Heather Squires was arrested for DUI without drinking a drop of alcohol

This is an extreme case, but by no means surprising. I don't drink at all, yet I avoid driving at night whenever possible because of the risk of being pulled over as "suspicious."

Unbelievable....

Another example of some police being worse than the criminals they are suppose to protect us from.

Hope she sues the shit out of Mesa PD and the rouge PIG.

This is getting SO ridiculous. What about all the time wasted and emotional stress caused by situations like this? I say sue away. This is bullsh$%t. They act like they're doing you a favor when they drop the charges but instead you have to waste your night, waste a day in court, lose sleep, and end up hating cops. There were FIVE cops there!!?? Give me a break!

Great story, and right on the money. Ive been pulled over not once, but 2 times and accused of being DUI when in fact i was sober. The reason he gave for pulling me over you ask, he said "you were drifting too close to the left side of the lane, not staying in the middle, and you were variating your speed to quickly from 55-57"...HUH?! yeah, he said i changed my speed from 55-57 to frequently..2 mph!! lol...after he did the same, threatened me that if i didnt do the test i would be arrested, i went ahead with his field sobriety test (which he failed me on), and then gave me a breathalizor and he actually did a double take when it came back 00...the other time, that was scottsdales finest rookie trying to make his first bust...no such luck pal. ha
point is its impossible to to know whether it was retaliation, but its clear the cop assumed when he had no right to, and cops like that shouldnt be on the street. Last time i checked, its innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around...and FYI Sarah, the law states that they must have probable cause to arrest, and then at that point if you refuse to do the blood test they yank your license...but if they just ask you to do it your not obligated unless placed under arrest first.

Way to go, Sarah Fenske!

This is what a perceptive article written by a real reporter should look like.

This is representative of the regular abuse taking place in both Tempe and Mesa on a regular basis. From harassment to flagrant misconduct. It's not so much that this is an extreme case as one of the other commentators stated. It's that this happened to a DUI attorney, not a College/recent College grad still leaning their rights. I have a flawless driving record and I've been harassed on multiple occasions without cause. The Tempe & Mesa P.D. need to be independently reviewed. There is a major need for review/cleanup in both departments.

While my story happened in California, I believe the circumstances to be similar. Several years ago, my daughter was coming home from dinner at a friends house. She was involved in a traffic accident that totaled her car. Incredibly (thank goodness) she was unharmed. She was however very shaken. What she wasn't was under the influence. When the police arrived on scene, they made the same assumptions as Mesa PD did in the above story. Their presumption was that because she had pulled in front of the oncoming driver, she must be drunk. Then, finding no evidence of alcohol, they presumed that she must be high on meth or coke because her heart rate was high. Mind you, this was after a crash that totaled her car. Of course her heart rate would be high. Upon her release from jail the following morning, on the advice of my attorney, we immediately had her blood and urine tested at an independent lab. A week later the test results confirmed what we already knew, my daughter was not under the influence of anything. Yet, at her hearing, the DA didn't even bother to bring in the Police Dept. test results because THEY presumed her guilt as well. When we presented our test results to the judge, he ordered the DA to retrieve the police results, and after confirming that my daughter had been wrongfully arrested, dismissed the charges and immediately gave her drivers license back. While I have no tolerance for drunken driving, I DO believe that until an officer has clear evidence of intoxication or impairment, the driver deserves the benefit of the doubt. I have friends in law enforcement that have told me that their job is just to make arrests. The more the better. If some of them get tossed in court, oh well. It's the DA's job to make the conviction.

Everyone should write the Governor and tell her to veto this new DUI bill that makes people do treatment BEFORE they are even found guilty.

We have DUI cops of the year looking at charges for driving DUI and agg assault with high numbers.

We're fools if we believe for one minute that this lawyer's wife was not arrested because of who she married. Instead of asking and questioning the ethics of defense attorneys, it is high time Phoenix Gilbert and Mesa both took a hard look at why cops are pulling citizens over as soon as they leave an eatery that serves liquor because of a wide right turn or a new car that looks like the lights are on in the inside to the driver.

God bless this family for holding their own -- imagaine those that cannot?

Sarah, thanks for your ongoing work on the DUI's in Maricopa. You are doing a public service while the attorneys get rich and the police officers get their career points and the County Attorney's get their convictions. All this is putting everyone at risk and more vulnerable than ever. Arizona has turned into a "mad house" with Maricopa County leading the way. The incompetence and lack of education is unacceptable with people facing ruined lives. It's easier to pick on some suburban yuppies than the real violent criminals among us.

There is no end in sight until CA Thomas and Arpaio are out of office. The culture they have created and escalated has opened the door for the police to do whatever they want. This only causes more animosity for the PD's. Who can be trusted to do the right thing? The DUI laws are draconian. It's just another election year "feel good legislation" so that CA Thomas could have his face plastered on Billboards for his own self gain, at the taxpayers expense, in dollars and ruined lives and careers. It's sickening.

This is a nightmare. The officials need to be honest, just stop selling alcohol period, in the county and the State of Arizona and all the money going into the legal and criminal justice system, jails and prisons would evaporate. Hope this lawyer and his wife will work for change and bring someone common sense to all this --- which is lacking in Maricopa County and the State of Arizona.

This is the tip of the iceberg, of who is getting falsely arrested in the County. An independent investigation needs to be done of all felony cases and especially those sitting in our jails and prisons.

This is such a true statement. They, the PD and the County Attorney could care less what they put people through or what it cost them.

They all should be sued for this....

There should also be a law that when cases like this are charged and then dropped, the County Attorneys Office should have to pay for everything the defendant had to pay out of pocket for attorneys fee's and lost time from work. Then let the civil suit still be filed for pain and suffering later on.

The Police and the County Attorney's office get away with this all to often.

>>They act like they're doing you a favor when they drop the charges

It's no wonder why more and more people have the additude, Fuck the Police.

Pretty sad.

This is ridiculous and so typical. It's no wonder many of us have little to no respect for the police officers in the Phoenix Metro area. We cannot trust them and far too many of them are on power trips.

My daughter and son-in-law keep odd hours (he works tech support at night). So when he has a night off, they're up, doing things the rest of us do during the day. One night they stopped by the post office drive-thru to drop off their Netflix and after pulling out of the driveway, were stopped for being "suspicious". They were drilled with ridiculous questions for 15 minutes, just because they stopped at the mailbox at 2am.

How is any of this right?

Welcome to Arizona, the Police State.

I am an Emergency Physician who regularly deals with the innocent victims of Drunk Drivers, often the smallest of them (children). This story was about the most one-sided thing I ever read. In my part of the country, every drunk driver I see in the ER refuses the breathalyzer test and then the police give them a summons. When I read stories like this I think about the children under 5 I have pronounced dead after being killed by a drunk driver, and it gets me really angry. I have seen so many children run over by drunk drivers yet they continue to come to my ER after causing major accidents, despite tougher laws and public education. I think one lawyers' wife can have a few of her "civil liberties" interrupted" after a night in a bar if it helps get other drunk drivers off the street.

All cops in this State are dirty. It's a shame you have to move to Mexico to get away from the corruption!

Right, until it happens to you, then you'll be singing a different tune.

>>I think one lawyers' wife can have a few of her "civil liberties" interrupted" after a night in a bar if it helps get other drunk drivers off the street.

How many times have you heard of people getting pulled over for failing to signal lane changes, or broken tail lights etc. I believe that this is how police departments justify how they are able to pull someone over, and then interrogate them for no apparent reason. Rather then focusing on "red light" runners, speeders, or those aggressive tailgater's who bob and weave to get to the next red light, they assume everyone they pull over is either on drugs or drunk. With all the crime that goes on in the valley, its no longer a safe place to raise children, because sooner or later you can become a target for those that the sheriff refuses to pick up and haul off to jail. I now live in an area where DUI is enforced just as equally as speeding and failure to wear seat belts.

I just finished reading your article “Driving While Sober” from this past issue of New Times. This is the second article I have read from you that pertains to the police pulling over a driver and accusing them of DUI unjustly and it is the second article that has irked me for its lack of fairness and common sense.
First, I would like to quickly point out my problem with the previous article that I had read from the March 20th issue of New Times. Mrs. Wilcutt may have only had one drink in her system, but it was coupled with the lingering side effects of Novocain as well as an opiate in her system. She may have been under the legal limit for a DUI, but anyone with a shred of common sense would have figured out a better way to handle the situation. And that’s leaving out the part about the voices in the back of my head asking me what kind of person thinks that alcohol is a good remedy for open wounds in their mouths and uses hydrocodone as a chaser.
The more recent article also ignored many issues that really should have made this a non-story. You almost completely ignore the officer’s side of the story other than to suggest that he was following up on some unresolved axe that needed grinding. Mrs. Squires was leaving a bar and driving without her headlights on. That is a pretty suspicious action and it was and is clearly reasonable for the officer to pull her over. As far as their treatment after being pulled over, you give no evidence to back up your claim that she was “ordered out of the vehicle and almost immediately handcuffed.” Is this what the Squires told you? If so, it would seem likely to me to think that they may have a skewed version of what happened. However, if I give you the benefit of the doubt on this account of the events, it still doesn’t seem unreasonable on the officer’s part. Not only was she driving away from a bar without her lights on, she also had two intoxicated men in the car with her. It is fair to assume that she had been drinking. Maybe she didn’t deserve to be handcuffed immediately, however that is up to the officer’s discretion and in this instance I wouldn’t necessarily fault him. It sounds like he had his hands full with the drunken lawyer husband in the car with her. What importance is his profession in this situation? Why did he feel the need to show the officer his bar card? Does being a DUI attorney or a DUI attorney’s wife suddenly mean that you never do anything wrong?
Furthermore, refusing a field sobriety test isn’t exactly putting a tally mark in the column for sober. While you can’t convict someone based on their refusal to take a field sobriety test, it doesn’t allow a driver to go along their merry way. This is the point where a breathalyzer should have been used. However, if a suspected drunken driver has already refused to take a field sobriety test, what are the odds that they would be willing to submit to a breathalyzer? Add on top of that, a drunken DUI attorney husband a few feet away who is advising her against cooperating and I’m sure the odds of that test happening suddenly look highly unlikely. I really wanted to know if the Squires requested a Breathalyzer at that point. If they had, I would be much more sympathetic to their plight. However, a drunken husband who appears to think that he and his wife don’t need to cooperate with a law enforcement official in the middle of an investigation and help him determine their innocence probably wouldn’t be willing to offer up anything that might lead to the truth. The real problem in this whole situation was the fact that Mr. Squires was confusing the entire situation. Instead of just going through the steps and proving her innocence, the couple played games with the officer and ended up costing themselves time and money.
Also, at one point you say that Squires didn’t smell of alcohol, her eyes weren’t bloodshot and that her face wasn’t flushed. That is extremely bad reporting. You have absolutely no proof that any of that is true. What absurd sense of entitlement makes you think that you have the authority to completely discredit a police officer’s report without any proof? Just because she wasn’t drunk doesn’t mean that her face couldn’t be flush and eyes bloodshot. Perhaps she had been wiping tears away from her eyes after laughing all night while enjoying a night at a bar. She also could have allergies. I would imagine that you have a similar reaction to solid reporting since you appear to be allergic to good journalism. As far as smelling like alcohol, it is definitely likely that after a night in a bar and riding in a car with two drunk people that a person could smell like alcohol even if they hadn’t ingested any.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that there was no smell of alcohol, no bloodshot eyes and no flush complexion. What exactly would you like an arresting officer to do? Let her go after she drove away from a bar without any headlights on, transporting two intoxicated men and then refused a field sobriety test because her drunken husband vouches for her? I assure you that if she had been drunk and killed someone after the officer let her go, you would be writing a very different article.
I know that what I have to say isn’t going to curtail your little crusade against the DUI situation, but I ask that you think about what you are writing before you continue this series of articles. We have a bigger problem with DUI’s than the one that you seem to be at odds with. Just ask any family that has lost someone to a drunk-driving accident. Driving is a privilege and it comes with responsibility. The Squires by all accounts acted responsibly when it comes to designating a driver, but they certainly didn’t help themselves at all when being accused of a crime. We have the right to protect ourselves from self-incrimination, but why does that mean that you can’t help prove your innocence? All these people had to do was cooperate and they would have only lost about 15 minutes out of their lives. Instead they got themselves into a mess where any suggestion of lawsuit alleging retaliation is preposterous.
You ask in your article if police are so eager to make arrests that everyone on the road at night is presumed to be a drunk driver, the answer is no. However, they will pull over anyone who is driving away from a bar at night without any headlights on. I ask you this, is New Times so eager to “stick it to the man” that they will ignore common sense and blow non-stories completely out of proportion?

When five officers spend this much time arresting a sober driver, you can bet that they've missed dozens of other drivers who are actually drunk or are driving recklessly. Until DUI laws make sense again and the blood-alchol limit is raised to a reasonable number, the police will be harrasing people who have had a couple of drinks (or none) while those who are actually drunk are getting away.

First, as an attorney I can tell you this has been going on for years. The only difference is, it gets more press now. Cops have always been taught in academy to report bloodshot watery eyes and smells of alcohol, regardless of the situation. And any sobriety test is developed to fail the suspect.

Second, I find it rich the ER physician says its okay to lose some of your civil liberties to get a drunk off the road. I wonder if the ER physician would be willing to let family members stay in the room while he works instead of covering his butt by asking them to leave in case he makes a mistake. Seriously, what other profession allows people to practice in privacy. I'd sure like to argue cases in court in private and then just tell the client my version after the trial.

TOP TEN REASONS "CHRIS" IS ACTUALLY OFC. GONZALEZ

First, you only need to hit enter once, not 3x times to post your ignorant rant.

Second, they didn't ignore the officer's side of the story. They cited from his police report.

Third, the article states the Squires both said the wife was almost immediately pulled out of the car. But I suppose you are going to completely discount two person's testimony, one of whom is an officer of the court (the attorney). I'm pretty sure he isn't going to risk his license to lie.

Fourth, the attorney identified himself because he wanted to be present to represent his client. All individuals have the right to counsel when being questioned although cops would like to tell you otherwise.

Fifth, one shouldn't assume the driver is drinking just because the other two people in the car have been drinking. You've basically said just assume no one uses a designated driver and no one should use a designated driver because you're going to assume they drink anyway. Great logic.

Sixth, everyone has the right to refuse a sobriety test and everyone should refuse the tests. They are designed to fail everyone. You aren't going to get in the officer's good graces by performing them. And you aren't going to pass them even if you are sober. Cops will tell you this; they are designed to get evidence against you. You won't be proving your innocence by performing them. Ask a retired one cop.

Seventh, the couple didn't "play games with the cop"; they asserted their constitutional rights to not incriminate themselves and to remain silent.

Eighth, the officer didn't say there was the scent of alcohol on the wife; he said it was on her breath. Read the article, you obviously haven't. A person doesn't get alcohol on their breath by sitting around people who have been drinking. The officer obviously lied and that is why the charges were dismissed.

Ninth, as for you statement about "what should the officer have done, let her go". He should have given her a breathalyzer and then released her when it was below the limit. He should have released her at the scene instead of filing a false report and then dismissing it later because he lied.

Tenth, thank goodness New Times is publicizing articles where cops lie and cite people when they are under the limit. This has been going on for years and needs to stop. Cops should be prosecuted for filing false reports but they never will be because they are in a partnership with the prosecutors who would be pursuing any charges against them.

I always recommend everyone should always record any traffic stops on their phone camera. You have a good chance of catching an officer in a lie.

First, people make mistakes. They make them even more when websites say that the file could not be found.
Second, they cite his police report, give about 25 words to explain his side of the story and then discredit it without giving them any real chance for rebuttal. It’s a very efficient way of making an argument to give the opponent as little chance to respond as possible.
Third, the article states that, but it doesn’t say who told the reporter that. If we assume that the Squires told the reporter that, we can also assume that they may see things a little in a certain light. It’s called perspective. And a person will almost certainly have a skewed one if they’re under a stressful situation and have a tendency to feel the need to be on the defensive even though they did nothing wrong. He isn’t risking losing his license by having an exaggerated account of what happened. I’m not saying that they are lying either, I’m sure it seemed more aggressive than it actually was or was intended.
Fourth, everyone has the right to counsel, but is counsel normally drunk? Does counsel also normally bark back at arresting officers “what for” when an officer has no other choice but to place someone under arrest? Perhaps he should have said “she’d be more than willing to take a breathalyzer test.” The officer had plenty of reason to suspect that the woman was drunk. Then she wouldn’t take a field sobriety test, which she has every right to do. The question I asked in my response was did she ask to take a breathalyzer. If they had asked for a breathalyzer to prove her innocence and been denied it, I would take back everything I have said and agree that the officer was out of line. However, he doesn’t have to administer one on the spot. And I’m sure he decided to be a prick and not give her one since she wasn’t cooperating with him. That’s just life. If you’re going to be uncooperative and rude to anyone, expect the same in return. Maybe it’s a little juvenile and irresponsible, but it’s human nature.
Fifth, assuming that someone has been drinking just because there are two other drunken people in the car is horrible logic….. but it isn’t unreasonable when that person is driving the car away from a bar in the middle of the night without any headlights on. You ignored a large part of my argument and the story to qualify it as illogical. Whoops!
Sixth, you definitely have the right to refuse the sobriety test. However, it isn’t a good sign. If you’re going to plan on refusing a sobriety test, you should have a plan of action after it is over. Asking to give a breathalyzer might be a good start. Being prepared to give a blood sample is another. You always have the right to not incriminate yourself, but instead of just sitting there not incriminating yourself, why don’t you prove your innocence further than “I haven’t had anything to drink.”
Eighth, I’ll admit that I overlooked the part where they directly quoted the officer’s report. However, it’s more likely that the charges were dismissed when a blood test came back completely clean.
Ninth, I completely agree that the best thing to do would have been to administer a breath test. Why he didn’t, I can’t say for sure. However, I will say again that refusing the field sobriety test wasn’t a way to get on his good side. Furthermore, breathalyzers don’t test for other drugs that might make you fail a field sobriety test. He probably could have determined that she was fit to drive, but it’s not like he was getting any help in coming to that conclusion. I’ll agree that he probably acted like a jerk as far as the law would allow him, but at the same time he had plenty of reason to suspect that she had been drinking and no proof that she hadn’t been. He had a pretty solid footing for his side and I would rather he err on the side of caution than allow a drunk driver to keep going.
Finally, you repeatedly call the officer a liar and you don’t have any proof that he lied. He filed a report that may have been errant, that doesn’t make him a liar. People make mistakes. Not to mention that you don’t know what she looked like on the night she was arrested. The face can go flush and eyes can be bloodshot for any number of reasons. So the entire report may not have been errant.
If we’re going to talk about “great logic”, I feel that I need to point out that your paranoia when it comes to police officers. Certainly there are instances where police file false or misleading reports and there have been unlawful actions by police officers, but you accuse an entire section of the legal system of banding together to go out and get innocent people. That’s ridiculous. Assuming that all officers are going to lie and that they are out to get innocent people in trouble because you can cite a few instances is absurd. You have the right to videotape traffic stops (aren’t most squad cars equipped with a video camera these days anyway?) but I would say that a few instances have made you paranoid.
New Times should have realized that this is a non-story. It was space that could have been better used going after a truly irresponsible officer and the real crusader against civil liberties, Sheriff Joe.

My name is Kris Carlson. I am the friend of Jason Squires that the article mentions and was present during these events. I have read a couple of responses which have angered me and that I’m going to respond to.

David Schindler, who identifies himself as an Emergency Physician, attempts to obfuscate the issue by stating that every drunk driver that he sees in the ER refuses the breathalyzer test. That is irrelevant. Heather never refused to take a breathalyzer test and was never given the option to take the test.

David mentions the children that he has seen killed by drunk drivers and states that he is angered by this. On this point, I agree wholeheartedly. The children are innocent victims and I have nothing but hatred for the irresponsible drunks who have harmed others. What David fails to grasp is that Heather is also an innocent victim. She did not deserve any of the trouble she encountered that night.

David suggests that: “one lawyers' wife can have a few of her "civil liberties" interrupted" after a night in a bar if it helps get other drunk drivers off the street”. Need to break a few eggs to make an omelet – right, David? This is short-sighted buffoonery. What happened to Heather can only make it more difficult to prevent crime. The arrest of innocent people and fabrication of evidence is not a practice that the public would find acceptable. This would lead to public outcry for increased supervision of the police. The end result would hamper police effectiveness. I find it interesting that David describes Heather as “one lawyer’s wife” as if her husband’s profession somehow justified Heather’s treatment.

Chris is entirely wrong. If he truthfully believes that the arrest of an innocent woman and subsequent fabrication of evidence is a “non-story”, then he is a fool. Chris incorrectly portrays Heather’s driving as suspicious because she was leaving a “bar”. No we were not leaving a bar. We were leaving a restaurant (enormous difference). This isn’t relevant anyway. Policeman Gonzalez was not following us from the restaurant and was unaware of where we had just come from.

Chris explains the rapidity with which Heather was handcuffed as being due to policeman Gonzalez having “his hands full with the drunken lawyer husband.” This is absolutely untrue. Jason was standing away from Gonzalez and Heather, and Jason was doing nothing other than advising his client. Everyone was calm. If Gonzalez had actually had his hands full due to Jason, I have no doubt that Gonzalez would have acted and placed Jason under arrest. I fail to see how anyone could have decided from Sarah Fenske’s article that Jason was unruly. Chris is just speculating wildly and then using that erroneous speculation as justification.

Then Chris becomes truly delusional as he discusses the breathalyzer test. Jason never advised Heather “against cooperating” as Chris fabricates. Jason advised Heather to not take the field sobriety test. That is not the equivalent of refusal to cooperate. Heather was never given the opportunity to take a breathalyzer test. Chris asks if either Jason or Heather asked for the breathalyzer to be administered. So now the accused have to advise the police on how to gather evidence? That is a truly impressive concept. Besides being Unconstitutional (I hope the irony of the Miranda Rights being a result of Phoenix police behavior is not lost here.), this suggests that the police are incapable of performing their duties. I have more confidence in the police than Chris seems to.

Chris takes issue with Fenske’s suggestion that Gonzalez lied in his police report with regard to Heather’s appearance. Gonzalez, did in fact do just that. Heather did not have: bloodshot, watery eyes; flushed face; or a strong odor of alcohol emanating from her breath. I’m a Special Forces Medical Sergeant. Green Beret medics do not have a civilian counterpart so think of it as a Physician’s Assistant (Yes, David, I have also worked in ERs and learned to despise drunk drivers). If Heather had displayed the signs that Gonzalez claims, then I would have noticed and inquired about symptoms. In truth, it should not be shocking to learn that Gonzalez is lying. He is claiming her breath smelled of alcohol, but she wasn’t drinking. Don’t take our word for it. Believe the blood-alcohol results – 0.00%.

Chris says that “any suggestion of lawsuit alleging retaliation is preposterous.” It most certainly is not preposterous. An innocent woman was arrested and evidence was fabricated (as Chris, himself, fabricated the events of the evening) by a policeman that had very recently been defeated in court by the husband of the woman that was being unjustly arrested. Certainly that warrants investigation. Was Gonzalez retaliating against Jason? I have no way of knowing and will wait for Internal Affairs to make that determination.

Do not confuse the issue because you have strong feelings about drunk drivers. Heather was NOT a drunk driver. Yet she was treated as one and now has the dubious distinction of having an FBI record.

We had dinner (again, we were not at a bar) and Jason and I drank with dinner. Neither of us was heavily intoxicated. We were just not capable of safely driving. Heather abstained from drinking with dinner so that she could safely drive us home. Then she was falsely charged with a crime, arrested, and evidence was fabricated to use against her. This should alarm you

How did she end up with an FBI record? Also, the article was misleading if Jason and everyone else was acting calm and collected. I got the real impression that it was someone chaotic as well.

Dear Kris,
While I respect your opinion and congratulate you on your acceptance into law school, I’m afraid I still have issues with your side of the story. Also, I’m not trying to say that anyone in the situation is a bad person. You were acting responsibly by designating a driver and you were aware of your rights and acted in the way you felt was best for you. My problem is that New Times thinks this is some sort of travesty of justice. Innocent people are arrested from time to time. That is why we have a justice system to determine whether or not there is any guilt. It was decided that Mrs. Squires was not guilty and the charges were dropped. I don't understand how this is newsworthy.
First, you say that I incorrectly portray the driving as suspicious because she was leaving a bar. I call her driving suspicious not only because she was leaving a bar, but more importantly that she didn’t have her headlights on. The officer may have been unaware of where you were coming from, but she still didn't have her headlights on. If a driver ran a stop sign leaving the Vatican, they would still deserved to be pulled over. If the officer was unaware of where you were coming from does that mean that there was some distance between you and the bar where the headlights were off? That is not only suspicious, but dangerous. As far there being a difference between a restaurant and a bar, I’m not really going to argue over the definition of the establishment because you have deemed it irrelevant anyway. I will say that the story clearly says that you had just finished off four pitchers of beer. That’s a fair amount of alcohol to split between four people regardless of where you’re coming from or whether or not it was shared over dinner.
In regards to Jason acting unruly, I will admit that my words were a little stronger than I meant them to be, however, in my eyes the article made me feel like he was acting a little more aggressively than you would like to admit. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say. I can say that your account would have the tendency to be a little one-sided since you happen to be friends with them and had a fair amount of beer in your system. But it doesn’t change the fact that he advised her against a field sobriety test and left the officer with fewer options. He opted to arrest her under suspicion of driving under the influence.
Other officers would have administered a breathalyzer, but isn’t that up to the officer’s discretion? The accused don’t have to advise the police, however, can it really hurt to say, “I’d rather not take the field sobriety test, but I’m more than willing to take a breathalyzer and provide a blood sample.” I don’t see that as being forceful, or suggesting that they are incapable of performing their duties. I see it as a proactive way of proving your innocence instead of feeling entitled to be let off the hook because you know you’re telling the truth… despite what the officer thinks. And let’s not forget that you accuse the officer of retaliation, which is a lot more suggestive of his ability to perform his duties than requesting to take a breathalyzer.
I have issue with Fenske suggesting that Gonzalez lied because she was not there. You were there and say that she did not have the symptoms described. Clearly, Officer Gonzalez disagreed with you. You have a difference of opinion and that’s fine, however, one of the two of you didn’t just polish off four pitchers of beer. Furthermore, he has to make that determination. You’re very right when you say that you have no way of knowing what the investigation will find. If you feel that an investigation is warranted, then you have the right to request one. I personally think it is a waste of time and money. Also, I feel that labeling someone as a “rogue” police officer based on a one-sided understanding of the facts is irresponsible journalism.
Again, I feel that both sides share some blame in what happened, but that nobody involved in the actual incident is really a terrible person who is a detriment to our society. I’m not calling the Squires bad people. My real problem is with New Times crucifying someone in print without thinking critically about what really happened. People are falsely charged with crimes and arrested from time to time and you can’t say with complete certainty that evidence was fabricated. The media shouldn’t jump down the throat of the police department if they’re only going to give them a paragraph worth of representation and then completely ignore what they had to say. It’s a reckless use of power.

Congratulation Chris aka Ofc Gonzalez. You look like a complete idiot now.

So you back pedaled on most of your inaccuracies I noted. And it was obvious from the article the cop didn't pull them over from the bar. They were at a chuys in TEMPE, they were pulled over by MESA PD, no less at baseline and Mesa drive. So that basically throws out your underlying assumption it was reasonable to assume they were all drunk.

And if you had any dealings with the legal system you would know they teach in police academy every suspected person pulled over for DUI has bloodshot eyes and smells of alcohol regardless of if they don't. They even call that creative writing on the force. Go do some research.

You also keep mentioning you would prove your innocence. Read a law book, you don't prove your innocence, nor should you need to unless you live in a police state. In America the prosecution must prove you are guilty. You have shown your real lack of understanding of this article and the legal system in general.

Everytime you spout off that this case isn't newsworthy and then waste time (thats all I can call it when you say this isn't newsworthy) writing these long inaccurate opinions you sound fool hardy.

And now your story changes to blame the author. First you blamed the wife, then the attorney, then me (because I wasnt there), now its the author because Kris was there and said your statements are inaccurate. Funny how you haven't had one person support you.

Lastly, hardly any of the cop cars in AZ have dash cams. There is a reason, it would be detrimental to arrest records. In fact, most cops won't allow you to turn on your phone camera, they don't want a record. You need to do that surrepticiously.

I sincerely hope you get pulled over by cops leaving a mall, forget to turn on the lights and God hope you aren't picking up a friend who was drinking, at say a Fridays. Then you can take the field sobriety tests which you will fail, be noted of having bloodshot eyes and odor of alcohol. And either blow a .00 or anything under the limit and then get accused of DUI. Of course you will stroll into a lawyers office with your sob story and say this is horrible I didn't know such things could happen. Fortunately for you there are attorneys (maybe even Mr. Squires) who will represent you at some expense and then perhaps you will become enlightened on the legal system and constitutional rights and why everything you have stated leads to a police state.

But hey I could just be paranoid. I'm sure they would never arrest writers and throw them in jail for expressing their freedom of speech. And I'm sure a system that puts innocent people (a third of tent city people have not been convicted and are awaiting trial) in places that Amnesty International finds below third world standards could never happen here. Because that kind of stuff doesn't happen in America.

Chris:

You appear to be more oblivious than I suspect is possible, given the reporting. You have made your mind up and will not be deterred by any troublesome dose of reality.

This is a travesty of justice and absolutely newsworthy. This isn’t simply a case of an innocent person being arrested. The policeman LIED about the justification for the arrest. That is a point you are unwilling to address or incapable of comprehending.

You say you won’t argue over the difference between calling it a bar or a restaurant; yet you persist in calling it a bar. It is quite simply not a bar and if you believe that a restaurant becomes a bar because alcohol is served, then you are mistaken. We drank that alcohol over the course of 4 hours and with a large meal. That is 1 pitcher per hour split amongst 3 large men. It was not excessive in the least. We were not highly inebriated as you persist in believing.

Jason’s behavior was restrained and that is not open to interpretation. This is not, as you state, a case of me being reluctant to admit the truth. With 5 policemen present, do you honestly believe Jason could have acted belligerently and not have been apprehended? That is ridiculous. There were 2 police cruisers on scene and yet there is no dashboard camera footage of Jason’s supposed unruly behavior. It did NOT happen. Are you truly so obtuse as to believe that alcohol in my system could have altered my perception of reality? Alcohol is not an hallucinogen. Alcohol alters moods and reduces inhibitions.

You persist in placing the onus on the accused. In no manner is that a practical suggestion. As I stated before it is unconstitutional and it is not the place of the accused to advise the police on how to conduct the investigation. I am amazed you believe that to be a workable solution.

I did not accuse Gonzalez of retaliation. I said that given the circumstances, it is a reasonable possibility. The alternative is that he just lacks the judgment necessary to perform his duties. Regardless of the answer, he acted reprehensibly and needs to be reprimanded.

You seem incapable of accepting that Gonzalez lied in his police report. If you truly believe that is a matter of opinion, then I submit that my opinion has much more weight. I am a medical practitioner. I am certainly capable of recognizing the signs he describes. If I can treat a sucking chest-wound while bullets fly overhead, then I’m confident that I can at least recognize the signs of probable allergies in a woman I am sitting 24 inches from, over the course of 4 hours. Regardless, this is not a matter of opinion. It is clearly a matter of a falsified police report. You ignored that he claimed her breath smelled of alcohol even though I clearly pointed out to you that that can be verifiable determined to be false, given her blood results.

It is laughable that you discuss abuse of power but fail to see which side that occurred on.

Mark, People don't agree with me because too many people view police as the enemy. It's because of blowing these things out of proportion without taking the time to try and figure out where the police are coming from that they get this reputation. Granted there are some evil cops out there, but I feel like people are rushing to judgement. Regardless of where Chuy's is located she was still driving without her headlights on with two men who had been drinking in the car. I don't know why you can't understand why there would be a concern that she had been drinking too. I haven't back-pedaled at all. I've admitted that I probably came off as harsher than I intended and tried to clarify that my problem is with the reporting. You, on the other hand, have called me names and continued with these theories (that you're not backing up with any real sources) saying that the police are out to arrest everyone that they try to hide all of their activities. You sound like a conspiracy theorist, you're never going to respect my opinion and you can't have a discussion with me without wishing me harm, so fuck it.
Kris, you're not listening to what I'm saying in regards to many things, specifically Jason's behavior. You can come off as a prick, not mean it and be completely oblivious to how it is taken. People dislike lawyers, acting lawyerly can rub people the wrong way. It doesn't make him belligerent or a bad person. Also you're ignoring that your opinion on the subject wouldn't be easy to present in court considering that you had been drinking just before the incident. Also, alcohol does a lot more than alter mood and reduce inhibition. You don't get a DUI because when you're drunk you get angry and a little more daring.
You just keep going around in circles with me over whether or not the officer lied when I'm saying that it's a matter of perspective. I'm glad you're a medical practitioner, but at the time of the incident you had been drinking. On top of that you can't get over me calling Chuy's a bar and not a restaurant even though you yourself called it irrelevant. I can't explain why he said he smelled alcohol on her breath, but people do make mistakes or jump to conclusions. Call it sloppy policework, it doesn't necessarily make him a liar. How are you going to prove that he knowingly made it up? You don't know what he observed. The issue is whether or not he falsified his report. You can't prove that he did.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to what I've written. It's been fun discussing it with you, but we're never going to reach an agreement on the matter and I really don't care anymore.
Respectfully,
Chris in Tempe

Cops who fabricate evidence should be fired, arrested and prosecuted.

But they aren't because cops protect their fellow cops.

First, the story is newsworthy because it sheds light on something that should not happen to people who are trying to follow the rules. This group did everything right, except turn on the lights on the truck. For that, a traffic ticket (or warning) should have been the extent of their penalty.

The police, in fact, do write down "bloodshot/watery eyes, strong smell of alcohol on their breath" on just about every potential DUI case report. I remember the case of the former ASU quarterback Ryan Kealy. He was busted for DUI and on the police report it said he had a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. The only problem was he hadn't been drinking at all. He was smoking weed.

Now, the story does not tell us what Mrs. Squires told the officer when they were speaking. The slant of the article made it seem that Mrs. Squires barely said anything. Maybe she was nervous, and no one would blame her for that, but she should have calmly explained the situation to each and every officer who arrived on scene. Maybe one would have thought to give her a breathalyzer test and this whole thing would have been avoided. Maybe she tried to calmly explain things, but I would have to guess that the husband giving instructions to her may have overshadowed anything she told Gonzalez. I think the fewer things he said on scene would have been better. A sober lawyer often talks too much, but a lawyer with a little booze and a lot of adrenaline definitely talks too much.

I'm not a cop basher, I think they do a great amount of good in communities. But, after reading this story a few times, I think this particular group of cops (especially Gonzalez) was just trying to stick it to Mr. Squires. After all, if you made what you thought was a slam-dunk collar on an extreme DUI driver (these people should not be on the road, ever, and should get the book thrown at them when possible) and a good lawyer like Mr. Squires tears your case apart and the DUI driver walks, how mad would you be? They look at Squires as somebody who is happy to see these drunk drivers walk. They probably think Squires is dangerous because the people he gets off the hook are likely to get behind the wheel drunk again and could kill someone someday. That's just how cops think.

But, I'm sure Squires has inner struggles on a lot of cases, especially when he knows the person is guilty. But, guess what, he's doing his job and he's working within the boundaries of our criminal justice system. We may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Hope they sue the shit out of Mesa PD.

DUI = Driving Under The Influence. 40% of DUI's are for drugs. She was stoned and driving. What is the problem ???

Many comments have been made that are grossly wrong at best and dangerously warped at worst. I was also profiled in Sara's previous article on the same subject. (arrested for being only .03 after 5 weeks post op from surgery. No drugs and only one drink the entire evening) It is NOT simply a matter of "big deal, you prove your innocence, charges get dropped and if a few innocents get caught, that's the price we need to pay". You have no idea how traumatic an event like this is. I was forced to go through "drug screening" all night, not released till 4:00AM. Shaking, crying and in severe pain the entire time. For 6 mos not knowing if it would be cleared. Not sleeping. Loosing 20 lbs and not being able to heal from my surgery. Trembling every time I passed a police car and not wanting to drive for months, until I decided they would not get the best of me. Oh, and let's not even mention the thousands I had to pay an attorney. All because AZ DUI laws are out of control due to politicians and city leaders who don't have the good sense and guts to stand up to special interest groups and pass laws needed to control this craziness. Did you all realize that they will even attempt to get you to accept charges BEFORE the urine/blood tests come back? Laws need to change and our police forces need to be held accountible for damages. My own cousin, who was like a brother, was killed by a drunk driver. So the ER Doc doesn't need to lecture me on the horrors of true DUI. However, NOBODY should ever have to go through what I did..and the hundreds of others who have had to endure the same. Thank God Sara has the guts and great writing skills to tell this story for all of us!!

Imagine what would have occurred if the driver and occupants had been Black or Hispanic....oh wait that happens everyday in the hood. "DWB" Driving While Black can be hazardous to your health.......

Gee Chris, I never wished you harm, guess that is just more of your hyperbole. I just wished you the same treatment you have said other people deserve, to prove their innocence. Funny you consider that harm...

WOW.. I couldn't even imagine with all the other things in the city of Mesa that they should be worried about like junkies breaking into cars.. (But when it comes to that mesa cops think its a joke and do NOTHING..) But someone who has nothing to drink 5 cops come to the scene and are oblivious on the real issues!!!!! Drive safe!!

WOW.. I couldn't even imagine with all the other things in the city of Mesa that they should be worried about like junkies breaking into cars.. (But when it comes to that mesa cops think its a joke and do NOTHING..) But someone who has nothing to drink 5 cops come to the scene and are oblivious on the real issues!!!!! Drive safe!!

A few years back, I was able to see the writing on the wall in Mesa. The police in that town are a bunch of racist paramilitary wanna bes. and this new DUI law has given them carte blanche to bust anyone they think is able to pay. While they have let the gang problem and the meth problem flourish. Good work assholes. Im glad me and my family moved away and took our tax dollars with us.

I am a victim of a SOBER DUI.. In El Dorado County, the officer’s name is Chris Stelz of the El Dorado County Sheriffs Org…

basically the guy pulled me over cause I was the only person on the road… and when he came to my window I said “Good evening officer! what seems to be the problem?”

he replies…

“ILL BE THE ONE ASKING THE QUESTIONS SON”

right there I knew I was in trouble, not because I did anything wrong, but because this guy was a total Nazi, especially when it came to respect..

He basically continues to use verbiage like “your playing my game, with my rules, in my world”

and

“wheres your boyfriends ID?”

and then he had me sign a ticket for a “broken tail light” that I actually just got signed off by the CHP a mere weeks before this encounter, but apparently “it was the wrong color of red” the guy must of been color blind cause the CHP thought it was OK…

he had me sign the ticket 3 times, 1st cause my signature went out side of the 5mm box, the second time cause it did not match my signature on my drivers license, and then on the third signing he said “what kind of faggot signature is that?”

then I asked for his badge # because that was the last straw for me…

so he decided that I was a threat so he pulled his fire arm on me, forced me out of the car, and hand cuffed me…

the first sobriety test was not until after he arrested me, and processed me into the jail, at which time he took my blood test because i stated that i have a phobia of needles… which came back 0.00% BAC….

but the DA still pursued the case, so I had to hire a lawyer, spent thousands of dollars, and then denied a fair jury trial… not to mention that this whole thing was a major contributor of me loosing my long dream career designing recording studios and theaters for an internationally acclaimed firm…

It gets way messier too, cause, even though I was denied a trial, apparently there is currently a warrant out for my arrest, they still suspended my license, and destroyed my DMV record, not to mention my insurance quadrupled,,, apparently the DMV courts are different then the county and state courts, but none the less thay are all just broken fragments of the same government who brought us Guantanamo…

I’m moving to Europe, cause this shit makes me want to puke out of every orifice of my face… I used to stand up for the law enforcement and the government when ever i herd people talk shit about them,,, now im the one talking shit!!!

these guys are really terrible… Just remember this is in California, El Dorado County, Officer Chris Stelz…

you can call them at 530.626.8163…

I fell sick, and have become so numb over this, i cant sleep, work, or create anything,,, this experience has made me just want to give up completely…

I just need to get out of the united states, cause for 1 I have been here my whole life and need a change of scenery… and to find a better, more established, and respected government system… like Holland, or something… somewhere with a really good public transport system,.,, cause I NEVER WANT TO DRIVE IN MY LIFE EVER EVER AGAIN… it is just not really worth it to trade your human soul, to be mentally tormented by these fascist Nazis….

please fell free to contact me, if you want to discuss my case…

After being beaten, lied to, and now giving a completely Sober DUI from “El Dorado County’s Finest” all on separate occasions, you tend to really stop giving a damn….

I really hope that no one else has to go through something like this… It not only makes the evils of our government more transparent, but it also kills the love i had for both our country, and life in general…

I mean, it is almost worse then the time i got jumped in the middle of nowhere, thinking i was going to die… cause I already know that those type of people are bad… This is worse because it completly killed the respect I had for government and law enforecment (and at one point in my life i did respect them) now they are no better then hitler…

I cant believe i just worte all of this, cause I truly have no more energy left to even think about this….

I have become a hater…

Yours truly,

Scott

e.static.sound@gmail.com

This letter is about the Heather Squires DUI story...directly in response to Kris Carlson's letter. He says he was with them that night, and that Heather abstained from drinking so that she could safely drive them home.

EXCEPT SHE DIDN'T SAFELY DRIVE THEM HOME!!! She was clearly so distracted or such a bad driver that she forgot to put the driving lights on. Which is the reason she was pulled over. In my entire life, I've never forgotten to put my lights on!! How do you drive or manuever anywhere at 9:00 pm at night in the pitch black without your lights on??!!

I don't understand this. It is her fault she was pulled over, and frankly, any person that's driving on the streets without their lights on is just as reckless as someone driving drunk!

The cop pulling them over most likely saved lives, so I don't see what the big deal is.

If she was a good, organized, calm, defensive and cognizant driver, she wouldn't have operated a motor vehicle without its lights on.

Instead of a DUI, the cop should've given her a DWD...Driving While DUMB!!!

Thank you for sharing this. It has become so scary out there, a DWI could ruin your life. Hopefully you will get support and we, US Citizens can fight back against these injustices.

Sounds just about right. I wish you guys at New times would come up the the Miami AZ area to hear stories from business people who get pillaged by the police. I guess one thing never to do is persue purgery by a police officer, their buds will arrest you just that much more often for lesser and lesser things, like changing locks on your apartment at your aptment building to keep squatters out.

I don't know why people are shocked when it comes about that a cop is arresting the innocent. Arrest first, violate rights, then ask questions and apologize. Go America

DUI arrests are out of control in Arizona. DUI is a revenue maker for the state, attorneys and ignition lock companies.
What is wrong with the legislature? They are afraid of the sheriff. They don't want to be roughed up by the sheriff so no changes are made - wake up Arizona! You have lost your rights. MADD is only a moneymaker. My parents were killed by a drunk driver. Fines and jail do not work. A government can not regulate behavior.

DUI arrests are out of control in Arizona. DUI is a revenue maker for the state, attorneys and ignition lock companies.
What is wrong with the legislature? They are afraid of the sheriff. They don't want to be roughed up by the sheriff so no changes are made - wake up Arizona! You have lost your rights. MADD is only a moneymaker. My parents were killed by a drunk driver. Fines and jail do not work. A government can not regulate behavior.

I stopped by New Times online to see what was going on, the top 2 stories have been about alcohol, wtf is happening?

Alcohol is perhaps the worst drug out there, take all humans who have been killed/murdered/maimed in the past 100 years over alcohol and you'll see some of the picture.

I'll bet this shit has started wars.

Alcohol is addictive, alcohol has really bad side effects, people who drink alcohol live on a ever diminishing base. Alcohol is advertised to our youth multiple times per day, it is made to look smart and cool while pot is a felony and is not addictive plus its side effects heal.

The side effects of alcohol, it eats your liver, your brain and dries your arteries like if you put fuel in a tube that is not fuel line related, it swells then dries out.

Can't wait to see what the next story is.... alcohol?

You wanna live a short bad life, Jim Morrison and Janis Joplin died drunks, they were so great, alcohol robbed us. Fuck alcohol.

rodat6

FORMER DPS Officer Eric Dombrowski arrested me for essentially the same thing, driving after 3 a.m. When he realized I wasn't drunk he fabricated charges of failing to stop and failing to show my drivers license, then had other charges of speeding (no radar) and illegal tint mailed to me after the fact. The County Attorney declined to prosecute on the original charges and after I filed a complaint, Eric showed up in court in Civilian clothes (LMAO!) to try and make the speeding and tint charges stick. No luck Dombrowski! This ego with a badge still has his POST certification though so you know he is violating citizens rights somewhere in the country, either as a police officer or more likely a security guard.

The problem with MANY of the police on the force currently, is that they have a God complex. I know of some locally that were of a lower social standing growing up, or picked on, or whatever that causes a young mind to seek power, ut in the wrong way (by becoming a police officer). You may smerk at this thought, but it is true. Now.... Because they have a gun and a badge, and they are the LAW, that it is time for people to obey them. There are good officers (I know many), but there are also bad ones, and this story proves it!

Geeze! This is really scarry to read about Az laws being like this. I live in CA, and I thought it was only here that this whole railroading thing was happening. I wish I could move out of the united states to somewhere that I didn't feel so afraid of being taken away at any time, and jailed for crimes I didn't commit, simply because the people who have the power in our government (the people with some kind of sympathetic cause) or whatever and however they do to get in passed into laws to catch more and more people up in it. even to make their ends meet their means statistically. Otherwise they would be wrong, and they don't want to be wrong...nomatter how many lives are destroyed to prove they are right. they just widen the net. Ieven feel a sick fear right now in my stomache, thinking that writing this comment will somehow cause some horrible damage to me. WELL, IT COULD! I'm a strong adversary to them. I just get so tired of living my life just to fight to survive. I feel like I'm fighting alone.

Finally, an honest news story! Finally, the public is waking up! 90%+ of these comments are right on. We're going to put the POS, lying cops out of jobs!

NEVER TAKE A ROADSIDE SOBRIETY TEST. I'm an athlete in prime condition, perfect balance... I've taken 2, dead sober, and FAILED BOTH TIMES. I only took them because I knew I was going to pass the stupid breathalyzer.

In the meantime I'll be riding my bike because, you have more rights when you do.

Boilerplate affidavits, only the names are changed to convict the innocent. If you pull 100 of his affidavits you find they read the same, he knows what gets the convictions, it saves him work, makes it a lie and him a liar. But he will get away with it and we pay the price.

Mr and Mrs squires please acept my condolences on you being innocent victims. I myself have been tried and abused by our police system. I have to admire attorneys like yourself who will stand up to these Pigs. yes that is what i said . i know there are some good ones out there, but today most of themhave no bckbone either, if they did they would not stand back and let the pigs be pigs. Alot of crime would not happen if the public did not have to take the extra measure today to avoid at all risks any involvement with the law, It sickens me to see police think they are the Law. How narrow minded are they to think they are the law. When I was a kid they were your friend and we were there friend. I lived in a small community and the pocal policemen would visit with us nightly. If someone was stepping way out of bounds we were there for him. the town was safe and crime was very low. Well wouldn't you know a new mayor took office and his grandson got caught driving drunk and was given a wreckless driving ticket instead. low n behold the mayor tears the ticket up, the policeman quits, the mayor tries to make life extremely difficult for a good law officer. And now 5 years later the town has a terrible crime rate and the mayors grandson is in prison for meth mfg. So go ahead abuse your power this thing will catch up to you some day. these kids will make it that it is not even safe for a bad cop to walk the streets. It is in your hands contrl the corruption or let the vigalantes take effect

I see I had alot of typos in my post. I am sure the righteous ones will slander me for that and begrade me etc. go ahead I am a respected member of my community and I have a high profile job . I owe this to a great set of parents and the desire to improve my standard of living from what 7 long hard days a week did for my parents to keep food on the table and shelter over us. They were there for us whenever any of us kids needed a parent. god bless them. Now there go ahead pick my typos apart to make yourself feel better about yourself. The majority of the people in the world know when they are lying or not. And we all have to live with our own actions. Have at me for speaking the truth.

I don't live in Phoenix, but it sure looks like people there had better do something. The PD works for YOU, you sign their paycheck, albeit indirectly. When they try to set it up to work against Joe and Jane Average, you can either figure "I like the entertainment value of having random non-connected losers get busted" or "I pay them to do a job and I want it done right". If the PD knows its marching orders are to help the public and cuff real criminals, they'll do it, there are good cops who like doing their job right. If it's "here's a badge and gun, now have some fun with it", they'll do that with a big grin.

Make it an election issue, otherwise when it's your turn, it'll be too late.