ILNews

Bisard asks Supreme Court to rule on blood-draw admissibility

IL Staff
October 19, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys for Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer David Bisard have asked the Indiana Supreme Court to determine whether blood evidence may be admitted in his drunken driving and reckless homicide trial. Bisard was charged after driving his police cruiser into three motorcyclists who were stopped at an intersection, killing one.

A blood draw at the scene after the crash concluded that Bisard had been driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.19 percent, more than twice the legal limit.

Bisard argues that the blood draw did not follow appropriate protocols, and the trial court ruled that I.C. 9-30-6-6 (2010) compelled suppressing the blood evidence for purposes of the DUI charges, but not for the reckless homicide count.

Five weeks ago, a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court ruling in State of Indiana v. David Bisard, 49A04-1109-CR-459, and ordered that a blood draw taken from Bisard after the crash on Aug. 6, 2010, be admitted into evidence.

Senior Judge Randall Shepard wrote the unanimous 21-page decision  in which the appellate court found that the medical assistant who drew Bisard’s blood followed physician-approved protocols.

 “The issue presented is whether the trial court erred when it suppressed a blood test result for purpose of Title 9 charges (Driving While Intoxicated) but ruled the same blood test result admissible for purposes of Title 35 charges (Criminal Recklessness and Reckless Homicide),” the petition to transfer says. “In reversing the trial court’s suppression of the blood evidence, did the Court of Appeals reweigh the evidence, substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, significantly depart from accepted standards of review, and misinterpret existing precedent in a way that conflicts with existing appellate decisions?”

Bisard’s request for transfer to the Supreme Court also asks the justices to throw out the trial court determination that the blood draw was admissible for the reckless homicide count.


 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT