Deborah Bradley and her possible DUI

[RANCH]

Any thoughts or links about Deborah Bradley and her possibly getting a DUI/DWI and how it could relate to her daughters disappearance.

 

[RANCH]

Here's a link to 303.025 which Deb was charged with on case #070954286

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c300-399/3030000025.htm

 

[RANCH]

Here's a link to 301.020 which Deb was charged with on case#070954285

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c300-399/3010000020.htm

 

[RANCH]

Here's a link to Missouri's Casenet.

https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/base/welcome.do

 

[katydid23]

I am not sure how it related exactly. It did mean that she had no drivers license. But she was still able to drive illegally, and may have taken a car out that night while her kids were asleep.

And it may indicate that she has a chronic drinking problem. Most people that I know of who have had DUI's then decided to cut out drinking from their lives. Our designated driver last night, was a friend who got a DUI 5 years ago and rarely ever drinks anymore at all. We went to a St Paddy's day bash last night and he had a half of a bottle of guinness the entire evening.

Yet she said she drinks several nights each week. That is quite a bit for a mom of 3 little kids, imo.

 

[In da Middle]

Since it was being assumed that she must have had a dui expunged on the other thread and that it must have been done automatically, here are links to sites that state that she would not even be eligible for it. From an actual legal website regarding expungment in Missouri:

Expungement

In Missouri, under some circumstances, you may be able to have a criminal record expunged, which is the process of legally destroying, obliterating or striking out records or information in files, computers and other depositories relating to criminal charges. You are eligible in Missouri for expungement if your arrest was based on false information and the following conditions exist:

• There is no probable cause to believe you committed the offense
• No charges will be pursued as a result of the arrest
• You have no prior or subsequent misdemeanor or felony convictions
• You did not receive a suspended imposition of sentence for the offense
• No civil action is pending relating to the arrest or records sought to be expunged

If you qualify, you may file a verified petition for expungement in the civil division of the circuit court in the county of your arrest. The court then sets a hearing on the matter no sooner than 30 days from the filing of the petition. If the court finds that you are entitled to expungement of any record, it must enter an order directing expungement.

http://research.lawyers.com/Missouri...-Missouri.html One it is stating that if you got a SIS, you are not eligible for expungement and two it states that you must make a petition for it - which makes another docket. It does not say any of this is automatic at all.

Here is a link to the actual document that one must fill out in Missouri to even be considered for expungement. Notice that you have to swear to the fact that you did NOT get a SIS for the one being considered or for any other cases related to that one. IF she got a dui for that stop it would definitely be a related matter and she did in fact get a SIS for it so she would not be eligible for expungement. It clearly states that SIS situations are not eligible nor are any other related charges. So I believe that her getting anything expunged is moot.
http://www.courts.mo.gov/file/CR145%...%20Records.pdf

I do believe the State of Missouri's own Court site would be the ultimate authority to Missouri case law. i will go by it over anything else posted.

 

[redheadedgal]

btw, the below? did you see the bolded? you're right-- this could never apply to a DUI since a DUI wouldn't be based on false information. a DUI would be quite real and proven with a BAC and/or field sobriety tests. and therefore a DUI could be removed only with the conditions mentioned on my links in the other thread and clearly a process separate and unique from the type of "expungement" you brought forth here. why would the two "legal" websites mention first time DUI removal if it wasn't true?

i'm sorry, but this time, you are wrong.

Expungement

In Missouri, under some circumstances, you may be able to have a criminal record expunged, which is the process of legally destroying, obliterating or striking out records or information in files, computers and other depositories relating to criminal charges. You are eligible in Missouri for expungement if your arrest was based on false information and the following conditions exist:

• There is no probable cause to believe you committed the offense
• No charges will be pursued as a result of the arrest
• You have no prior or subsequent misdemeanor or felony convictions
• You did not receive a suspended imposition of sentence for the offense
• No civil action is pending relating to the arrest or records sought to be expunged

 

[oh_gal]

I hope if she has a drinking problem, she gets help.

 

[Melon]

Addressing a few points I saw over on the Jeremy thread here before I comment on topic.

DB's SIS would not qualify for removal as she did not meet the conditions of her SIS. Her probation was revoked. Her record will stand. Had she completed her terms, she wouldn't have needed a formal expungement as her SIS was not a conviction. Expungement discussion is moot for this circumstance.

Even if she were convicted of DWI for a first time offense, it is a misdemeanor charge and the fines range up to $500. Not exorbitant and not out of line with the $250 fine she was assessed. Although her SIS is not a conviction, it's a plea entered.

It is not a stretch by any means that SIS for a first time alcohol offense is common in MO. Some attorney sites state as such. It is a requirement of MO DOR if your license is suspended for an alcohol related offense you are required to complete SATOP (which is administered under MWADP) as a condition of reinstatement.

I do not require someone to physically pull the arresting officers report and show it to me to be satisfied she was arrested for an alcohol offense. I asked an official LE opinion on DB's casenet and the first statement they made was DWI and the second was why is this SIS still on her record. That reinforced my understanding of her record. YMMV. I think I now understand the "CSI effect" in regards to juries now after reading the tail end of the What does Jeremy Irwin know thread.

-------------------------------
I think she has a history of consistent alcohol use, by her own words she admits to black out like periods due to her drinking. This casenet entry shows (to me) one regrettable alcohol related incident back a few years. I don't understand how a caretaker of 2 children wouldn't complete whatever was required to get her license back so she can legally ferry the children to appointments and not have to depend on someone else in an emergency. Especially after adding a third child to the mix. I do think tipsy people are prone to doing very stupid things, my fear for BL is that she was the victim of her mother's lost temper after her night of drinking, much like the St. Louis Dasher child.

 

[Melon]

One other note. In the other thread prior to it being verified that we were discussing the correct DB casenet entry, some were pointing out that they have found incorrect entries, some know of friends who have incorrect entries and that clerks miskey and transpose numbers. In the spirit of logic and fairness, we must apply those possibilities equally to DB's records on Casenet. At least IMO and most respectfully submitted.



PS Can someone link me (or tell me) to what exactly MOO, and BBM and the like mean? I thought I was hip to most of message board acronyms but I am cluelss.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I personally don't see how it matters if she has gotten a DUI or not. We already know from her admission that she was drunk that night and that she drinks several nights a week.

We also know that she CAN drive and has driven in the past due to her mother-in-laws statement that when DB lived with her, she used to steal her car in the middle of the night. Sorry, I don't have the link, so you can choose to not believe this if you want to, but it was said.

So, if she drinks several nights a week, is able to drive, perhaps she did get a DUI in the past and it was expunged. Or, perhaps she didn't.

Either way, she was still in charge of 3 little kids that night and one of them ended up missing. She admitted to being drunk and she was seen by neighbors out on the steps all evening drinking. She says that she drinks several nights a week. She obviously (to those who choose to see) has a drinking problem.

 

[DeAnn]

For those who are convicted that DB was arrested for DUI/DWI please skip this post. No need to read it.

For those who aren't sure or have their eyes open to how the system actually works in Missouri........there isn't a CV or CR in Debbie Bradley's charges.

It's just a list of numbers with no letters in them. Just numbers means ordinary tickets. Letters is indicative of a more serious charge like a DUI or DWI. The ticket or citation or arrest number doesn't change whether something is expunged or not. The letters whether CV or CR actually mean something in Missouri. The other Deborah Bradley is a case in point. There's a CR in her charge.

Debbie Bradley failed to deal with her initial ticket. A judge doesn't like that. An arrest warrant is issued. She's in contempt of court. She gets probation for THAT not for the actual ticket. She gets probation for being in contempt of court.

Judge Bushur is a no nonsense judge. He doesn't issue $250 fines for first-offense DUI in which you failed to appear and a warrant is issued.

And when you are arrested in Missouri for DUI, the Missouri Department of Revenue sues you civily to have your license suspended. Don't see any sign of that.

When you take the steps to get something expunged in Missouri, there are tell tale signs. There are none in this case. And beyond that, there are ways to find out about arrests in Missouri even if they don't appear on casenet and you don't have to list them on job applications.

And more importantly..... you have an attorney listed as a party. Debbie Bradley doesn't in this case. You don't need an attorney for traffic citations (unless you are getting a speeding ticket changed to something that doesn't have points on your driving record like defective equipment then you need an attorney) You do need an attorney for a DUI.

 

[cityslick]

I personally don't see how it matters if she has gotten a DUI or not. We already know from her admission that she was drunk that night and that she drinks several nights a week.

We also know that she CAN drive and has driven in the past due to her mother-in-laws statement that when DB lived with her, she used to steal her car in the middle of the night. Sorry, I don't have the link, so you can choose to not believe this if you want to, but it was said.

So, if she drinks several nights a week, is able to drive, perhaps she did get a DUI in the past and it was expunged. Or, perhaps she didn't.

Either way, she was still in charge of 3 little kids that night and one of them ended up missing. She admitted to being drunk and she was seen by neighbors out on the steps all evening drinking. She says that she drinks several nights a week. She obviously (to those who choose to see) has a drinking problem.

I actually agree with this. DB has admitted to drinking and it's possible that drinking led to BL going missing (either by her own hand or someone else while she was past out intoxicated). Her having a DUI only reinforces what she already admitted to (that she drinks numerous times a week).

 

[cityslick]

For those who are convicted that DB was arrested for DUI/DWI please skip this post. No need to read it.

For those who aren't sure or have their eyes open to how the system actually works in Missouri........there isn't a CV or CR in Debbie Bradley's charges.

It's just a list of numbers with no letters in them. Just numbers means ordinary tickets. Letters is indicative of a more serious charge like a DUI or DWI. The ticket or citation or arrest number doesn't change whether something is expunged or not. The letters whether CV or CR actually mean something in Missouri. The other Deborah Bradley is a case in point. There's a CR in her charge.

Debbie Bradley failed to deal with her initial ticket. A judge doesn't like that. An arrest warrant is issued. She's in contempt of court. She gets probation for THAT not for the actual ticket. She gets probation for being in contempt of court.

Judge Bushur is a no nonsense judge. He doesn't issue $250 fines for first-offense DUI in which you failed to appear and a warrant is issued.

And when you are arrested in Missouri for DUI, the Missouri Department of Revenue sues you civily to have your license suspended. Don't see any sign of that.

When you take the steps to get something expunged in Missouri, there are tell tale signs. There are none in this case. And beyond that, there are ways to find out about arrests in Missouri even if they don't appear on casenet and you don't have to list them on job applications.

And more importantly..... you have an attorney listed as a party. Debbie Bradley doesn't in this case. You don't need an attorney for traffic citations (unless you are getting a speeding ticket changed to something that doesn't have points on your driving record like defective equipment then you need an attorney) You do need an attorney for a DUI.

If she only got to pay a $250 fine for a DUI with nothing else going on her record (isn't DUI a felony?) then that must be the very definition of 'getting off'.

 

[redheadedgal]

For those who aren't sure or have their eyes open to how the system actually works in Missouri........there isn't a CV or CR in Debbie Bradley's charges.

i just called and spoke with a woman in the office of the state court administrator... she tells a different story. she said that the charge codes changed in recent years and depending on the year of the charge, the type of charge and the age of the defendant, a different form was possible. as well, the "type" of charge is listed under "case type" -- on the right of the casenet record.


It's just a list of numbers with no letters in them. Just numbers means ordinary tickets. Letters is indicative of a more serious charge like a DUI or DWI. The ticket or citation or arrest number doesn't change whether something is expunged or not. The letters whether CV or CR actually mean something in Missouri. The other Deborah Bradley is a case in point. There's a CR in her charge.

older defendant? different year?


Judge Bushur is a no nonsense judge. He doesn't issue $250 fines for first-offense DUI in which you failed to appear and a warrant is issued.

And when you are arrested in Missouri for DUI, the Missouri Department of Revenue sues you civily to have your license suspended. Don't see any sign of that.

When you take the steps to get something expunged in Missouri, there are tell tale signs. There are none in this case. And beyond that, there are ways to find out about arrests in Missouri even if they don't appear on casenet and you don't have to list them on job applications.

And more importantly..... you have an attorney listed as a party. Debbie Bradley doesn't in this case. You don't need an attorney for traffic citations (unless you are getting a speeding ticket changed to something that doesn't have points on your driving record like defective equipment then you need an attorney) You do need an attorney for a DUI.

if this charge is a traffic citation -and it appears to be- an attorney wouldn't re required, right?

the woman i spoke with also said "the goal" would've been to remove every and all record for a charge that was expunged/removed... so why would a $250 fine for a DUI, or a license suspension fee, or an attorney listing be found on casenet? it shouldn't. it wouldn't.

and the $250 fine would have nothing to do with a possible DUI since it's still on her record - since/if that DUI record was removed.

so-- if DB did have a DUI and it was removed, there would be no trace of it anywhere -- at least according to this woman. her statement reflects the websites i linked earlier re: all records removed from casenet and other public forums.

of course, maybe this woman got it all wrong.

maybe a lawyer here can weigh in if it's still in dispute/important enough.

we will never truly know either way... but that is the purpose of having the record removed in the first place.

fwiw.

 

[nursebeeme]

has this "dui" been reported on in the msm? If not please refer back to the rules specific to this case that are on a stickie at the top of this forum:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7311632&postcount=3"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Etiquette & Information[/ame]


This thread will be closed until we see some sort of main stream media link to this.