Apparently it’s an all-wine diet

A 24-year-old woman was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol on July 21 at 1:45 a.m.

A University of Arizona Police Department officer saw a white Toyota in the middle lane, westbound on Speedway Boulevard at 47 mph. He caught up to the car and turned on his emergency lights, but the driver didn’t pull over until the sirens were used. The Toyota turned onto Cherry Avenue, hitting the curb with the outside of the passenger side tires and scraping the curb for 10 to 15 feet before stopping.

The officer smelled a strong odor of perfume from the car and asked for the driver’s license and registration. The driver avoided eye contact but when she finally looked at the officer, her eyes were bloodshot and watery. He asked her to step out the car to get her away from the perfume and then smelled alcohol on her breath.

She told the officer that she had been drinking at her home, and was driving back from picking up her sister from the Bashful Bandit. She said she had started drinking around 5 p.m. and finished half a bottle of red wine by 11 p.m. She also told the officer that she hadn’t eaten for two days because “”(she) just started a diet.””

She admitted that she should not have been driving but was trying to help her sister. Then she said she couldn’t feel the effects of the alcohol but was scared.

Before performing a field sobriety test the woman told the officer she was allergic to “”perks,”” and that her shoes were uncomfortable because they are “”new and they hurt.””

She described them as three-foot heels, then changed it to three-inch wedges. When asked if there was a reason that would prevent her from completing the tests she explained that she was “”just tired, I’m a new momma and I’m sleep deprived.”” She agreed to take the tests and said yes, but “”I’m friggen tired.””

Her sister stated that she was under 21 and had gotten into the bar with an ID that the bar kept. She admitted to drinking one and one half bottles of Michelob beer.

Another officer began talking with the driver, who denied drinking and said her sister was 21. The officer told her that if she didn’t want to speak it was her right, but if she was going to answer questions she needed to tell the truth. He told her he had one question for her but she interrupted saying she knew what the question was. The officer asked, “”What?””

She said it was “”whether or not she had been drinking,”” then answered without being asked that she had drunk wine.

The driver was cited and released for slightest degree DUI, DUI with a BAC greater than .08, Extreme DUI with BAC greater than .15 and speeding. Her sister was cited and released for minor with spirituous alcohol in the body.

And you thought your parents were bad

A UA employee wanted a threatening phone call documented on July 21. The College of Public Health had sent out declination e-mails that day about admissions for the Public Health Masters Program held at the Phoenix campus this fall.

At about 3:29 p.m. a father called in from Surprise, Ariz., upset that his son had not been accepted into the program. He told the employee that someone was “”going to pay,”” ranted about discrimination and stated it wasn’t right that foreigners were allowed in but that his son wasn’t.

The father also claimed his son was not accepted because his son’s ex-wife was a faculty member at the College of Nursing. He told the employee that his daughter was an attorney and threatened legal action.

A UAPD officer called the father and reported that the man was still very upset and went into a lengthy conversation. He explained that his son was in the military and that he had paid taxes for many years. He said that it wasn’t right that foreigners were accepted and not his son. He denied making any threats. The officer explained that the employee could only discuss the application with his son and she was happy to do so. A woman eventually came on the phone and said the he had a first amendment right to free speech and that it was not right to harass an old man, then hung up.

The officer tried to call again but had to leave a message on the answering machine. He told the father there were legal ways to address any discrimination, to not call the employee again, and that the dean was not willing and could not by law discuss his son’s application with the father.

— Michelle Monroe