Chairman Bannister’s response to Sheriff Butch Conway’s resolution of the “false DUI arrest” incident indicates that he plans to file suit against the Sheriff, probably the arresting officer and, to tie the “deep pockets” into the case, the county itself.

There is no love lost between Bannister and the Sheriff, who have had numerous public skirmishes, usually over funding for the S.O. But Bannister’s statement, released today, hints that Bannister isn’t ready to let the incident die.

Bannister said, “Although I knew that I would be exonerated of all charges arising from the arrest, I remain concerned about the circumstances which led to the false allegations made against me, particularly with the detailed arrest report authorized by Deputy Cummings. In light of the truth, it is clear that the Sheriff’s Department’s arrest report was designed solely to embarrass me and my family.”

In truth, the circumstances of the arrest don’t prove ill intent at all. There are several reasons why the deputy could have suspected that the Chairman was intoxicated, including the fact that Bannister often appears distracted, unable to string two coherent sentences together and physically frail, as well. Bannister’s fumbling through Commission meetings is well-documented by the Commission meeting videos at the county web site.

It is not implausible that the deputy would smell alcohol on the Chairman’s breath; especially since Bannister’s consumption of alcohol is undeniable and admitted.

Moreover, apparently the deputy has a history of misjudging a suspect’s level off intoxication. In one case, the deputy testified that a friend (on trial for DUI) did not appear intoxicated when other evidence indicated that he actually was. In the other, the deputy let a woman drive away from an accident scene, only to have the (arguably) obviously intoxicated woman cause a second wreck.

If the deputy’s incompetence reared its ugly head again in Bannister’s arrest, it provides yet another reason, unrelated to a grand conspiracy, for the incident to have occurred.

“[M]isuse of arrest powers to harass and attempt to wrongly convict…” are very strong words for Bannister to use to describe what occurred. While I don’t consider it unreasonable to conclude that the Chairman is simply taking another political shot at the Sheriff with his strongly-worded statement, I believe that Bannister is telegraphing his intent to sue.

A Bannister lawsuit against the Sheriff and the county would be a more egregious misuse of the power of government than was the arrest. Keep in mind, a lawsuit against the Sheriff and or the county is a lawsuit against you… the taxpayer. The money to defend you will come from county funds; either directly or indirectly through the cost of liability insurance.

When Bannister takes the Sheriff to court, the county’s attorneys could easily win by doing one simple thing—requiring Bannister to participate in another “roadside sobriety test” with the same tests as were used in the original arrest. They should show the jury that there is no difference between Bannister on the side of the road after a night at the local bar; Bannister chairing a Commission meeting… and Bannister in the middle of the courtroom.

“Announcing further training and additional expenditures does not address the Sheriff’s Department’s misuse of arrest powers to harass and attempt to wrongly convict an individual. The Sheriff’s actions and his response do not assure me that something like this will not happen again to me, my family or other citizens of Gwinnett County. I continue to seek those assurances.”

Bannister: Sheriff’s response to arrest report “disappointing”  | ajc.com