady or Officer Thornburg, actually, I understand Ms. Brady is extremely competent and dedicated. Do not know a thing about Thornburg but he does sure seem to have the community’s interest at heart. If the system for handling this type of case is as bad as it appears I will trash the system with nearly the same zealousness you trash those of the liberal persuasion.)
7- As I have said before, on other posts, relating to this same issue: A prosecutor has a dual responsibility:
A. Prosecute criminals whom based upon evidence, have committed a crime as per the elements of the crime, as established by the state legislature.
B. Insure that justice is administered, according to the elements of the crime. In other words, a prosecutor cannot simply charge and prosecute anyone simply because the police file charges.
(Whether you believe it or not, I do understand the many responsibilities of a prosecutor and one of those responsibilities is to protect the public. The problem in doing so sometimes boils down to poor standards of interaction and lack of understanding between the role of the prosecutor and the role of the investigator, which ultimately, as in this case leads to finger pointing. If you wonder why the submissions are date and time stamped and the investigator maintains a copy of the stamped submission, it is because some cases in the past have been lost in the paper shuffle within the prosecutor’s office. Just a bit of a correction, police officers do not file charges, they make arrests, prosecutors file charges.)
This, my friends, is the rule of law.
(I very much appreciate the lesson in “the rule of law”, and I am sure Ron does as well.)
Your Very Best Buddy,
Brad