ILNews

Officer pleads not guilty to new drunken-driving charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

David Bisard, the suspended Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer who was charged Monday with misdemeanor drunken-driving charges while on bail awaiting trial for his role in a fatal accident, pleaded not guilty in Marion County to the new charges.

Bisard’s driver’s license was also suspended at the hearing.

Bisard is set to go on trial in October in Allen County on reckless homicide and multiple operating while intoxicated charges. He’s accused of killing motorcyclist Eric Wells and injuring two others, Kurt Weekly and Mary Mills, who were stopped at an Indianapolis intersection when he crashed his police cruiser into them in 2010. Test results from a blood draw after the accident showed Bisard had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.19.

His 2010 case has made its way through the courts, where he challenged the admittance of the blood test results at his trial. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled the blood evidence could be admitted, reversing the trial court’s decision that the person who drew the blood wasn’t qualified and didn’t follow protocol. The Indiana Supreme Court declined to review the case.

Bisard was arrested over the weekend and charged with two misdemeanor offenses: Class A misdemeanors operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 grams or greater. A blood draw after the accident revealed a BAC of 0.22.

Allen Superior Judge John Surbeck ordered Bisard held in custody pending a May 9 Allen County hearing on the prosecutor’s request for no bond until his October trial in the 2010 case. That case was moved from Marion County to Allen County due to pre-trial publicity.

A pre-trial hearing on the recent charges is set for July 30.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT