Ohio Supreme Court Judge DUI

Most Ohioans, and some non-Ohioans, know about this. A Supreme Court judge in Ohio, Alice Resnick, blew a .216 after being pulled over at 2:00 in the afternoon (after calls from concerned motorists who watched her swerve all over the road). This after she was told to get out of her vehicle in a gas station parking lot... and she took off. The cops then "nicely" pulled her over a few minutes later. No felony stop as we have all seen on COPS (and was deserved). She also made mention to the officers that she didn't understand why they were bothering her and how she always sides with them in cases! Claimed she hadn't been drunk in the last 22 years... but just happens to be tanked at 2:00 in the afternoon. Oh... she was driving a state vehicle too. IMO... she should be forced to resign. Of course if the state did that, I am sure her number one political $$$$ supporters would represent her in a wrongful termination lawsuit against the state. Trial attornies. This whole thing just reeks.

From the Cincinnati Enquirer...

Resnick case can't pass sobriety test

After watching the videos of Ohio Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick swerving all over I-75, leaving a traffic stop without permission, then scolding the unlucky cops who pulled her over, I thought maybe her public humiliation was punishment enough.

But let's not pretend she was treated just like anyone else. That won't pass a sobriety test.

Resnick flat-out lied to Ohio state troopers, violated judicial canons by reminding them she was a Supreme Court justice, refused to comply with police instructions, refused a Breathalyzer test - and got away with a six-month license suspension, a $600 fine and three days of alcohol treatment. She was not even prosecuted for ignoring a traffic stop.

After several drivers called 911 to report her gold state-issued Jeep Cherokee drifting all over I-75, she was stopped at a BP station near Bowling Green at 1:16 p.m. on Jan. 31. The cops had to rap on her window several times to ask her to step out of the car. She did not. They asked her to take a field sobriety test. She did not. When they said, "You're not free to go,'' she drove away.

"They did not have enough at the time to arrest her," said Ohio Highway Patrol spokesman Lt. Rick Zwayer. "This is the type of stop we expect our troopers to make, just as you'd expect your mother or sister to be treated."

Maybe. But the way I'd expect to be treated for running from cops could not be described without using words like "cuffed" and "eating asphalt."

When she was stopped again, Resnick told the cops "you're embarrassing me," and lied, saying, "I have not been drinking."

When they said, "We're trying to help you out" to avoid jail, she replied, "You know, I've always said a Supreme Court justice should have a highway patrolman driving them."

That violated Judicial Canon No. 4: "A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities." It says, "For example, it would be improper for a judge to allude to his or her judgeship to gain a personal advantage such as deferential treatment when stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense."

Canon No. 2 requires judges to "respect and comply with the law." A field test showed her blood alcohol at 0.216, more than twice the legal limit (0.08). But she refused a second test that would be admissible in court. Anything over 0.17 is a "high tier" violation that requires a mandatory three days in jail, plus alcohol treatment. Resnick was allowed to skip jail time and do counseling only.

In Ohio, refusal of a Breathalyzer requires a mandatory one-year license suspension. Resnick's guilty plea allowed a six-month suspension - an option that is legal, but unknown to most Ohio residents.

So is this: Ohio Supreme Court justices discipline lower-court judges. So the Bowling Green judge who heard Resnick's case was sentencing his own boss.

Resnick knows that. She voted last June to suspend a Columbus Judge for his second DUI.

Resnick admitted an alcohol problem. She deserves our compassion - but not special treatment. If anything, we should expect far more from a Supreme Court justice.

Resnick is the only Democrat on the court. But so what? There must be another Democrat in Ohio who is qualified to hear DUI cases without blushing.

Humiliation is harsh. But the cops didn't embarrass Resnick. She embarrassed herself by the way she handled her arrest. She should be suspended by the Supreme Court.

Justice is supposed to be blind - not blind drunk.

I saw this too. Unfortunately, her buddy judges, prosecutors, etc let her off WAY to easy. But sadly, that's how it is in America.

If she had been a poor Mexican woman and drove off from a police stop, etc. the penalties obviously would've been much harsher.

At least she'll have to face (or choose not to face) the voters someday.

The woman has struggled with alcoholism for many years. I hope she gets the help she needs.

The above article doesn't state so, but the local papers here in central Ohio also quote her as yelling at the officer that not only were they embarassing her, but that they should "look the other way" because don't they (law enforcement) realize that they (the courts) always take their side on DUI cases? Reading that upset me.

I live in Logan Co. here in central Ohio. I know several of the deputies here (neighbors). We have one judge who is a real jerk when it comes to DUI cases. He comes down hard on everyone (even first offenders). Then I found out that this particular judge has had seven DUI's, and has to have one of those breathalyzers on his car to start it. When he has gotten stopped in the past, his "jail time" is being taken over to a nice hotel in Dublin, along with a deputy, for his 3 day lockup. :rolleyes:

RFA, how angry were you when Bush's DUI came to light four years ago? Did you vote for Gore because of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

RFA, how angry were you when Bush's DUI came to light four years ago? Did you vote for Gore because of it?

---

Thanks for asking, RF. Apple meet orange. Nuff said.

RFA, as a State employee she is entitled to certain avenues to protect her job. She has already admitted that she has a problem. At this point she can use the State's Employee Assistance Program (EAP), which is designed for all State employees from the Governor on down, who struggle with substance abuse and other problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dman

RFA, as a State employee she is entitled to certain avenues to protect her job. She has already admitted that she has a problem. At this point she can use the State's Employee Assistance Program (EAP), which is designed for all State employees from the Governor on down, who struggle with substance abuse and other problems.

---

I agree with this, dman. My main problem is when she tried to convince the officers that she favors them in the cases that involve them. And I have a problem with her lying for a couple of days about the situation. I understand that she is human and all humans have faults, but her being a Supreme Court judge makes it different. How can she rule on DUI cases in the future and the state of Ohio have faith in her decision-making on these cases? It just doesn't sit well with me.

Welcome to the system folks. This is how it works. ;)

Is she being treated any differently then any high profile celebrity that gets a DUI?

The fact is... if you got enough money (and the right lawyer), then you can walk. If not, you'll pay.

Let me pose a legal question that has always perplexed me about our so-called justice system, and how it works.

I, and maybe many of you, have seen the below situation play out quite a bit...

A co-worker of mine got picked up for DUI last fall. He failed the field sobriety test and also the breathalyzer. He was drunk and driving... PERIOD!

He went and got a lawyer (paid him well), and got the DUI charge thrown out and was given a reckless op.

Don't get me wrong. I guess I'm glad the guy got out of it. But how can this be? And yet I/we see it happen all the time.

And yet another guy can get a DUI (under the same circumstances), and either not get a lawyer, or a court-appointed one, and get nailed.

I just see such inconsistences in our legal system in this particular area. And it all seems to come down to how much money you are willing to spend.

I sometimes think the lawyers and acting prosecuting attorneys (who probably have lunch together every day) are splitting the fees. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAC

Welcome to the system folks. This is how it works. ;)

Is she being treated any differently then any high profile celebrity that gets a DUI?

The fact is... if you got enough money (and the right lawyer), then you can walk. If not, you'll pay.

---

In case anybody has forgotten, OJ is playing golf right now. Nothing in this story is alarming to me in any way.

What I find most troubling are the ethical violations Justice Resnick committed. It's one thing to make a mistake and get caught. It's another thing entirely to try to use status and position in an attempt to circumvent the law. She is a member of the Ohio Supreme Court, which controls admissions to the State Bar. The "character and fitness" examination that one must pass in order to take the Bar Exam is very rigorous, requiring applicants to list every job held and every place lived since the age of 16. As a guy in his 30s who worked his way through undergrad delivering pizzas for every fly-by-night pizza joint in Kent, OH for 4 years, I can't remember half the places I worked. That was over 10 years ago! I've been told that I can that my application to the bar can be rejected for too many traffic tickets, and that something so severe as a DUI would practically be the kiss of death.

Okay, I'm in my second semester of law school, so maybe I'm still a bright-eyed newbie (or at least a "bloodshot-from-lack-of-sleep-eyed" newbie :) ), but I feel like this is just the type of ethical violation that the folks at the law school have been telling us should result in sanctions or disbarment.