ILNews

Ex-IMPD officer Bisard to serve 13 years

Dave Stafford
November 27, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer David Bisard will serve 13 years in prison for his convictions in a fatal drunken-driving crash.

Allen Superior Judge John Surbeck on Tuesday sentenced Bisard to 16 years with three suspended for convictions related to the August 2010 crash in which Bisard drove his police cruiser into motorcyclists stopped at an Indianapolis northside intersection, killing Eric Wells and injuring Mary Mills and Kurt Weekly.

Bisard was convicted on all counts earlier this month by a jury that heard the case after it was moved from Indianapolis to Fort Wayne due to pretrial publicity. Bisard was convicted of Class B felony operating with a blood-alcohol concentration higher than 0.15; Class C felonies operating while intoxicated causing death and reckless homicide; and Class D felonies OWI causing serious injury, operating with a BAC 0.08 causing injury, OWI causing serious injury, operating with a BAC of 0.08, and two counts of criminal recklessness.

Bisard will receive drug and alcohol treatment and psychological assessments and treatment under terms of the sentence, though he insists he was not intoxicated at the time of the crash. Disputed blood testimony at trial showed Bisard had a blood-alcohol level of 0.19 at the time of the crash.

Surbeck said Bisard’s denial of intoxication could not be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing. He noted that before and during trial he observed Bisard was “without emotion” but nonetheless found him remorseful based in part on letters written on Bisard’s behalf.

But Surbeck noted aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors and argued for enhanced and consecutive sentences on the convictions. Aggravating factors included Bisard’s arrest on a drunken-driving charge in April while he was out on bail, after which his bond was revoked. His actions leading to the crash also were an abuse of police power and a breach of public trust.

Bisard is credited for 210 days of time served, and therefore with good-time credit could be eligible for release from the Department of Correction in about six years.  

 

 

 

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT