Albert Lea Discussion Forum » Printable Version of Topic » 22-year-old woman convicted for hitting man with m

Forum: Opinion
Topic: 22-year-old woman convicted for hitting man with m
started by: TameThaTane

Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 22 2008,3:26 pm

22-year-old woman convicted for hitting man with mini-van
By MIA SIMPSON/mia.simpson@austindailyherald.com

The 22-year-old Austin woman convicted of injuring a 57-year-old man with her mini-van has been sentenced to probation and community work service.

Bobbie Jo Schlichter was charged with single counts of felony criminal vehicular operation and misdemeanor driving after cancellation after a hit-and-run incident Nov. 18, 2006, when, witnesses say, she struck a man crossing Second Avenue Southeast and drove away, according to the complaint.

Though a plea agreement, her felony charge was reduced to a gross misdemeanor.

She was sentenced in Mower County District Court Thursday to five years probation, 60 hours of community work service and a $1,000 fine, $950 of which was stayed.

Restitution has not been resolved, according to court documents.

The complaint said the man she hit suffered a depressed skull fracture and inter-crannial bleeding. Schlichter allegedly said she fled the scene because her license was invalid.

Depressed skull fracture, inter-crannial bleeding, invalid license, runs and gets 60 hours community service and a $50 fine?
I'd say this is far more serious than smoking pot.

Posted by White Pride on Feb. 22 2008,5:16 pm

Maybe she was high on pot when she hit the guy...

Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 22 2008,5:30 pm

No, no she wasn't. Now is it OK?

Posted by White Pride on Feb. 22 2008,5:45 pm

(TameThaTane @ Feb. 22 2008,5:30 pm)

QUOTE

No, no she wasn't. Now is it OK?

how do you know? did you personally do the blood test? was there one even done?

Posted by Liberal on Feb. 22 2008,6:08 pm

QUOTE

169A.51 CHEMICAL TESTS FOR INTOXICATION.
Subdivision 1. Implied consent; conditions; election of test. (a) Any person who drives,
operates, or is in physical control of a motor vehicle within this state or on any boundary water of
this state consents, subject to the provisions of sections 169A.50 to 169A.53 (implied consent
law), and section 169A.20 (driving while impaired), to a chemical test of that person's blood,
breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol, a controlled substance
or its metabolite, or a hazardous substance. The test must be administered at the direction of
a peace officer.
(b) The test may be required of a person when an officer has probable cause to believe the
person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of section
169A.20 (driving while impaired), and one of the following conditions exist:
(1) the person has been lawfully placed under arrest for violation of section 169A.20 or
an ordinance in conformity with it;
(2) the person has been involved in a motor vehicle accident or collision resulting in property
damage, personal injury, or death;
(3) the person has refused to take the screening test provided for by section 169A.41
(preliminary screening test); or
(4) the screening test was administered and indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or
more.
© The test may also be required of a person when an officer has probable cause to believe
the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a commercial motor vehicle with
the presence of any alcohol.

< https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=169A.51 >

Posted by White Pride on Feb. 22 2008,6:27 pm

(Liberal @ Feb. 22 2008,6:08 pm)

QUOTE

....and your point is?

I'm assuming that you posted that in response to my question to 3T about his direct involvement with the crime in question... I was being sarcastic to his idiocracy. There was no mention of any results of said test, so for 3T to insinuate that the driver was sober without question is presumpuous.

Perhaps a better rebuttal would have been to provide the results of testing on this individual instead. That would have been a proper, more responsible and lucid response.

Posted by Liberal on Feb. 22 2008,7:00 pm

At the risk of sounding irresponsible... Anytime there is an accident involving injury the police are going to get the driver's blood, and the driver doesn't have a choice in the matter.

Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 22 2008,8:16 pm

Thats why you flee the scene. So you can go hide and sober up. Get rid of incriminating evidence, ect. lol :sarcasm:

You see and hear stories like that from time to time it seems.

Wasn't there a cop up in like Cottage Grove or something not to long ago that did something like that?

QUOTE

the screening test was administered and indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or
more.

I saw on the news last night a bunch of cases are being thrown out that involve the breathalyzer thing in Minnesota. If they ever stop using them. Then I guess that part will have to be changed. lol

For some reason it seems like from time to time you hear about that happening with the breathalyzer then it kind of goes away - and then things go back to business as usual.

Same with the calibration thing with the radar gun. lol

There really isn't enuff imformation there(the thing from the paper) to tell a person a whole heck of a lot. As far as I'm concerned.

It's nice when people that know something more about stories in the news- chime in and help "flesh-out" the story a bit more.

Posted by hmmmnoidea on Feb. 22 2008,11:37 pm

Driving after cancellation is automatic year in jail mandatory, state law.

QUOTE

(2) the person has been involved in a motor vehicle accident or collision resulting in property
damage, personal injury, or death;

Yeah right like that do that for every accident that someone gets hurt in. I know that dont happen, they only test if they smell booze. Now I will bet if they did start testing all drivers in accidents there would be a whole bunch of tickets for being under the influnece of drugs.

Posted by pantalonesverdes on Feb. 24 2008,2:14 pm

(hmmmnoidea @ Feb. 22 2008,11:37 pm)

QUOTE

You are forgetting the first part of the law that requires probable cause (b) before a test can be required. They can't just test a driver because of an injury accident. The smell of booze on the other hand could lead to a test, as you had mentioned

Posted by Liberal on Feb. 24 2008,3:22 pm

I could be wrong, but I thought the police only needed probable cause that the driver was guilty of criminal vehicular injury. And according to
< https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin....609.21I >
Minnesota State law if you leave the scene of an accident involving injuries you're guilty of criminal vehicular injury and that's enough to take blood without consulting with the driver.

QUOTE

609.21 CRIMINAL VEHICULAR HOMICIDE AND INJURY.
Subdivision 1. Criminal vehicular homicide. A person is guilty of criminal vehicular
homicide resulting in death and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or
to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if the person causes the death of a human
being not constituting murder or manslaughter as a result of operating a motor vehicle:
(1) in a grossly negligent manner;
(2) in a negligent manner while under the influence of:
(i) alcohol;
(ii) a controlled substance; or
(iii) any combination of those elements;
(3) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more;
(4) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, as measured within two hours of
the time of driving;
(5) in a negligent manner while knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance;
(6) in a negligent manner while any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule I or
II, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols, is present in the person's body; or
(7) where the driver who causes the accident leaves the scene of the accident in violation of
section 169.09, subdivision 1 or 6.

Here's Subd 1 and 6 from 169.09

QUOTE

Subdivision 1. Driver to stop for accident with individual. The driver of any motor vehicle
involved in an accident resulting in immediately demonstrable bodily injury to or death of any
individual shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident, or as close to the scene
as possible but shall then return to and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident,
until the driver has fulfilled the requirements of this section as to the giving of information. The
stop must be made without unnecessarily obstructing traffic.

Subd. 6. Notice of personal injury. The driver of a
vehicle involved in an accident resulting
in bodily injury to or death of any individual shall, after compliance with this section and by the
quickest means of communication, give notice of the accident to the local police department if the
accident occurs within a municipality, to a State Patrol officer if the accident occurs on a trunk
highway, or to the office of the sheriff of the county.

And here is a MN Court of Appeals ruling on findlaw.com that says the traditional rule is that you can take blood if the driver has committed CVO.

QUOTE

We start our analysis with the traditional rule allowing nonconsensual blood testing in cases of suspected CVO. Police officers in Minnesota, at least since the 1980 Aguirre decision, have been able to rely on a “bright-line” rule that a blood test may be taken without reading the implied consent advisory if there is probable cause to believe the driver has committed CVO. See State v. Schauer , 501 N.W.2d 673, 675 n.1 (Minn. App. 1993) (noting police department policy of ordering nonconsensual testing in cases in which CVO could be charged). The supreme court in Aguirre , in supporting this “bright-line” rule, emphasized the gravity of CVO, a felony offense, as compared with the ordinary misdemeanor DWI case in which the implied consent advisory was mandatory. 295 N.W.2d at 82. The CVO statute, however, has been amended since Aguirre to include gross misdemeanor CVO. Minn. Stat. § 609.21, subd. 2b (1996).

< http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts....invol=1 >

Posted by ANTILIBERAL on Feb. 25 2008,12:19 am

I think the main question is, "did the guy deserve it?"