There are too many questions for comfort in the dismissal of Hollister Sgt. James Egan’s drunken driving charge, and it amplifies a need that off-duty officers be held to a higher standard rather a lower one when breaking the law.
On that January night, Egan had been in a minor accident and had a flat tire while stuck in the mud along Highway 25. A sheriff’s deputy arrived, and Egan was taken to the hospital when, according to the report, he complained of pain related to a recent surgery. A state patrol officer who had responded to the scene then went to the hospital to check on Egan and suspected alcohol use.
The defense argued the state officer had no probable cause for arrest at the hospital, that pain medication had been given to Egan before his arrival and that estimating a prior blood-alcohol level is an inexact science. Egan’s charge was dismissed and he instead pleaded guilty to reckless driving.
At this point, the precise blood-alcohol content is unclear because the district attorney’s office, curiously, has declined to release it. The probable cause argument, meanwhile, appears flimsy because the officer had been doing his job by following up and checking on Egan at the hospital.
There is a simple way to erase the question marks and prevent the public’s distrustful perception, and that’s by establishing a standard, rigid set of criteria for investigating accident scenes involving law enforcement personnel.
If they are, indeed, held to a higher standard, then it should be reflected in the policies that surround suspected wrongdoing by authorities.
