Bruce Springsteen's criminal record won't show any guilty plea to driving under the influence -- because the Boss just struck a deal with prosecutors.

Springsteen pled guilty to only one misdemeanor count of consuming alcohol in a closed area. He admitted to drinking at the Gateway National Recreational Area -- a federal property, where booze is forbidden.

The other charges he was facing -- DWI and reckless driving -- were dismissed by prosecutors ... who said, in court, his BAC was well below the legal limit at .02, so they felt they couldn't prove their case.
According to the police report, obtained by TMZ, Bruce was glassy-eyed, swaying and reeked of booze when he was arrested.

Got name, got money, got off.

Gee. A rich prominent Democrat can't get prosecuted in New York, even though he's from New Jersey, when the cops catch him dead to rights. Now how'd that happen?

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
Got name, got money, got off.

Isn't this the truth.

Jim

Does this mean that Jeep is going to start running that insufferable ad again?

quote:

Originally posted by Green Highlander:
Does this mean that Jeep is going to start running that insufferable ad again?

Yeah I'm surprised they took that path, the Gen X movement into marketing and social advertising has really fucked up some companies approach.

No big story and I do not think it only happens to rich, liberal celebs. I work with a guy that has gotten pulled over three times for being under the influence of alcohol, he is a common blue collar worker. He got off all three times, the last one cost him I think close to 20 grand (they even had a blood test showing his BAC so I thought he was going to do some jail time) but his lawyer knew the judge and he went free.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
Got name, got money, got off.

Yep

You don't think Prosecutors in NYC buy those $2M homes on a 70K year salary, do you?

He tested significantly under the per se limit. Anybody would have gotten this deal.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
Got name, got money, got off.

and a supporter of the current administration

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:
He tested significantly under the per se limit. Anybody would have gotten this deal.

Of course.

Seriously, why do some of you believe that he deserves a driving under the influence conviction when there is no evidence of that?

I despise the man, but he wasn't going to be convicted at trial for dwi. .02, ridiculous.

Um, guys? Compare the reported BAC to the information from the police report cited in the last line of the OP.

I don't know about your states, but here having a BAC under the limit is not considered conclusive since different people have different tolerances for alchohol. If your BAC is over a certain limit, you're considered legally drunk. If your BAC is under that limit but the police can testify that you're "glassy-eyed, swaying and reek[ing]" of booze, the prosecutor can (and almost certainly will) hale you before a court and try to convince a jury that you were driving under the influence.

Assuming, of course, that the reported BAC is reported accurately.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Um, guys? Compare the reported BAC to the information from the police report cited in the last line of the OP.

I don't know about your states, but here having a BAC under the limit is not considered conclusive since different people have different tolerances for alchohol. If your BAC is over a certain limit, you're considered legally drunk. If your BAC is under that limit but the police can testify that you're "glassy-eyed, swaying and reek[ing]" of booze, the prosecutor can (and almost certainly will) hale you before a court and try to convince a jury that you were driving under the influence.

Assuming, of course, that the reported BAC is reported accurately.

I served on a fed trial where the US Attorney did charge the guy who was red eyed, allegedly non compliant, and had an open container in the car. The defendant tested at .03 a few hours post arrest and the expert witness math placed him at likely .07 at contact. He also tested for a negligible amount of weed and LSD in his system. He was outside the car when contact was made. The jury let the defendant walk on the DUI charge. We hooked him on two other charges but the DUI wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It was a tremendous waste of time and money.

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:
[H]is lawyer knew the judge and he went free.

Judges have great discretion and it’s not always the rich and famous who get breaks.
I once heard with my own ears a former judge tell another lawyer that he gave breaks to DUI defendants if they were represented by lawyers in court rather than trying to represent themselves.

We read here all the time about individuals who are arrested on felony charges time after time and yet continue to walk away with no significant penalties, and not even legal fees because they’re supposedly indigent. Why would we get spun up because some celebrity gets a pass for something far less serious? (And yes, DUI is serious but not quite as bad as crimes of violence, and especially not multiple crimes of violence.)

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."


Operating under liberal rules, not the ones the rest of us must adhere to.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Um, guys? Compare the reported BAC to the information from the police report cited in the last line of the OP.

I don't know about your states, but here having a BAC under the limit is not considered conclusive since different people have different tolerances for alchohol. If your BAC is over a certain limit, you're considered legally drunk. If your BAC is under that limit but the police can testify that you're "glassy-eyed, swaying and reek[ing]" of booze, the prosecutor can (and almost certainly will) hale you before a court and try to convince a jury that you were driving under the influence.

Assuming, of course, that the reported BAC is reported accurately.

I hate the prick as much as anybody but the evidence was very weak, IMO.
If you were pinched by the Po Po would you want to be convicted with that evidence?
Anyone can "say" glassy-eyed and smells but that isn't a solid foundation.
.02

Wouldn't be the first time that a BAC test was conveniently delayed especially with his money and connections.

FWIW, the report I heard was that Springsteen was on his bike and stopped in the park where some fans saw him and gave him a tequila shot. Apparently some cops observed this and pulled him over immediately after he got back on and left. If true seems pretty lame to me. I’m also no fan of his; I think some songs are pretty good but don’t own any of his music.

Not a huge issue. The world continues to turn.