Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 5 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
$125K bond set for DUI
Published Monday, November 23, 2009
A weekend traffic stop has led to the arrest of an Andalusia man who was caught allegedly driving under the influence of a controlled substance with a child in the car.
Chief Deputy David Anderson said Monday, John Paul Stewart, 21, was charged with driving while under the influence of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance and second-degree possession of marijuana.
“Mr. Stewart was stopped on Shreve Road (sometime Friday night) for a traffic violation,” Anderson said. “He got out of the car, and the officer observed (Mr. Stewart) smelled of alcohol, was unsteady on his feet and had slurred speech. He was then given a field sobriety test.”
Which he failed, Anderson said. “White pills,” later determined to be an un-named controlled substance, was also found inside the Stewart’s vehicle, he said.
“Later during an interview at the Covington County Sheriff’s Office, a bag of leafy green substance – believed to be marijuana – was found on his person,” he said. “Mr. Stewart was then placed in the Covington County Jail under a $125,000 bond – a high amount, but due to the circumstances that an underage juvenile was found in the car with Mr. Stewart – the judge felt it was appropriate.”
Comments
Posted by outoftown (anonymous) on November 24, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This article is way incorrect!! You need to get your facts straight before you go putting false information front and center!!
Posted by coulditbe (anonymous) on November 25, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
but if they actually got their facts straight there wouldn't be a story of GOSSIP! number one. the driver of the vehicle HAD NOT taken a drink of anything close to alcohol. thats the *1st* thing that was INCORRECT. 2cd, why weren't the parents mentioned... who were also OCCUPANTS of the vehicle! 3rd, and i'll close on this one... a traffic violation would result in a "ticket" correct? I thought so! there ya go!
Posted by DarrylDavis (anonymous) on November 26, 2009 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This whole story wreaks after reading it four or five times. What was the traffic violation?? The way the incident occurred ,I am still looking for Barney Fyffe's name to be mentioned in the article somewhere. It is mentioned that he(Mr. Stewart) is being charged with marijuana possession but later in the article it is said he has green leafy substance,which one is it??. 125,000 dollar bond with the judge saying "he felt that the high amount was appropriate" . From what I read in this article sounds to me like someone is trying to generate some revenue. Money for the bondsman, money for the courts, money for the city, lawyers etc as the money is spread out to many different entitys. It was my understanding when bond amounts are set that a standard was in place for the bond amount instead of a judge being a "decider" . This sounds the same as "Attention Wal-Mart shoppers" .
Posted by sayitaintso (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i think edgar is back at the cso...there ya goooo!
Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on December 3, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bail is to guarantee ones presence at trial. It is not a fine. It is not meant to punish someone who has yet to be tried. In setting bail, the sole question should be what does it take to insure that the accused shows up for the criminal proceeding. Setting these high amounts of bail violates the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states: "Excessive bail shall not be required...." If a person has a job, owns property, or has significant contacts with the county, many courts will release the accused on his own recognizance, which means they take his word that he will show up for trial.
Here is what one legal commentator had to say about the right to bail. I can not say it any better:
"Without bail, a person could be held indefinitely, until it is convenient to release him. Bail bolsters what the U. S. Supreme Court has called a traditional right to freedom before conviction. It also permits the unhampered preparation of a defense and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction. Unless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence -- which every defendant retains until proven guilty -- would lose its meaning."
If the judges in this county keep up this grandstanding of setting ridiculously high amounts of bail, the county and the judicial system will be sued in federal court for violation of the 8th Amendment. The attorneys' fees awarded to the successful plaintiff in this case will set the already financially strapped local government back even further.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)