THE HOLLYWOOD MOVIE STAR: A VICIOUS ARREST
by John Lee
Who will protect the public when police violate the law? --U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark
What happens when a driver takes offense at a false allegation made by a police officer? What happens when a driver openly questions a cop who is attempting to falsely arrest him? What happens when a driver becomes frustrated and irritated, loses his cool, and questions the ethical judgement of a corrupt cop?
Paul Jackson is a 51 year old television actor on some of America's most popular shows. He had spent the day with his teenage daughter, attending a charity function fighting drug abuse, before going out to dinner.
On the drive home, Paul was stopped for allegedly speeding. However, since it was around midnight, police decided not to charge him for speeding. Instead, once determined that the driver had eaten dinner at a restaurant that served alcohol, they decided to go for a DWI arrest.
The professional actor was asked if he would volunteer to take a field sobriety test, which he agreed to do. Paul felt that he had performed the test satisfactorily, but police alleged that he failed the test. Paul does not drink alcohol, and became indignant when told that he was being placed under arrest for DWI.
As Paul turned to say something to his daughter, several police officers began assaulting him, throwing him to the ground. He was violently handcuffed. His young daughter began screaming hysterically.
Paul was arrested for DWI, endangering the welfare of a child, and resisting arrest, and taken to jail. He was asked to voluntarily agree to take the breath-alcohol test (under threat of losing his driver's license). He chose to exercise his legal right to not take the test.
Although the government police report alleges his eyes were red, the color "mug shot" published in the national newsmedia clearly proved that his eyes were white.
Due to the seriousness of his injuries during the assault by police officers, Paul was taken to hospital for medical treatment.
Police did not allow him to post bond. Paul spent the night in jail. At the government's arraignment in court the next morning, one police officer alleged Paul had declared that he had ordered two beers with his dinner. However, a second officer contradicted the honesty of the first officer, and alleged Paul had declared that he had ordered only one beer with his dinner.
Paul paid a lawyer, who got him released into his custody, "on his own recognizance," saving him from purchasing bond insurance, or from depositing cash for the full amount of bond. His driver's license was suspended, for exercising his legal right to not take the breath-alcohol test.
In the national press report, it was implied that since Paul had participated in Alcoholics Annonomous meetings for ten years, he was clearly still a drunken alcoholic. The concept of an alcoholic being recovered ("cured") by working an A.A. program (or any other program), and helping others to also find a cure, is apparently not a possibility to that news reporter and editor. [STAR, September 9, 1997, Interview declined.]
| 
