ILNews

Officer pleads not guilty to new drunken-driving charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

David Bisard, the suspended Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer who was charged Monday with misdemeanor drunken-driving charges while on bail awaiting trial for his role in a fatal accident, pleaded not guilty in Marion County to the new charges.

Bisard’s driver’s license was also suspended at the hearing.

Bisard is set to go on trial in October in Allen County on reckless homicide and multiple operating while intoxicated charges. He’s accused of killing motorcyclist Eric Wells and injuring two others, Kurt Weekly and Mary Mills, who were stopped at an Indianapolis intersection when he crashed his police cruiser into them in 2010. Test results from a blood draw after the accident showed Bisard had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.19.

His 2010 case has made its way through the courts, where he challenged the admittance of the blood test results at his trial. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled the blood evidence could be admitted, reversing the trial court’s decision that the person who drew the blood wasn’t qualified and didn’t follow protocol. The Indiana Supreme Court declined to review the case.

Bisard was arrested over the weekend and charged with two misdemeanor offenses: Class A misdemeanors operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 grams or greater. A blood draw after the accident revealed a BAC of 0.22.

Allen Superior Judge John Surbeck ordered Bisard held in custody pending a May 9 Allen County hearing on the prosecutor’s request for no bond until his October trial in the 2010 case. That case was moved from Marion County to Allen County due to pre-trial publicity.

A pre-trial hearing on the recent charges is set for July 30.


 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT