[1] Suspected drunk driving released, when will "officials shielding each other" end?
[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
Case review
Yesterday, the Binzhou Public Security Bureau Traffic Police Detachment released a police report via its official Weibo account:
On September 21, the First Squadron of the Economic and Technological Development Zone Brigade of the Binzhou Public Security Bureau Traffic Police Detachment participated in a drunk driving enforcement live broadcast link, setting up a checkpoint at the intersection of Huanghe Sixth Road and Bohai Eighteenth Road, with one police officer leading four auxiliary police officers on duty. At 22:56 that day, the duty officer found a vehicle stopping abnormally and immediately approached to handle the situation. The driver, Lin, stated that her husband Liu had been driving the vehicle and that Liu had consumed alcohol at noon, so she took over driving to be safe. During this time, Lin claimed to be "from the Public Security Bureau." The duty officer failed to conduct alcohol tests on the two individuals as required and improperly released them.
After the incident, the Municipal Public Security Bureau immediately established a joint investigation team to carry out work. Upon investigation, the driver Lin, female, 58 years old, is a second-level senior police chief of Binzhou Municipal Public Security Bureau; her husband Liu, 58 years old, is an employee of a certain company. At noon that day, Lin and her husband had a family meal, during which Liu drank one glass (about 150ml) of 53-proof Jinsha brand liquor, while Lin did not drink. That evening, after the couple had dinner at home (neither drank during dinner), Lin drove (as confirmed by video surveillance) to the square for exercise and leisure, ending around 22:50. On the way home from the square, Liu drove to about 100 meters before a traffic police checkpoint, worried that his midday drinking might still exceed the limit, and then handed over driving to Lin. The leading officer on duty, Cheng, violated the "Procedural Regulations for Handling Road Traffic Safety Violations," failing to collect evidence promptly at the scene, making it impossible to determine whether Liu constituted drunk driving. Moreover, in subsequent interviews, he fabricated facts and concealed faults, showing favoritism and issues of lax and non-standard law enforcement.
After reporting to and being studied by the Party Committee of the Municipal Public Security Bureau, it was decided to give the leading officer on duty, Cheng (instructor of the First Squadron of the Economic and Technological Development Zone Brigade of the Municipal Traffic Police Detachment, fourth-level police chief), a serious warning within the Party, administrative removal from post, and demotion from fourth-level police chief to second-level police officer; the traffic police brigade commander Huo and the supervising leader Xing, who bear leadership responsibilities, were respectively ordered to make self-criticism and given admonishing talks; the auxiliary police officers involved in the on-site duty were criticized and educated. Lin was given a serious warning within the Party by the Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection and Supervision. Liu was handed over to his employer for handling.
Article 8 of the "Procedural Regulations for Handling Road Traffic Safety Violations"
Traffic police shall comprehensively, timely, and legally collect evidence that can confirm whether a violation exists and the severity of the violation.
[1] The author's perspective
Clearly, the key to this case is not whether Lin and her husband actually drank, but that the officer on duty, Cheng, did not follow the regulations. When a vehicle driver is suspected of drunk driving, the officer should test their blood alcohol content. Lin's statement "I'm from the Public Security Bureau" allowed herself and her husband to be exempted from inspection during the drunk driving crackdown. Such illegal and disciplinary behavior not only severely damages the fairness of law enforcement but also undermines the credibility of the system.
The author's article yesterday also mentioned that the root of solving problems lies not only in legislation but also in corresponding judicial enforcement to achieve standardized management and punish crimes. From this incident, it is not difficult to see that in matters under heaven, it is not the legislation that is difficult, but the enforcement of the law. In other words, having laws written in black and white is not difficult and holds little significance; only when truly applied in practice to effectively solve practical problems does our legislation have meaning.
At its core, the problem still lies in the "sense of superiority" of officials. Recalling the earlier "My dad is Li X" to today's "I'm from the Municipal Public Security Bureau," such arrogant words actually stem from a mentality that disregards the law and acts willfully. As the saying goes, "If an official doesn't serve the people, they might as well go home and sell sweet potatoes." They claim to be good public servants of the people, but in their hearts, they abuse their power to act tyrannically. Since they bear the public authority of the Public Security Bureau, they should use it to reflect on themselves, not to operate in the shadows. Looking at the police officer on duty, upon hearing "I'm from the Municipal Public Security Bureau," he simply let them go. Does he lack conviction in his heart, or is the power of the Public Security Bureau so great that he has no choice but to yield? The author thinks, whichever it is, it's quite sad.
