TEXT_SIZE
Please update your Flash Player to view content.

CHP wins Jackson case

Dan McDonald
Staff Writer
6/20/2012

 

A jury ruled Wednesday that two California Highway Patrol officers had legitimate reasons for pulling over Ruth Jackson and arresting her on suspicion of driving under the influence nearly three years ago.

Judge Thomas E. Warriner read the verdict at 3:30 p.m. in Plumas County Superior Court in Quincy. The jurors deliberated most of the day before reaching a verdict.

The Jackson family appeared stunned as 11 of the 12 jurors said they voted in favor of the CHP.

As the jurors filed out of the room, the two CHP officers who were on trial and their attorney quietly gestured their appreciation to the nine-woman, three-man panel. But the officers weren’t celebrating.

“We are gratified,” said attorney Stephen Pass, who represented the CHP officers.

Pass said he had the option of moving the trial out of Plumas County. “But we didn’t,” he said. “I felt we could get a fair trial here.

“I think it says a lot about the people of this county, that despite certain feelings, they were able to set those feelings aside and be impartial,” Pass said.

Jackson said she couldn’t understand the jury’s decision.

“After all the trouble the people here have had with the highway patrol, I just can’t believe that a majority of the jury would come to this conclusion,” Jackson said. “I’m stunned.”

CHP officers Jim Wheaton and Lacey Heitman, though appearing visibly relieved and thankful, didn’t want to comment on the record until they had approval from their office.

Quincy Area CHP Commander Bruce Carpenter said his department was advised not to comment.

“It’s still considered active litigation,” Carpenter said. “There is always the possibility of an appeal.”

Carpenter said the CHP was preparing a statement and that the officers would be available for comment “at the appropriate time.”

Jackson’s civil lawsuit stemmed from her Sept. 12, 2009, arrest and jailing on charges of driving under the influence after she left an Oktoberfest event at the Blairsden Barn, where she was working as a volunteer.

Her civil complaint said that she had a blood alcohol level of 0.00 and had no drugs in her system at the time of her arrest.

However, the jury sided with the CHP’s claim that Jackson appeared to be impaired after failing field sobriety tests.

For a more detailed report, see the June 27 issue of Feather Publishing’s Plumas County newspapers.

 

Comments  

 
-8#1TaxpayerBradley Boyd2012-06-20 17:09
Again The CHP wins but not In the public's eye...
an old lady unimpaired went to jail because the CHP were over zealous FACT... foot surgeries: the only reason she could not walk the straight line..this story would have never been told had it been someone with no legal power..
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
-1#2Jackson vs CHPMicke2012-06-20 17:30
I doubt that she would be happy to be called an old lady, but I am thankful that the jury after hearing all of the information presented exonerated the CHP. I've been tailgated, too. My response is to slow down. Another idiot followed me 28 miles to say I was going too slowly. Atypical CHP!
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+25#3Bradley BoydKen2012-06-20 17:47
The public (your peers) are the ones who found the CHP to have not done anything wrong.
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+34#4The Bottom lineJoe2012-06-20 18:23
BOTTOM LINE!12 of our peers were given the facts and didn't make judgement on speculation and half truths. They heard the WHOLE story and found the cops didn't do anything wrong. @ #1 Bradley Boyd, this is justice in my eyes. If you weren't in court then your opinions are expressed in ignorance.
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
-34#5Wow...Me2012-06-20 18:41
More proof that the justice system is broken! More resons for these "cops" to pull you over for anything they want!
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
-9#6friendshana2012-06-20 19:28
I have known Ruth for 28 years!!!!! This ludicrous.... the jury was wrong with the verdict. Ruth could and would not do any drugs or alcohol!!!!! I have had foot surgery and I know what it is like.
This is a system that is broken!
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+16#7ShanaJoe2012-06-20 20:00
@ Shana, An earlier article said, "Jackson said she told the officers she hadn’t taken a prescription drug in more than 12 hours and had never used narcotics." So she does take drugs! Just prescribed ones. Many prescriptions can impair worse than alcohol. The jury had all the facts! You don't!!!
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
-12#8NarcoticsCraig2012-06-20 21:06
Joe- Some narcotics are prescribed. Narcotics are typically used to relieve pain and can be addictive...they also alter moods, etc. Ruth said she never used narcotics but admitted to the use of prescription drugs. What's so hard for you to understand? Bottom line. CHP won on a technicality.
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
-14#9The real issueGo Figure2012-06-21 05:24
Ruth should have adivsed the officer of her foot surgeries and asked for other field sobriety tests. Once she failed the field sobriety relating to her balance/foot - she loses. Maybe there is CHP negligence as they did not ask Ruth about medical condtions that would cause her to fail sobriety tests
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+37#10A picture/video worth 1000 wordsJoe2012-06-21 05:31
Talked to someone who was at the trial. There was video of Jackson doing the drunk driver tests. She couldn't do any of the tests, even the ones that wouldn't be affected by foot surgery. In their mind Jackson looked like she was on something. Their opinion, not mine. They were there, I wasn't.
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
0#11RE: CHP wins Jackson caseJ. Miller2012-06-21 06:47
I predicted this case was lost, when I read she had hired a female relative as her attorney ... court is no place to save a few bucks
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+22#12Driving ImpairedLaura2012-06-21 07:00
23152aVC is driving while impaired; can be ANY impairment (physical, alcohol, whatever). If something is making you drive poorly etc. ex eye prob you have an impairment. The "b" section of the code is alcohol. Maybe she was not impaired by alcohol but by a physical condition (temp or perm.)?
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+11#13CHP WinsPortola Resident2012-06-21 07:00
Still blaming the CHP, even though YOUR peers favored them after hearing all the facts... blame everyone but yourself, typical liberal mentality...
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+4#14Judge Directs JuryConcerned Resident2012-06-21 08:54
"Jurors are being asked to decide if the CHP HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE that Ruth Jackson was impaired when she was pulled over and arrested Sept. 12, 2009."
This result came because of the question defined by the Judge. "Believe" is a CHP opinion, not a fact of blood alcohol.
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
-9#15Scared citizenRyan2012-06-21 09:23
Unbelievable!! What happened to the Plumas County we grew up in? The CHP already do what ever they want, now it is just going to get worse, if that's at all possible. That entire department is a joke. Nothing but revenue making souless individuals. Sad sad day for the people of Plumas County.
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+4#16RE: CHP wins Jackson casejlegg2012-06-21 11:36
What about the issue where she was not permitted to contact her husband?
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
0#17ImpairedErick2012-06-21 12:16
Asking CHP this question: If I'm uncoordinated, had foot surgery, sleepy or stupid (not illegal), what protection do I have that this is not CONFUSED with DUI? I NORMALLY can't walk straight or stand on one foot; what happens to me when I'm stopped?
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
0#18ImpairedErick2012-06-21 12:17
For CHP to answer: When is the control test performed, wherein the CHP determines that the person cannot pass a field sobriety test even if known to be sober?
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+27#19RE: CHP wins Jackson caseWalter2012-06-21 14:52
These residents on the jury heard 5 days of testimony and made their decision. You residents that have heard zero days of evidence know better, don't you? If your family was killed by a impaired driver, you'd all be whining they should have caught them before it happened. Take your pick
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+26#20RE: CHP wins Jackson caseWalter2012-06-21 14:54
The people I know that complain the most about the police around here are the drinkers and pill poppers.
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+22#21RE: CHP wins Jackson casemeankitty2012-06-21 15:06
Quoting Walter:
The people I know that complain the most about the police around here are the drinkers and pill poppers.
They have an 'entitled' mentality and think they shouldn't have to get the consequences. They're the only ones that complain when they get caught.
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
-19#22RE: CHP wins Jackson caseMe2012-06-21 16:29
Quoting Walter:
The people I know that complain the most about the police around here are the drinkers and pill poppers.

I do neither pop pills or do I drink a lot, I still dont trust most of the cops around here!!!
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+25#23RE: CHP wins Jackson caseWalter2012-06-21 17:17
I do neither pop pills or do I drink a lot, I still dont trust most of the cops around here!!!
Great! When you're being attacked call a criminal, you can trust them! You must be guilty of something to have such issues.I know several local officers and they are very honorable people
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+30#24RE: CHP wins Jackson caseWalter2012-06-21 17:26
Quoting Erick:
If I'm uncoordinated, had foot surgery, sleepy or stupid (not illegal) I NORMALLY can't walk straight or stand on one foot; what happens to me when I'm stopped?


If you are too uncoordinated to walk or stand, I don't want you driving a car
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
-4#25RE: CHP wins Jackson caseBradley Boyd2012-06-21 20:45
Definition of power granted by the CHP is affirmed AND I understand the need for this...but we need to keep an eye on those in power to keep them in check..or WE ALL lose..common this is Plumas county..the definition of peaceful loving people!
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+25#26You have to remember:kyle2012-06-22 07:48
Quote:
Jurors are being asked to decide if the CHP had enough evidence to believe that Ruth Jackson was impaired when she was pulled over

I'm sure the CHP has heard every excuse in the book for failing a field test. They did what they are required by law to do in that situation
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
-14#27Be respectful of others opinionsWalters Mother2012-06-22 10:15
Walter I'm shocked to hear about your pill popping and drinking friends confiding in you since you know so many honorable officers."Honorable" does not mean "competent". Walter when you get old or have medical issues I'm glad to hear you will give up your driver's license.
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
+20#28RE: Police Statekyle2012-06-22 10:39
it wasn't just the 0.00 breathalyzer, it was the failure of every other field test. Again, CHP doesn't make the rules, they are tasked with enforcing them. If you feel that everyone can roll thru stop signs, drive while impaired at whatever speed they desire, then contact your state representative
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
-10#29Last shot at concernErick2012-06-22 11:24
There is no correlation between ability to stand, walk, balance, speak... and driving which is sitting, looking, steering. A field sobriety test should be replaced with a field DRIVING test. signed, uncoordinated.
Quote| Report to administrator
 
 
-6#30Last shot at concernErick2012-06-22 11:33
This case, correctly tried or not, proves that point - no correlation. As an engineer, I just want to understand the basis of a field sobriety test of whether I can walk and talk. Makes no sense to me.
Done.
Quote| Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Feather Publishing encourages civil discussion on news stories that are important to our community. We do ask that commenters follow certain rules of conduct. Keep your comments on the topic at hand. Threats, insults, lies, and inappropriate language are prohibited. Just as with our letters to the editor we want you to be accountable for your comments so we ask that you use your full real name. We reserve the right to delete any comments that do not comply with these rules of conduct. Commenters who repeatedly do not comply will be prohibited from posting further comments.
Comments are limited to 300 characters. If you would like to post a longer message, please submit a letter to the editor. Submit a letter to the editor. Letters to the editor are limited to a maximum of 300 words. Deadline for submittal is noon on Thursdays.


Move
-

Sports Headlines

Top Headline

Chester loses at championship

Chester loses at championship

Chester’s Hunter Morris dives for the catch at the Division V championship game in Chico on May 18. Photo by Kathy Morris James Wilson Sports Reporter 5/23/2013    ...

Read More...

Fishing Report for the week of 5/22/2013

Fishing Report for the week of 5/22/2013

Heath and Tori Farrell proudly display a twenty pound Mackinaw along with a two pound rainbow they caught on a recent family outing to Bucks Lake. Photo Submited Michael...

Read More...

California Outdoors for the week of 5/23/2013

Carrie Wilson California Department of Fish and Wildlife   Stowing gear     Question: I would like a definition of “stowed” in regard to fishing...

Read More...
Facebook Image
Local Events

Contact Us

up_contact

Visitors Guide
Yellow Page Directory
Yellow Pages

National Headlines

Dining Guide
 
Plumas County
Restaurant

 

Moving and Storage
Forest Stweardship
 
ForestStwd.gif
Help Wanted
Help Wanted

Help WantedClick to see current job opportunities

Advertise with us

LassenNews.com
"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); } catch(err) {}