The other question to ask would be "will the report reflect alcohol involvement on the part of the other party?" If the answer to that question is no hire your attorney and make it painful for the cop in question and look for any possible motive why the other party would get a sweetheart deal.

I would go and file a former complaint on the officer for starters!

The other question to ask would be "will the report reflect alcohol involvement on the part of the other party?" If the answer to that question is no hire your attorney and make it painful for the cop in question and look for any possible motive why the other party would get a sweetheart deal.

 

I would go and file a former complaint on the officer for starters!

 

Those recommendations would probably be the next step, but my question is what does this actually achieve? I'm not sure it actually does anything for spindoc except waste more time and cause more stress...

I would go and file a former complaint on the officer for starters!

 

I hear they love it when you do that.

I wonder how much benefit it will be if I start complaining? It's still the officer's report, which is finished from what he said last night. And I just wonder if it will be worth it to even travel that path. He wasn't cited, I don't know what the report says, but I imagine I'll be 100% at fault in this one if there was no sobriety issues for him. Officer said they checked all the lights and they all worked. I'm telling you though that none were on. No blinker, no brake, no back up lamp. And that will ultimately be my word vs. his.

This happened in West Virginia, are your plates for Kentucky?

This happened in West Virginia, are your plates for Kentucky?

And is the truck titled in your personal name or in a business name?

Death is the only just penalty.

Death is the only just penalty.

 

Mutilation and dismemberment would work as well.

Mine was an if statement.

 

Clearly the report should reflect alcohol involvement. If it doesn't it would be full steam ahead for me.

Mine was an if statement.

 

Clearly the report should reflect alcohol involvement. If it doesn't it would be full steam ahead for me.

 

What would you achieve by doing so, though?

What would you achieve by doing so, though?

 

If the officer failed to do what should've been done sobriety wise, it'll shed light on his laziness. A formal complaint takes 5 mins. If the officer did nothing wrong it'll be an unfounded complaint, and end of story. If he failed to do his job, he'll get some form of minor reprimand and maybe the next time a situation like this occurs, a person doing the right thing won't get screwed.

 

Granted, the DUI statute may be different than in KY. In WV the officer may have to actual see you driving to charge you with DUI. Or it could've been near the end of shift and he wanted to do the bare minimum, like accident report and didn't feel like spending an hour taking him to jail and running the BA on him...

What would you achieve by doing so, though?

 

Doc and the Officer agreed at the scene alcohol was involved, maybe not enough for a DUI, but involved. What you would achieve is having the Officer supplement the report with the alcohol factor included and then the other party would therefore take on a lot of the negligence for the accident. In other words, no alcohol factor on the report and Doc's insurance pays all, you add alcohol and what probably happens is Doc pays for his vehicle and the other party pays for his vehicle. So from Doc's end the payout for his insurance company will be much less and that has to be beneficial to Doc.

In WV the officer may have to actual see you driving to charge you with DUI.

 

I'd assume the man admitted that he was operating the vehicle. If he was intoxicated at the scene, an admission that he was the driver would likely be sufficient regardless of the statute.

Doc and the Officer agreed at the scene alcohol was involved, maybe not enough for a DUI, but involved. What you would achieve is having the Officer supplement the report with the alcohol factor included and then the other party would therefore take on a lot of the negligence for the accident. In other words, no alcohol factor on the report and Doc's insurance pays all, you add alcohol and what probably happens is Doc pays for his vehicle and the other party pays for his vehicle. So from Doc's end the payout for his insurance company will be much less and that has to be beneficial to Doc.

 

Just to clarify: you expect the police officer to supplement his initial report with a document that details the individual's intoxication? Keep in mind that the officer did not mention the presence of alcohol in his initial report.

 

Call me (Colonel)Crazy, but I find that hard to believe.