Routt County Sheriff Gary Wall

Photo by Brian Ray

Routt County Sheriff Gary Wall

Wall's license in jeopardy

Breathalyzer refusal could mean loss of privileges for one year

Advertisement

More on Wall

Read all stories related to Routt County Sheriff Gary Wall

More on Wall

Read all stories related to Routt County Sheriff Gary Wall

— Routt County Sheriff Gary Wall's driver's license could be revoked for up to one year for refusing to take a Breathalyzer test Oct. 27 when Colorado State Patrol Trooper Brett Hilling cited him for driving under the influence and a related weapons charge near U.S. Highway 40 and Walton Creek Road.

"He was issued an affidavit and notice of revocation the night of the stop," State Patrol spokesman Sgt. John Hahn said Wednesday.

Hahn said the notice was given because Wall refused a chemical breath test to determine his blood-alcohol content.

"That evening, he exercised his option - and, in fact, his right - to refuse that test," Hahn said.

Hahn said issuing a revocation notice is similar to giving a citation. He said Wall would have had seven days to dispute the charge to the Colorado Department of Revenue. On the eighth day, the revocation takes effect.

If Wall disputed the revocation, it would have been up to the Department of Revenue to grant him a 60-day temporary license and a hearing on the matter. Department of Revenue spokesman Mark Couch said the Driver Privacy Protection Act prevents him from revealing whether Wall disputed the revocation or whether Wall was given a 60-day temporary license.

Wall has said he still has a driver's license, and he was seen driving a vehicle Wednesday, 11 days after the traffic stop.

Wall is scheduled to appear in court at 8:30 a.m. Nov. 27. The 14th Judicial District Attorney's Office has handed over the case to special prosecutor Mark Hurlbert, the district attorney for the Fifth Judicial District.

Hurlbert said he received on Monday the case report prepared by the Colorado State Patrol and had only just begun to evaluate it and prepare for court. Hurlbert, best known for prosecuting the case against NBA star Kobe Bryant, said although Wall's case presents an unusual challenge, he will handle it like any other.

"I certainly haven't done any of these with an elected official," Hurlbert said. "We prosecute every case the same. Whether it's a well-known person or not, we handle it the same way."

Hurlbert said he hasn't spoken to Ron Smith, the Steamboat Springs attorney representing Wall.

Other than to dispute the charges, Wall has refused to comment on the case. He again declined to comment about it Wednesday.

Comments

1234 6 years, 8 months ago

oops, read the wrong page, i am sure no one is up this early yet, sorry

0

stompk 6 years, 8 months ago

"Steamboat Springs - Routt County Sheriff Gary Wall was in his county-owned vehicle when he was pulled over and charged with DUI and prohibitive use of a weapon Saturday night" http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/20...

No mention of this? And he was seen driving his county vehicle after the stop too.

And the Eagle county DA is handling the case? Wall was a sheriff in Eagle county. Isn't this a conflict of interest?

This whole thing stinks.

0

Ms_E_Bronte 6 years, 8 months ago

Wall exercised his right to refuse the tests -- he made his choice -- was he seen driving a county vehicle as referenced in this article, or his POV? Can anyone answer this question: Who is paying for his defense -- him or us? Or, is the public allowed to know the answer?

0

stompk 6 years, 8 months ago

Also

"ROUTT COUNTY 9NEWS has confirmed Sheriff Gary Wall was arrested Saturday night on suspicion of DUI " http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=79880

This statement was made by Colleen Locke, Producer at 9News.

This is a huge difference from the CSP Statement.

0

bubba 6 years, 8 months ago

Now why would a sober man refuse a breathalyzer?

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

Take anything you see in the media with a grain of salt. "Arrested" has a specific legal meaning which is quite different from merely being stopped and questioned or cited for a civil traffic violation, for example.

When a person is arrested, they are taken into custody, booked, finger-printed and held pending a bail hearing. Certain infractions are a matter of standing court orders in the local jurisdictions, and the amount of bail is a set amount which can be posted with the jailer to obtain release of the accused without seeing a judge. I've bailed a few people out of jail in the middle of the night, and am very familiar with the process. A person arrested for DUI and taken to jail can be bailed out and released into the custody of the person posting the bail even before they are completely sober again.

It does not appear that any of these things happened to Sheriff Wall. That's why we need to wait for all the facts to come out and see what really happened. It's also why I think there is not sufficient evidence to convict him, and that the charges will be dropped when he goes to court. If that's not the case, and he's driving without a license, it's pretty serious.

My one experience with someone who was accused of refusing a test occurred while they were being treated in the ER after an accident. Even though there was no odor of alcohol and no observed impairment, the officer conducting the accident investigation read the suspect their rights and placed them under arrest after the suspect admitted having a glass of wine with dinner before the accident. No chemical test was administered, and the required warning (this happened in a state where the officer is required to read the "refusal" warning to the suspect from a printed card) was not given. The officer later lied in court that he had read the warning, and another officer who was not present during the questioning testified to having witnessed the reading of the warning. As a result, the suspect took the choice of pleading guilty rather than risk the possibility of going to jail, and avoided the $20,000 legal expense which would have had to be posted up front before a lawyer would take the case to trial. This American justice system is great, ain't it?

So, I guess we'll have to wait and find out exactly what was done on the roadside, what the CSP evidence is, and go from there.

0

dundalk 6 years, 8 months ago

Sheriff with no POST certifications, prohibitive use of a weapon charges and perhaps no license...for lesser minions this might present a problem but not for our omnipotent stooge, Wall.

0

brownskull 6 years, 8 months ago

So when we call for help, the sheriff is going to show up in an Alpine Taxi? Wow that will be some response time!

0

justathought 6 years, 8 months ago

id04, in your one experience with someone refusing the test were you actually there to witness this injustice? If so and it happened the way you describe it why weren't you there in support of this person, calling newspapers and television, etc., the main stream media loves to take down a cop. With you as an eyewitness some lawyer would have sued on contingency, no out of pocket money. If you didn't witness this first hand do you think it could have been someone trying to get out of trouble for drinking and driving by blaming the police? People tend to see things differently when trying to save their own hide.

0

bartender 6 years, 8 months ago

I like Wall, I like his politics and philosophies. But that doesn't mean he is the right person for the job.

"Think about the consequences of your actions and choices" as my father always said. And "remember who you are and whose you are" he would always tell me before I left the house to go out. Wall is an example of what he meant.

I have and have had several part time jobs driving and driving company vehicles. I would have lost any of them immediately if I got even questioned for DUAI. I would have been atleast written up if not fired if anyone even said they saw me walking out of a liquor store and getting into a company vehicle. Before I go anywhere I may possibly have a single cocktail or beer, I decide if I am driving or not. If I choose to drive then I don't consume anything with alcohol at all. A single drink isn't worth what it would cost me. Not even a single beer knowing I have a couple of hours before leaving. If I want to have even one drink at dinner, I take a cab or walk or catch a ride. I have lived in Steamboat too long, and seen too many people get it much worse than Wall.

It boils down to standards. What standards you hold yourself and your employer holds you to. Would you lower that standard if, say the person managing the drivers of [unnamed] company got a DUI as opposed to a driver? Considering he would be the one to enforce policies on the driver, surly not.

It's understandable that Wall would be concerned about the impact and implications of a DUI. So refusing any sobriety check is his natural reaciton. He should have considered this before he consumed anything to put himself in a questionable light. He revealed his standards, and now everyone is questioning where his standards are set.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

Justathought,

I was not present in the treatment room where the interrogation took place. The accused, however, was suffering from a head injury and concussion, whiplash, facial lacerations from the air bag, and was disoriented and in pain while all this was going on. The police report did state that no odor of alcohol was detected and no impairment was noted. This was supported by the doctor's examination report.

The accused did not "get out" of anything, and ended up with a suspended license and all the aftermath including insurance problems, etc. The accused was advised by an attorney to take the plea bargain, license suspension and probation (1 year) rather than spend the $20,000 and risk incarceration if found guilty at trial. The local county DA had run on an anti-DUI platform in a Bible Belt state and was prosecuting every possible case.

In this case, the accused was a resident of yet another state, and was able to get a restricted license to go back and forth to work, etc., in the home state. After a year, the driving privilege was fully restored in the state where the accident happened, and the main inconvenience was not being able to drive through or in that state during the 1 year suspension. There was no publicity, no trial, and no public embarassment. Those were the primary considerations, plus fear of going to jail for 30 days.

Sometimes "stuff" happens and we are stuck dealing with it. The whole incident is over, several years have passed, and the person involved avoided having their kids or boss know what happened, and now all is well.

Oh, by the way, the "failure to submit to chemical test" citation was not issued until around 10 AM the following morning, more than 14 hours after the ER questioning. That's when the arrest, booking, etc., all took place after the suspect was released from the hospital. There's more involved in the story, but basically, Deputy Fyfe decided that the facial lacerations were not consistent with air bag injuries, and claimed that the accused had been beaten prior to the accident. Deputy Fyfe gave the accused the choice of implicating an innocent spouse on assault and spousal abuse charges, or being charged for failure to submit to chemical testing.

So, what would an ethical person do in such a case?

The bottom line is to avoid contact with the authorities, because abuse of power under color of law for political gain happens all over the country. Judges have the last word, not newspapers.

BTW, the same sort of stuff happens in our local courts. That's what Gary Wall was trying to fight when he ran for election. It's why I am holding out in the hope that he was set up, because targeting him would have been the ultimate revenge for his past efforts against officers who bent the law to obtain convictions.

I'm hoping he walks, and uses his office to go after the people who commit "color of law" violations in Routt County. It's about time.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

Bartender,

After the experience I described just above this post, all of us who were invovled in the incident have adopted your philosophy and simply do not have even a single drink and then get into a car and drive. It's not worth it. I don't intend to end up on some local deputy's collar list when the annual salary review comes around, and that's what it's really all about in many cases.

0

CoJustice 6 years, 8 months ago

Again, its just plain Civil Disobedience, not a Civil Rights issues as Wall will stand with. I think the fact that the order to appear was pushed up, was to try and have a dismissal prior to the Motor Vehicle hearing to retain his license. He is an expert at this stuff, and thinks he can out wit the Judge and his peers, and he may.

The message he is sending is Civil Disobedience, and the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of an officer will set precedence in the County.

0

CoJustice 6 years, 8 months ago

Id04: Interesting theory, now the new defense is Wall thinks he was set up. I am just curious how Wall is legally permitted to run his Private Investigative Business on the side while having the use of CBI records, and an employee at the Sheriffs office? I know his business renewal has expired with the State for non-payment, and no other officers are listed, I guess he could claim his attorney is doing the work:hum.

Its not surprising that Wall would use this kind of defense (set-up). We know Walls defense, character assignation to the end is what I am thinking he will use.

The new question is what are the citizens will to put up with.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 6 years, 8 months ago

id04sp, So Wall was set up because he was going to go after white collar crime in Steamboat? After he is vindicated we will see a docket full of HOA BOD cases for violation of fiduciary duty as well as Judges being removed from the bench for malfeasance. Next I suppose Gary Wall will find the real killer of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman while exposing the vast LA PD conspiracy. Thank goodness we have people like Sheriff Wall out there defending us against the systemic corruption and graft... Personally, I would cast my lot with someone else if I were you or continue to fight from your own position as you have done. I do agree with you, that there is too much political self serving BS in this town and others, making a mockery of the whole legal system. It's a damn disgrace.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

CoJo,

In the story of Robin Hood, the Sheriff of Nottingham was the bad guy. Robin Hood and his band of merry men robbed from the rich and gave to the poor.

Back in the Warner days, if anything except a crime of violence or a verifiable breaking and entering occurred, it was called "a civil matter" so that the RCSO didn't have to bother with it. I think this is how the Sheriff of Nottingham would have operated his agency; as long as the King was pleased, he could do no wrong. In our case, the Kings are the people who have money and political connections, meaning realtors, developers, their attorneys, and judges with ties to the property law sector.

I'm sure Robin Hood's merry men occasionally skewered an innocent bystander, but overall, they protected the poor and the powerless from the corrupt government. That's what I was hoping for from Wall.

I'd prefer it if we had a sheriff who obeyed the laws and enforced the laws without regard for the class, status or office of the criminals. Since we don't appear to be able to have one of those, I'll take the Robin Hood approach for a few years and hope there's some balancing of the scales of justice to my benefit.

If Sheriff Wall loses this one, well, back to the old drawing board. If he wins, maybe he can turn the tables and catch a few corrupt cops trafficking in coke. Maybe even some local important people? Maybe people in the State offices?

I often hear the term "character assassination" in these discussions of Sheriff Wall. What's the problem with using facts to obtain an advantage in a court case? Is telling the truth about a person, or an agency, wrong? It's one thing to make up BS and try to stick it to somebody to ruin their reputation unjustly, but when you catch them fair and square doing something wrong, I say it's fair game.

I've got a really simple rule. I don't do anything my wife would disapprove of. That way, nobody will ever be able to use anything I do against me, because I don't care what anybody except her thinks.

0

CoJustice 6 years, 8 months ago

The Pilot should confirm if Wall has requested all the personnel records of the officer that issued him the summons, and started investigating her personal history. Shocked, don't be, Wall used this in Court before.

0

CoJustice 6 years, 8 months ago

ido4:To answer your question, if the tables were turned, than evidence not pertaining to the case as you state: "What's the problem with using facts to obtain an advantage in a court case? Is telling the truth about a person, or an agency, wrong?".

It would not work in your boys favor. If it was open season on Wall, you would have a line around the courthouse. You would start in Vail, Montana, AZ Casinos, frequent business, past employment history, dishonorable public meetings, then move on to his buddy JD, and his involvement as a catalyst in the Sheriffs election, Sheriff employees, the list goes on and on.

Not so appealing when you look at it your way.

You just believed the hype, and were hopeful.

0

CoJustice 6 years, 8 months ago

Id04: I'll give you an example: I remember about 6 years ago when Wall had that "I am above the law" attitude. He drove around town with expired plates, feeling somehow he had protection and not expected to comply with the same rules everyone else is expected to. He finally got pulled over, and his buddy JD made that one go away, oops probably was not suppose to let that one out. Any who, I am sure there are some veteran officers that remember that clearly, the ones that JD and Wall have not run out of town.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

CoJo,

I'm not talking about evidence not pertaining to the case. I'm talking about evidence of prior misconduct, dishonesty, disciplinary action, criminal prosecutions, etc., by witnesses or officers involved in the case. You cannot bring an accused person's prior acts in as evidence against him, but you can use prior acts to attack witnesses and LE officers called on behalf of the State.

O.J. Simpson is in trouble again, and we know his background. If the officers who arrested him had similar backgrounds, wouldn't that impugn their veracity, regardless of what O. J. did?

If I get arrested for DUI by a former Eagle Scout who won the Congressional Medal of Honor in Iraq and also happens to be a priest in the LDS church, I'm going to have a hard time claiming that he's a liar. If I get arrested by a guy who has had cases thrown out of court for illegal searches, or breaking the chain of custody, etc., why should I not use that?

Sometimes in this country people go to jail because they should be in jail, even if they are innocent of the charge that sends them to jail. We all know it happens. The problem is that cops sometimes decide to be judge and jury because of dealing with scum for so many years, and when an innocent person comes along, the innocent person gets treated like scum too. It's stereotyping, and it's natural for people to do, and it's also illegal, but it happens.

Gary Wall may be the lowest scum ever elected to the office of Sheriff, but when he goes before the judge as a defendant, he's entitled to attack the character of the witnesses against him. Those who don't want their character attacked should be more careful to preserve it, ya know?

There's stuff that comes with the territory in any job. Law enforcement officers who do not live up to a higher standard can expect their conduct to be used to attack their testimony in court. If Sheriff Wall survives this incident and ends up as a prosecution witness in somebody else's trial later on, sure, you can expect his character to be attacked.

As I've said many times before, my aim is to avoid all contact with the authorities. If they have no reason to bother with me, there's very little chance that I will end up having to defend myself against the ones who are corrupt. That's what the average citizen of Routt County should remember out of this mess. The rest of it is pretty much just gossip that will never, ever, have a direct effect on the vast majority of us in the future.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

CoJo,

Your last comment tells the tale. Local LE makes it up as they go along, depending on their personal agendas.

Well, hey, at least we've got something interesting to follow in the news, eh? I'm sure there will be more to come.

0

Payasigo 6 years, 8 months ago

I was very impressed by your letters id04sp and I will follow your recommendations regarding never drinking at all if I am going to drive. Gees 20k just to get representation, that just blows me away.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

Payasigo,

The $20,000 was not to be represented at the arraignment, etc. It was what the attorney would charge for a jury trial.

In my experience, even the smallest matters which should be settled by a jury, criminal or civil, will cost about that much as a minimum. This is also how real estate speculators with lots of money use the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act to rob people who have already built houses with high "fees for common expenses" and then use the fees to build roads which increase the value of unsold lots owned by the developers. The losers in actions filed under the CCIOA pay the other side's court costs and attorney's fees. So, you pay $500 to crooks or risk hundreds of thousands if you go to court. Sheriff Warner's RCSO called this a "civil matter." Right . . . and this is why cops can't afford to buy a vacant lot in North Routt to put up an affordable modular home. Lots obtained for $2,000 to $5,000 by developers a few years ago (like 3 to 5 years ago) are selling for $50,000 to $100,000 now thanks to this state-sponsored coercion and the fact that the RCSO just doesn't care.

0

back2daboard 6 years, 8 months ago

Nothing but controversy has surrounded Mr. Wall since the beginning. He has created problems with the Commissioners, allowed deputies to use vehicles as private transportation (out of state, I mean really, VERNAL?, couldn't find a cheaper desk in town or even Grand Junction?) still hasn't completed his policies or whoever else he plagiarized them from, now he's been caught drunk. If he wasn't drunk, why wouldn't he take the test to prove it? Don't give me a bunch of rights and his legal jargon, if he wasn't drunk, he should have proved it! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, I SAY NO CONFIDENCE, IT'S TIME FOR A RECALL!!!

0

Hadleyburg_Press 6 years, 8 months ago

id04sp, In the HOA case that you site, did the vote to pave go to the homeowners (or lot owners) or did the Board vote unilaterally? If the lot owners voted, was it at an annual meeting and was there a qourum present? Did your gov. docs. speak to this in terms of majority vote and / or BOD authority to act in such a manner? I take it that the realtors owned the majority lots and ran the Board?

0

inmate2007 6 years, 8 months ago

Before you all get to involved in id's HOA nightmare has anyone noticed that all the Pilots recent photo's of Wall have a magenta tint? Shouldn't they have added gin blossoms too?

0

bubba 6 years, 8 months ago

Conspiracy this, framed that, if he wasn't drunk, he wouldn't have refused the breath test, and this wouldn't be an issue. Unless his defense will be that he doesn't trust the breath test to give an accurate reading, which will set an interesting precedent in Routt County vs drunk driver cases...

0

stompk 6 years, 8 months ago

Go get em ID!

We watch on the news about cops killing their wives, shooting innocents, be busted in all sorts of crimes all the time.

Truth is, cops are in the thick of it, all the time.

If they aren't completely morally uncorruptable, they will become part of the problem.

The citizens, in my opinion, need to police the police a bit more.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

Hadley,

The CCIOA and IRS regulations regarding not-for-profit corporations clearly require the owners of benefitted properties to pay the actual cost of improvements which benefit them. HOAs which provide an excess benefit to members of the board of directors automatically lose their tax free status, which makes this a matter of tax fraud, too. Basically, the board is using the power of the state under the CCIOA to obtain money from people and divert it for personal gain instead of providing an actual benefit equivalent to the fees paid in to the home owners who are providing the money.

To your specific questions, the actual plans, costs, lists of persons benefitted by the construction and allocation of costs to those receiving the benefit was not presented to the other members for a vote of approval. It's all been done on the initiative of the people who control the board, and they have received tens of thousands of dollars of excess benefits over and above what they actually paid into the treasury. The board bills the membership, collects the money, and uses it for their own benefit to provide year-round access to formerly worthless vacant lots. Over a full mile of roadway constructed in this manner must now be plowed, and there is only one residence on the new road. As a result, all of the homeowners are paying higher costs this winter for snow plowing, while the people who own the vacant lots along the road pay nothing -- even though those lots sell during the plowing season.

This all has nothing to do with Gary Wall's situation, but I think it's important for people to know that the previous RCSO management and the so-called "civil deputy" simply let it happen because the home owners are afraid of being driven into bankruptcy by legal fees if they oppose the actions of the board. That's coercion, and it's criminal, and theft under color of official right is still theft.

Let's not get into the subject of how the vacant lots were obtained by fraud -- buying them up as "worthless" while fully intending to use HOA money to construct the roads and make a killing (10x or more) on the resale. Like I said, this is why cops can't afford a house in Routt County. They let crooks get away with stuff like this, and then they find themselves priced out of the market.

If Sheriff Wall was really intoxicated and he refused the test, that's bad. It will show what a sorry state we're in. I still want to hear evidence that a test was requested, and that he refused it. That's the key to this controversy. I still believe that, regardles of the outcome, Wall was targeted by the other agencies. I sure wish they'd worry about some real crimes instead of getting revenge on each other at my expense. How about you?

0

texsan 6 years, 8 months ago

I'm visiting Steamboat for a skiing trip this winter, and having never been to your area I was just doing a little research when I stumbled upon this article concerning your local sheriff. As a ten year veteran of law enforcement this concerns me.

I do know that had this occurred at any law enforcement agency that I know of in my state or local area, whether the officer was elected or hired, at the very least they would be put on paid administrative leave until the outcome was decided in the courts. Most police departments and sheriff's offices have standard operating procedures or general orders that govern their employees above and beyond state and federal law (if your local agencies do not they should for many reasons and I would be highly surprised if they did not). These "general orders" should also be available for viewing by the general public due to the Freedom of Information Act.

As for the situation with your sheriff. It does sound as if he is a highly controversial elected official (even before this incident). Could this be a "set-up"? Sure, any thing is possible. But even if it was it was most likely done by someone who was at the function the sheriff was at who DID see him drinking, ect...

All in all it doesn't matter if it was or not. His failure to take a breath test is I assume, as it is in my state, a violation of your state law. I personally do not feel that this is appropriate behavior for any law enforcement officer of any rank; it is most definitely unacceptable for a sheriff.

Law enforcement is a hard profession... IMO we are often underpaid given what we have to put up with and for the responsibilities placed upon us. All too often only the bad things done by one law enforcement official any where in the country make the news. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers in our country it is a definite possibility that a few a "bad". Just as there are criminals from every other profession. I just ask that you try to not judge us all from the actions of one.

I wish your community the best and hope this this incident turns out fairly for all those involved.

0

letomayo 6 years, 8 months ago

This blog site is mostly lawyers? I'm new to town I just got in two weeks ago. There is so many comments that are so legal on here it is hard to sort out. Is it true that the sherriff is really kind of a nice guy and he won the election but people who don't like him blog here? Everyone writes so knowlegeable and know what the other is talking about but I think it is pretty hard to understand everything you say. I don't know much about legal things so maybe thats why.

0

twostroketerror 6 years, 8 months ago

Letomayo, what your looking at here is a small group of people, with an astounding amount of free time, who like to research a subject to the best of their ability, then beat each other over the head with what they know to be the truth. It's kinda like wrestling w/o the folding chairs and funny costumes. Happy reading!

0

Hadleyburg_Press 6 years, 8 months ago

Thanks for the response id04sp. Did you sue the Board at any time or did you just go to the Sheriff? Did any of the Board's actions increase the value of your lot? Did the Developer still control the Board, per the governing documents, at this time? Not sure I understand what you mean by "The CCIOA and IRS regulations regarding not-for-profit corporations clearly require the owners of benefitted properties to pay the actual cost of improvements which benefit them". Did the paving not increase the value of the entire PUD? If the Board acts in a way that Specifically and Exclusively only benefits them then they are in violation on several fronts, but that is not made clear in what you have represented. I know that you are probably well versed in CCIOA, but you might look into the Community Association Institute Rocky Mountain Chapter for further assistance.

http://www.caicolorado.org/

Sorry for the the thread tangent, but I have been interested in your situation for a while.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

Twostroketerror is right.

Of course, so were Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc., when they voiced outrage over the operation of an oppressive government.

We could fix everything that's wrong by going to the ballot box. The problem is that there are too many clueless losers who vote selfishly for their own benefit on the face of an issue without taking responsiblity for their role in shaping the community.

Texan,

The problem around here is money. Drug money built the place during the rapid housing development driven by kids of the 60s, and now we've got a bunch of people running the place who pick and choose the laws to obey to suit them. Most of them are not violent, but too many of them are in it for personal pleasure and little else.

We've had some successful entrepreneurial types who managed to hide their capitalistic goals while singing liberal hymns, and the legal community and judicial system are in cahoots in favor of the old-boy network whenever a controvery arises. I had a case where an attorney sitting on the judicial review committee for this district got a local judge to make a ruling in his favor in a case where the judge didn't even have jurisdiction. The judgment is no good anywhere except in this district, but that's where the headache comes from -- locally.

So, we go back and forth between liberal hippies running the store, where people get driven out of business by things like the requirement to build an "affordable house" every time you build a market value house, and then the voters make a big change (like this last election) and then the capitalistic hippies come back and make a profit until the liberal hippies finally toss THEM out again, etc. Nobody is interested in building a community. The liberal socialists want stuff to be given to them on whatever money they are able to make, and so that eventually fails, and then the profit makers come back and it swings the other way, etc.

So, bring money, buy low, sell high, and ignore the socialist pleas, please . Luckily, we have very little violent crime, but outsiders and transients are replacing full-time residents in the service sector, and you know what that brings along with it. Drifters without roots and no stake in the community come in and then we get theft, burglary, and occasional violent crimes. Our cops mostly deal with petty crimes, domestic disputes, DUI and drug charges, and the big economic crimes go on without interference from the cops. It's like old Chicago where the organized crime lords ran the police department. Deal with the small stuff that people see, and allow the big crooks to operate behind the scenes, get rich, and share the profits with a few who accept favors and keep the law enforcement and judicial systems from getting involved with anything except keeping the peace at the level of the petty criminals.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

Hadley,

When the board charges home owners $500 a year, and charges vacant lot owners $50 a year, and then commingle that money and use it to build a road, all of the land owners benefit equally from the road construction, but the people with vacant land pay 1/10 as much for the benefit. That's what's illegal about it. A cubic yard of asphalt costs the same no matter whose house or vacant lot gets the benefit. Road frontage is the measure of expense, and nothing else. So the people on the board who own tens of vacant lots get the same benefit for each lot as a person who owns a single home for the lot his house sits on, but the homeonwers pay ten times as much to obtain the benefit.

My attorney said it would cost me $20,000 to sue the HOA, and if I lost, I'd have to pay their legal expense too. That's the problem. The HOA uses money collected from us to SUE us if we don't pay the assessments, and if we sue THEM, they spend like drunken sailors to defend their cases and either way, we pay the legal bills for both sides.

The RCSO said it was a civil matter and refused to even listen to the explanation. Frankly, I don't think they had anybody smart enough to understand it. Take it to the DA, and guess what they tell you - - report it to the Sheriff's office. It's a losing proposition all the way around.

I was hoping Wall and Bustos might see things differently, but if Wall is guilty of DUI . . . ? I was going to take the matter to Wall after he was POST certified. I thought he might care about the fact that his deputies had been priced out of the building lot market by people using the power of the state to extort money from other citizens already living in the subdivision.

And here we are, back to the Gary Wall DUI question.

0

trump_suit 6 years, 8 months ago

I have stayed out of these forums on Sheriff Wall until now. I voted for him, and would love to be able to continue my support, but......

There is simply no reason for a Law Enforcement official at any level to refuse the roadside test unless that person knew that the results would be unfavorable. It is time for Gary Wall to resign.

Where is that recall petition Dundalk? It is time to sign it.......

Having said that, we can do better that the illegal enforcement efforts that took place under Gramnet. Why can't we get a strong LE candidate that also believes in civil rights.

This country was founded on those beliefs, and our LE officers should respect those rights just as strongly as they pursue illegal activites. There is room for both and it diminishes all of us when civil rights are violated in the name of justice

0

katrinkakelly 6 years, 8 months ago

The texan got it right, terrible to see a comment from so far away,

"READ THE WRITING ON THE WALL",

literally!

0

Diana Simon 6 years, 8 months ago

I voted for Gary Wall and don't understand why he refused to take the roadside test and have been concerned about the controversy that keeps coming up. I would really like to know if he was under the influence when driving because I was in a car accident caused by a drunk driver 27 years ago and am still suffering the consequences. I've had at least 8 surgeries. The most recent was last week when I received a morphine pain pump because I haven't been able to work because of my chronic pain. The actions of someone drinking and driving changed my life completely in a fraction of a second.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 8 months ago

When I used to drink, there was a bar in Co Spgs that had a little breathalyzer. I tried this with my first beer of the night: I took a large swig before drinking anything else that night, swished it around in my mouth for a minute, then blew. I blew a .25 on it, only one mouthful.

0

bubba 6 years, 8 months ago

I understand why he refused the roadside test quite clearly. It was because he had been drinking. There is no other plausible explanation. Any argument he makes in court otherwise will set a precedent in this county that the sheriff's office does not stand behind drinking and driving enforcement. I have heard people say that they would refuse a breathalyzer because they can give inaccurate readings- I have no idea if this is true or not, but what a precedent that would set if the highest ranking LEO (can people without a POST certification call themselves that?) in the county claimed that as a defense!

There is no reason why a person who was positive that they were not impaired in the eyes of the law would refuse the test, and no reason why a person who is not positive that they are not impaired should be driving, much less driving a county vehicle with a side-arm.

0

justathought 6 years, 8 months ago

bubba, [I have heard people say that they would refuse a breathalyzer because they can give inaccurate readings-}, if that is a worry there is always the option of a blood test. He must believe he has a better chance of beating the charges without the proof of guilt staring us in the face.

0

bubba 6 years, 8 months ago

that was sort of my point. There is no legitimate reason to refuse the test if you have not been drinking. And I personally don't believe that the defense that he doesn't trust the thing could be used, as a sheriff. (who has recently claimed to be concerned about standing up for the rights of sheriff's depts state-wide) that would be a ludicrous precedent for him to set.

0

stompk 6 years, 8 months ago

People claimed the Rec Center would pass, even though early polls were showing 2-1 against it.

Those living off the hard work of the citizens who elected them, had better serve the purpose of the people, before themselves.

If they do a good job, we will reward them well.

The vote showed it power in this last election.

We don't have to wait for elections, to exercise our power.

Get him out, and the ones covering for him.

I've been all over the world in my 40 yrs on earth.

This is the best place of them all.

Let's keep it that way.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

There are lots of things about a breathalyzer that have to be right. ONe of them is that you cannot have had anything to drink or even belched within 1/2 hour. That's why the roadside test is often inadmissable, and they take you to town if you blow over .05 on the roadside. The breathalyzer in town has to be done after direct observation for 1/2 hour, etc.

So, let's say Sheriff Wall had a sip of Jack Black just before he left the party, and got stopped five minutes later. He could have shown a level over .05, just like Kielbasa did, even though the blood level was under .05.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 8 months ago

Ahhh! But! Considering he was coming from Sidney Peak Ranch and was pulled over at Walton Creek Road, that's easily 5min to drive at that time of night. Also, it's easily another 5min (or longer) during a routine stop from when the officer pulls you over, asks for your license to check, and comes back to explain what's going to happen even before asking you to perform a roadside.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

Okay, so it's 15 minutes since he had the sip. It still takes 30 minutes after you've had anything in your mouth for the test to be accurate. Blood alcohol from your breath gets contaminated by alcohol from your mouth and throat, and causes a high reading.

We still have not heard any evidence at all that Wall was actually asked to take a chemical test on the roadside and refused to do so, have we? Everybody is just assuming that the trooper asked for a test and it was refused.

0

colobob 6 years, 8 months ago

I'll wait and see the courts findings before passing judgement. There seem to be way too many assumptions and too few actual facts stated in these posts. One way or another the truth will eventially come out. Until the actual facts come out I'll give the man the benifit of the doubt. Wall deserves no less than the right (something WE all have) to defend himself in a court of law. This issue is way too controverversial and much too publicized for it to be just swept under the rug. Much too much hate and way too few facts to suit me. I would like to hear from those in the know. The comments posted here remind me of something my father told me over 40 years ago. " when you are up to your eyeballs in s*&% and things look like they possibly couldn't get any worse, look to your left and to you right. Those still standing beside you are your real friends!" The other quote I take to heart is from OUR FATHER, "judge not lest ye be judged."

0

colobob 6 years, 8 months ago

benefit, controversial, - sorry. Spelling improved a little after a 2nd cup of Joe.

Mornin' Matt. Mornin' ALL!

0

CoJustice 6 years, 8 months ago

Colobob: One of your statements are not clear to me, or what your implying? "I would like to hear from those in the know." Are you implying that troopers are not qualified to be in the "Know?"

Also the quote from your father is a good one, however what does that mean? Your friends will stand and defend you even if your wrong? Friends don't let friends drink and drive?

0

CoJustice 6 years, 8 months ago

When it was discovered that the newly elected Sheriff of Jefferson County had a drinking problem, his friends took him to rehab.

0

colobob 6 years, 8 months ago

Cojustice, What I'm saying is that as it stands right now there have been no Official statements made to date. I'd like to see the findings of the court. Up to now there has been no proof, just conjecture. Statements made under oath are the ones that will interest me no matter wich way it goes. The quote from my dad doesn't necessarily mean to defend, but to stand by you. Guilt to this point hasn't been determined yet except for here in this forum. Like I said earlier I'll wait to see what the outcome is before passing judgement, no less than I would do for you or anyone else in he same situation. Let the man have his day in court, the truth will come out. If he's guilty that will come out too. As far as the Jefferson County sheriff is concerned, I commend his friends.

0

Benny 6 years, 8 months ago

You may have to wait 30 minutes for the breath test to be accurate, but that is why you also can choose to take a blood test. Why couldn't Wall have just got his blood drawn and waited for the results to prove that he didn't drink? That is if the theory is true that he only took a sip before heading out the door.

0

cantstanya 6 years, 8 months ago

So, as I was sitting in the local watering hole, I peered over at ole Gary Wall sitting there. I thought to myself, how dare you. Now hear me out. Here sits a guy who lives by principles and stands by his "rights".

First off, what right does he have to drive a vehicle given to him by the voters and then refuse to comply with a test of his breath or blood. So, a lot of you are saying, he is innocent until proven guilty. OK, but you see we, and I say we, the voters, will never know the whole story. How about this one, lets just say he had one drink or maybe 2, then wouldn't it be prudent to know whether he was impaired or under the influence? Or how about this one, when Gary got home why didn't he go to the hospital and get his own blood test?? So, we are forced to stand by and let this guy go on and on. Here he is writing his own policies, that are questionable at best and he condones, no he endorses his employees to drink while operating their county vehicle and of course they can refuse a test, as it is their right. So, will we be told the truth, and what exactly is the truth? I hear tell that the deputy that took Wall home that night was heard to say, he would have arrested Wall for DUI! Is that the case? Does the District Attorney or Special Prosecutor have this information and will this deputy is able to testify to the truth or will he worry about his job?

So, still a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of misleading information. Does the public have a right to it? I don't know, but I would think that the voters have a right to know what happened. Had Wall been in his own vehicle I think it would be different but the message is clear to at least his employees, refuse the test! Actually it is a message to the public, refuse the test, and then the paper will do a little PR article for you!

Which is my last point, Wall in his 20's? Honestly Gary, no one wants to hear about your work when you were in your 20's. They want answers to what happened on the night you were stopped. As a matter of fact, the median age for Steamboat is under 40 so I think most could care less about your police career 40 some odd years ago. Again, the people want to know, own up to what you did wrong and let's get down the road. At this point I think a lot of people could understand the situation however what is hard to understand is what you did wrong and your rights! It is time the voter's rights were not violated and that the truths come out!

0

Benny 6 years, 8 months ago

I wonder if the deputy who took Wall home will testify in court against him. That's a tough spot to be in. I hope it wasn't Klinger or Curzon who took him home. This is just nuts. I thought this kinda stuff happened on soap operas. I tell my friends that don't live in Routt county this story and they just can't believe it. NO WAY!, they say. Anyway, yes well put, cantstanya!!!!

0

skcarroll55 6 years, 8 months ago

People, believe it or not Steamboat is one giant soap opera. Thats why ya all live there. Trust me it is so much better than where I am living now. Its kinda fun reading bout someone you know doing something stupid then other people in charge of correcting their stupidity doing even stupider stuff. Right or wrong, that is what makes a small town. Always has, always will.

0

coach123 6 years, 8 months ago

Brett Hilling, the CSP trooper who pulled the drunk Wall over, is a DRE and instructor at the CSP academy. If Hilling thought the guy was drunk, he was!

And Wall was police chief while Hurbert was a deputy DA in the 5th JD, so he should not be in charge of the investigation. Who needs him after he stuffed up the Kobe case anyways?

0

justice4all 6 years, 8 months ago

We have CORRUPTION in ALL our court system. Not all, but some are involved in underhanded and sometimes illegal activites. For example do a yahoo search for JOSEPH DEANGELO,{ the investigator for the 14th Judicial District} and read # 4. This an Indiana State Appelate Court Decision that states that DEANGELO was never disiciplined for his actions that were illegal (soliciting a prostitute, impersonating an attorney by telling the accused that he was an attorney, and viloating the accused' Constitutional Rights). This happened when DEANGELO was a police officer there. Urge ALL your friends and contacts to read this and I feel that you will see that we picked up an investigator that was not wanted in Indiana, Florida and other places. We have some really good people in our police agencies and their heart is in their job. To those we owe a debt of gratitude.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

Those "really good" people you speak of don't make a lot of money, and they need their jobs. They let the others get away with stuff because they need their jobs. They are victims, just like the rest of us.

It's truly a shame that the only way an investigator can obtain sufficient financial security to take on the "system" is by breaking the law.

Whatever happens to anybody, it's got to get through the state court system unless you can make a federal case. Colorado judges won't allow justice to be done when it will hurt their friends, and good luck getting the U. S. Supreme court to hear a case from this state. The U S Supreme Court does not correct "errors" made at the state level, and if an unlawful act is carried through the district and appellate courts that's just how it goes.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.