ILNews

Indianapolis officer faces more drunken-driving charges

IL Staff
April 30, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The suspended Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer accused of killing one motorcyclist and injuring two others in an August 2010 crash has been arrested and charged with two misdemeanor drunken-driving offenses.

David Bisard is set to go on trial in October in Allen County on charges of reckless homicide and multiple operating while intoxicated charges. Bisard drove his police cruiser into three motorcyclists stopped at an Indianapolis intersection on Aug. 6, 2010. His case has received a lot of publicity in central Indiana, and the change of venue to Allen County was granted in February.

Bisard was arrested Saturday afternoon by police in Lawrence on suspicion of drunken driving after crashing his truck into a guardrail and utility pole. No other cars were involved. Police found an open bottle of vodka in his vehicle. According to the probable cause affidavit, Bisard admitted to drinking. A blood draw determined his blood alcohol level to be 0.22.

The Marion County Prosecutor’s Office filed two Class A misdemeanor charges Monday – operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 grams or greater.

Bisard was suspended without pay while awaiting trial. The prosecutor’s office has filed a motion to revoke bond in the 2010 case.

An initial hearing in this case has been set for 8:30 a.m. May 1 in Marion Superior Court.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • does the punishment fit the crime?
    You can drive a motor vehicle on public roads in Indiana endangering the public while 3 times the limit for public intoxication and be charged with a misdemeanor yet if you are in your own home possessing or smoking marijuana you can be charged with a felony.

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT