Ah, yes, those old football injuries that tighten up and cause you to walk like you’re drunk after going to a wedding where nobody drank to excess. Who hasn’t been in that situation?
Let’s be clear, now: Rep. Ryan is not politically incompetent, no sireee! He’s no fool; he knew that an arrest for public intoxication in August might be a high hurdle on the route to his re-election, especially since the matter wouldn’t be resolved until after the November 7. So when the rising star of a congressman, seeking election, now safely accomplished, to his sixth term, was arrested in Virginia, Ryan’s staff managed to keep the embarrassing incident out of the papers, cable news broadcasts and political junkie blogs. He had been stopped by a police officer who observed him staggering along the sidewalk, and Ryan refused to take a Breathalyzer alcohol test as the officer requested, precipitating his arrest. The incident, after all, might have been misunderstood. Can’t have that.
Rep. Ryan said he had been walking awkwardly because his back was sore, the result of “an old football injury.” “I threw my back out the day before,” Ryan told The Plain Dealer. “I had been on a plane and been in a car all day, so I was walking funny.” Okaaaaay, whatever you say, sir. And the refusal to take the Breathalyzer? No word on that little detail. Ryan was returning from a wedding. Be fair—who gets drunk at a wedding?
Presuming Ryan was innocent, as the recent dismissal of the charges suggest (it also suggests that VIP’s have ways to get minor charges dismissed, guilty or not), his responsibility in August was to announce the arrest and answer questions about it candidly, openly and honestly, allowing voters to decide what impact, if any, the incident should have regarding their decision whether to re-elect him. His handling of the incident—hiding it until the election was over, forcing voters to decide without information they would have considered relevant—shows that Ryan is willing to deceive the public for his own ends.
Did Ryan’s constituency have a right to know about their Congressman’s arrest before he faced re-election? Of course. Was this information intentionally withheld from them, and the rest of the public, until after the election? Obviously. Was that fair? No. Was this the conduct of a trustworthy public official? No. Even if Ryan was a bit tipsy, the course of an honest and ethical public official would have been to tell the public, “Yes, I celebrated at my staffer’s wedding a bit too hard, and was a little bit smashed. I’m not proud of it—-Congressmen shouldn’t be drunk in public— but that’s what happened.”
The arrest was, if he is to be believed, a minor matter, easily explained, and yet he did not respect or trust the public and the media sufficiently to supply them with the information they both had the right to have in a timely fashion. What other information has Ryan kept from the public, and what will he keep from public eyes in the future? What we now know is that he is willing to engage in deception and unjustifiable secrecy to hold on to his position and power.
That renders him unqualified to keep either.
_________________________________________
Pointer: Washington Post
Facts: Cleveland Plain Dealer
Graphic: Cleveland Plain Dealer
Ethics Alarms 
Political expediancy outweighs values. As you pointed out, Jack, a simple statement of honesty would not only have resonated well among constituents, but established him as a man of character. As it happened, it established him as a man of NO character. A political animal. Of course, Ryan knows that it will likely be all forgotten in another two years.
This would be a lot easier for me to digest if the subject matter were more serious. Actually, I’m going to say that the nature of this complaint has no shred of seriousness to it.
As it is, I get your point on his “burying the story”. I just happen to agree with his handling of the situation.
I’m surprised.
I also don’t believe his story for a second.
It’s news. Let’s name all the people we can think of in the public eye who this would be TMZ, FOX or MSNBC headline news if it involved them. Any arrest of a Congressman or Senator, even if its for spitting on the sidewalk or walking on the grass, is news the public has a right to know. The offense? Trivial, I agree. I think hiding it isn’t trivial—I think it has signature significance.
Don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. But we’ve made people this way by showing that we, as a public in general, can’t not blow things out of proportion and make everything partisan vitriol during an election. Additionally, given that it was likely to be scrutinized without facts and with pure speculation, it’s unlikely that he would have been treated fairly if partisans pressed the prosecutor to move forward with charges regardless of facts. As it stands, the prosecutor, independently, has evaluated the officer’s complaint and has found it lacking.
If the congressman has manipulated to get that result, that’s a real story…but we’ll need evidence first.
From all I can tell, the officer’s account was that the congressman was “staggering” along the sidewalk. If there was more information, I might be more sympathetic to holding the congressman’s story as garbage. As it stands, the congressman’s story doesn’t even matter at this point because it appears to be a case of an overzealous officer….and no one should have to justify oneself when confronted with asshatery.
Are you really comfortable with withholding facts on the grounds that voters aren’t capable of weighing them properly? I argue that while Bush’s DUI should have been a non-issue in the 2000 election, the fact that he didn’t disclose it on his own was something to be concerned about. Similarly, Ryan’s story raises candor questions—why NOT take the Breathalyzer? My guess is that he was drinking at the wedding, even if his gait was caused by his back issues, and he knew he would get a bad reading—in which case, the arrest was justified.
Come on Jack. You’re the lawyer. “Why not take the the breathalyzer?”
The officer, having already made contact with the individual and now “detaining” him is investigating a possible “public intoxication”. He is gathering evidence and the individual has a right to remain silent and not incriminate himself further. The question should be “Why aren’t we heralding this individual as a competent person who knows their constitutional rights?”
You have a right to refuse a Breathalyzer, but it is also a legitimate indicia of possible guilt that you do, just as you have a right to refuse to let an officer search your person on suspicion of carrying drugs. But if I’m not carrying drugs, I let him search. Would you take the same position if he was weaving in traffic, and said it was because his arms were asleep after a long flight, and also refused the test? Is your point that walking drunk is minor, while driving drunk isn’t? The rights involved are the same.
Driving mandates that you submit to either a breathalyzer or a blood test. If he refused the breath for the blood, I’d be just as proud, as long as he followed the law. I’m one of those people that will roll down my window part of the way to greet an officer and if asked to exit the vehicle, will roll the window up and hit the locks on the way out.
Just because you submit to voluntary searches doesn’t mean that officers should expect the same from everyone else. A refusal of a search is not a presumption of guilt.
I admit, Virginia’s laws are more stringent than Colorado in the area of public intoxication. In CO, PI is not criminalized. If you are drunk in public, the most the police can do is take you somewhere to sleep it off. (Detox) They’ll also release you into the care of another sober individual. If it wasn’t that way, we’d have 25,000 Broncos fans being ticketed during and after every home game.
And you’re a lawyer?
Now obviously it depends on the jurisdiction. Where I live, I’d do the same.
In others, I wouldn’t give police the time of day. They are not my friends. Their job is to gain convictions, “factual innocence” is irrelevant, except as it might make their job easier – the suspect, not having done anything, won’t be prepared to contest the fabricated testimony against them.
See for example:
http://newsone.com/2036891/brandon-jackson-case/?omcamp=EMC-CVNL
The police, in fact, are our friends. The fact that there are bad ones doesn’t mean that general suspicion of the whole profesion is justified, fair or rational.
But in this case, the officer was already pursuing a tricky tacky charge. Why make his job easier when his motives are apparent?
What are his motives? I’m assuming Ryan was staggering pretty obviously to attract the police. He wasn’t targeted, because he’s hardly a public figure in Virginia. Public drunkenness is older that automobiles as an offense.
Usually, maybe not VA, but a PI charge is not for staggering, but for loud obnoxious behavior. Disturbing the peace. An observable change in demeanor. A complaint by a person disturbed by the drunk.
If the congressman had a glass of champagne and was staggering because of his back, and was arrested based on smell and stagger, then your post is proof positive of how it would have been covered by the press… Unfairly.
It’s not illegal to stagger. It’s not illegal to have a glass of champagne. But put them together and now you have to defend yourself because a cop took you in on that alone because he’s a dick?
At least now the further information is that the Charges have been dropped, indicating that it is more likely the case of bad police work and not true PI.
I’d say the charges were more likely dropped because this is the DC area, he is a Democratic Congressman, and there are ways of dealing with such things. And I don’t think I’m being especially cynical, either.
Well, sir, I thank you for your time! I think we’ve both fleshed out our thoughts on the subject and I look forward to other insightful comments!