Archive for Sunday, October 24, 2010

Kevin Yoder fined in 2009 for refusing Breathalyzer test

October 24, 2010


Congressional candidate Kevin Yoder entered a plea in traffic court in 2009 in connection with refusing to take a preliminary breath test as part of a traffic stop on Kansas Highway 10 east of Lawrence, according to Douglas County court records.

“Kevin was pulled over for speeding. He was asked to take a field sobriety test, which he passed,” Yoder’s campaign spokeswoman Alissa McCurley said in a statement. “He was issued a speeding ticket and then asked to take a preliminary Breathalyzer test. He declined because he had passed the sobriety test. Kevin was not driving under the influence. He paid the fine for one citation, the other was dismissed.”

Yoder, an Overland Park Republican and current Kansas House member, faces Democrat Stephene Moore and Libertarian Jasmin Talbert in the Nov. 2 election. The candidates are seeking to represent the state’s 3rd District — which includes eastern Lawrence and Douglas County plus Johnson and Wyandotte counties — in Congress.

According to online court records, Yoder was pulled over by a Kansas Highway Patrol trooper on Feb. 8, 2009. He faced two citations initially — one for allegedly driving 80 mph in a zone with a 70 mph speed limit and one for refusing to submit to the preliminary breath test.

According to the records in the case, on June 5, 2009, prosecutors dismissed the speeding charge, and he entered a guilty plea to refusing to submit to the breath test. He was assessed $165 in fines and court costs, which were paid that day. More information from the Douglas County district attorney’s office was unavailable Sunday.

Moore’s campaign manager, Matt Sinovic, called Yoder’s actions “irresponsible” and said the incident meant “he is not fit to be a member of Congress.”

“As a nurse for more than 25 years, Stephene has seen the horrific consequences of drunk driving,” Sinovic said in a statement. “In America, no one is above the law. Leaders in our community must be held to high standards and be accountable for their actions.”


UfoPilot 7 years ago

To assume he was drinking is irresponsible.

parrothead8 7 years ago

Because lots of people who have been drinking, and smell like they've been drinking, can pass a field sobriety test.

Vinny1 7 years ago

If they can pass a field sobriety test then they are not drunk and I have no problem with them driving.

pizzapete 7 years ago

Yea, I agree, if you pass the field sobriety test I would hope that would be the end of it.

WHY 7 years ago

Sure, he paid 165 instead of blowing a whistle for no reason whatsoever. If he is that dumb or irresponsible with money he shouldn't be in charge either. Besides that, so what about one DUI, speeding kills but are we going to only elect people who have never had a speeding ticket.

mkziegler3 7 years ago

Excuse me, if he wasn't drinking and wasn't drunk, why refuse?? What was he afraid of? The cops are trying to do their job. Yoder acted like he was entitled since he was a state rep.

This is not about speeding. This is about DRINKING and speeding! Big Difference!

kusp8 7 years ago

I'm not a fan of repubs either, but.....I do feel that if you pass a field sobriety test then you shouldn't be required to take a breathalyzer. The standard of .08 is a joke, as most LEOs will agree. I know people who can drink quite a bit before feeling it and I know several people who can have two beers and feel it. Just because you have a .08 doesn't mean you're drunk, and it doesn't mean that you're unable to drive. Heck, you are more likely, and more dangerous, if you're stone cold sober and texting than you are if you have a .08 bal.

pizzapete 7 years ago

I agree the limit is too low and texting and talking on cell phones is often more dangerous.

Neomarxist123 7 years ago

Dems can't talk about health care, cap and trade, or stimulus in this election.

So they're bashing their opponent in whatever form they can.

What is more sad - the dems bringing this stuff up or their shills in the mainstream media broadcasting it?

dontcallmedan 7 years ago

The JW is a shill for the Democrats?

beatrice 7 years ago

Or read the owner's editorials? A paper that supported Bush (twice) and McCain for the Presidency is clearly a shill for the Democrats. That is just amazingly asinine.

Terry Jacobsen 7 years ago

“As a nurse for more than 25 years, Stephene has seen the horrific consequences of drunk driving,” , yeah... has she seen the aftermath of a third trimester abortion. She supports that and I think that is also horrific. Besides, there was no proof that he was driving drunk, innocent until proven guilty.

Matt Sinovic, called Yoder’s actions “irresponsible” and said the incident meant “he is not fit to be a member of Congress.”

Her husband's actions in Congress, namely spending billions of dollars on stimulus that stimulated nothing has been "irresponsible" too and yet she wants to continue his tax and spend ways.

Enough. Anyone but Moore is better than more of Moore.

Stuart Evans 7 years ago

Vote Talbert, she's a better choice than either of these yahoo's.

quik 7 years ago

That Bob Shieffer line is really becoming the pertinent question for Stephene Moore and all of the dems this election:

"Is that the best you can do?"

pace 7 years ago

Yeah, why use science, if the guy could pass as sober, then why use science, If he could fake it he should make it. Science is just hooey.

pizzapete 7 years ago

Science, it more like a machine. Machines malfunction from time to time. Ever pay for a soda at a vending machine and not gotten your money back?

pace 7 years ago

Yeah, you got it right, vending machines, yeah, physics engineering, might as well as rely on magic. The vending machine is proof that science can't tell us nothing. Nothing is wrong with guessing, just as good as all that study and system crap. Science, vending machines none of it as good as our opinion based on heresay, I bet if he was drunk he could hold it. The business about drunk driving is way over blown, Everyone is driving impaired, everyone drives the same. A few drinks never hurt someone's driving. They would like us to think that drinking and driving is somehow bad. Just their way of trying to control our rights. According to the constitution it is no ones business if we toot and hoot.

pizzapete 7 years ago

No. I am saying most of the time machines work fine, sometimes they take your money and give you nothing back, ie. they don't work right.

otovaker 7 years ago

Oh no, someone exercising their rights. We can't have that, especially with those very few people outside of law and academia who actually KNOW THEIR RIGHTS.

ALSO: "Moore’s campaign manager, Matt Sinovic, called Yoder’s actions “irresponsible” and said the incident meant “he is not fit to be a member of Congress.”"

So does that mean he is dropping out of the race!?!!?!

Also it is stupid to assume he was drunk. It's like assuming that just because someone is wearing yellow means they are a serial killer.

I'm actually going to go as far as to question the motives behind this article.

Stuart Evans 7 years ago

it sounds like Mr. Yoder may not have a problem with an individual imbibing in alcohol, which has been known to cause violence, disease, and death. However, he finds the idea of legalizing marijuana, which has none of these effects, to be morally reprehensible.

pizzapete 7 years ago

I just watched a documentary on the drug war and I have come to the conclusion that legalization is the only answer. It being illegal does more harm than good.

Jacks_Smirking_Revenge 7 years ago

I'd settle for decriminalization at this point. I am suprised that big pharm hasn't seen the profit margins these "illegal" drug dealers are making and lobby their politicans harder. Imagine if Pfizer made marijuana tablets or Bristol-Meyers cranked out acid... The lawyer would be the new foot soldier for the big pharm gang, fighting the wars in court instead of on the street.

Of course, the thought of a bunch of guys in suits slap-fighting on the corners of South-Central LA would be pretty good too...

Stuart Evans 7 years ago

decriminalization only removes the penalties of possession on the end consumer. it does nothing to stop the black market production and distribution, which are the causes of all this violence. legalization is the key.

akuna 7 years ago

This conversation brings to mind a quote from Tombstone.

"... hypocrisy knows no bounds." Doc Holiday

Liberty275 7 years ago

Sure thing. You have nothing to hide, right? Why not allow the police to come and ramble through your house without a warrant on a whim?

The "nothing to hide" excuse you use shows just how much you are a willing sycophant of the government. People like you willing to urinate away your freedom for no reason make me sick.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

The real question is what the normal procedure is in such instances is.

Is it standard that after passing a field sobriety test that the driver is also asked to take breathalyzer test? (and what is a "preliminary" breathalyzer test?)

Is it common that a driver who refuses to take the test isn't penalized for refusing to do so, as appears to be the case here.

Zachary Stoltenberg 7 years ago

bozo, read it again. He plead guilty to refusing to take the test and was issued the state statute penalty for doing so, a fine. What do you mean "isn't penalized"? sounds to me like he paid the penalty assessed by the court. Don't know what "appears" to you, it looks pretty clear cut to everyone not on a liberal agenda...

meggers 7 years ago

That was my understanding, as well, smitty. I'm having trouble pinpointing it on the legislature website, but I did find this, as well as several other articles on attorney web sites that say essentially the same thing:

'In addition to high BAC test results, this Kansas DUI law addresses refusing a breath test. This new Kansas DUI law will not only result in a one-year driver's license suspension upon a first DUI test refusal but also mandate the use of an ignition interlock device for as you guessed it, one year.'

I think the real question here is whether or not Yoder received special treatment by being allowed to pay a fine, rather than having his license suspended.

ebyrdstarr 7 years ago

There are two different kinds of tests: the PBT (Preliminary Breath Test) done at the side of the road and the real deal Intoxilyzer done back at the police station. Refusing the Intoxilyzer carries the loss of the license. Refusing the PBT, which is the issue here, does not carry the same penalty.

meggers 7 years ago

Thanks for the clarification. Seems like both tests would carry a suspension, as they're both trying to ascertain the same thing. If it's only a matter of a fine, I'd think most people who know that would refuse the PBT if they've had anything to drink at all. Even if they wind up taking the Intoxilyzer later, depending on how much they've had to drink, the extra time would give them a better chance of lowering their BAC to within legal limits.

ebyrdstarr 7 years ago

The PBT, though, isn't reliable and by statute isn't admissible in a court of law. So the two tests aren't the same. I don't really understand the science of BAC levels, but my limited understanding leads me to think your concern about the BAC lowering isn't really an issue.

meggers 7 years ago

Yeah, maybe not. I'm just thinking that alcohol concentration dissipates over time, so if someone is barely over the legal limit and enough time elapses before they are tested, they may be under the legal limit at the time of the test. Pure speculation on my part, of course. I'm not familiar with the science of such testing, either.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

I did misread it, but as smitty inquired, is the normal penalty for refusing the breathalyzer only a $165 fine (which is probably about what the speeding ticket should have cost?)

So my question remains-- is this standard procedure? (not a "liberal" question in the least.)

Steve Jacob 7 years ago

I thought it was a year of no licence for refusing a test? Good lawyer.

yourworstnightmare 7 years ago

This is a non-issue. Yoder's personal behavior is of no consequence to his abilities as a legislator.

Flap Doodle 7 years ago

How interesting that this is surfacing now. The Chicago Way is coming to Kansas.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

Or perhaps he did something to piss off Karl Rove.

optimist 7 years ago

Talk about an October surprise. Dirty politics as usual. If whoever thought this was necessary to bring out now would have shared it sooner the media could have vetted it. Ad it is now it means nothing. No evidence that he was doing anything more than speeding.

I wouldn't have taken the test either given the same situation.

Sue McDaniel 7 years ago

The timing of this is just a little too suspicious!!!

NeutralJustice 7 years ago

Mr. Yoder was stopped for traveling ten miles per hour over the posted speed limit on K-10. No big deal there. The officer thought he smelled the odor of consumed alcohol on Mr. Yoder's breath. Many people drive after having a drink or two. Twenty-five thousand left Arrowhead this afternoon. The officer asked Mr. Yoder to take a preliminary breath test, and Mr. Yoder declined the request. Perfectly within his rights. In fact, everyone who has had a drink or two should decline the preliminary breath test. It is so unreliable that Kansas courts do not allow the reading obtained to be admitted into evidence. The officer gave Mr. Yoder a citation alleging that Mr. Yoder had been speeding and had declined a preliminary breath test. Good police work. The officer then let Mr. Yoder drive away from the stop. Good for the officer.

The officer did not ask Mr. Yoder to have someone else come and drive his car. Equally important, the officer did not have probable cause to take Mr. Yoder into custody and ask him to provide a sample of his breath in an Intoxilyzer machine. If the officer had determined that he had probable cause to believe that Mr. Yoder's driving was impaired by alcohol, and if he had asked Mr. Yoder to take a test of his breath, and if Mr. Yoder had refused that test, Mr. Yoder would have been at risk of losing his driving privileges for one year. But that did not happen, because the officer did not believe that he had even probable cause to further detain Mr. Yoder at the roadside. So, the officer let Mr. Yoder drive away.

This is not a story about a DUI; it is about a speeding ticket and the exercise of Mr. Yoder's right not to take a preliminary breath test. Hell, I'm proud of the guy. He could have had his speeding ticket amended to a non-moving violation, as everyone else on this board would do. (Or has done.) Instead, he accepted responsibility for speeding and paid the fine. Refreshingly honest.

The United States puts thousands of its citizens at risk every day to protect our rights, including the right not to have our homes invaded without a warrant, or our right not to be arrested without probable cause. Remember, the Bill of Rights was enacted to protect us from the government, so don't criticize someone for exercising their (our) rights. We should criticize the people who submit to preliminary breath tests, or invited the police into their homes to search, or who say, "Okay" when a cop wants to look inside your car. Because if we stop exercising our rights, the government may think we don't need them anymore, and take them away. Think about that. We should celebrate this acknowledgement and invocation of the protections afforded to all of us. You can celebrate by declining a preliminary breath test the next time a law enforcement officer asks you to take one.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

"Good police work. The officer then let Mr. Yoder drive away from the stop. Good for the officer."

Or maybe simultaneous to refusing the breathalyzer, he also mentioned that he's a state legislator, and said "good" cop determined for himself that it was better for him not to push it further than a speeding ticket.

impska 7 years ago

He did push it further - he issued a ticket for refusing the breathalyzer.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

So why wasn't he penalized for both the speeding ticket and failing to take the breathalyzer? Is that standard procedure?

impska 7 years ago

I really don't know what standard procedure is when you speed and fail to take a breathalyzer, but that really has nothing to do with the police officer - unless his second job is as state prosecutor. And since Yoder had the speeding ticket dismissed and pleaded guilty to the breathalyzer, I seriously doubt he used his influence in any way - a speeding ticket is of little consequence, a failure to take the breathalyzer ends up in the paper.

You seem to be grasping pretty hard to find a scandal here.

Steve Jacob 7 years ago

Wow, you just justified drunk driving. I don't care if 25K people drinking customers left Arrowhead, does not make it right. As far as I am concerned, you drink at all, don't drive.

NeutralJustice 7 years ago

It is not against the law to drink and drive. It is against the law to drive with a blood alcohol content of .08 or greater, or under the influence of alcohol to a degree that renders you incapable of safely driving, either of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt with no help from the driver. Most of the twenty-five thousand drivers leaving Arrowhead after drinking drove safely, as do most people who have had a drink or two. While you believe it should be against the law to drive after drinking any alcoholic beverage, the Kansas legislature, and the legislature of every other state, disagrees with you. Mr. Yoder was allowed to drive away because he was not under the influence of alcohol.

pace 7 years ago

yeah man, if that woman can smoke and drive one should be allowed a couple of drinks. I think if that woman, why is it usually a woman. She should of been home taking care of her kids. I can see her now. No wonder people drink and drive if they have to witness wanton acts like someone stopped at a red light talking and smoking. No one ever brings up that a lot of these women put on makeup in the care. Most men know better than to smear their lips with red. We know about that. Yoder probably saw one of these women and that is why he needed a drink. To stiffen him up.

TPowell78 7 years ago

Let's look at it this incident from a common sense perspective. This isn't some Constitutional scholar practicing civil disobedience, this is a guy from Johnson County who came to Lawrence, had a few drinks, and thought he could beat a DUI by refusing to blow. Sure, he didn't get in a wreck, but you can't honestly say that someone declining a test to determine if they're too impaired to drive is a good thing. What's next, people declining the driver's license exam because "I know I'm a good driver" so the test shouldn't matter. Yeah right. If everyone declined breathalyzers we'd have a lot more unsafe drivers on the road. Being a college town, we probably have more of an issue with drunk driving than any other community in Kansas, do we really want our elected officials setting this kind of example?

rbwaa 7 years ago

you forgot to say they should have to provide proof of citizenship - like producing a birth certificate or something...

nobody1793 7 years ago

the lesson here: boozers are losers, but speeders are leaders.

JimmyJoeBob 7 years ago

What a disgusting ploy for the Moore campaign. These types of attacks show your true identity. I don't think I like who Stephene Moore is.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

Yes, ignorance is bliss. And in that ignorance, you can blame Moore for doing something with absolutely no proof. But that is the Republican way.

verity 7 years ago

Yeah, Republicans never do anything like this.

kujayhawk7476 7 years ago

TJ_in_Lawernce posted:

"Matt Sinovic, called Yoder’s actions “irresponsible” and said the incident meant “he is not fit to be a member of Congress.”

Her husband's actions in Congress, namely spending billions of dollars on stimulus that stimulated nothing has been "irresponsible" too and yet she wants to continue his tax and spend ways.

Enough. Anyone but Moore is better than more of Moore."

AMEN!!! Ms. Moore is a rubber stamp of her husband's policies and those of other free spending liberals. Bring the Moore family home to get real jobs like the rest of us!

Flap Doodle 7 years ago

Evidently Yoder didn't have any messy divorce records to leak. As long as the Democrats have mindless drones like bozo to defend them, they'll keep on playing the same dirty game. Vote them all out at the mid-terms.

UfoPilot 7 years ago

This story is politically motivated. Sad, Sad, journalism.

Cait McKnelly 7 years ago

I'm more interested in how he got the speeding ticket "dismissed". God knows no one else would have it "dismissed" and these days radar guns don't lie. Mr. Yoder was within his rights to refuse the preliminary test. But obviously the officer thought there was SOMETHING there to make him take the field sobriety test. I've received tickets in the past and no officer ever made me do that. Seriously, it takes a Chappaquiddick to convict these teflon men of anything. It really does help to have money and friends in high places. The fact that he made the speeding ticket "go away" is enough to turn me off of him and I would feel that way no matter what party he happens to be. I don't like anybody who circumvents the law. So, you bozos really think the election is about "stimulus"? Heh. No it's not. Rachel Maddow has the best summary I have ever heard of what this election is about. It's the best 16 minutes of your life.

jnetneil 7 years ago

Ya, right on! Look at the justice doled out when Chappaquiddick happened, Mary Jo's killer got what he had coming to him. Ol Teddy rued the day he left her to die, justice was swift and hard wasnt it? Rachel Madcow is also right on, ya right on.

Cait McKnelly 7 years ago

What does Rachel Maddow have to do with this? At least she isn't a pig and a boor like Bill O'Reilly. It still stands. How did he get out of the speeding ticket?

jnetneil 7 years ago

Rachel Madcow is quite the looker, right up there with Eleanor Roosevelt. Whats she got to do with this? You linked her "best 16 minutes of your life", 16 minutes of spoon fed leftist mush is a better term for it.

LadyJ 7 years ago

I'm more concerned, or upset, about why the speeding ticket was dismissed by the prosecutor. Did the officer make a mistake in that area or was it the prosecutor's choice?

jnetneil 7 years ago

And tomorrows headline-Yoder hates kids and puppies!

jnetneil 7 years ago

Stephene Moore's campaign manager says Stephene loves both puppies and kids. She is also a nurse, just in case you didn't know.

coffeegirl 7 years ago

My biggest problem with this story is this:

Lawrence Journal-World ... How did your reporters miss it? I'm not surprised this issue is being used as a point in the campaign. There's nothing new about politicians using ammo like this. Posters calling shenanigans about this timing on this? Yeah ... of course the information was handed over as part of a campaign ploy.

I just see the bigger issue here is that this shouldn't be news now because one of the area newspapers or television newscasts should have been able to pick up on this more than a year ago on Sunday, Feb. 8, 2009 or at least by Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2009.

jessanddaron 7 years ago

Any attorney will tell you that the only reason you refuse a breathalyzer is if you have, in fact, been drinking and don't want to find out what your BAC is with a police officer who is going to arrest you if it's .089... Otherwise, you take the breathalyzer because you have nothing to lose other than 5 minutes of your day. If someone doesn't want their car searched then they are probably in possession of something illegal. If they don't want their BAC checked, logic would say they have been drinking.

NeutralJustice 7 years ago

Why in this year of the Tea Party and the manifest distrust of goverment that it has exposed among many Americans going back to the Founders are you suggesting that we should cooperate with the government in investigations designed to lead to the filing of criminal charges against us?

jafs 7 years ago

I suppose the question is whether a breathalyzer test is a "reasonable" search or not, given the circumstances.

impska 7 years ago

I don't really agree. I don't drink and drive. If I was pulled over and the police officer made me do a field sobriety test, which I passed, I would feel very put upon about being asked to then take a breathalyzer. I would start to question the officer's motivation and wonder why he seems to looking for something to get me in trouble for. There's a good chance I'd take it anyway, because I'm pretty agreeable, but if there was something about the officer's attitude that was making me uncomfortable, I might refuse.

I also wouldn't want them to search my car for no reason. There's nothing in there except a bunch of old receipts and garbage, but I would be even more likely to object to that than a breathalyzer when I was sober.

yourworstnightmare 7 years ago

This is a non-issue. The elite should not be held to the same standards as you and I. The elite need to be given room to make mistakes and make bad decisions.


jnetneil 7 years ago

True, just like Teddy Kennedy and Mary Jo's death. Thank goodness he was held to a different standard, where would we be without his 35 years in senate?

yourworstnightmare 7 years ago

Exactly. Great analogy. Both Yoder and Kennedy are elites who have trouble with alcohol, and as such they cannot be held to the same standards as you or I.

Like Kennedy, Yoder must be given deferential treatment such that he is free to make mistakes and behave badly.

jnetneil 7 years ago

If only Yoder had driven off the Wakarusa river bridge, stoned drunk with a hoochie momma beside him, and left her buckled up in her seatbelt to drown. Then stumbles to the Kenndey err...Yoder compound and tries to convince a cousin of his to take the fall for the wreck. Then we would all know if Kennedy and Yoder would be treated the same. Probably so.

NeutralJustice 7 years ago

Some of you are confusing the PBT with the Intoxilyzer.

The officer requested a roadside preliminary breath test, or PBT. The penalty for declining to take this test (as the officer is required to tell you before asking you to take it) is a traffic ticket. That's it. The officer did not ask Mr. Yoder to take an Intoxilyzer test at the station. The penalty for refusing to successfully complete an Intoxilyzer test is a one year or longer suspension of your driving privileges, after a hearing to determine if the officer had reasonable suspicion that you were operating under the influence of alcohol.

It is significant that the officer allowed Mr. Yoder to drive away from the speeding stop. This indicates that he did not have even reasonable suspicion that Mr. Yoder was driving under the influence of alcohol.

jafs 7 years ago

Then why did he ask him to take the breathalyzer test?

ebyrdstarr 7 years ago

Because he could. Cops regularly ask to search cars and find nothing.

jafs 7 years ago

As far as I know, cops don't routinely ask everyone they pull over to take a breathalyzer test.

I've been pulled over a few times for a few different reasons, and nobody's ever asked me to take one.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

I don't really think that this one event should disqualify Yoder from elective office.

But I find it endlessly amusing that the usual suspects here are defending him so vigorously. If this had been a Democrat, they'd be foaming that the cop should have summarily executed them on the roadside.

Flap Doodle 7 years ago

Did LJW bill this as a campaign piece for Moore?

Shane Powers 7 years ago

@ everyone questioning the dropping of the speeding ticket:

It's common for the prosecutor to drop a lesser charge in exchange for a guilty plea to the greater charge. Had he opted to go to trial on these charges, he probably would have been stuck with both. Doesn't seem like special treatment to me. it's called a plea "bargain" for a reason.

Stuart Evans 7 years ago

even if he was only cited for speeding; he was still speeding. As a legislator, don't they enact these rules and limitations upon the populace because lower speeds are safer? As a lawmaker, shouldn't he fully understand the reasons behind speed laws and be willing to never ever cross that barrier?

yourworstnightmare 7 years ago

This is just jealousy. Yoder is a member of the elite class, and as such he engenders jealousy and anger in the lower classes. This is the root of this story being reported.

As an elite, Yoder should not be subject to the same standards as you or I. Its just jealousy. He made it to the elite classes by virtue of his special talents, and the writers of this story did not. Get over it.

meggers 7 years ago

Using the same rationale, I take it you also did not vote for George W. Bush.

JustNoticed 7 years ago

Sinovic said in a statement. “In America, no one is above the law. Leaders in our community must be held to high standards and be accountable for their actions.” Patently false. Lots of Americans are above the law. Oh wait, am I being too cynical?

beatrice 7 years ago

I would have to agree with those who are questioning the timing of this information. You would have thought Yoder would have mentioned this long ago.

Terry Jacobsen 7 years ago

Even if I had not had a single thing to drink. If the police officer asked me to take a breath test, I would refuse. Why would anyone submit to a violation of their rights? If Mr. Yoder was not compelled to take the breath test, why should he put his trust in the government to treat him fairly? We all know that innocent people are sometimes convicted on tainted or false evidence. Only a fool would submit themselves to the possibility of being falselyl accused or convicted.

Paul R Getto 7 years ago

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.not much of an issue. I'm much more concerned about the nonsense in his head than the wine in his belly.

Stuart Evans 7 years ago

and he's got plenty of that head nonsense going on.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.