Gillispie Arrested for DWI

General21

Will he ever get another job after this latest arrest??

Police have charged former Kentucky basketball coach Billy Gillispie with drunken driving.

Police dispatcher Todd Sparrow said Lawrenceburg police arrested Gillispie and took him to the nearby Franklin County Regional (Ky.) Jail.

Gillispie, who was driving a 2009 white Mercedes, was pulled over around 2:45 a.m. ET in Kentucky. He refused to take a breathalyzer or blood alcohol test, WLEX-TV in Lexington is reporting.

Gillispie, 50, reportedly told police that he and his male passenger were returning from a golfing trip. The passenger was reportedly charged with public intoxication.

It is the third time that Gillispie has been arrested on alcohol-related driving charges. However, in one case the charge was dismissed and in the other he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, reckless driving.

General

21 Responses to Gillispie Arrested for DWI

  1. GAWolf 08/27/2009 at 11:00 AM #

    Sounds like he’s got a good attorney. After two prior incidents at least he knew not to blow. If that means he also refused field sobriety tests, he’s got a fighting chance to get out of this one. Unfortunately, he stayed in the state of Kentucky like a dingbat. There are only three law schools in Kentucky, I believe, so it’s highly likely the person sitting as his judge will be a UK grad. While that shouldn’t matter, stuff like that does. Judges are humans, and with that they find it hard to completely negate their bias (like us all). The judge will rule on pretrial motions such as a Motion to Suppress for reasonable suspicion to stop and probable cause to arrest.

    The finder of fact and thus the person/people who rules on guilt and innocence can vary. I’m not sure whether the court with immediate jurisdiction over a DWI (a misdemeanor) would be a trial by judge or jury in Kentucky. In NC it is a trial by judge first in District Court. If convicted a defendant can appeal and get a trial de novo (read: entirely new) in Superior Court before a jury of his peers. Unfortunately, a jury of his “peers” in Lexington, KY would likely be a jury of Gillespie’s enemies. Accordingly, he might want to take his chances with the UK-grad judge who at least has the intellectually-speaking charge of being fair and impartial.

    Yeesh. That’s a mess.

    As to the civil law suit, I’m sure Coach G’s attorneys realize the same and thus they’re trying to keep it out of the Kentucky state courts which is why they filed in Federal Court where the playing field would hopefully be a little more level. That’s what that’s all about, undoubtedly. Just the same, UK’s lawyers would love to have this heard by a jury of UK fans on their home court. Hell, they might as well try it on the “court” at Rupp Arena if they successfully have it removed from Federal Court.

    One thing about a contract or document that serves as a contract… it is to be read most strictly against the party who drafted it. That’s always an issue when the meaning of the terms therein is disputed. If G’s lawyer’s wrote it, that’s not good for him. Sounds like however, the “memo” would have been written by the University, the booster club or their agents. That would be better for G.

  2. Wufpacker 08/27/2009 at 11:24 AM #

    I realize my opinion is likely different from the majority here, but as I’ve said (recently) on here before, I am still dumbfounded that that DUI is still considered a misdemeanor. It seems especially wrong when it becomes obvious that the party in question has not learned their lesson, and instead continues to put others at risk.

    Furthermore, the fact that this is G’s 3rd offense, but he has yet to be convicted, just reinforces in his own mind that its no big deal. He ought to be in the vicinity of losing his license long term and facing considerable jail time by now.

    UK grad or not, I hope that whoever ends up deciding his DUI case tears him a new backside.

  3. #44 17 24 08/27/2009 at 11:41 AM #

    Wufpacker, I totally agree. I work at a place that accepts community service workers who have been arrested for misdemeanors. We get persons with DUI’s, larceny, etc. and it always surprises me when even double offenders for DUI’s, get sentenced to lesser hours (24-48) than say someone who stole a shirt from Banana Republic (75-100). It doesn’t seem right.

  4. Clarksa 08/27/2009 at 12:05 PM #

    That makes two of our wish list coaches that I’m real glad never got the job here…

  5. Wulfpack 08/27/2009 at 1:20 PM #

    State of Kentucky is chock for of crooked coaches. Gillispie, Pitino and now Cal.

    Hope Billy gets nailed. Guy needs to learn his lesson.

  6. GAWolf 08/27/2009 at 2:15 PM #

    44 17 24: I think you’re a little confused about what’s going on there. The 75 hours is a deferral program after the completion of which the case against the defendant is dismissed. There are diversion programs in place for almost all first offenders… EXCEPT those people charged with DWI. Drug dealers charged with felonies can potentially get a deferral whereas your 65 year old, school teacher mother who never committed any other crime in her life will not get such an opportunity if she gets charged with DWI because she is stopped for a registration violation after leaving her bridge club where she had two glasses of wine. She’s driving fine, acting fine, not hurting anyone, yet she just happens to blow a particular number which has NOTHING to do with impairment but is a chemical equation regarding a blood alcohol contact which they measure with a machine that often breaks or can be manipulated that measures her BREATH (not blood). And for what it’s worth, my grandmother was killed by a drunk driver. I’ve experienced the pain can be caused by drinking and driving. Yet my belief in the Constitution and the pillars on which this country is founded is something bigger and more important than my personal loss or heartache. I understand your opinions, and respect them. And I also recognize that this is hardly Gillespie’s first rodeo. I am of the opinion that one DWI could happen to anyone. It’s the second one that means there are serious issues that have to be addressed. It’s no secret that G battles some substance abuse demons.

    Anyway, the community service hours for a DWI is for a CONVICTION. It is only PART of the sentence imposed. A DWI sentence consists of several parts which can include any or all of the following: community service, jail time, a loss of license for at least a year, a required substance abuse assessment AND treatment, AND hefty fines and court costs AND an increase in insurance premiums (up to 400%).

    You’re certainly welcome to your opinion of whether that punishment is appropriate or not appropriate, but the 75 hours you’re talking about is something different than a “sentence.”

    Wufpacker: Don’t worry. DWI charges have become a “capital misdemeanor”. Their are constitutional protections afforded to a murder defendant that have been stripped from someone who has been charged with driving while impaired. And those Nazi-police-state infringements on our personal liberties do not differentiate between a first offender who blows a .07 or third-time offender who blows an .18 and hurts someone. It’s all politics, nothing more. Trust me… you’re better off killing someone than getting caught driving after drinking, which by the way is still legal in this country. If the law really wants to be consistent, they should ban driving after drinking completely. But you see that will never happen. Why? Because the alcohol and restaurant lobbies will not let that happen. What you’re seeing in DWI law is the battle between two political organizations: the MADD mothers and the beer guys.

  7. Alpha Wolf 08/27/2009 at 2:15 PM #

    My wife loves the HBO show “True Blood.” On that show the town detective is disgraced and is a besotted drunk who is always slugging on a whiskey bottle.

    That’s how I envision Gillespie.

  8. GAWolf 08/27/2009 at 2:37 PM #

    “Awww Sookie Stackhouse…. I admiyah the cusp of your breasteses.” That dude’s fake southern accent is just atrocious. That show is like a train wreck, it’s visually painful but it’s hard to turn away from.

  9. Noah 08/27/2009 at 4:50 PM #

    Gillespie’s drinking problem has been pretty well known for some time. I promise you that his most recent arrest came as no surprise to the Kentucky administration.

  10. fullmoon1 08/27/2009 at 5:07 PM #

    You have to selectively mute the bad accents on True Blood.

  11. Wufpacker 08/27/2009 at 8:52 PM #

    GAWolf said:
    “And those Nazi-police-state infringements on our personal liberties do not differentiate between a first offender who blows a .07 or third-time offender who blows an .18 and hurts someone.”

    Aside from knowing how the law reads, I’m certainly not well versed in all the particulars, such as what sorts of deals one can get depending on their circumstances (ie first offense, just barely over the legal limit, etc.), but I am confused about you saying it doesn’t matter if you’re .07 first offender or .18 3rd timer. I thought that the legal limit was .08 and anything below that was not illegal (unless of course you are obviously impaired, either with or without additional substances). Has the legal limit been lowered?

    I’m curious about the constitutional protections that have been stripped with regard to DUI. Are you speaking about issues to do with due process? I’d be interested in hearing about that.

    Regarding diversion programs, certainly a first offender, assuming their BAC is not extreme (say .08-.12) and there was no accident and/or injuries/fatalities, should get the chance at diversion. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. But as you say, folks guilty of felonies often can get diversion as well, so upping DUI to a felony would not prevent this. IF they successfully complete diversion/probation with no further transgressions, the offense should be dismissed/expunged. If they don’t then their record and sentence should reflect that of a felony. Or if there is an additional offense that occurs, then they should have 2 felonies.

    Honestly, its the repeat offenders and/or those that are so plastered (they KNOW they are impaired but just don’t care) that they can barely find their car, let alone drive it, that I believe should be treated more harshly. As it now stands (to the best of my memory, anyway) someone must get a 4th DUI and must have had the other 3 in the past 7 years for it to be a felony (again, this is from memory, please correct me if I’m wrong).

    Certainly I believe in justice as far as the ideal that everyone should be treated fairly, and equally. But I personally feel that DUI, which takes the risk of causing bodily harm or fatality to someone else, should be treated more harshly than someone who is caught for possession (w/o intent), paraphernalia, or larceny. The first two are victimless crimes (again, assuming no intent to distribute), and the 3rd, while not victimless, is not a case where the victim is harmed physically or even threatened with harm.

    Also, I agree with you that breathalyzer results can vary greatly depending on the maintenance of the machine and the person administering the test. For that reason I don’t believe they should be admissible in court, much like a polygraph. Only blood results from a credentialed lab should be admissible, and like any other evidence it should be incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate that the science/method is sound and that the results are accurate and not affected by any external factors. I don’t, however, have any problem with breathalyzer results, along with other factors, being used as probable cause. Also, because of known limitations, I don’t believe that refusing a breathalyzer should constitute grounds for mandatory suspension/revocation.

    And as far as Grandma at the bridge club, I can’t imagine 2 glasses of wine would put her over the legal limit. Unless they’re huge glasses, or she slammed them down (hilarious mental picture) in the last 20-30 minutes before driving, or she has some metabolic disorder that slows her metabolism/detoxification of alcohol, I can’t imagine she’d blow .08 (unless, of course, the breathalyzer is inaccurate). If any of those things is true then she should know the risk and know not to be driving after drinking. Plus, if she had paid her registration she’d have been fine anyway, LOL.

    Seriously though, I don’t believe DUI should be treated any differently than any other serious offense, no better, no worse (ie there should be a diversion program for first offenders, and there should not be the stripping of constitutional rights as you say). Nor should it be treated as guilty until proven innocent, as it often is. The basic principles of our justice system should apply to all people who stand accused, regardless of the charge. But I do believe that once proven guilty in a court of law, it should be treated as a felony.

    _____________________________________________

    “I am of the opinion that one DWI could happen to anyone. It’s the second one that means there are serious issues that have to be addressed.”

    I agree with you here to a point. Multiple DUI’s are certainly a good indication that the person has a problem and needs to be dealt with differently (more harsh and/or different punishment altogether). But I have to disagree with you that a first DUI can happen to anyone. It all goes to personal responsibility. Anyone who is even reasonably committed to not driving while impaired will have no problem successfully not driving while impaired. Its not (or it shouldn’t be, anyway) that hard to plan ahead and… a) not drink at all or plan not to drive if you do, b) limit yourself to a predetermined number of drinks and then not drive for a certain amount of time thereafter, or c) call a cab.

    Its really not hard to avoid a DUI. And if, as you say, one DUI could happen to anyone, wouldn’t this imply that individuals have no control of the situation? If that’s true then why couldn’t they also get a 2nd? A 3rd? A 4th? While I agree with you in principle that, all things being equal, a first offense is less severe and should be treated as such, I can’t agree that its unavoidable.

  12. rtpack24 08/28/2009 at 7:48 AM #

    Noah is correct. Billy’s rep was established before he ever got to Ky and I believe there was an incident his first year at Ky where no charges were filed(he was the new b-ball coach). After that he was assigned a driver while he was still employed as the coach. He is probably done in the college ranks, needs to makes some calls to NBA teams for an asst job.

  13. Texpack 08/28/2009 at 8:59 AM #

    “Wufpacker, I totally agree. I work at a place that accepts community service workers who have been arrested for misdemeanors. We get persons with DUI’s, larceny, etc. and it always surprises me when even double offenders for DUI’s, get sentenced to lesser hours (24-48) than say someone who stole a shirt from Banana Republic (75-100). It doesn’t seem right.”

    How about somebody who was guilty of intoxication manslaughter lying in repose at the Kennedy Library and being celebrated endlessly for three days by the national media?

  14. Noah 08/28/2009 at 9:07 AM #

    There are all sorts of places where people can talk about politics and politicians. This should not be one of them.

    Getting back to the subject at hand, my question is how does Gillespie still even have a license? This would be his third CONVICTION, not his third “incident,” right?

    When you get your first DWI, isn’t a year’s suspension of your license? I know you can get a conditional license to drive to and from work. I would think that after a second arrest, the state would tell you to put your thumb to use if you need a ride.

  15. ryebread 08/28/2009 at 9:19 AM #

    Not to be a jerk, but there are some on this site who have said (particularly over the last year) that Gillispie would be the perfect coach for NC State. I’ve argued against them and this is one of the reasons why.

    The more obvious one is that he led Kentucky to some of its worst seasons ever despite having one of the single best talents in college basketball last year. Looking at how Calipari has cleaned house, it doesn’t appear that Gillispie’s team was poised for any sort of turn around.

    I hope this ends the BG infatuation that some on this site have. He’ll get another gig and I’m sure will win some games, but we do not need him here. He’s best set up to do that within the state of Texas (where the rest of his success came). I wouldn’t be surprised to see him end up at TTech after Pat Knight flames out.

  16. packalum44 08/28/2009 at 11:33 AM #

    I’m sure no one here, like myself, has ever drank and drive. It feels so comfy up here on this pedestal.

  17. Noah 08/28/2009 at 3:39 PM #

    Did you get ARRESTED for it three times?

    Forget the safety implications of drinking and driving for a moment. We’ll ignore the fact that you’re putting other people’s lives in danger.

    Did you get ARRESTED three times for it?

    It’s one thing to be a criminal…it’s an entirely different thing to be a completely inept criminal. If you’ve been arrested for the same thing three times, I think we’re pretty safe in assuming that you’re NEVER going to get it.

    Guy gets a DWI…who really cares?

    Guy gets TWO DWIs…you start to wonder if there’s a problem.

    By #3, you just assume the guy’s a tosspot drunk, a ****-up and not someone who ought to be roaming around making decisions.

  18. GAWolf 08/28/2009 at 3:55 PM #

    Noah:

    In NC the suspension for a DWI varies depending on the date of prior DWIs. The first offense is a year with the ability to get a limited driving privilege to go to work and school and is limited to 6 am to 8 pm Monday through Friday unless you have a letter from your employer that shows you work outside of those times. However, if you blow a .15 or over and that evidence is admissible (it’s not suppressed) then you cannot get a limited privilege without an Interlock device in all vehicles you drive.

    A second offense CAN up the ante considerably depending on when it was. A prior outside of seven year before is simply an aggravating fact (as opposed to a grossly aggravating factor) and does not change the suspension or privilege status. A prior WITHIN 7 years is a grossly aggravating factor and shoots the price of poker through the roof. If that prior is inside 7 but outside 3 years it causes a two year suspension with no driving privileges at all. A prior within 3 years is a grossly aggravating factor and the suspension is for 4 years with the ability to petition DMV for a reinstatement hearing for a limited privilege after 2 years. They are hardly ever granted… so essentially it’s a 4 year suspension with zero ability to drive.

    A third conviction is a permanent suspension of the driving privilege and that will not be reinstated without a hearing at which you must show you’ve all but joined a monastery to be granted a driving privilege. We do have some success with these hearing for our clients but there must be a mountain of evidence that the person completely abstains from alcohol and driving for at least 3 years prior to the hearing. It’s a difficult hearing to say the least and is completely in the subjective opinion of the DMV Hearing Officer however an appeal to Superior Court is possible if the applicant is denied.

    Level I (the worst misdemeanor DWI) and Level II (the second worst) both have mandatory minimum jail terms. One grossly agravating factor is a Level II and two or more is a level I.

    A habitual DWI is the only felony DWI that must the 4th conviction within ten years.

  19. GAWolf 08/28/2009 at 3:57 PM #

    I just saw Noah’s last response and despite my occupation that pretty much sums it up.

    However, I’ve had many clients who have had 3 who do ultimately turn their lives around and have taken the appropriate measures to address their substance abuse issues. Even those folks would probably agree with Noah.

  20. TheCOWDOG 08/28/2009 at 11:16 PM #

    Have you ever been a target?

    What person in mind’s right would continue dressing in bull’s eye clothing?

    The man is very sick…for real.

  21. StateFans 09/02/2009 at 7:38 AM #

    I don’t like Gregg Doyel, but this was pretty good:

    http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/12142380/rss

    If it weren’t for the recent troubles of Calipari and Pitino, we would be talking a lot more about Gillispie. And we would be saying something like this:

    Along with Dave Bliss, Jim Harrick and Nolan Richardson, Billy Gillispie is the least hirable coach in college basketball.

Leave a Reply