Facebook

Twitter

Print story

Fierro will get a little slap on the wrist if sentenced today. Vigil is known for saying "it's okay hito, don't do it again. Now be on your way". Or he'll get a new trial. Now if it were me, I'd be sitting next to Scott O where I should be.

Fierro will either be sentenced today or granted a new trial. Any wagers? My guess is either 1 year in jail with most suspended or he will be granted a new trial.

so, a .01 to a .07 is the same as using a cell phone and is not relevant? i have nothing else to say. i rest my case. - drive by.. . . . . That's the point I was trying to make about DWI crash risk and cell-phone crash risk --> IT IS RELEVANT because the danger to society is real and at low DWI levels, equivalent, and yet there is an enormous gulf between the penalties. . . . I'm sure you will join me in asking the Governor and the Legislature to make the penalties for cell-phone use and texting on a par with DWI.

Dan Marlow... a name I will remember for defending killers behind the wheel. DAN, she was driving drunk!!! How can you hold your head up with pride after making a comment like that? would you let your family ride with her knowing she was drunk, hey, it was only .08 and .07? Come on Dan, hire her as your family chauffer and let her take your kids to school, go ahead and trust her, after its all over you can recite your mantra... "Because of this phobia of DWI ... people end up losing their livelihood, and it's not right. This stands to ruin her whole future. It's a complete overreaction" . Come on Dan put your heart where your mouth is. signed DWI PHOBIC.

from http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3379012&page=1 , "When five high school cheerleaders in western New York died in an automobile accident after going out to celebrate their graduation, a community was crushed. Authorities suspect a deadly car crash in Western New York last month was caused by a driver texting while driving. Now, authorities say it is possible that the fiery, head-on collision with a tractor trailer may have been caused by a distracted driver sending text messages. "Cell phones are a distraction and could be a contributing factor in this accident," said Ontario County Sheriff Phillip Povero. Cell phone records show a text message was sent from the phone belonging to the driver, Bailey Goodman, at 10:05:52. A reply was sent to her phone at 10:06:29. Thirty-eight seconds later, someone called 911 to report the accident that killed Bailey and her friends." ------------------------ so, a .01 to a .07 is the same as using a cell phone and is not relevant? i have nothing else to say. i rest my case. - drive by.

oh, by the way khal... it was impressive when you took over the position of moderator on this thread. bob thought it was awesome.. in fact he told me that personally. i also spoke with gwen ifill, and she has no problem with you moderating all their future debates including senate, and up and coming presidentials.. when khal speaks, people listen!

khal spencer wrote, "I agree with much of Bob's posts and furthermore, thank him for his contribution to this discussion. Where the line is drawn on "simple" DWI law lies with the politicians and the public's willingness to trade BAC points for added marginal safety. Or as Drive By would say in his more civil moments, how many people are we willing to statistically kill?" ----------------------------- well thank you khal for volunteering your most authoritative position on this article.. i for one was waiting with bated breath for you to comment... thank you, thank you, thank you... you are my hero, khal... you really are. *sigh*

"It's a terrible case," Marlowe said. "Because of this phobia of DWI ... people end up losing their livelihood, and it's not right. This stands to ruin her whole future. It's a complete overreaction." This is such BS. Loosing their livelyhood. What about the people who have lost their lives?

I agree with much of Bob's posts and furthermore, thank him for his contribution to this discussion. Where the line is drawn on "simple" DWI law lies with the politicians and the public's willingness to trade BAC points for added marginal safety. Or as Drive By would say in his more civil moments, how many people are we willing to statistically kill? Setting it at 0.08 BAC does have logic, in that it sets the limit with respect to where human performance degradation starts to suffer significantly rather than where it suffers profoundly (http://www.intox.com/physiology.asp). How much of these impairments (DWI, cell phone, texting) we are willing to tolerate are political and public safety decisions. But I suspect the DWI law does act to deter a lot of people (obviously not all) from drinking too much before they drive since they know a 0.08 has profound implications on their futures due to the fact that this is a traffic crime with consequences beyond a fine. But Bob is right--the most dangerous drivers are the ones in the aggravated DWI category and to get the biggest bang for the buck, we need to deal with them. Me? According to those drunk wheel approximators (http://www.intox.com/wheel/drinkwheel.asp), it would take me about four beers in an hour to be at 0.08 BAC. Frankly, if I have four beers in an hour, I don't feel like I am in any shape to drive. Or for that matter, to be working on my cars!

bob funkywinkerbean wrote; "... there aren't many fatalities in the below DWI group, just 19 for 2007..." ----------- wow. "JUST 19". what a m0r0nic statement. that is like saying that the first 19 u.s. soldiers lives taken in iraq didn't matter? say bob.. why do you say "JUST 19" for 2007? have you talked to the families of this "JUST 19" people killed in that group for 2007? and what did they say? did they AGREE with you and say that they are glad that their loved one was in that "JUST 19"? bob... what if you were killed by a .01 to .07 group in 2007? then they would have been "JUST 20" killed in that group for 2007. not much difference, i'd say.

Barbara & Bob, Alcoholic and non-alcoholic people speed and get arrested for DWI all the time. They should be treated the same in the eyes of the law. DUI and speeding are like pregnancy you either are or aren't. I am sure the policeman was just doing his job and that was to get a person that was under the influence off the street. The degree of the violation is for the court to decide.

Khai said "each violation of the law stands or falls on it own merit and imposes its own risks." . . . . . I totally agree, but I have also found that looking at DWIs in groups sheds a lot of light on the problem. While the state DOT report puts all DWIs together into one basket (and not only DWI, the state report is really about "alcohol-impaired" and they define alcohol-impaired as .02% BAC or higher. Many people, even reporters don't seem to know this and refer to the state data as DWI data when it is not.), the NHTSA provides reports by three groups of BACs: .01-.07%, .08-.14%, and .15% and over, When you look at the numbers (which you can do on this spreadsheet - http://www.dwiwatch.org/fatality-rates-by-state-2007.pdf) you see that there aren't many fatalities in the below DWI group, just 19 for 2007. For the second group, the DWI group, there were 31 fatalities for 2007. And the highest group, which is essentially the Aggravated DWI group ("aggravated DWI" begins at .16% BAC), has by far the most fatalities, 102. . . . . . If you look at the fatality rates per 100 Million Miles Driven you will see that New Mexico actually ranks better than the average state for fatalities in the below-DWI and DWI categories, but substantially worse than average for Aggravated DWI. Not only that, but Aggravated DWI accounts for 77% of the DWI fatalities (102 of 133). . . . . . Now, we don't know how many people there are in each category but my sense is that for every person who drinks to .15% or higher (and these are surely either alcoholics or serious party-animals or binge drinkers) there are probably hundreds of people who are medium-weight social drinkers and partiers who drink into the .08 to .14% range, and for every one of those there are probably hundreds of lightweight occasional and social drinkers who never get above .07% BAC. . . . . The point of this is that it is quite likely that a very small percentage of New Mexicans (the .15%+ group) are responsible for not only the majority of the DWI fatalities but most or all of the horrible head-on collisions and other terrible fatalities that have people demanding action. Indeed, Gordon House was .18%, Carlos Fierro was .22%, Scott Owens was .22% (.16% four hours after the crash equates to .22% at the time of the crash), and Dana Pabst a whopping .32%. Ramirez near Taos who went over the center line and killed the motorcyclists was .30%. While I'm sure there are tragic stories at all BAC levels, as well as for sober drivers, the data and recent experience all point to the Aggravated DWI group as the primary problem and where the most deaths can be prevented if we can effectively reduce their ranks. . . . . Given that we always have limited resources, especially now, it makes sense that we target our resources where we stand to gain the most, and that is toward the Aggravated DWI group. . . . . The fact that a majority of fatalities is attributed to a small subset of the population is not a surprise, it is actually predicted by Pareto's Law (also known as the 80/20 Law, ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle). The upshot in regard to DWI is that if we target the .08-.14% group, which was responsible for about 20% of the DWI fatalities we can at best hope to reduce fatalities by 20% even if we spent 100% of the total available effort there. And by contrast, if we target the .15%+ group, we can get 80% of the desired results with 20% of the total effort. Now this is theory, reality is more complex, but still Pareto's Law shows us where we can get maximum results for our efforts assuming those efforts are successful. Alcoholics are damn tough cases most of the time, but we have to take it on.., if we don't the horrible head-on crashes will continue no matter how many people go to jail for a .08% DWI. In fact, you could put ALL the .08-.14 drinkers in jail and the head-on and wrong-way crashes would continue. Messages like "drink, drive, lose" may scare social drinkers but won't scare or seriously deter career alcoholics, not one bit. See, the addiction is stronger than any fear of incarceration. . . . . If someone has a better or alternative analysis please share it. I've been thinking about this and reviewing data for many weeks now and I keep coming back to the same place -- that if it weren't for the high profile tragic Aggravated DWI cases we wouldn't be discussing this issue, the Governor wouldn't have a DWI Czar, there wouldn't have been an advisory group formed and DWI wouldn't be in the headlines all the time. In other words, Aggravated DWI brought us here because it's the core problem -- so let's get serious about it and take it on full square. And it seems to me that the idea of 2-3 days in jail for a first DWI, especially in the low BAC range is a good example of the wrong approach. On the surface it may seem right, and feel good, and make good headlines, but it won't stop the horrible crashes in the aggravated group.

I don't call it speeding when she was driving 30 mph in a 20 mph zone in the middle of the night--where, I venture to say, the speed limit was not well posted; she was caught in a speed trap. I think she got a raw deal by an over-zealous police officer trying to prove something. I don't call this "law enforcement"; I call it citizen harassment!

This isn't about lumping or splitting. Each violation of the law stands or falls on its own merit and imposes its own risks. For example, I had a friend in grad school whose brother drove home pretty drunk from his birthday party. He hit and killed a pedestrian who was walking along the road. No priors, clean record, good guy, but the victim was just as dead and my friend's brother spent a year in jail for a homicide conviction. Tragic for all. Bob is right about the relative risks increasing rapidly with profound inebriation, but the 0.08 number was not pulled out of thin air, albeit it certainly errs on the side of caution and we can argue about that. Even 0.08 substantially raises your risk factor (see his link graphic) because at 0.08, the "average person" starts to experience effects on judgment and reaction time. And unless it was a Supersize margarita, one drink won't put you over the 0.08 limit. http://celtickane.com/projects/blood-alcohol-content-bac-calculator/ As far as the official? If she had been driving the speed limit (or caught a ride home) we probably wouldn't even be reading about this and she would have been less of a hazard to the community.

Bob's argument is correct. Casual drinkers ought not to be lumped in with the habitual offenders we read of everyday with priors, outstanding warrants, and open containers in the vehicle. Of course, the best way to avoid that stigma is to use one's head and not drive home when you're partially impaired. I think handing the officer her credit card in place of her ID implies more than mild impairment. Sounds like she had trouble with the physical test as well. I sympathize for her but it was truly a careless decision on her part.

Drive by Poster: "bob funkywinkerbean wrote, "And these are the folks causing the horrible crashes, not someone at .07 or .08 or even .09 which has the same relative crash risk as using a cell-phone while driving... " ------ Geeee bob... there are a LOT of people using cell-phones every day that cause fatal crashes. So, what exactly was your point? Really..., resorting to name calling. How intelligent? The point of comparing cell-phone risk to a BAC of .08% is that while we give cell-phone users a slap on the risk, at best, (and it's implicity culturally acceptable because of this low penalty, in fact, there is no penalty if you use a hands-free device but recent data shows that hands-free only slighlty reduces crash risk) we now "throw the book" at a .08% DWI. Same crash risk, huge difference in penalties. You can read more about cell-phone and texting risk here: http://www.dwiwatch.org/cell-phone-texting.php on my web site, dwiwatch.org, and also please see the crash risk curve on this page: http://www.dwiwatch.org/Images/CrashRiskDunlap_x.jpg I'm totally interested in solving this problem and this requires accurate data and analysis, not name calling or fundamentalism.

Bob Funkhouser says "If Padilla had been speeding and talking on a cell-phone she would have been posing the same risk ask being at .07 or .08 BAC." Well, she appears to have been speeding ten mph over while driving at the legal BAC limit. That's a nice twofer, Bob. Dan Marlowe says we have a "phobia" of DWI. Gee, Dan, that's not surprising, given the proportion of MV fatals that are linked to drunk driving. If you are going to drink and drive, at least keep the speed down and the car travelling in a straight line. If you can't do those two things, please park it. Two reasons. The first is entirely self-serving, i.e., so as not to call attention to yourself. Secondly and most important to the rest of us, so that when you do hit something or someone due to your poor judgment and reduced reflexes, the lower speed impact is not as devastating to the victim. Getting pulled over for allegations of speeding and then allegedly hitting the curb, the car smelling of booze, and handing the cop a credit card in lieu of a license all add up to a poor first impression with Mr. Law Officer. And hitting the 0.08 BAC on the basis of a single margarita? Supersize me? Finally, I don't think the Governor's Zero Tolerance policy was a state secret. Too bad for Ms. Padilla, I suppose, but she took her chances and lost. If she didn't get nailed for this, someone on the comments below would be crying foul anyway.

Let us not forget that Ms Padilla had options before she drove impaired. Even my kids understand that there are responsible choices one can make. She could have used a designated driver, called a cab or chose not to drink if she was going to drive. If she chose not to take one of these options she must be held accountable. It is the Law. And yes we have all made that same mistake in our lives and could be in Ms Padilla shoes right now!

She is a nice woman who made a mistake. We can let the courts decide. I was hit by a drunk driver in 2000. I have had relatives kill themself or become paralyzed from drinking and driving. I hope people learn not to ever take the chance, and Cindy deserves to still make a living for herself despite a DWI.

bob funkywinkerbean wrote, "And these are the folks causing the horrible crashes, not someone at .07 or .08 or even .09 which has the same relative crash risk as using a cell-phone while driving... " ------ Geeee bob... there are a LOT of people using cell-phones every day that cause fatal crashes. So, what exactly was your point?

The problem with DWI in NM is binge drinkers and alcoholics who get very drunk and cause head-on crashes and other fatalities. Gordon House, Dana Pabst, Scott Owens and Carlos Fierro all had BACs 2 to 3 times the legal limit. According to the NHTSA, 77% of the DWI fatalities in NM involved someone with a BAC of .15% or higher. And these are the folks causing the horrible crashes, not someone at .07 or .08 or even .09 which has the same relative crash risk as using a cell-phone while driving. If Padilla had been speeding and talking on a cell-phone she would have been posing the same risk ask being at .07 or .08 BAC. The fact that some people accept the cell-phone risk, do it themselves, and then villify someone for having 2 drinks at El Farol and driving home, shows the bias, or shall we say, hyposcrisy, surrounding this issue.

I think Ms. Padilla deserves due process, she doesn't have to admit anything, the state has to prove its case, that's our system of justice. I am still more than offended by Marlowe calling DWI a phobia, though I am afraid that DWI has gotten out of control.

Unfair? Is it more unfair for Ms. Padilla (who presumably is a mature, educated senior officer of the State, a political leader and an appointee to a position within the Obama administrations) than for an 18 year-old who shows poor judgement in drinking and driving. Unfair? She will survive this, and if she has an ounce of humility and humanity, she will turn this incident into a commitment to something more important in her work and her life than her seemingly never-ending bureaucratic aspirations. Luckily for her no one was killed or injured in her incredible lack of judgement and breach of the public trust. I commend the Governor's office for acting quickly to terminate a senior state employee who has either broken the laws or shown serious impropriety and lack of judgement in regards to consuming alcohol and then driving a motor vehicle (one of New Mexico's most serious public safety and social issues). What in the world was she thinking when on the eve of her elevation to a federal post, she cannot control her public behavior? I might go so far as to recommend to a new governor that one of her administrations first public declarations might be an administrative policy that requires the immediate termination of any state employee or any state contractor who is charged (not requiring a conviction) under the State's DWI laws. State legislators should be required to immediately resign upon being charge (not convicted) of DWI. Secondly, the spurious remarks of the defense attorney hired by Ms. Padilla ought to be censored by the state bar and licensing authorities. They are at the least unethical. Finally, the gross negligence and irresponsibility of an officer of the state who knowingly drank and then got behind the wheel of the car. At a blood alcohol content level of .07 or .08 (either one depending upon gender, weight (worse for women, by the way, as a matter of physiology)requires her public and authentic apology. She broke the public trust that she is morally and ethically required uphold. Ms. Padilla needs now to do the right thing -- muzzle her hired cheap-suit lawyer (or get an ethical one), take responsibility for her actions, accept the decision of a judge, and move on with her life. Her public career should now be ended, and now she may actually have to earn her living the way most people do, and maybe she can find ways to serve society that, if she is lucky, reflect a new view of life.

cs says his 2nd most famous line in the wizard of oz, "dorothy, i don't think we are in pennsylvania anymore." dorothy wispers to cs, "pssst.. it's kansas, you dolt! kansas!" cs asks, "what?" dorothy answers, "it's kansas you MORON! KANSAS!!!!" cs answers, "sorry, i thought we were in pennsylvania."

Most people in high,"well connected" positions truly think they are above the law. Many of these politico horres need to be brought back down to earth. You done good, Our peace officers!

Most people in high,"well connected" positions truly think they are above the law. Many of these politico hores need to be brought back down to earth. You done good, Our peace officers!

cs sings his famous line in the wizard of oz, "if i only had a brain..." and the crowds go wild! clap! clap! clap! clap! clap! clap! clap! clap!

hey cs? you said basically the same thing i did. i just didn't go google the exact text of the law to "pretend i was smart" like you just did. do you not have a brain? you weren't the scarecrow in the wizard of oz by any chance, were you?

Jeezz David. I`m sorry. That`s hard to handle.

Drive By Poster and Truett do not know the law. The presumptive level for DUI is .08 BAC. Below that (ie: .07 and below) arrests are still DUI, just the standard to prove in court is "impaired to the slightest degree." Driving While Under the Influence (DWI)and Driving Under the Influence (DUI) are the same charge stated differently. These two posters are not anywhere near as smart as they believe they are.

"'She doesn't deserve to be blackballed because of the indiscretion of having a drink before she drove...It's just not fair.'" You're right, it isn't fair, that she is going to lose her job. But you know what's more unfair, when someone is killed because of a drunk driver. As a public figure who works for a governor who is all about passing legislation to prevent drunk driving, she should have been one of the LAST people drinking and driving. In reality she shouldn't have been, for lack of a better word, so stupid as to drink and drive. It DOESN'T MATTER how much a person has had to drink, they SHOULD NOT get behind the wheel!!! There are innocent people who do not deserve to die because of another person's actions. In 3 days, it will be three years since my brother and his family were killed. They were innocent victims of someone who made the decision to drink and drive. So yeah, it's not "fair" that she is going to miss out on her job but, it isn't fair to the people she put in danger. She should have thought about her actions BEFORE she got in that car and should be facing the consequences without complaint. New Mexico law says... You drink, you drive, you lose well, she drank, she drove, and now she deserves to lose.

"'She doesn't deserve to be blackballed because of the indiscretion of having a drink before she drove...It's just not fair.'" You're right, it isn't fair, that she is going to lose her job. But you know what's more unfair, when someone is killed because of a drunk driver. As a public figure who works for a governor who is all about passing legislation to prevent drunk driving, she should have been one of the LAST people drinking and driving. In reality she shouldn't have been, for lack of a better word, so stupid as to drink and drive. It DOESN'T MATTER how much a person has had to drink, they SHOULD NOT get behind the wheel!!! There are innocent people who do not deserve to die because of another person's actions. In 3 days, it will be three years since my brother and his family were killed. They were innocent victims of someone who made the decision to drink and drive. So yeah, it's not "fair" that she is going to miss out on her job but, it isn't fair to the people she put in danger. She should have thought about her actions BEFORE she got in that car and should be facing the consequences without complaint. New Mexico law says... You drink, you drive, you lose well, she drank, she drove, and now she deserves to lose.

I don't think you read the article either, "just watching". The article states, and I quote, "Padilla —who handed the officer a credit card after he asked for her license — later failed sobriety tests and was arrested.." You see, "just watching", a BAC is only a number. It is the concentration of alcohol in the blood. By definition, .09% is driving while INTOXICATED. But also by definition, anything lesser (such as .08% in this case), can be deemed DUI... Everyone reacts to alcohol differently. If she failed a sobriety test, that could mean that her motor skills were impaired, therefore creating a dangerous condition with her on the road. DUI is a discretionary charge using the judgment of the arresting officer. Truett in the 3rd post here was right.

Who has one drink all evening and then drives home at midnight? Her expensive lawyer seems to think her promising career is more important than the State's efforts to make the roads safer. I would be interested to hear what the State DUI Czar has to say about this? In the old days the police would have just looked the other way...let us hope the court doesn't.

So many people preaching from their pulpits. Do any of you read the entire article? She was within legal limits and the readers comments have to blow this out of proportion. Give it a rest, seems Santa Fe is filled with saints who just hate to see anyone get ahead in life. I'm guessing misery loves company seems to be the norm here.

Can't do the time, don't do the crime. You drink, you drive, you lose.

A Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .08% has the same crash risk as driving while talking on a cell-phone. Texting while driving has a crash risk twice that of .08% BAC. To be fair, those people should lose their jobs too, right? Also, NM ranks 10th worst state for DWI fatalities per 100k population, but 9th worst for sober fatalities per 100k population. That's right -- our state is WORSE relative to other states for sober drivers than we are for DWI! The problem of the horrible crashes are people who getting extremely drunk, not a borderline case like this one. Two readings, and one was below .08. This case will get tossed as it should. Meanwhile, she spends a night in jail, has her car impounded (guilty until prove innocent, so much for the constitution) and loses a perhaps once-in-a-lifetime job.

"It's a terrible case," Marlowe said. "Because of this phobia of DWI ... people end up losing their livelihood, and it's not right. This stands to ruin her whole future. It's a complete overreaction." No, Marlowe, it's not a phobia. Back in 1973, when my sister was killed by a drunk driver, it was just an accident. Today, DWI is a plague, maybe you might serve your client better if you gave her an effective antibiotic, help cure this disease, not enable it.

new cabinet position with barack obama? $150,000 a year ---- celebrating the offer at el farol's with margaritas? $250 ---- handing your credit card to the police officer when he asks for your driver's license? PRICELESS! ---- for some moments in life, there's cash, but for all others? there's only mastercard. :)

She doesn't know how the Chief of Staff knew about the arrest. Hmmm. Maybe because it's a matter of PUBLIC RECORD!!!

No one is above the law, especially a government employee. People like Ms. Padilla should be setting an example for the rest of us. Let's not forget that our taxes pay her salary. It is nothing personal and I do not even know Ms. Padilla but she has failed and does not deserve her position.

YOU DRINK YOU DRIVE YOU LOSE! PERIOD! A PERSON SHOULD FEEL VERY SCARED IF THEY GET BEHIND THE WHEEL EVEN AFTER ONE DRINK. AS AN UNCLE OF PAUL GONZALES AND HIS FAMILY, I FEEL THAT IT IS ATROCIOUS THAT A LAWYER WOULD STAND BEHIND A POLITICAL FIGURE IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISQUALIFY THE FACT THAT YES SHE DID DRIVE AFTER SHE HAD A DRINK. SHOULD I QUOTE...."IT'S A TERRIBLE CASE....PEOPLE LOSING THEIR LIVELIHOOD....THIS STANDS TO RUIN HER WHOLE CAREER...A COMPLETE OVERREACTION...SHE DOESN'T DESERVE TO BE BLACKBALLED BECAUSE OF THE INDISCRETION OF HAVIN A DRINK BEFORE SHE DROVE". HHHMMM.... I WISH THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD PAUL THAT HIS LIFE WOULD BE OVER BECAUSE SOME IDIOT DECIDED TO DRINK AND DRIVE. DOES THAT EXCUSE THE FACT THAT MY GREAT NIECES WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE AND GROW INTO PRODUCTIVE WOMEN THAT MS PADILLA ATTAINS TO BE, THAT THEY'R MOTHER WILL NEVER BE THE BELOVED SCHOOL NURSE ANY LONGER. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE. THE FACTS REMAIN THAT YOUR MS PADILLA DID IN FACT DRINK AND DRIVE AND SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HER IRRESPONSIBILITY WHEN GETTING BEHIND THE WHEEL AFTER HAVING DRINKS. I AM SORRY THAT HER CAREER WILL BE TAKING A TURN BECAUSE OF HER ACTIONS, BUT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES- YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW. MY FAMILY'S LIFE HAS TAKEN A DRAMATIC TURN. HOW FAIR IS THAT! GREGORY BRIZAL dabomba1@yahoo.com

ambro and rey have it right. why should this bimbo be treated any differently? i agree though.. she should be allowed to receive alcoholism treatment. as long as it doesn't interfere with her trash pick-up duties she will be performing with the santa fe prison inmate crew walking the median of u.s. 285 at 6:00am. just remember though.. when you pass her, honk and wave!! HONK! HONK! "HI CINDY!" HONK! HONK!

A drunk driver is a drunk driver! just because she makes over $100,000 a year as opposed to the drunk driver who a makes $30,000 a year.is she better? if anything, she is in the public eye and should set an example. unfortunately these people think they are better than the average hard working citizen and they think they are above the law. She needs to be prosecuted just like everyone else.

I know tons of people who had their lives ruined by the DWI Nazis, when under.08. Why should she be any different?

oops sorry about the double post.

She should be allowed to get treatment for alcohol abuse and not lose her position.

Just like Gorbells so eloquently said. Lie Big, Lie often, Lie outrageously, and lie loud! And the people will believe you. I bet by now most believe the sun is blue, and the sky is yellow. You believe the schlock the feds tell you, why would`t you believe that?

I think she should be allowed to get alcohol treatment and not lose her job.

its not a DWI phobia, Mr. Marlowe (moron)...Its a DWI CRISIS!!!! There is NEVER an excuse to drink and drive!!! Repeat after me!!!

This happened 12 days ago. Why did it take the newmedia so long to report on this story? Does this smell like ANOTHER attempted cover up?

"Efforts to reach Padilla on Friday were unsuccessful." ---- did they try the bar?

As usual, none of Marlow's clients are ever drunk. They pay to be "never", drunk.

Miss Cindy Padilla, you are a LOOOOOSER, you think given your position should give you special consideration in breaking our laws? I am sure in the public forum you would speak out against DWI, because it is the politically correct position; however when it comes to living those values you should have a diffrent set of rules than the rest of us. To bad you don't have a website that I could send you the photos of the last two horrific DWI accidents that we have had to respond to as firefighters and EMTs, and let that carnage steep into your mind as it does ours. Then maybe you would get it....

It might not be DWI......but it is DUI.....

oooooh.. i get it. the padilla bimbo wants to use the patented FIERRO DEFENSE in court... "your honor... i was stopped.. i had been drinking... i blew out my tire.. but it was at night and it was really DARK! did i mention it was REALLY DARK? it wasn't my fault! why??? because it was REALLY DARK!!!"

well.. if this richardson bimbo DID have a legal limit.. then, it's not dwi. it never WAS dwi. right? so then why did she hire a lawyer?