Walking the Line : Michael Bradbury Is Out to Get Drinking Drivers, but Critics Say He’s Going Too Far

Get caught behind the wheel after a few drinks in Ventura County and there’s a good chance you’ll find yourself in court charged with the misdemeanor of driving under the influence.

Do the same in many other parts of California and you’ll probably be offered a reduced charge or even go free.

The difference lies in the fact that Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury prides himself on prosecuting any driver he considers unsafe, even those who would be slapped with only a traffic ticket in other counties.

“People who drink and drive virtually any amount of alcohol are the random killers in our society today,” said Bradbury, who expects to file cases against more than 8,000 such motorists this year. “If you have even two drinks, the chances are you’re a danger on the highway.”

But numerous critics are accusing Bradbury of throwing discretion out the window. While they say they detest drunk driving, they argue that innocent people are getting snared at levels of impairment so minute as to be meaningless.

“He’s forgotten his ethical duty,” said Bryant A. Villagran, the deputy public defender who oversees misdemeanor cases. “He’s prosecuting people who were never a danger.”

Some, including criminal defense attorneys and even a few former prosecutors who worked with Bradbury, say his unwillingness to compromise on such marginal cases needlessly puts defendants through wrenching and expensive court trials.

Skewed Reading Possible

Others say Bradbury’s concept of what constitutes impairment is based on often inaccurate chemical tests and subjective field sobriety tests, both of which, they say, can give a skewed view of a defendant’s condition.

While it is not uncommon for defense attorneys to joust with prosecutors, many critics contend that Bradbury’s quest to get drinking drivers off the road is pushing the limits of state law, which does not forbid a person to drive after drinking.

“You have people being prosecuted who don’t think they’re breaking the law . . . people who make sure they’ve only had a couple drinks,” said Ventura attorney William L. Hinkle, a prosecutor under Bradbury until 1987.

“It’s a disagreeable situation when you have law-abiding citizens breaking the law,” he said.

George C. Eskin, a Ventura attorney who served as assistant district attorney from 1968 to 1971, agrees.

“There are individuals, human beings, who are being subjected to criminal prosecution when their cases ought to be disposed of otherwise,” he said. “We abhor drunk driving, but we also abhor misuse of the criminal justice system.”

Critics point to the increasing number of driving-under-the-influence cases in which the defendant’s blood-alcohol level is below 0.10%--the level at which state law presumes a person is too impaired to drive safely.

Under the California Vehicle Code, prosecutors can charge people who have blood-alcohol levels below 0.10% if they think that there is other evidence of impairment, such as an erratic driving pattern or outward signs of intoxication.

According to the state Department of Motor Vehicles, the average person weighing between 150 and 170 pounds could begin to reach dangerous levels after just one drink. It would take about three drinks to reach 0.10%.

In many California counties, though, prosecutors say they are reluctant to try drivers with blood-alcohol readings of less than 0.10% unless an accident occurs or particularly hazardous driving is observed. Otherwise, they say, it can be a fruitless and time-consuming task trying to convince jurors that a driver with a small amount of alcohol in his blood was seriously impaired.

“The average blood-alcohol for the people we’re prosecuting is about 0.17%,” said Santa Barbara County Assistant Dist. Atty. Patrick J. McKinley. “We’re probably not going to fool around and worry too much about someone driving with a 0.07%.”

Other prosecutors expressed similar views. “If the case were 0.08%, generally, we would not file,” said Ellen A. Sarmiento, a Los Angeles deputy city attorney.

‘More Realistic Approach’

Modoc County Assistant Dist. Atty. David A. Mason added: “There would have to be really, really bad driving or a high degree of impairment. . . . Usually, we take a more realistic approach.”

But in Ventura County, a driver who has had just a couple of drinks can expect the full weight of the law, which, for the first offense, usually includes a $1,200 fine, three years probation, alcohol education classes and a three-month license restriction.

Unlike other prosecutors, who routinely offer defendants the reduced charge of alcohol-related reckless driving, Bradbury refuses to plea-bargain. As a result, driving-under-the-influence cases are three times more likely to reach juries in Ventura County than in Los Angeles County.

“Ventura is a classic example of a good prosecutor’s office that is very aggressive and very highly trained,” said Gary S. Mullen, executive director of the California District Attorneys Assn. “They’re very, very tough. . . . They’ll get you.”

In other counties, cases below 0.10% are so rare that few prosecutors keep records of them, but the biennial report published by Bradbury’s office for 1986-87 includes a special section boasting 31 jury convictions for cases with blood-alcohol counts ranging from 0.07% to 0.09%.

15 Convictions in 1988

For the first six months of this year, the office has logged 15 such jury convictions out of 25 trials. Another 50 to 75 such drivers simply pleaded guilty, according to office estimates.

“I expect the number of those will increase,” said Bradbury, who was elected district attorney in 1978. “I want to prosecute everyone who drinks and becomes an unsafe driver. If that means a blood-alcohol level of 0.02%, so be it.”

With public sentiment taking a sharp turn against drinking and driving, his is an approach that is winning high marks outside the ranks of criminal defense attorneys.

Supporters of tougher drunk-driving laws say the public has assigned too much importance to the 0.10% figure and needs to think more in terms of how even small amounts of alcohol can impair a driver’s judgment and reaction time.

“We’re too flexible as it is,” said Kay Hine, administrator of the Ventura County chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, adding that alcohol-related crashes kill someone in this country every 22 minutes. “You have to just say, ‘Don’t drink and drive.’ ”

California Highway Patrol Officer Don Burnette, a 22-year veteran who has participated in more than 5,000 arrests for driving under the influence, agrees.

‘Allow This Carnage’

“The toll is staggering,” he said. “Yet, as a society, we just kind of shrug it off as if it were an acceptable way to die. . . . We just allow this carnage to take place.”

While they don’t discount the ravages wrought by drunk drivers, critics say there needs to be a more efficient and just alternative, other than a long and costly jury trial, for resolving many of the borderline cases.

“I think these are predominantly innocent persons who are going to trial,” said Ventura County Public Defender Kenneth I. Clayman. “There’s a question of where you’re going to stop.”

They point to cases such as that of Adam Casillas, an Oxnard man who was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence after police observed him weaving as he exited the freeway. But his two blood-alcohol readings, which were only 0.05% and 0.06%, stumped the jury, which returned hopelessly deadlocked.

Five of the jurors, in fact, wrote a letter to the judge after the case was over, describing their difficulty in reconciling the low alcohol reading with testimony that Casillas was significantly impaired.

“We felt it was a justifiable arrest,” said juror Fred Busch of Oak View, who signed the letter. “But it was a difficult situation because his blood-alcohol was so low. . . . It needed more firm and clear-cut evidence.”

Drunk Pedestrian Killed

Or there’s the case of Gregory Yost of Santa Paula, who hit and killed a pedestrian who darted in front of his car on California 126 late one night. Although police said it was the fault of the pedestrian--who was intoxicated himself--they said Yost was sufficiently impaired to be arrested. At the County Jail, his blood-alcohol level was measured at 0.06% and then, a few moments later, at 0.07%.

“The whole thing was unfair,” said Yost, who had charges against him dismissed on a technicality last week after a four-day trial. “I should never have been to trial. . . . It was real hard to go through that whole thing.”

And there’s the case of Jeffrey Harres, a Los Angeles man who was arrested with blood-alcohol levels of 0.09% and 0.10% after he parked his pickup on the shoulder of U.S. 101 to make sure the hood was securely latched.

His first trial ended in a deadlocked jury. The second trial was halted because of a procedural error by the prosecution. By the time the case was finally dismissed by a Municipal Court judge this summer--shortly before the third jury trial was scheduled to begin--Harres had spent nearly two years and more than $12,000 in legal fees fighting the charge.

“What they did to him was outrageous,” said Larry M. Bakman, the Westwood attorney who represented Harres. “That was a travesty. . . . And all because Michael Bradbury wants to make a point.”

Bradbury Not Apologetic

But Bradbury is not apologizing. The cases that end up before a jury are necessarily the toughest ones to try, he said, and they only get filed if a prosecutor truly believes in a person’s guilt.

Besides, he said, of the about 8,000 driving-under-the-influence cases filed each year by his office, more than 93% of the defendants plead guilty. Of the more than 100 cases that are decided by juries each year, about two-thirds result in convictions.

“I think what we’re doing provides the greatest protection for the public,” said Bradbury, who serves on the National Commission Against Drunk Driving. “As hard as it is for some critics to accept, I think that’s our responsibility.”

Both sides of the debate acknowledge that public attitudes have come a long way since the 1970s, when drivers frequently were not prosecuted unless their blood-alcohol levels exceeded 0.15%.

Over the years, they say, people have come to realize that drivers can be affected by alcohol long before they stagger to the car or struggle to get the key in the ignition.

“It used to be only the falling-down drunks who were considered impaired,” said Gary K. Barrett, the deputy district attorney in charge of misdemeanor cases. “Now we know the most dangerous person can be the 0.10% driver doing 80 m.p.h. down the freeway because he thinks he’s OK.”

Move to Lower Standard

While most of the United States adheres to the 0.10% standard, the trend is toward setting even lower blood-alcohol levels. Oregon, Utah and Maine have set levels of 0.08%. The American Medical Assn. said impairment occurs at 0.05%. And the Federal Aviation Administration will not let pilots get in a cockpit if their blood-alcohol level is above 0.04%.

But whatever the legal standard, prosecutors and defense attorneys agree, justice is whatever the 12 jurors in the jury box think it is. In a county with a largely conservative population, that usually means little sympathy for the drinking driver.

And if that means being viewed by some defense attorneys as inflexible and overly harsh, that’s a cross that Bradbury, who began his career as a prosecutor in 1967, is willing to bear.

“It’s created kind of an aura about Ventura County . . . so that you almost seem larger than life,” Bradbury said. “That translates into a safer community, and that’s the bottom line, isn’t it?”