Fishers P.D. gives drunk principal ride home
There’s a fuss going on in Fishers about “unfair treatment” of Fishers High School Principal Scott Syverson. Here’s a quote from the story in The Indianapolis Star:
“A Fishers police officer’s decision to take an intoxicated high school principal home instead of arresting him for drunken driving was the wrong one, Fishers Police Chief George Kehl said Thursday.
“It doesn’t make us look very good,” said Kehl. He said an officer’s discretion is a valuable tool but admitted he could not justify its use in the case involving Fishers High School Principal Scott Syverson.
Syverson, who was stopped shortly after 1 a.m. Saturday while driving home from a Christmas party hosted by Hamilton Southeastern Schools Superintendent Concetta Raimondi, should have been arrested and taken to jail, Kehl said.
Instead, the officer drove Syverson home.”
Now I have two angles on this story, I’m interested in law enforcement and I’ve had the privilege of knowing Mr. Syverson from when he worked at North Central. So here’s the deal, people are mad because the cop gave him a break. I don’t have access to the police database, but I would say that if this was a first time offense, the officer might have been giving Syverson a break by giving him a ride home. Is it unfair treatment? Possibly. Could it have been an act of grace? Possibly.
The officer did his job, which is to serve and protect. The fact is that he removed a drunk driver from the streets and prevented a possible accident. I think people are mad because they felt he should’ve been punished for DUI and I can also respect that opinion. I know that I’ve gotten pulled over for speeding and the officers have shown me grace, even when I could’ve been jailed for wreckless driving. Everybody deserves a break. That doesn’t excuse Syverson’s actions, but I think he’ll be more careful from now on, knowing that his reputation is at stake.
This could be Syverson’s one “get out of jail free card,” let’s hope he’s learned his lesson and doesn’t do it again. But I also think it’s unfair to criticize an officer who, by departmental policy, was allowed some discretion in this case. My question is directed at the school system’s superintendent, Concetta Raimondi. Syverson left Raimondi’s party drunk, as the host of this party, wouldn’t it have been nice of her to call this man a cab? Seems like there’s a round of blame to go around.
I’ve got plenty of friends who have lost good jobs because of a DWI. One friend got a DWI after pulling into his driveway. Another, .oo2 BELOW the legal limit got charged anyway. Thier lives were forever altered for borderline infractions.
Worse, neither of these people had jobs where they needed to be roll models, an ADDITIONAL reason why they should have been cut a break. Who would have cared? But someone who is in a position to embarrass a city, a school, and a community???
Are you kidding me? He deserves twice the sentence for risking so much.
Awesome comment Josh. I wasn’t saying that he should never have been punished, but being in the public eye like that, I’m sure he’ll be keeping his nose clean from now on because I’m sure if this happens again, he will lose his job.
Did you read the last part of my comment about how the school’s superintendent let him leave the party intoxicated? How’s that for a good role model? Sounds like she should’ve been responsible for taking away the keys as the host of the party.
I’m not sure I really buy the “blame the hostess” bit. Perhaps they should have chosen not to have alcohol at the Christmas party – as a lot of companies are tending to do now (wisely) – but it’s still not uncommon to have alcohol at such parties.
The general assumption is that people are adults and should be responsible for their decisions. That said, sure, if someone (anyone) saw this man leaving for his car, clearly drunk, they should have intervened in some way, but I don’t think the hostess needed to be at the door gauging everyone’s drunkeness.
Well gRegor, TheIndyChannel.com updated this story and the superintendent said that he didn’t get the booze at her house…
“”He didn’t arrive at my house until after his ball game. He stayed, but then confirmed with me today that he did stop someplace else on his way home,” Raimondi said.
It was not known where Syverson might have stopped or how much he might have drank when he got there. On the tape, Syverson admitted having five beers before getting behind the wheel.”
It looks like they may still press charges in this case because they do have the evidence from the camera and the police report.
Ran across this blog and thought I would give some insight to the mediator here.
1) In reference to the “Get Out of Jail Free Card” comment, his free card was that he didn’t kill anyone because of his irresponsible behavior. If that happened punishment would be much much greater.
SOMEONE COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED – key factor in this case
2) Any regular person who is pulled over with a DUI IS TAKEN TO JAIL IMMEDIATELY. No ifs ands or buts. The fact Mr. Syverson had the police chief on the phone during the stop, shows he knew he was in trouble and tried to get out it. Another IRRESPONSIBLE move on his part.
3) Mr. Syverson put the officer of the stop in a bad position in regards to both his actions noted in #2.
4) In regards to “Keeping His Noise Clean”, whether this time or next its too late. He as an educator, discipliner (himself) and public figure . He should have thought of that before hand but didn’t.
If a student of his brings alcohol or is intoxicated to school he is required to suspend that student at minimal. Also lets not forget he is also required to get police involved who would have arrested that student. There is no “Wait Mr. Syverson I have a close friend of mine on the school board you should talk to first.” or “Dr. Syverson you boss is on the phone, please talk to her first.”
There is no “first offense” decision in whether you are arrested or not in this matter. Driving Drunk and getting a speeding ticket are two totally separate issues.
I will give you one credit here and that is yes you shouldn’t criticize the officer because of the position Scott put him in.
Now to finalize this entry, Mr Syverson has fully excepted responsibility for his actions (all of them including in regards to the officer) . Now he is facing 2 counts.
The board has in there minds made up their minds in regards to this matter in the most recent board hearing. If they were legally able to they would have canceled his contract. It will come though I can 98% guarantee that.
I personally know Scott and my thoughts and prays are with him and his family. He has taken every step he can to try to resolve this matter respectfully. I also admire his public apology and respect him for that.