Spokane7
67°
February 7, 2011
Driver arrested after pedestrians struck near Gonzaga
Two pedestrians suffered head injuries Saturday when a car struck them near the Gonzaga University campus.
Sarah Elizabeth Burford, 33, is to appear in Spokane County Superior Court this afternoon via video from the jail, where she was booked after the crash at North Hamilton Street and East Sharp Avenue. Police believe she was drunk at the time of the crash but are “waiting on toxicology results to determine her specific level of impairment,” police said.
A 21-year-old man and a 19-year-old woman were injured in the crash, which occurred just before midnight.
The man has been released from the hospital; the woman is in intensive care with serious injuries but is in stable condition, police said.
Anyone who witnessed the crash is asked to call Spokane police Cpl. Dave Adams at (509) 835-4567.
Patrols emphasize crosswalk awareness 
andjusticeforall on February 07 at 2:44 p.m.
sooo….the she is in jail….but the “officer” who KILLED a pedestrian off scott free?!?!?! bullsh!t
im sorry for the injured party but this is ridiculous.
Timtora on February 07 at 3:30 p.m.
The officer was not suspected of being DUI, Burford is - big difference. Nobody said the officer is off “Scott free”, the investigation is ongoing and there may be charges filed or department actions.
eagleproducer on February 07 at 4:03 p.m.
timtora: I believe the results of a blood test to determine if the officer was possibly impaired are still pending, as are the results of Burford’s tests.
What’s the difference now?
cpd805 on February 07 at 4:40 p.m.
Spokucky, you usually come across as an intelligent person. So was your question above serious?
The difference now….is the fact that Burford exhibited signs of intoxication at the scene, went through field sobriety tests, which she failed. Probable cause was developed for DUI, and the injuries resulted from the collision made the appropriate charge vehicular assault. The officer involved in the collision exhibited no signs of intoxication.
When a person is involved in a collision where there is serious bodily injury or death, there is no automatic assumption of intoxication. The driver has to exhibit signs of intoxication, which then gives investigators reasonable suspicion to investigate a possible DUI. A DUI with serious injuries is vehicular assault.
That is the difference.
paulti on February 07 at 4:41 p.m.
The difference is that Burford was obviously impaired at the scene of the incident and the test will say to what extent.
Cheezwhiz on February 07 at 5:10 p.m.
The officer in the collision had something that diverted his attention. Cell phone, computer, intoxication, etc. He is just as guilty of not having 100% of his focus on the safety of pedestrians, as Burford.
eagleproducer on February 07 at 5:38 p.m.
Where does the article state field sobriety tests were administered?
I’m pretty sure they are voluntary.
meghannc on February 07 at 7:31 p.m.
i’ve got an update on this story but instead of replacing this article, I created a new file and linked to this version. That way both versions are preserved on the website.
cpd805 on February 07 at 7:54 p.m.
What does the information provided in the article have to do with what actually happened at the scene?
meghannc on February 07 at 8:11 p.m.
cpd805, if your question is directed at me, please rephrase. If not, sorry. It’s been a long day.
cpd805 on February 07 at 9:27 p.m.
Meghann, no.
It was directed at Spokucky when he stated the article did not say field sobriety tests were conducted. I was just suggesting to him that things happen on the scene that do not make the paper. Your reporting on this has been very good actually. I can see how it would have been misconstrued and I apologize for not being more clear as to whom it was directed. Thanks.
SpokyDaBear on February 07 at 11:11 p.m.
Officer Gordo was drunk on a power trip when he killed his pedestrian.
eagleproducer on February 08 at 9:31 a.m.
cpd: Were you there? Other than this article how does the average Joe gather the facts about this incident? Are you on some type of list-serv where all police related matters in this region are automatically forwarded to your e-mail inbox?
cpd805 on February 08 at 5:20 p.m.
Spokucky said: “Other than this article how does the average Joe gather the facts about this incident?”
Verrry true. So with this in mind, why do so many people make assumptions without knowing what happened? It probably would help if people realized there are other facts out there that may not have been written in a newspaper article.
I happen to be in a position where I do know what happened. Sometimes I was there; sometimes I get information directly from other officers who were. I can’t say EVERYTHING I know without violating policies and procedures (and I will not do that), but I can say what is public information whether expressed in the articles or not. The reporters do not have all information and can only report what they are told or observe.
So, to answer your question as to how people gather facts about the incident…..wait until more information is released before jumping to conclusions (not directed at you personally, but to many in this type of forum). Information does not flow freely in the earlier stages of investigations, so people just have to be a bit patient and wait until information becomes public.
bszottlinger on February 09 at 8:56 a.m.
Cpd805:
I completely agree that it is important for citizens to refrain from drawing conclusions without all of the facts and as you are well aware all of the facts generally don’t come out until trial. But I also believe that it is important for law enforcement to be guarded with respect to what is released during the investigative process. So what is the answer? Should law enforcement have an expectation that the public for the most part will wait, or is it a matter of law enforcement becoming considerably more refined with respect to the release of information to the public. I’m sure you are aware, and have received training that in order to maintain the public confidence it is important that law enforcement reach out to the public with as much accurate and transparent information as possible, a sometimes complex and difficult task.
I for one am thankful that you have taken on the task of attempting to inform the public, and at the same time dispel some of the inaccuracy that shows it’s ugly face all to often here and on other blogs. Since you have undertaken this venture I feel it is important that you, as much as possible, respond to questions even though the answer may be somewhat embarrassing to the SPD. The one I asked in the link below deals specifically with something perhaps people besides myself would like to know, and even though the answer might demonstrate that the SPD does have the ability to manipulate the presence of the Ombudsman at I/A interviews it may help others gain an understanding of just how flawed the “Oversight” is in Spokane.
Interested to read your answer.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/feb/02/shawn-vestal-ombudsman-shows-aptitude-for-his-job/
bszottlinger on February 09 at 8:59 a.m.
Tucky:
I would answer your question above, but you would just point out my past indiscretions.
cpd805 on February 09 at 11:47 p.m.
Brad, I read your link and I hope I am answering your question. When a complaint comes in, it is usually fairly obvious whether it is criminal or procedural in nature. For instance, if a person calls in to complain an officer was rude, then that is obviously not criminal. If someone complains of excessive force (assault), or theft of property, that is obviously a complaint that is criminal in nature.
I, and no one I I know of, has expressed any interest in circumventing the OPO by calling a procedural complaint “criminal”. I personally do not mind having Mr. Burns present (in person or over the phone) during interviews, as long as it does not put an undue burden on the citizen. Many complaints come in during the wee hours of the morning and it is not feasible to have Mr. Burns come out to the scene at 3AM, nor is it feasible to tell the citizen, “Sorry, you have to wait till business hours”.
That aside, it is almost always unknown, without initial interviews, if a complaint will even become an Internal Affairs investigation or just an inquiry. My understanding has been, and still is until I receive training otherwise, Mr. Burns is involved in interviews once it formally becomes, and only after it formally becomes, an IA complaint.
bszottlinger on February 10 at 10:19 a.m.
Cpd805:
Thank you for the answer. One of the mistakes that I have observed smaller departments make over the years is that all to often there is a disconnect between the criminal investigation and the IA investigation if the investigations are handled by two different units, many times the right hand won’t know what the left hand is doing and there is a lack of understanding of the legal issues associated with the different responsibilities. On your department this was evidenced by the Torok shooting where Chief Kirkpatrick served a Garrity letter on Torok prior to the Sheriff completing the criminal investigation, Chief Nick’s handling of the Firehouse destruction of evidence case, the Hensley assault case, and others.
Demeanor complainants are obliviously administrative, on the other hand it is sometimes difficult initially to determine whether a complaint may be criminal in nature. The Firehouse fiasco is just one of many examples. It wasn’t until the issue of destruction of evidence was brought up (basically by the media) that any concern for criminal conduct was considered (Police Practices Consulting Report) and the case was apparently never submitted for prosecutorial review. I can certainly see how the public complains, “If that was me I would be in jail”. I realize that the ultimate decision for not attempting to pursue criminal charges is that of the Chief, but my question is who makes that recommendation and what is the specific written policy in that regard, or is there one?
With respect to circumventing Mr. Burns presence at interviews based on the ordinance, I’ll take you at your word that you are not aware of this happening, and in my opinion Mr. Burns should not be present during criminal case interviews or during the initial interviews of a complaint that is pending a criminal/administrative decision. There are sufficient methods of providing him the complete interview if the case ends administrative and he can follow up if he wants. However, I think you can see from the stand point of oversight how this may look to the public and the recent article and reaction demonstrates that. The article doesn’t address whether he received transcripts, or recordings of the interviews (I would suspect he did). If I were in Mr. Burns position I would prefer to do interviews without the police present where the interviewee might be more open and the possibility of the witness being intimidated did not exist. So this whole not being present thing to me is a silly power play at the wrong time.
(continued below)
bszottlinger on February 10 at 10:21 a.m.
I understand that you have no problem with Mr. Burns being present at administrative interviews of complainants and witnesses, but my question to you (I anticipate the answer would be yes) is would you submit to a Garrity Interview with him present? I would not under the current system for a number of reasons beyond the change in working conditions issue. I disagree with the Center for Justice’s position, and side with the points I’m sure were made by the City Attorney to the City Council regarding the expanded powers ordinance. I can also see a number of other issues including confidentiality that the recent article concerning Mr. Burns not approving IA cases brings forward, all of which I feel would provide me with a strong legal position . I know it’s easy for me to say, but, yes, I would be the one that would take the insubordination hit for the troops. I predict that at some point someone on your department will as well and this Ombudsman thing is going become another ugly issue that the public will blame the union and the officers for, when in reality they are only protecting themselves from what could lead to some very unjust handling of cases by a not well thought out oversight system that the City leaders put in place only to placate the public.
I am very much in favor of some type of balanced oversight, but not this, hopefully put in place prior to mandatory conditions established by the Federal Government.
May I also remind you that you owe Meghann a lunch or a beer, or both.
cpd805 on February 10 at 11:34 p.m.
That is a good question regarding Garrity….you got me thinking about that one.
Meghann and I had a dialogue outside this forum and we are good.