Ex-investigator for sheriff's office sentenced in DUI
UPDATED 3:40 p.m. Tuesday Aug. 30, 2011
URBANA — A former Champaign County sheriff's investigator will spend nine days at the Piatt County Jail after he pleaded guilty on Monday to driving under the influence of alcohol.
Travis Burr, 38, who listed an address in Sidney, pleaded guilty on Monday to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Judge Richard Klaus sentenced Burr to 24 months of conditional discharge, a form of probation; and 10 days in jail, with credit for one day already served.
Klaus said Burr will serve the remaining nine days of his jail sentence beginning Friday at the Piatt County jail in Monticello.
Burr is serving the sentence in Piatt County to avoid a conflict of interest, since the Champaign County sheriff's office also operates the Champaign County jail.
Klaus also ordered Burr to pay a $1,000 fine, to serve 100 hours of public service, attend a victim impact panel and undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation.
As part of a plea agreement, charges of obstructing justice — for allegedly moving a beer cooler — and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident were dismissed.
Burr was off duty when he was involved in a three-vehicle accident on Aug. 14, 2010.
According to a state police report, three vehicles were eastbound on County Road 600 N when the driver of the first vehicle, Michael Bowers, stopped his 2003 Dodge Ram van to turn north on County Road 1000 E at 5:55 p.m..
Burr, who was driving a 1994 Chevrolet pickup truck, was unable to stop in time, and hit Bowers' vehicle. Timothy Griffin, 40, of Longview, was driving a 1999 Chevrolet pickup behind Burr. His vehicle hit Burrs, the report said. All three vehicles were damaged, but nobody was injured, police said.
When sheriffs deputies arrived and learned Burr was in the crash, they called the state police to investigate.
According to the report, when the trooper arrived, both Burr and Griffin had the odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The report said both men failed field sobriety tests.
Burr and Griffin were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident. Griffin later pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and was sentenced to 90 days in jail.
Burr resigned from the Champaign County sheriff's office as an investigator on Oct. 12, 2010.
UPDATED: On Tuesday afternoon, Champaign County State's Attorney Julia Rietz contacted The News-Gazette to say that Griffin's sentence was served on electronic home confinement, rather than in jail.
MoreI am very surprised that Klaus agreed to this plea deal. Just looks bad that the cop gets 9 days in jail while the citizen gets 90 days. Maybe the citizen got Home confinement? Either way Klaus is known for being strict and harsh, but this time he let the cop slide!
Wow!!! Sounds like the good ole' boys club is alive and well!!! Cop gets away with 10 days jail and the other guy (same offense) gets 90 days. Something tells me the deputy didn't loose his license either. Looks like the INJUSTICE SYSTEM is alive and well. More crooks in high places! WELCOME TO ILLINOIS!!!
For all the talk of Chicago machine politics, downstate Illinois cops and politicians sure loves them some corruption of their own. Do cops down here get a memo that they'll be mollycoddled if they get busted drinking and driving? Maybe we can invest in some simultaneous dual use breathalyzers, just to be on the safe side.
This is just plain sad and just one more reason this department needs to change. He should have gotten 90 days (actually more in my opinion) just like the other person did...I would really like to know how they came up with 10 days vs 90 for his second offense??? Its his second offense!!!! He didnt get it the 1st time and obviously now is being let go for the 2nd one. What is it going to take to have something done about this???
I like how everyone is jumping all over "the system" because "the cop got 10 days while the citizen got 90 days". I dont know if these comments are coming from a bunch of people who have never stepped in court or what. But there are several things not mentioned that could have came into play that all effect the outcome. Did the cop cooperate while the citizen didnt? Did one hire a lawyer while the other didnt? Was ones BAC significantly higher then the others? Was the citizen already on probation? Did the citizen not accept a plea that included the other things the cops did? Its not like the cop got 10 days and gets a free pass. As far as this being his 2nd DUI. The facts are, his first DUI came in 1992, he is 38 now.. So that would have put him at either 19-20 years old, so just like if your 19-20 year old child goes out and gets a DUI and it is their first run in with the law, the DUI charges will be changed to something less severe, not to mention in 1992 DUIs werent nearly as much of a priority in law enforcement as they are now.
I just think before we made the comments made above, it would be best to know all the facts, as one earlier commenter posted, Judge Klaus is usually pretty tough on DUI offenders, so I am sure there is more to the story then posted above. However, if you read about DUIs in the Gazette on a regular basis.. the judgement the cop got isnt too far off par from the norm, so there might be more to this story about the citizen we dont know
There is a history of cops getting very lenient treatment for DUI in this area. The facts are that a law enforcement officer knowingly got behind the wheel while impaired and caused a three vehicle crash (not an 'accident'). We're all thankful no one was hurt or killed but that is only due to luck. This law enforcement officer then knowingly tried to obstruct justice by moving a beer cooler, which might imply that he was drinking while driving. We don't know that of course, but why else would he have tried to obstruct justice by moving the cooler?
Yes, as in all criminal cases, there's a lot we don't know. At or near the top of that list is why the fact that a serving law enforcement officer who caused a multi car wreck while driving drunk and then attempted to obstruct justice was simply brushed under the carpet. Such a cavalier attitude to what is tantamount to evidence tampering is disturbing.
I obviously dont know the answer to those questions either, however, one might suggest that the reason they get "very lenient" treatment (which who is to say what lenient is, as I stated before 1st time offenders (on the books) can usually plea down to a lesser sentence) is because they know the ins-and-outs of a situation since they are trained in what to look for. To state he was drinking while driving because he moved a cooler is speculation, and those charges could have been dropped because he as a trained law enforcement officer knew what to say when asked why he moved it. I dont know all the answers, but it seems on this board people are looking for a steeper penalty because he is a cop as evident by your opening statement, "The fact are that a law enforcement officer knowingly..." I understand this is a DUI and people are more sensitive to those then other vehicle collisions, but if you are going to make a point of fact such as "this was a vehicle crash (not an 'accident')" I think you need to be understand that in terms of probably 95% of vehicle collisions, they are technically not accidents, becuase they are usually caused by someone doing something careless, i.e speeding, cell phone, messing with radio, ect. -- so I think "accident" is an accepted use of the verbage for a "vehicle crash"
Yes, in almost all cases vehicle collisions are not 'accidents'; they are almost always crashes caused by someone doing something they should not be doing, such as driving while drunk. Exceptions can include cases when there is some kind of mechanical failure, a problem with the road, or an animal on the road, among others. And I noted, quite clearly, that my speculation that he may have been drinking while driving was, in fact, speculation.
You go a long way in helping me make my point: as insiders, cops know how to game the system when they're busted for DUI, even to the point of getting away scott free with obstruction of justice, and others in the system are quite happy to play along. That, it seems, is a pretty good description of very lenient treatment.
This is how it is in any profession. Someone who is Loan officer is going to know better how to make it appear they are credit worthy for a loan when in fact they arent. A doctor is going to know how to better make it appear that he needs a prescription for Oxycodin if he is addicted to it, when in fact he doesnt. This is just the reality of life, people are going to be better equipped to manipulate the systems they are familiar with through their profession. However, the judge, has to go by what can be proven and what is lawful.
i.e if the you being arrested for a DUI said to the cop, "I moved the cooler because i didnt want you to see it sitting in the passenger seat." The judge can use that against you. However, if the cop says whatever he did that makes it "make sense" to move the cooler.. i.e "It was a medical emergency I thought, so i moved the cooler in order to better evalute the medical condition of the others in the accident" (im sure he didnt say this) -- but then it comes down to.. "was he moving the cooler to tamper with evidence, or was he moving it for a different vaild reason" -- remember you have to be able to prove that he moved it to tamper with evidence... so it might have just been, the cop knew what to say (as he is aware since it is his profession), when the average Joe blow would have been honest with the cop thinking that if he was honest he would be forgiven for it.
Havent you ever heard a cop say, "if you just tell me the truth we will go easy on you?" That translates into, "if you tell me the truth we will have a statement from you of what truly happened for the DA to decide if he wants to pursue this or not." Its not like the cop is the one who decides which charges to take to court and which ones not to take to court, and the judge can only convict someone of something that can be proven, otherwise.. you might end up in a situation where the entire case gets dropped because you "tried to have your cake and eat it too"
Im not saying you should or shouldnt care, i personally dont care either way.. I personally think he shouldnt have gotten any jail time, jail for 10 days or 90 days isnt going to correct their problem if drinking and driving is a problem in their lives, and if it was just a case of bad judgement, then I dont think we should waste tax dollars on locking up people for these offenses when jail population is overcrowded and schools arent getting tax dollars because they are being wasted on such things. These are things that the system believes makes our streets safer, but they dont, because in 10-days, if this guy actually has a drinking problem, those 10 days should be spent in rehab, not a jail cell, but if your goal is to lock people up for years on end to keep them off the streets, you might as well just execute them. People getting 20+ years for a DUI is ridiculous, no matter if it is there 5th-6th or not, if you are going to imprisson someone for their productive years of their life you might as well execute them, because they will just be a burden on tax payers the rest their lives.
Well, your remarks about execution aside, I agree that simply chucking people in jail is not effective or desirable policy in many, many cases. Although people who have been caught driving while drunk five or six times have demonstrated a total lack of concern for the safety of others that does seem to merit a long jail sentence.
What people are upset about is that local cops seem to get lighter treatment than other DUI offenders simply because they are cops. You've agreed that they know how to game the system. And after the initial arrest, it's demonstrably true that they are treated more leniently. Many of us do care about this preferential treatment.
Ok I am with you about the 1st mistake being young we have all done stupid things. Unfortunately he didnt learn anything from the 1st time. He was given a position in the Champ Co Sheriffs Dept. I assume he was well qualifed and did his job and for that he had my respect up to a point. That point being as a employee of the Sheriffs Dept he knew better. I dont care how good his lawyer was/is. This was his 2nd offense. It deserved more than 10 days.
problem is.. if the 1st one is/was changed to a different violation then legally this is his first offense. I understand they are more severe charges, but in the eyes of the court it is no different then when someone gets a speeding ticket and they get it changed to a none-moving violation. The next time you get a speeding ticket, legally in the docket, that is your first offense.
Now of course if he was to have killed or seriously injured someone and it goes to trial for criminal charges, then a lawyer could probably get by with bringing up that this was the 2nd time he was charged (being the key word) -- but in a legal sense, this would be the first time convicted of a DUI (if he did plea down his first --- which i dont know if that is the case). Im just saying there are circumstances we dont know, and if you dont know the outcome of the 1st DUI charge, then to bring it up is irrelevant in a legal sense. Judge Klaus has to abide by the previous plea bargin or judgement on his 1st DUI charges -- if the DUI charges were dropped for whatever reason... then he cant turn around in this trial and say this is his 2nd DUI --- (2nd DUI charge-- yes).
I am simply saying, there is a lot to this that we dont know I am sure, and the fact that he is a cop shouldnt sway things either way.. he shouldnt get a lesser sentence, but at the same time he shouldnt get a more severe sentence. I understand he should be held to a higher standard, which is why he resigned (when facing being fired).
there are plenty of people that get a DUI that dont serve a day in jail outside of the night they got arrested. So the fact he got 10-days jail and all the other stuff, I would say that it a fair judgement. If there wasnt the 2nd guy in this case then there would be little complaining, as I have stated prior, you can find several cases of a DUI in the state of Illinois and county of Champaign where the convicted gets no jail time, but a fine, probation, community service, suspended license. There are a lot of different outcomes to DUI convictions that are handed down by the same judge in the same courtroom all across to country. We cannot sit here without the facts and argue that his entire package of his sentence is less then the other guys no matter what their profession was. But when you argue that it is less then the other guys because he is a cop (idk how many times I have read you say, "he is a cop" or some variation of that), you are essientially saying "because he is a cop he deserves a more severe punishment then this.
For all we know, the next case the judge heard could have been a 22 year old U of I senior that got a DUI who made a plea for no jail time, 4 years probation, 200 hours community service, and the judge accepted that sentence... so if you are comparing that case with the cops, then you could argue he got a more severe punishment because he was a cop.
You simply cannot compare sentences because they got the same charge because there is no set sentence handed down based on the crime (i.e every person convicted of murder doesnt get the same sentence, but they committed the same crime)
Yes, I repeatedly mention that he's a cop, but that's because that is at the heart of my contention about why he seems to have received preferential treatment. I understand and agree with your point that each case is unique and that the nuances matter when it comes to deciding what, if any, charges should be leveled and also in determining a sentence.
But this wasn't a case where he was stopped at a road check or found to be impaired during the course of an unrelated traffic stop. He caused a three car wreck and then tried to obstruct justice by moving the cooler. As a cop, he certainly appreciated the seriousness of that action. You can read about cases in the NG about people who's sentences were drastically increased because they obstructed justice in some way, sometimes even just by trying to flee.
I don't know Burr and none of my above comments are meant in a personal way or as moral judgements; we all make mistakes. I understand that he is facing serious repercussions as a result of all of this. I just don't think he should be treated differently -- not better, not worse -- than anyone else who did what he did. You're right to reiterate that we don't know all the facts; but is it really that cynical to believe that, had he not been a law enforcement officer, he would have been treated differently?
I truly feel that this discussion has led to some interesting and civil conversation. It has made me think and actually look as some things the "system" did do right. 1. Champaign County actually called in the state boys to come to the scene..in the old days this coulda all been shoved under the rug before anyone knew. 2. They are sending him to a different couny to serve his time to avoid "the good ole boys" 3. I assume he has a suspended or revoked license
Well at least the cat fight is over,,,, this has been drug out for a year to take lite off of,,, there where comments made at the time of the wreck from a sister,,, their you go for pro's vs cons,,, big picture, they both had priors,,, 92 and 04,,, the officer "caused" the wreck, ,,, the officer was if the math is correct, his first DUI was when he was 19,,, drinking age was 21 long history of drinking on the streets, and then you ask how do people with 4-5 DUI's still have a DL,,, there you go,,, this guy should be doing at least 90 days in State
Did you read the cooment about moving the cooler,,, remember, the next time you go in for a check-up, make sure your cooler is in your trunk, so you can be evaluated properly.... the guys on a EHD,,, bracklet so he can work and because of over-crowding in CC, not a request, it's been standard for sometime now
I would like to personally thank the Champaign County Sheriff’s Department for their professionalism on scene, last August. Everything they did was done properly and to my satisfaction. This dedication was carried over to the follow-up interviews and all interactions with their department. One man’s actions should not define the group of individuals with whom he associates.
I have been told this outcome shows no preferential treatment, and sadly is quite common for the scope of the incident. In the end, it was simply a matter of financial loss for both the defendant and myself. Thankfulness comes in understanding that, honor, accountability and responsibility are relative terms for both parties involved.
The NG is just as corrupt as the judge and state attorney that made the deal to make the DUI disappear like it never happened and should be thrown out and prosecuted for defiling the constitution by abusing their office. Can no longer support the law, administrators or the NG as a corner of our constitution but rather a double standard of justice unequal to all is the real corner stone of a corrupt republican guerilla requiring caging for all to view at any zoo.
Some of the same people mad Burr got off so lightly for injuring no one are incensed when others are mad when there is a violent attack -- like the Sola attack -- and believe that if someone cops to it and moves on, that is fine. Burr would have been better getting together some buddies and attacking people based on their race. Then he could have gotten probation, and someone could have warned that "you can't lock everyone up" and that probation is applicable.
As far as Griffin getting a heavier sentence, he didn't have to take the plea. That was his choice. (Not that it matters, but Burr lost his livelihood and has nine days in jail. If it seems too light, then someone should blame the judge who accepted such an agreement and the Illinois General Assembly for allowing such a range in punishments. Of course, I thought the same thing about the need to recall the judge in the Sola case.) Now let the insults begin.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.