From the remarkable efforts of Packratt with his Injustice in Seattle twitterfeed of police misconduct and abuse comes this story a drunk driver who crashed into a carload of kids coming from church.  A murder case?  Hardly.  The defendant was a former New York City cop.

A jury convicted former NYPD officer Santos Tirado of drunk driving and possession of an unlicensed handgun, with illegal bullets.  After the verdict, the judge decided otherwise.

However, the Hackensack Superior Court judge, in a separate set of rulings on lesser police summonses, said he did not think there was enough evidence to say Santos Tirado, of Monroe, N.Y., was intoxicated. A conviction on that charge would have entailed additional penalties.

The watery eyes and slurred speech reported by Fair Lawn police the night of the Oct., 26, 2007, accident could also have been caused by a head injury, Judge Eugene H. Austin said in court.

“I’ve struggled with this case since we finished and got the jury verdict,” Austin said. “I have gone over it and over it and over it in my mind. It’s a very difficult decision to make under all the circumstances.”

It’s heartwarming to hear that the judge struggled.  They should all struggle.  And struggle some more.  Yet at the end of their struggle, judges invariably go with the verdict of the jury.  Judges invariably accept the testimony of their local police officers, one after another taking the stand to testify that the cop:

The Fair Lawn officers, several of whom testified in court, said Tirado smelled of alcohol and had an empty Coors Light can in his car.

They said he was belligerent when they attempted to arrest him for carrying the handgun without a permit required in New Jersey. He also asked them to give him special treatment because he was a fellow officer, they said.

Tirado refused to take blood and breath tests to measure his blood-alcohol level after the accident.

[Side note:  Notice how cops always refuse the test?  Does that tell you anything?]  So what part of smelling like alcohol comes from a head injury?  And what are the chances that Fair Lawn cops would pick a brother in blue to be the dupe in some testilying conspiracy?  If anything, this is a case where the Fair Law cops have performed their duty with the highest integrity, despite the expectation of protecting their own from harsh consequences.  And for this, they are smacked in the face by the judge.

No doubt, the five former and active New York City cops from Tirado’s former precinct, the 30th (strike a bell to anyone, as in “Dirty 30?”) had some influence.  Judge Austin’s choice, to eschew the testimony of the Fair Lawn cops over the influence of their character testimony, is quite amazing.  What it means to be “legendary” in the 30th is certainly suspect, and even beloved cops get drunk.  Rather than being mutually exclusive, some might say they go hand in hand.

The judge’s rationale may well be valid, for all I know.  But would he have done the same for anyone other than a cop?  If so, then there should never be another conviction in that courtroom for drunk driving so long as they don’t blow the test.  I wouldn’t test the theory, however, unless you’re a cop.