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
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