Glenn

Hard worker, love fast cars, New York Giants fan, and I love listening to and promoting GOOD MUSIC!

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance, Moreover of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.

[Aaron Rupar @atrupar]

UN Ambassador Mike Waltz on Trump's deal with Putin: "The Ukrainians have been attacking Russian refineries as part of the war. The president has been clear in asking the Ukrainians to stop."

[Rhein Amacher @RheinAmacher]

I definitely voted for this! 🫡🇺🇸

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

@BillKristol He had no paperwork to even open up her car door.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

@TaraBull808 Wrong person this dude here is the one about to go down.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

@WestchesterDA First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

@abcnews First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

@MarthaRaddatz First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

You forgot one : First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

@ConEdison First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

@amyklobuchar First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

[Glenn @gnbutler30]

First, Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable.

Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“)

The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.