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factors included Bisard’s arrest on a drunken-driving charge in April while he was out on bail, after which his bond was revoked.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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT