Lt. Erin Giudice, in happier days
“A ranking Orange County sheriff’s official has been charged with two misdemeanor counts of driving under the influence of alcohol after causing a car accident in Irvine. After a consultation with the experts from california car registration services, Irvine police arrested Lt. Erin Lorraine Guidice, 48, last month after the vehicle she was driving crashed into the back of another car stopped at a red light on Jamboree Road,” according to the L.A. Times.
It looks like O.C. Sheriff Sandra Hutchens still hasn’t taken out all the trash.
“Lt. Erin Lorraine Giudice, 48, lost her job as Harbormaster and was reassigned to Orange County Jail after she was arrested April 14 by Irvine police,” according to the O.C. Register.
And check this out:
“Capt. Dave Nighswonger, who oversees the sheriff’s internal affairs unit, said after the arrest that the department did not have a specific policy addressing consequences for a DUI conviction,” according to the O.C. Register.
How is that possible given that drinking is a major problem for cops?
“Irvine police said Guidice had slurred speech, bloodshot and watery eyes and had trouble keeping her balance during a sobriety test. She had a blood alcohol level of 0.14%, or nearly twice the legal limit, authorities said,” according to the L.A. Times.
Once again Hutchens is not doing her job!
Kind of a stretch, don’t you think, Art? Would you have the Sheriff personally administer a breathalyzer to every officer every time they get into a car? Give me a break!
“At around 9 p.m. on April 14, Giudice was driving anunmarked Sheriff’s Department vehicle north on 5 freeway, and rear-ended another car stopped at a red light on the Jamboree Road offramp, prosecutors said.
When the arrest was initially reported, the Sheriff’s Department declined to say whether Giudice had been driving a department vehicle at the time.”
(From the link)
I live just off Jamboree and I don’t want to see this happening. My safety is at risk. We have a bunch of losers running things as usual just like the SAUSD.
As much as I can’t stand the appointed Sheriff, we have to see how the department reacts, you can not be responsible for what every person does all of the time. It is just impossible. If the department has an open and fair investigation I don’t think it falls on her shoulders. But if there is special treatment there will be a problem.
Potstirrer and Bigmarkod,
Does it not bother you that:
1. The OCSD has no policy re DUIs and their officers
2. This Lt. was driving a department vehicle while drunk
3. She was not suspended but rather transferred
And this was not some lowly deputy – this was a Lt. Commander and the OCSD Harbormaster! How long were folks covering up for her drinking problem?
Did Hutchens personally promote this lady into that position? Did Hutchens know she had a drinking problem?
There are many good questions we should be pondering.
Art, There is no doubt about it! This should all be looked at and all of those questions should be asked and more!….and believe me I would like nothing better than to see the appointed Sheriff get throw out in disgrace…But we have to see how this entire thing is dealt with, and then make a decision
Bigmarkod,
Maybe it is because I work in occupational safety, but I am incredulous that Hutchens does not have a DUI policy in place for her employees. That is a major oversight.
Transfer the harbor function to the Orange County Fire Authority – it is more about fire fighting, lifesaving and CPR/First Aid than law enforcement – or at least it should be. Besides, off shore work belongs to the Coast Guard.
Art, of course all three of those elements bother me! My question remains….
Pot Stirrer,
Well, given that we now know there is a blue line within the OCSD you have to wonder what other ethical lapses Hutchens has allowed. I am convinced that she has not done nearly enough to clean house post Carona.
This episode may well be the tip of the iceberg.
Art, give me a break. You are so mioptic with Hutchens, now you want to hold her accountable for ALL of her people 24/7? The Department must, by California law, work under the guidelines of the Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights. This is what is going to happen. First, the criminal case MUST be adjudicated, fully, most likely a no-lo plea, just like ANY other citizen. THEN Internal Affairs will adjudicate the administrative case. Trust me, she will suffer more by the department than she will by the judicial system. Just because there is no “specific” policy at this point regarding DUI in a County vehicle, there are other OCSD policies that ARE on the books and she will be diciplined accordingly. Because of your blind bias, you want this lieutenant taken out to the wood shed before her due process, like any other citizen, is handled. Geez, what did Hutchens do to you, take away your CCW? Sure glad you are not sitting in judgement of people. Take a deep breath and let this thing roll out on its own, there is no cover up.
#11,
Yet I’m a recent court case several OCSD deputies changed their stories to protect a deputy who used a taser to torture a guy.
Hutchens denied that her deputies lied even though there was ample evidence that they did.
Hutchens is as bad as Carona, except that he was a pervert.
And she already has the support of a plethora of Carona’s cronies.
Art,
You can’t use a taser for anything else but pain, that’s what they’re for.
Hutchens didn’t have to deny anything because there was not ample evidence, therefore no perjury charges and no retrying of the case.
Hutchens is nothing like Carona, and yes he was a pervert.
She will never have the support of Caronies unless she gives them back their illegal badges and ccws. Just ask Jerbal.
WHY was Carona a “pervert”? just because he had a wife and a mistress both named Debbie?
Did I miss something else?
Art,
I realize that short of a public flogging or a rope no punishment will satisfy your lust on the Sheriff’s department but let’s try to put this into some kind of perspective.
First of all, no matter what the public sheriff’s spokeshole released to the paper, what Capt. Jack said above is more likely closer than you would like to hear. Do you seriously expect Hutchens to personally perform a bedcheck on her staff daily?
Command cops take cars home because they are supposed to be available 24/7. Most departments don’t subscribe to allowing these guys using the cars for personal business. (Although it is done frequently) They absolutely forbid driving under the influence and usually the odor of an alcoholic beverage is presumptive. Crashing a company car and getting arrested is way beyond that. It doesn’t require a specific DUI policy since you can’t just be a “little bit” drunk and tour around in a company cop car.
Until she is convicted she is still presumed innocent no matter what you think, however until then her department has the right to reassign her and begin an internal investigation. In this case they took away her command and car, which is also undoubtedly a paycut, and this is only for starters. Depending on the circumstances, if convicted, she could be demoted, suspended, or fired. If she isn’t fired the chances of her ever promoting again at her age are pretty much zero.
Here’s what will happen to the Lt just in the justice system assuming she is a first offender. Her driver’s license was revoked at the time of arrest and she was given a 30 day temp license. Within 10 days of the arrest she must contact DMV for a hearing by them. (Completely separate from court). Needless to say she hired a DUI law firm which will cost her anywhere from $10k-$15k win or lose. (Unless she just decides to plead guilty and save the money)
It is unlikely she will prevail at the DMV hearing because this is a kangaroo court held by a DMV clerk promoted from line #5 over the years and “trained” to hold this job. No law degree required. The DMV hearing is designed only to decide if she was properly contacted by police and if they properly determined she was DUI. (over .08) Once DMV upholds the decision her driver’s license will be suspended completely for four months, she will be required to file an SR-22 (proof of insurance) and enroll in a DUI school. (About $500-$600). After the first 30 days of suspension, she can choose to remain on full suspension for the additional 3 months or she can get a restricted license (About $100) to drive to DUI School and work. For that privilege DMV also tacks on two more months of license restriction just because they can. When she completes the school and her restriction time she can then apply for her license back ($125). All of this even before she might ever see a real judge.
Since I don’t know all the details except what I read in the papers, unlike YOU, I’m not going to assume she is automatically guilty, but it does appear that way. Since her BAC was so high and she crashed, it is unlikely she will be offered a deal therefore for arguments sake we can assume she will plead out or be convicted.
Conviction will result in at least 3 years probation, a fine of about $2k, and community service or jail or both. What automatically also happens is for the next 10 years she faces a zero tolerance of any alcohol in her system while driving. She also loses the right to refuse a field breath test and if ANY trace amount of alcohol is found she is busted for a second DUI and everything about doubles. Then there is the cost of her insurance too.
I understand this doesn’t sound as good to you as an old fashioned necktie party but this is the law as it currently exists for a first offender. In this case a definite effect on her career, if she still has one, along with expenses from $8-20k. Does that make you feel any better?
#15,
I honestly find it hard to believe that this commander did not exhibit signs or symptoms of her drinking behavior before this accident.
We know that the culture at the OCSD is to cover things up and to cover for OCSD deputies.
I think Hutchens had to have known there was a problem here – and now she has a mess on her hands because she sat on them.
Again, why doesn’t the OCSD have a policy re their people and DUIs?
Anon #15,
Thanks for a very detailed and rational discussion on this. Giudice certainly created a big mess for herself and her organization.
I have to say that I am disappointed that Art would like to circumvent ANYONE’s due process. This society is punitive enough – in excess a LOT of the time – that due process is a MUST for everyone.
Any adult who drinks alcohol has made a choice to drive or not drive while under the influence, I would bet. She should not have done it. She got caught. I do think it’s important that she not get a free pass on this. None of us or our neighbors would be so lucky unless we were very well connected. From the police reports, she broke the law and was a danger in the community b/c of her choices. It’s now up to the courts to decide.
I certainly didn’t like the fact that the sheriff’s office didn’t disclose that she was using a department vehicle. That’s a pretty black/white fact and for them to be dodgy with an answer is just stupid, imo. That department needs to build up trust with the public at every opportunity.
BTW: When a person gets caught DUI, do they automatically have to attend AA meetings? Also, I am still interested in why Carona is a pervert. Anyone??
Lastly, I cannot believe anyone who lives near/around Irvine does not know that the Irvine cops catch everything. EVERYTHING. They are bored and they are all over the place looking for a little police action. It is absolutely stupid to take driving risks thru that city. She, of all people, should have known that.
Art,
It may very well be true that this Lt exhibited prior symptoms of alcohol problems, but I don’t know that and neither do you. I doubt very seriously in a large organization that promotions are personally handled by the sheriff. Ultimately the sheriff would approve them on recommendations from review boards and command staff. If prior problems of alcohol existed with this Lt I would look at the command staff, not at the sheriff.
I don’t have firsthand knowledge of the sheriff’s department policy manual, but most departments have pretty much the same policies. If policy exists (and they usually do) addressing being intoxicated on duty; if policy exists regarding negligent operation of a department vehicle; if policy exists that states you will comply with all state laws; do you really need a redundant specific policy that says you can’t drive DUI?
Red,
I agree with you on the due process issue and the punitive legal excesses in many laws.
I can only speculate why it was not first revealed the Lt. was driving a department vehicle. No one seems to have asked.
In the original story (April 30th) the sheriff internal affairs officer declined to give any real details about much of anything due to privacy. He even avoided admitting the Lt was transferred because of the arrest. Later another spokesperson called the Register to clarify that the Lt had been transferred as a result of the arrest and internal investigation. The original article never claims anyone refused (or was even asked) if she was driving a department car.
But in the most recent article (May 29th) the same reporter claims now that the sheriffs department declined to state if the Lt was driving a department vehicle. This appears to be a reporting inconsistency that might lead some people to jump to conclusions of a cover up. Check for yourself.
April 30th
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/police-giudice-nighswonger-2383225-irvine-department
May 29th
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/giudice-department-sheriff-2433337-prosecutors-driving
You also asked about mandatory AA meetings for a conviction. This is a judges discretionary decision but is very common as part of probation.
Thanks Anon #19. I see your point.
It helps to have many eyes on stories like this one because the facts can be easily manipulated, distorted, forgotten or just plain old be gotten wrong.
I know a kid who was driving drunk and got caught. It was a good thing b/c he had a habit of doing that according to his friends. He was also under age. He did not get assigned to go to AA, but he lost his driving priviledges etc… until 21.
I think those meetings might have helped him. He’s like the neighborhood drunk and his parents seem oblivious to it. He was busted in Irvine, too 😉
Why would anyone assume this career-minded person had a drinking problem? If you want to assume things, why not equally assume she was at a public relations event at the Hyatt or some other Newport hotel or venue where drinking is a must, communicating with boaters as part of her job. This is not necessarily a “conspiracy” to conceal rampant official misbehavior, but rather a tragic ending to a promising career. I am wondering why the transfer to Theo Lacy? Doesn’t that appear punitive, even abusive considering a first time DUI? Why is there a pattern of these transfers that are so out of character with the talents and training of these women?
Sheriff Hutchens staff has been working on a comprehensive disciplinary schedule that includes punitive action for DUI as well as countless other violations. The OCSD is coming up for contract negotiations and it will more than likely be part of that process.
Obviously you have a personal bias against the Sheriff that any blind man can see but on this one you’re reaching way beyond your mental capacity.
#21
You may note in my previous comments I did not make any assumption. The intent of my comments were to dispel all of the assumptions made based on the information that presently exists. There is no evidence the Lt neither had a drinking problem nor is their any evidence of a cover-up. In fact the poor reporting of the story seems to have been the culprit leading some people to jump to conclusions.
Regarding your comment about the Lt’s transfer, I don’t believe this has anything to do with her gender. All departments have a policy of investigating any vehicle accident involving a department car. That investigation will decide if the accident was negligent, preventable or non-preventable. Until that is resolved no person could (or should) continue command duties. In fact under the circumstances she could have been put on administrative leave so it doesn’t appear they have treated her unduly harsh.
Your comment about her being at a function where ‘drinking is a must’ is interesting. I agree drinking is almost socially required in a lot of settings but unfortunately most people do not have the responsibilities of a regular police officer much less a command staff member.
By volume every standard drink, or one beer, or glass of wine will cause your BAC (blood alcohol content) to rise .02%. (This does not include some of those crazy mixed drinks like Long Island Ice Teas which may equal as many as 4 drinks all in one depending on the bartender)
The human body (with a lot of variables including gender) will metabolize 1 drink in about an hour, as a rule of thumb. This is a constant. Thus if her blood alcohol was 0.14% she had a minimum, or equal, of 7 drinks to start with.
Although the Register’s accuracy is in doubt, the story states her BAC was 0.14%, two hours after her arrest. Not knowing how long since she quit drinking before the accident means she had metabolized at least two drinks, possibly three. That would bring the grand total of at least 9-10 drinks, or the equal, sometime before the accident since she still had an amount equal to seven in her system two hours later. Social gatherings where drinking is a “must” is one thing but you decide how much is “must” drinking.
Anon,
You seem to have very good insight into all this. You a doctor or a cop? 😉
Thanks for your informative posts. I know many people have enjoyed them.
Anyone who is a lieutenant or above is considered management in the sheriffs department. These managers meet once a month for an ACLEM meeting at Kettle One Vodka corporate office in Aliso Viejo. You should see all these “leaders” staggering to their county rides after the ACLEM meeting. Also, check the letter written by the CEO of Kettle One asking the Judge to go easy on Carona, the Register published all the letters supporting Carona including Kettle One.
Kicker # 25
Although I could not locate the letter you refer to in a Register search, I don’t doubt that your comment is potentially true. But since anyone can write anything on a blog, a little more corroboration such as dates and times of these meetings would lend more credibility to your allegation. For example were they after work hours or during the work day?
While the history or pattern you describe is not relevant to the specific charges against this one Lt, your comment may reveal another systemic problem within the upper echelon of the OCSD and provide substance to some of the comments and assumptions Art made when writing this thread.
This sort of behavior was revealed back in 1975 when retired LAPD Sgt. turned author Joseph Wambaugh wrote the book “Choir Boys” exposing such after work antics of police line officers.
I would hope you might elaborate further on these ‘meetings’.
Red:
Thanks for the compliment.
Anon, you are welcome 😉
To poster number 25: Do you have a link for that? It would be helpful. thanks!