Officer Violates Policy In DWI Stop Of State Senator….Special Treatment ?
May 21, 2025
On May 12th, I brought you the story of the April 26th traffic stop of State Senator Gary Stubblefield by Fayetteville PD.
Link to article complete with Body Camera video.
The body camera videos I provided in the article raised questions as to department Policy violations and special treatment given to Senator Stubblefield.
I announced at the end of the article that I was going to find answers to these questions and then began my investigation.
I have finished that investigation and now I am going to provide you with the facts along with my take on them.
FPD Officer Hudspeth initiated the stop on April 26th. A few moments later, Officer White arrived on scene. Hudspeth approaches White who said “All good ?” Hudspeth
immediately responded with “No….He’s a State Senator….I think he’s intoxicated.” White stated “Let me call Sarge.”
Phone records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show White called Sgt. Evan Anderson at 11:25am. Sgt. Anderson then called his supervisor, LT Patrick Hanby, at 11:27 am.
Last Tuesday evening, I called LT Hanby and interviewed him, and I truly thank him for doing it. I asked Hanby if Anderson made that call to inform him that the subject pulled over was a State Senator ? He replied “I don’t remember what we talked about on that one.”
While Sgt. Anderson was in route to the scene, Hudspeth administered a Field Sobriety Test, (FST), to Senator Stubblefield.
Body camera video, (included in the original article), clearly shows that Stubblefield was unable to follow Hudspeth’s commands.
Sgt. Anderson then arrived on scene where Hudspeth approached him and stated – “So I believe he is intoxicated. He stated that he hasn’t drank in ten years but all signs point to intoxication. He said he takes medication for sleep. The last time he took it was last night.”
The medication Senator Stubblefield spoke of in the body camera video is “Clonazepam” which is a Schedule IV Controlled Substance.
Research shows Clonazepam can impair driving much like alcohol does even if taken the night before….Hang with me…. I’ll explain why this is important a little later.
Hudspeth went on to describe in detail to Anderson what happened when he stopped Stubblefield and how he failed to perform the commands in the FST.
At that point, Anderson’s phone began ringing with a call from Lt. Hanby. Anderson then deactivated his body camera and spoke with Hanby.
It’s important at this point to make clear a couple of things.
- Under Title Five State Criminal Law Intoxication is defined in AR Code 5-65-102 (4) – “Intoxicated” means influenced or affected by the ingestion of alcohol, a controlled substance, any intoxicant, or any combination of alcohol, a controlled substance, or an intoxicant, to such a degree that the driver’s reactions, motor skills, and judgment are substantially altered and the driver, therefore, constitutes a clear and substantial danger of physical injury or death to himself or herself or another person.”
- Under FPD body camera Policy, officers will only deactivate or not activate the body-worn camera during an incident when authorized by policy. Officers shall properly document reason for deactivation by entering an audio explanation prior to deactivation and including the reason in the CAD incident narrative or case report.
Link to Body Camera Policy
https://www.fayetteville-ar.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21983/4138-Body-Worn-Camera
When Sgt. Anderson deactivated his body Camera he did so without authorization and without giving reason before deactivation.
A few minutes later, Sgt. Anderson activated his body camera and conversed with Stubblefield. He then deactivated again without authorization or giving reason why.
During this time, Sgt. Anderson had a phone conversation with Lt Hanby with the call lasting 2 minutes.
After the call, Sgt. Anderson activated his body camera conversing with Stubblefield again. He then deactivated again without authorization or giving reason. Once deactivated, he had another phone conversation with LT Hanby lasting three minutes.
After the call, Anderson activated his body camera and conversed with Stubblefield one more time. He then deactivated his body camera again for the final time while still on scene without authorization and reason.
While on scene, Sgt. Anderson violated the FPD Body Camera Policy four separate times….Four.
When an Officer intentionally turns off their body camera when Policy dictates that it be on for the public to see their actions, then they are hiding those actions from the Public.
So, what did Sgt. Anderson not want you and I to see or hear ?
I called Sgt. Anderson Tuesday at 6:40pm to ask him that question along with others. He answered but said he was with another Officer and that it was shift change. I told him I would call him back. I texted him later and called yesterday at 9:20am. He did not answer however I left him a message….As of the time of this article being published, he has not returned my call.
As I stated earlier, I interviewed Sgt. Anderson’s supervisor at the time of the stop, LT Hanby. After the interview I called him back with a quick follow up question.
Here is the interview along with the follow up, both completely unedited….and both are very telling.
As you can hear in the interview, Hanby did answer questions about body camera deactivation.
LT Hanby stated that Sgt. Anderson requested authorization from him to turn off his body camera.
Okay….Here’s why that doesn’t wash.
As I explained in the interview to LT Hanby during the first instance Sgt. Anderson deactivated his body camera, it was when he was getting an incoming call from LT Hanby.
I stated to LT Hanby – “So kinda trying to figure out how he would have gotten permission from you to deactivate it when he hadn’t even talked to you yet ?”
After a long pause LT Hanby’s response was – “I can’t give you an answer to that I…I don’t know the answer.”
LT Hanby stated the reason for turning off Sgt. Anderson’s body camera those three times was to discuss Senator Stubblefield’s sensitive medical information and to formulate a plan.
Well, that doesn’t wash either.
As I explained to LT Hanby all of that information can be redacted and in fact the discussions with Senator Stubblefield about his medical information were redacted.
LT Hanby did agree that turning off a body camera without authorization and explaining the reason on the body camera before deactivating is a violation of Policy.
There is no argument to make….The fact is Sgt. Anderson violated the Policy….Period.
So, what we are left with on the body camera issue is that we really don’t know what Sgt. Anderson and LT Hanby didn’t want us to see and hear….We just know it was hidden from us.
So was the body camera policy the only one violated in this incident ?….Nope….The DWI, DUI Policy was as well.
Link to the FPD DWI, DUI Policy –
https://www.fayetteville-ar.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30506/61111-DWI-DUI
Section III D. of the Policy states – If after conducting field sobriety tests, an officer has sufficient probable cause to believe a driver has ingested a substance that is impairing his or her ability to operate a motor vehicle or motorboat, the officer shall arrest the driver following standard arrest procedures. The officer will request the driver submit to a chemical analysis in accordance with the Implied Consent Law.
That’s pretty clear language right ?
After going through the Policy with LT Hanby his response was “There was no arrestable offense in this situation.”
Well, the facts prove that statement to be not true.
- Senator Stubblefield admitted to having Clonazepam, (A Schedule IV Controlled Substance), in his system.
- Senator Stubblefield was unable to follow the commands in the Field Sobriety Test.
- Officer Hudspeth stated to Sgt. Anderson that he believed Senator Stubblefield was intoxicated.
At that point according to the Policy, Senator Stubblefield should have been arrested.
Keep in mind if that had happened it would not have meant he was guilty of DWI….Far from it.
In fact, if he was not, the Breath and Urine tests would have exonerated him.
Now is the failure to follow the DWI, DUI Policy on Officer Hudspeth ?….Not at all….That’s on LT Hanby and Sgt Anderson.
Do we know if Senator Stubblefield was or was not intoxicated at the time of the stop ?….No we don’t.
We do know that if Policy had been followed we would have that answer and there would be no room for speculation.
Instead of following Policy, the decision was made (according to LT Hanby) by he and Sgt. Anderson to drive Senator Stubblefield to the hotel he had checked out from and leave him there for his wife to come pick up.
They Legislative website states Senator Stubblefield lives in Branch, which according to Google Map is 1 hour and 22 minutes away from Fayetteville.
Okay I have given you the Facts A to Z….Now I’m going to give you my take on the incident.
Was Stubblefield given special treatment because he is a State Senator ?….Yes I believe the evidence clearly shows he was.
Did Senator Stubblefield ask for special treatment ?….No he did not.
Was Senator Stubblefield aware he was being given Special Treatment ?….The body camera video proves he was in a confused impaired state of mind and in my conversation with him on May 12th he clearly had a very unclear, untrue recollection of the incident.
I say all of that to say I don’t believe he had any idea at all he was getting special treatment.
Do I believe the decision to not arrest or call medical assistance for Senator Stubblefield was a good one?….No not at all.
Do I believe the decision to drop Senator Stubblefield off in the hotel lobby unattended while waiting for his wife to pick him up a good one ?….Absolutely not.
In fact, I believe those two decisions put Senator Stubblefield in danger.
When Officer Hudspeth dropped Senator Stubblefield off at the hotel lobby before leaving, he had a conversation with the desk clerk that leads me to believe he clearly did not think this was a good idea.
He stated to her “He’s got some health issues going on.”
He then gave her Senator Stubblefield’s wife’s phone number.
He then stated – “If he leaves will you call 911 or will you call the non-emergency line because he’s not in the right mental state to go out and about right now.”
“He’s not in a good spot to be driving around or leaving if he walks out, he’ll get lost.”
He then told her if he tries to leave, don’t physically try to stop him but to try and talk him into staying.
Now I am sure the desk clerk is a nice lady but I doubt she is qualified to care for someone in that state….Plus I’m sure the Hotel owners just loved having that liability dumped in their lap.
I believe this whole incident was handled very poorly….Not intentionally….But poorly nonetheless.
Now I’m sure this article will get heavily criticized by the usual Hypocrites and that’s fine….They can knock themselves out and have at it.
You see I have Facts….and they have Fiction.
UPDATE –
Senator Stubblefield contacted me and stated he does not take Clonazepam but rather takes Tamazapam.
Analysis from an attorney, with training in DWI stops, of the body camera video determined Senator Stubblefield stated Clonazepam.
Tamazapam is a Benzodiazepine just as Clonazepam is….They both are Schedule IV Controlled Substances and can cause impaired driving.
Professional Bully Fighter I investigate and report on issues around the State of Arkansas with an emphasis on Government. I am strong conservative however I bring Truth and Facts regardless of Party affiliation….My hashtag is #FactsNotFiction
When I was a youth, a friend and I had acquired a case of beer and were riding around in my family’s pickup. We had finished off a considerable part of the case of beer and had become obviously drunk. We were stopped by the State Police. After talking to us about our condition and where two underage boys got the beer, the officer told us we should go directly to our homes. We agreed. He then issued us a minor in possession ticket, not a driving while intoxicated ticket. I may have been given special treatment because I was not a public official and I was one of the poorest kids in the county. No, I was given special treatment because the officer was wise and could discern that we were two young people who had traveled beyond the guard rails but meant no one any harm. We were given special treatment because the officer was compassionate and cared about young people. I wish all officers had the wisdom and compassion this officer had.
On another occasion I was stopped by a State Policeman and charged with a driving offense that I had not committed and he could not have seen me do it based on where he was. I had to go to court with maps and poster boards to clearly prove to a judge that the officer was lying about him having seen me commit the offense.
So you may get preferential treatment or prejudicial treatment based on who you are or based on who the officer is. It happens to everyone. Case closed.
No special treatment for all? You had a good interaction once so all is good to just treat some with kid gloves and others they throw the book at even if they caused no loss, injury or harm? Judge, jury and executioner all on the side of the road is good by you?
Hey Mr. Drinkwater sorry I am just now responding.
As always your comments are appreciated.
Having said that, let me get this straight
You stated you and your friend were “obviously drunk”.
Ignoring that the trooper allowed you and your friend to continue to drive putting you both and others on the road in danger and you deem that a “wise” decision ?
Compassion and Caring do not always equate to making a good decision….Allowing you to continue to drive was a poor decision that could have ended in death.
It could have been a bad decision on the State Policeman’s part. He did follow us home which would have mitigated a part of that. I stand by my earlier position. I believe the State Policeman handled the situation well.
I have a friend that lives nearby. She gets the book thrown at her every time the Sheriff or State Police see any minor infraction such as a tail light out. When they get her stopped they find all types of illegal materials and often determine impairment. Although this has happened more times than I can count and she has been in the court system for years at a time on the different charges, she has never served one day in prison. Like police, judges are given great discretion in handling cases. Why would the judges she has been in front of always find a way to let her go? Some would call this a tragedy while others call it a blessing. The case of two youths who had gotten themselves into a bad situation versus the lady who is constantly looking for a bad situation to get into are very different and are usually recognized (not always) by police officers. Judges seem to see things differently. Who is right?
thank you for exposing this corruption. I found you on the random patriot channel on you tube.
this is disgusting. the privileged treatment is undeniable. these officers should be fired. the senator should have been jailed and fined.