|
After completing a year of probation for reckless driving, GOP congressional candidate Tom Patti is publicly claiming that he was found not guilty of driving under the influence. Patti asserted this spring that he was “Found Not Guilty on DUI Charges” prior to his accident. However, findings from the SactoPolitico put Patti’s claims on shaky footing, reporting no records exist to support Patti’s claim of being found not guilty.
After multiple ethics scandals, Tom Patti’s character is in dispute yet again as he appears to mislead voters on the circumstances of his DUI charge.
DCCC Spokesperson Maddy Mundy:
“Tom Patti’s glowing press releases just don’t line up with the facts. Tom Patti owes Central Valley voters the truth: did he lie about his DUI and what happened in court?”
Read more about Patti’s debunked claims below.
SactoPolitico: Central Valley Congressional candidate Tom Patti: 5 Ambiens caused traffic accident
Jeff Burdick
8/18/2022
-
In his most in-depth discussion to date about the episode, Patti publicly discussed both issues with SactoPolitico.com. This included sharing for the first time having accidentally taken an excessive amount of Ambien prior to the accident. Ambien is a sleep aid, and due to the large amount he took, Patti said he has no direct recollection of the July 2018 accident.
-
“I mistakenly took five Ambien in the middle of the day. They say if you take eight you die. It was a complete accident,” Patti said. “The police did a blood test, and the only thing in my system was exactly what I said I took. The Ambien were exactly identical to my other prescribed drug that are also white, round, 20 mg pills.”
-
He would not share publicly what the other prescribed medication was. “That is between me and my doctor.” But he did share it with prosecutors, which Patti said contributed to reducing his original DUI charge to a reckless-driving misdemeanor. In August last year, he pled no contest to the reduced charge, which the court considers the same as a guilty plea but also required Patti to agree to the factual basis of the original charge.
-
But nine months after his plea deal, his county supervisor office issued a news release headlined “Supervisor Tom Patti Found Not Guilty on DUI Charges.” This suggested new activity in his case, and the May news release went on to say “after a lengthy review by the State, it was confirmed that Supervisor Patti had a medical emergency and found that driving under the influence of alcohol charges were not warranted.”
-
“It was completely surprising for someone to declare himself not guilty after taking a plea deal. If he had said that same exact thing at the time of his plea deal in front of the judge, the judge would not have allowed that and ordered the case to trial,” Williams said.
-
He added he also found Patti’s news release misleading when it claimed “after a lengthy review” the authorities “found” the original alcohol DUI charge “not warranted.” First, there was no alcohol-specific DUI charge. The charge was for any substance, and the arresting report confirmed no evidence of alcohol had been found at the scene. Thus, no review or investigation of any length into the involvement of alcohol would be necessary.
-
Second, Williams said by Patti claiming authorities officially said the original DUI charges were unwarranted, this incorrectly suggested state officials now believe the arresting officer made an error.
-
“He’s doing the Trump thing. In the middle of his Congressional campaign, he randomly declared himself not guilty. Patti is simply lying,” he said.
-
To verify for himself, Williams filed Public Records Act requests with the California Department of Justice and the County Counsel of San Joaquin County. Both responded that they had no documents to support Patti’s claim of being found not guilty or confirming his medical emergency. Both groups also reported not possessing any reports or other documents that were products of a case review.
-
When asked about these issues, Patti defended his use of the phrase “lengthy review.” He said the three years that passed from the time of the 2018 accident to his 2021 plea deal counts as a “lengthy” stretch of time. He also said the prosecutors would naturally need to review his evidence of a medical emergency and whether offering a lesser charge was appropriate.
- Patti also justified claiming he was found not guilty of a DUI on the grounds his plea deal did not require him to take any DUI driving classes. But he added he has never contested accidentally driving under the influence of Ambien or that this accident led to the traffic accident. To avoid this happening again, he said he has made sure all his prescriptions at home are clearly labeled.
|
