Come on, get happy

[Long Run]

She should have found the next Kesey to drive the bus for.

Video shows erratic behavior by Longview bus driver charged with DUI
A student called 911 to report the driver. Catherine Maccarone has since resigned from her position.

Author: KGW Staff
Published: 4:35 PM PDT September 27, 2019
Updated: 6:23 PM PDT September 27, 2019

LONGVIEW, Wash — Newly released video shows what happened on a Longview school bus when a driver who was allegedly drunk behind the wheel picked up and dropped off students.

Catherine L. Maccarone, who has resigned as a Longview Public Schools bus driver, is seen on video yelling at students, sometimes cursing at them, rambling about her relationships and often just incoherently going on about nothing while she completed two bus routes with high school and elementary students.

Maccarone, 48, faces charges of DUI and two counts of reckless endangerment. She resigned from her position with Longview Public Schools on Thursday, Sept. 26.

The nearly two hours of video from Sept. 12, obtained by KGW with a public records request, shows Maccarone rambling with and without kids on board. Before she picks up high school students she is seen speaking directly into the camera, appearing to send a message to her bosses.

“You know why I'm doing it? Because my marriage sucks. My husband is a son of a gun and there's no one on this bus. Yeah, he's a son of a gun with a d in front...” Maccarone said.

Once students were on the bus, things weren’t much different. At one point, a student told Maccarone that another kid has told him she is crazy. She responded, “I am crazy. I’m totally crazy. I am so fun crazy because I love life.” She goes on to say that she’s not crazy because she has “graduated from college three times.”

At one point during her route with elementary students she says,“I have to pay attention to everything around me to keep you safe. Right? Don’t I talk about safety all the time?”

After leaving the school bus, one of the elementary students called 911 to report that his driver was drunk and had run red lights.

The boy told the 911 dispatcher, "She was drunk. Like, passed three red lights."

"Her eyes, you could tell she was drunk. Her breath sort of smelled like alcohol," he said.

Child calls 911 to report drunk bus driver in Longview, Wash.

When police responded, they could smell an “obvious” odor of intoxicants coming from the driver, Maccarone. According to a police report, Maccarone's BAC was a little more than .09.

She was arrested and taken to the Cowlitz County Jail.

Longview Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Dan Zorn said this was an isolated, albeit very unfortunate, incident. He said Maccarone had no history of anything like this, nor do any other drivers in the department.

"First of all, I want to tell our parents I’m sorry and as a system, this should not have happened. We’re taking it very seriously and doing everything we can to assure it does not happen," Zorn said.

The district has already implemented changes in reaction to this, Dr. Zorn told KGW. They involve more frequent and intentional face-to-face interaction between dispatchers, managers and drivers before drivers pick up keys in both the morning and afternoon.

Video can be viewed here: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/crime/ ... 7d9f4fb248

[RayThom]

I think she's crazy.

[MGMcAnick]

I think she's crazy.

She must be. She was driving a school bus.

I don't know of a school system which owns its own buses, or a school bus contractor which supplies buses and drivers, where she'd have to resign. She'd be fired immediately.

In order to keep a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) one can't blow a blood alcohol content over 0.04%. I think that's a federal rule. It's 0.08 for non-CDL drivers.

I'm always amused by TV dramas where a cop or prosecutor makes the statement that the criminal had a BAC of 0.24% stating that the figure is three times the limit. I think the latest was the season premier of Bull, on CBS. If they weren't driving, what's the limit for murder, rape or armed robbery?

[BoSoxGal]

Um, that’s because .08 BAC is the legal limit of intoxication - so it is an entirely relevant fact to include for a jury’s consideration pursuant to a criminal action, whether or not that action is a DUI. You can be prosecuted for public drunkenness for walking down the sidewalk drunk. I’m not sure why you think BAC is only relevant to DUI. Voluntary intoxication is no defense to criminal behavior and many prosecutors use that piece of evidence to shape a jury’s perception of a defendant and to undermine the defendant’s theory of the case.

[Big RR]

BSG--but if they're not driving, how do they force any sort of blood or breath test? Clearly implied consent applies during the operation of a motor vehicle, but if the person is not driving, I am not aware any such testing can be done absent consent or a warrant (which may take a bit of time to get). When I was still in private practice, I defended a number of misdemeanor disorderly conduct cases; as I recall, the main case elements involved the conduct exhibited--the statute provided for a BAI, but my understanding is that such is rarely found. Indeed, the behavior can be used as evidence of intoxication based on police observations without any BAC testing (I've seen this in DUI cases as well).

I imagine that an intoxicated person can be brought to the hospital if injured and any collected blood could later be tested via court order, but many of these cases involve no injury.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Relax dudes! MGM is being droll. He's saying that there are cop shows where suspects who are not driving but have committed some other crime is said to be "three times over the limit". His point is that there is no legal alcohol limit below which (say) robbery isn't actually robbery. Therefore, there is no relevant 3 X anything. The TV writers are simply stupid.

[BoSoxGal]

It’s standard practice in ERs to test for BAC; it would be medical negligence to administer any number of drugs without considering interactions with legal or illegal intoxicants. A simple warrant got me access to hospital administered BAC test results - and other toxicology - in numerous cases.

Having cross posted with Meade, let me reiterate: No, the legal limit for intoxication isn’t irrelevant outside DUI. It’s a measure widely understood by the public and thus useful to present to juries even in cases other than DUIs when the evidence exists and survives any defense challenge as to relevance. While intoxication is individual, there’s extensive science behind the .08 standard and a body of research that can explain the assumed level of intoxication based on BAC, a factor that can be highly relevant in any number of criminal or civil cases. Just one case in point: BACs are often used when available to establish lack of legal consent in rape cases.

So no, I don’t think TV writers are being stupid. Most TV shows with a legal nexus have legal advisors available to counsel writing staff and to review scripts. Of course much that one sees in TV legal dramas is much more dramatic that the real life legal process - but in this case it’s not at all completely out of bounds.

Let me just address one more thing in Meade’s post: as it happens, there also isn’t any level of intoxication below which driving while intoxicated isn’t driving while intoxicated. The .08 standard which is now almost universally adopted in the US (there might be a few jurisdictions still at .10, but I’m pretty sure a few others have gone to .05) is merely the level at which intoxication is presumed and the offense is unquestionably chargeable. But I’ve prosecuted cases where DUI was charged at .04 BAC; the law states that ANY level of intoxication that impairs one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle is DUI. There isn’t a BAC level at which one gets a free pass if there is other evidence (usually the probable cause that got one onto the radar of LEOs to begin with) of driving while impaired.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[ex-khobar Andy]

Per BSG: It’s standard practice in ERs to test for BAC; it would be medical negligence to administer any number of drugs without considering interactions with legal or illegal intoxicants. A simple warrant got me access to hospital administered BAC test results - and other toxicology - in numerous cases.

I'm not sure that a hospital administered BAC test could be admitted in evidence unless it was a gas chromatography test which is accurate but would take an hour or so in the best circumstances. An immunoassay test (but you still need someone qualified to remove blood) can be very quick but is notoriously unreliable with false positives and false negatives both common. The breath test administered at roadside is quick but again, very difficult to relate to a blood level. Henry's Law and all that but with huge variations (lung volume, blood volume, lung membrane permeability) between individuals which complicate the equation. And that of course ignores that a BAC which might be severely debilitating to one individual might have almost no effect on another.

The usual reason for saying - casually or in some movie - that such-and-such a BAC is X times the legal limit is not to make a legal point but to give some sort of yardstick for comparison. But the legal limit is nothing more than a red line such that a number greater than that is solid evidence that the individual can be considered impaired while driving, assuming that the level was properly obtained: chain of custody, properly calibrated equipment, adequately trained technician etc. Note that, as BSG points out, if BAC is less than the limit but there is other evidence (slurred speech, stupidity behind the wheel, for example) of impairment, a prosecution can still be successful.

[MGMcAnick]

Um, that’s because .08 BAC is the legal limit of intoxication - so it is an entirely relevant fact to include for a jury’s consideration pursuant to a criminal action, whether or not that action is a DUI. You can be prosecuted for public drunkenness for walking down the sidewalk drunk.

Hmmm, interesting. I guess I don't know anyone who has ever been arrested for public drunkenness. So if I'm at 0.08 inside my house, I'm not legally drunk? I'll try to remember that, if I ever drink anything alcoholic away from home.

[BoSoxGal]

I’m not sure how many criminal cases you’ve prosecuted/defended Andy, but in my couple of decades of experience with the criminal justice system in both roles I’ve seen hospital administered toxicology admitted to evidence numerous times. Must be different where you practice law.








insert rolling eyes emoticon here

[datsunaholic]

Of note back when I was a kid the "legal limit" was 0.15%. The NHTSA was recommending it be lowered to 0.05%. So the scale of being "triple the limit" if it were 0.05 would have still been legal in some places back in 1985. When we were taught it took 3 drinks to hit the legal limit on average.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I’m not sure how many criminal cases you’ve prosecuted/defended Andy, but in my couple of decades of experience with the criminal justice system in both roles I’ve seen hospital administered toxicology admitted to evidence numerous times. Must be different where you practice law.

You don't need to roll your eyes BSG. The point I was making was that a quick and dirty hospital administered test for the purposes of determining if a medication can be administered is likely to be something like an enzymatic immunoassay test which is specifically designed to (a) be quick and (b) give false positives rather than false negatives. Screening tests like immunoassay are designed to isolate those samples which require further investigation: so a false positive is preferable to a false negative. This type of test is fine for a quick decision but inappropriate for a criminal prosecution. Proper quantitative and confirmatory toxicological testing takes time - which the doctor who has to make a decision does not have - and some pretty expensive kit.

I am certain that you have seen hospital administered toxicology testing admittted to evidence. But I hope that the type of hospital toxicology testing that is used for a quick go - no go decision is not used in evidence because it is not confirmative: it is presumptive and is at best semi-quantitative.

If we're waving resumes about, BSG, I have slightly over 45 years experience in the field during some of which my title included the word 'toxicologist.' So I have some idea of what I am talking about.

There's quite a good paper discussing this here. I'll just quote the last sentence to you. Attorneys don't usually understand this point (ask me how I know!) so I am pleased to see that a very clear explanation has been constructed by an attorney. Full marks to him for understanding and explaining well a fairly recondite technical point.

In the end, hospital enzymatic assay testing is not specific for ethanol, not forensically acceptable under the Kelly test, and ultimately does not belong in a courtroom.

Edited once to correct a typo.

[BoSoxGal]

Thank you for the mansplaining, Andy.

Of course in the national and state prosecution and defense and judiciary trainings that we simpleton lawyers operating in the American criminal justice system attend, it never occurs to us to invite scientists/toxicologists to teach us about these things, nor do we have any working for us in criminal forensic laboratories, nor do we call any as expert witnesses when we put cases on trial. We are, after all, total morons. None of us even have undergraduate or graduate or doctoral science degrees under our belts.

Thank you so much for educating me!

[ex-khobar Andy]

Thank you so much for educating me!

You're welcome, BSG. There will be a test later.

[RayThom]

... Of course in the national and state prosecution and defense and judiciary trainings that we simpleton lawyers operating in the American criminal justice system attend, it never occurs to us to invite scientists/toxicologists to teach us about these things, nor do we have any working for us in criminal forensic laboratories, nor do we call any as expert witnesses when we put cases on trial. We are, after all, total morons. None of us even have undergraduate or graduate or doctoral science degrees under our belts...

Not a bad retort. I love the smell of dripping sarcasm in the morning.

[ex-khobar Andy]

If anyone is still (or again) interested in police BAC measurement and the perils therein, there's a decent NYT piece today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/busi ... e=Homepage

[BoSoxGal]

If anyone is still (or again) interested in police BAC measurement and the perils therein, there's a decent NYT piece today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/busi ... e=Homepage

I read this, and just watched the correlated episode of The Weekly.


I AM FUCKING OUTRAGED! It seems the humiliation and soul crushing, gutting destruction of all my idealism about the criminal injustice system will never end.

I put people in prison based on those tests. I took away their liberty and fundamentally altered the course of their lives. I believed - was taught and trained to believe - that they operated on scientific principles and were reliable and fair, an impassionate measurement of intoxication that I could - and did! - argue to juries was entirely reliable. And FWIW, I never faced a defense attorney who bothered to challenge the Intoxilyzer results.


I’m physically sick about this. And I’m sure the folks at Drager don’t fucking care.

I wish I’d never gone to law school or become a cog in such a totally fucked up system.

[dales]

I put people in prison based on those tests.

Who do you think you are, Judge Judy?

[BoSoxGal]

Ha ha. No, I was a prosecutor wielding the power or the prosecutorial arm of the government which is, in fact, the most powerful role in the criminal injustice system - judges may sentence you, but prosecutors have the power to ruin your life absent ever being convicted of anything. That’s why it was so sickening to me when my personal experience interacting with the ‘brethren’ of prosecutors and my research into wrongful convictions revealed to me just how many awful human beings are wielding such awesome power in our system. I didn’t want to believe it and I refused to see it at first but over time it became impossible to deny.

And in the case of DUI in many jurisdictions mandatory sentences are in place by legislative fiat, and judges have little discretion to modify term or conditions of sentence - they simply pronounce the sentence. This is true in many cases for many types of crimes - it is absolutely prosecutors and juries who put people in prison in a great majority of cases, judges just rubber stamp their work.