No Bull, No Fluff, No Smudges
Your news source for
Flagler, Florida and Beyond

As a Cat Lay Dying, He Drove Drunk to a Vet, But Court Finds Him Guilty of DUI Anyway

| September 19, 2013

Christopher Brooks was drunk at the wheel of his car when he drove his friend's sick cat (not the one pictured) to a vet, and was arrested for DUI. He may face up to five years in prison.

Christopher Brooks was drunk at the wheel of his car when he drove his friend’s sick cat (not the one pictured) to a vet, and was arrested for DUI. He may face up to five years in prison.

It was 1 a.m. that morning. Christopher Brooks, 37 at the time, was traveling on I-75 near Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa, going 84 in a 55. A Hillsborough County Sheriff’s deputy watched him veer across three lanes toward an exit ramp, and conducted a traffic stop.

Brooks, it turns out, was drunk. And he had a cat with him. The cat was sober, but very sick. Of that, in a moment.

The deputy conducted field sobriety tests on Brooks and confirmed that he was drunk. It was his third drunk driving arrest in 10 years. He was charged with felony DUI, a third-degree felony that carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

At trial, Brooks did not deny that he was driving drunk. But he said he had an excuse: his friend’s cat was sick. He was the only man available to take the poor cat to an all-night veterinarian. He was compelled to take the highway. And to speed to get the little thing to the vet.

The cat was, in fact, very ill. The cat’s owner and two of his acquaintances were passengers in Brooks’s car. And there was a veterinary clinic near where Brooks was arrested, though the record doesn’t establish whether the clinic was actually open all night. One of the passengers was giving Brooks directions to the clinic when the deputy stopped the vehicle.

While the deputy was going through the field sobriety test, one of the passengers pleaded with the deputy: “My cat is fixing to die!”

And the cat did die. Right there by the side of the road, as Brooks was being field-tested for drunk driving.

At any rate, a jury did not buy Brooks’s defense and found him guilty of felony DUI. Brooks appealed.

The Florida Supreme Court has never ruled on a drunk driving case mitigated by a dying cat. The closest thing to a similar case goes back to a 1992 instance when a man was charged with DUI while driving on a suspended license. The man explained that his girlfriend was his designated driver, but that she abandoned him in the middle of a busy highway, requiring him to take the reins of the car and pull it over. A cop found him idling, slumped over, his foot on the break. He hadn’t pulled over. He had fallen asleep at the light, waiting for the light to change.

Judge Douglas Wallace

Judge Douglas Wallace

A trial court found him guilty, but an appeal court reversed, agreeing that the man’s decision to at least attempt to drive the car off the busy road—which led him to take the wheel—was a better decision than leaving the car where it could be rear-ended, triggering far more dangerous circumstances than the drunk man’s brief risk of driving the car off the road. In another case, a drunkard was let off his DUI charge when he explained that he merely took refuge in his car to evade a tropical storm, and went to sleep. Other examples abound, but all involving human beings only.

In Brooks’s case—the incident unfolded the morning of Oct. 30, 2010—it was up to an appeal court to break new ground on the “defense of necessity” involving a cat.

On Wednesday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal upheld the jury’s verdict, denying Brooks’s claim that exigent circumstances required him to speed while drunk. Even if a cat was dying in his car.

“Of course, where it appears that reasonable alternatives to driving under the influence are available to address a claimed emergency, courts have held that the necessity defense is not available,” Judge Douglas Wallace, a 2003 appointee of Gov. Jeb Bush, wrote for the court.


But to be afforded a “defense of necessity,” Brooks would have had to submit evidence on five counts: that he reasonably believed that his action was necessary to avoid an imminent threat of danger or serious bodily injury to himself or others, that he did not intentionally or recklessly place himself in a situation in which it would be probable that he would be forced to choose the criminal conduct, that there were no other adequate means to avoid the threatened harm except the criminal conduct, that the harm sought to be avoided was more egregious than the criminal conduct perpetrated to avoid it, and that he ceased the criminal conduct as soon as the necessity or apparent necessity for it ended.

The court made a value judgment in two of the five counts: the imminent danger of bodily harm existed, but not to a human being. A cat, in other words, did not count. And danger the harm to be avoided—the death of the cat—was not more egregious than driving drunk.

“We do not interpret the phrase ‘or others’ as applying to animals,” the court ruled. “Although Mr. Brooks’ wish to obtain treatment for the ailing feline is understandable, the elements of the defense and the plain language of the jury instruction compel us to the conclusion that a claim of necessity is not available as a defense to a DUI charge in Florida when the asserted emergency involves the threat of harm to an animal instead of a person.”

The name of the late cat is not known.

Brooks vs. Florida: The Case of the Drunk Driver and the Dying Cat

Print Friendly

10 Responses for “As a Cat Lay Dying, He Drove Drunk to a Vet, But Court Finds Him Guilty of DUI Anyway”

  1. Outsider says:

    Surely the point of this article is not to convey sympathy for this drunk driver. Let’s be honest: a cat is a cat. He endangered the lives of countless human beings, four of which were in the car he was driving. Everyone else he passed along the way was endangered. He drove over 80 miles an hour. Even if none of the others in the car were capable of driving, they could have called a taxi. If they didn’t have enough money for that, then they certainly wouldn’t have been able to pay the vet bill either.

  2. Genie says:

    Right motive; wrong method. In many states, a second offense brings 10 years.

    The law is serious when it comes to DUI’s, people.

  3. YAWN.......... says:

    No excuse at all..

    Why didn’t the passenger / owner of the cat dirve? They didn’t say if it were a child as the passanger.. Plain right decision..A cat can easily be replaced, and human life can’t…Period..

    Don’t get all down on me, I’ve loss plenty of pets, BUT I certainly wouldn’t risk endangering another over an animal…

  4. Jim Neuenfeldt says:

    Wow this is news?……..I’d rather read about a Dog & Pony Show Drug bust!
    Also although technically correct, the title of the story is little more than a cliff hanger or doppelganger
    The reason it’s a felony has nothing to do with the cat, and everything to do with his 2 prior convictions.
    Sensationalism is alive and well!

  5. Felix says:

    CAT MURDERS……….Is nothing sacred in this country anymore ?

  6. BIG JOHN says:

    I hope he gets the minimum. Anybody who would risk jail for a cat can’t be all that bad. MEOW!!

  7. Geezer says:

    Driving drunk can lead to cat-astrophic consequences.

  8. JL says:

    I am a HUGE animal lover, however, this guy was driving drunk. No excuse for that. He could have killed himself, or someone else trying to drive, speeding, and drunk. I feel sorry for the cat that it was in the care of such irresponsible people.

  9. Brittany Figueroa says:

    This is absolutely horrible, even though it was his third DUI, I would have cut him some slack at least so he doesn’t have to be in jail for trying to do the right thing. Also, am I the only one that noticed the line “The cat was sober, but very sick.”? I sure do hope the cat was sober…

Leave a Reply

Read FlaglerLive's Comment Policy | Subscribe to the Comment Feed rss flaglerlive comment feed rss

More stories on FlaglerLive
Loading

ADVERTISEMENTS

palm coast pools repairs construction
palm coast pet clinic veterinarians
flaglerlive flagler live support palm coast flagler county news pierre tristam
news service of florida

Editor’s Picks

Advertisement
Log in | FlaglerLive, P.O. Box 354263, Palm Coast, FL 32135-4263 | 386/586-0257