February 01, 2012 02:25 AM UTC

Shocking New Developments In Bradford DUI Scandal

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: The House is convening an ethics committee to try to sort this out from their end, as the Grand Junction Sentinel’s Charles Ashby reports:

The panel is to investigate whether Bradford improperly invoked legislative privilege in a recent traffic stop where she had been drinking, but was not issued a citation for driving under the influence of alcohol.

The panel is to be chaired by Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs. Also on the panel will be Reps. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, Claire Levy, D-Boulder, and Judy Solono, [D]-Brighton. The panel could hold its first meeting as early as Friday.

We’re told that the ethics panel will convene despite the new information from Denver Police today that significantly alters the focus on this story. Given the number of unanswered questions about it, that’s probably for the best–and likely not the only investigation needed.

—–

At a press conference hastily convened by the Denver Police Department a few minutes ago, dramatic new information about the case of Rep. Laura Bradford’s alleged DUI, and use of legislative immunity law to avoid arrest, was brought to light–we quite frankly don’t know what to make of the totality of this, so we’re just going to lay it out as we understand it.

DPD’s spokesman Matt Murray explained again today that police initiated a traffic stop Wednesday night of Rep. Bradford’s vehicle, which has state legislative license plates, but she initially did not stop (not unusual, often people will drive a block or two to get out of traffic)–and nearly hit another vehicle once she did stop a couple of blocks away from Colfax. Murray reiterates that initial tests on the scene indicated Rep. Bradford was too intoxicated to drive.

But according to Murray, and we can only characterize this as highly irregular, the original information provided by the supervisor who went to the scene to investigate was not correct. DPD now claims that they asked Rep. Bradford about where she was coming from using language that could trigger immunity–not Bradford herself invoking legislative immunity. And importantly for Rep. Bradford, according to this new version of events, she said at least twice during the incident that she “wanted to be treated like everyone else.”

Remember, all of the heretofore information about what transpired between Rep. Bradford and DPD has been provided by DPD, and Rep. Bradford’s extremely limited statements.

Murray went so far as to apologize to Rep. Bradford for having mischaracterized her actions during the police stop, and said further that Police Chief Robert White was very concerned about the possibility that his officers had not told the truth. No explanation was given as to why officers would have initially told a version of this story that severely undercuts Rep. Bradford’s credibility if it wasn’t true. And it’s unknown why Rep. Bradford never mentioned that she had said these things to police in her apology on the House floor–only that she answered their question by saying she was leaving a “legislative function.”

Folks, it’s going to make even less sense to you when you get to Rep. Bradford’s gun.

According to Murray, as police were arranging for Rep. Bradford’s cab ride home, they asked her if there were any valuables in the car. Bradford replied that there was a gun–in Colorado, it’s not illegal to possess a firearm in your car, but it is always illegal to possess one when intoxicated. The spokesman says an officer on scene cleared the weapon, put it back, and was then instructed by the supervisor–read this very carefully–not to talk about it.

If the statements made in this brief press conference leave you with your head spinning, we assure you you’re not alone. We’ll start by saying that we don’t understand how officers this accomodating would have told such a hostile version of the story to Rep. Bradford once it broke in the press–a story that may nevertheless have omitted yet another important angle.

In short, we don’t know what, or who, to believe right now. But we’d say it’s only becoming more serious. Obviously we’ll update as new information becomes available.