Alleged drunk driver arrested after attacking officer

Updated: 2/04/2013 12:55 pm
Sparks, NV (KRNV & MyNews4.com)-- Sparks Police report that a man was placed under arrest on the morning of Saturday, February 2nd after driving under the influence and battering an investigating police officer.

According to their press release, police officers were called to the 3200 block of Danville Drive after reports that a vehicle had spun out and crashed in the area. When police arrived, they found the car nearby, abandoned and with a flat tire.  Witnesses told the officers that the driver had left that car behind, driving away in a small white truck. While officers were investigating a driveway in the area, thatsame white truck, driven by suspect Hector Barrera-Estrada, abruptly pulled into the driveway, barely missing the officers. 

Officers say that Barrera-Estrada appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and upon questioning began to push them. Eventually a struggle broke out with Barrera-Estrada placing his hands around a female officer's neck, eventually ripping her necklace off. The officer eventually broke free, but police say they had to use a taser on Barrera-Estrada to stop his attack and place him under arrest. The officer received minor injuries to her neck. 

Barrera-Estrada has been charged with battery of a police officer, obstructing an officer, driving under the influence, reckless driving and destruction of property. His bail is set at $23,740.00.

8 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

lrehne - 2/5/2013 7:23 AM
0 Votes
Something had to have gone wrong.I know this hard working family man and never in mind would I think this type of thing could have happen.As for his photo that's him always happy and very friendly. I am still in a state of shock.

AllAlphas - 2/5/2013 2:18 AM
0 Votes
Wow sinisterbambam...u mad? Always amusing to see the far left just as paranoid and angry as the far right. Your mention of RPG's and Stinger missiles is a ridiculous straw man argument typically used by chicken little types and designed to scare soccer moms and spread completely unwarranted fear. It doesn't work. Regarding your interpretation of "well regulated militia", the militia consisted of all able bodied men, also know as the citizenry. Nowadays we include women and minorities as well...pretty "progressive" eh? Scholars, historians, and even the Supreme Court have all come to the conclusion that when the founding fathers used the phrase "the people" it was meant as an individual right. Just like all the other individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The founding fathers, having just fought against a tyrannical government, didn't add the 2nd Amendment in order to protect hunting rights...and there's no mention of "sporting purposes" either. Your mention of US v. Miller is amusing as anyone who has taken even a minimum amount of time studying this case would know it is a suspect precedent in which the defendants didn't even show up in court to defend themselves. And yet it still affirms the right of individuals to possess short barreled shotguns, albeit with slightly more restrictions...specifically a $200 tax. Luckily the legal standard you mention of "weapons the ordinary citizen could use to contribute to the common defense" as well as common usage means that semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity (30 round) magazines will never be banned. Laws regulating them won't pass strict scrutiny now will they? In the end, I'll hold on to all of my individual rights, even the ones you consider politically incorrect and outdated, because the government rarely gives back power to the people. And nice race-baiting by the way...I see you attended the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson school of debate. Stay classy.

sinisterbambam - 2/4/2013 5:13 PM
0 Votes
It's sad that you feel that you have to stock pile military style weapons based on this pseudo paranoia of the "government" knocking yourdoors down to touch your precious guns. It's some wierd fetish, "must have more guns" the answer to everything is more unrestricted guns, nope 80% of Americans want stricter more stringent background checks. AR's, AK's were essentially created for military combat to kill as many of the enemy as possible. What possible reason are these necessary for your "defense"? Will you be having a fire fight with the burglar like in some Schwarzenegger film, How about an RPG and a Stinger missile to defend against the black helicopters? Screaming away that the 2nd amendment gives you carte blanche unregulated freedom to own any gun you want, its funny that you only take the words you want and skip the ones you dont! The fringe gun owners squeal "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" but then pretend to ignore the "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part, Hmm perplexing especially if you read Washingtons Militia Act of 1792 or the juris prudence around Us vs. Miller sustaining a statute requiring registration of weapons like the sawed off shotgun under th National Firearms Act did not fit into the original intent of weapons the ordinary citizen could use to contribute to the common defense. Or really is it to protect our civility from insurrection from the delusional right wing nuts who beleive that a Black President is oh so threatening, its funny at no other time have the right wing been so clueless, and factless in regards to a Administration and its policies. So stock up and live out your fantasy of an Obama Black panther attack and maybe you can live out your fantasy of killing someone with 50 rounds. Its probably the only way you could hit a target anyway.

roseanya - 2/4/2013 9:01 AM
1 Vote
Perp looks happy to be under arrest. Is it the free food and shelter? Seriously, did he want to be arrested so he has a place to crash?

Speed - 2/3/2013 4:03 PM
0 Votes
Kramer; How do you feel about the "Presumption of Innocence" as it relates to the Second Amendment? Legal,law abiding gun owners are being presumed guilty because by owning an AR-15 or AK-47,they "could kill lots of people quickly"? Even over 80% of the semi-auto handguns are considered "Assault Weapons" by Feinstein's standards. Why don't we just do THIS? All legal,lawful gun owners can own whatever guns the feel may be necessary to defend themselves from Criminals,or for the fight to stop a tyrannical,oppressive Government. THEN,if a gun owner actually BREAKS a law using one of his guns,ARREST the gut,and when he's actually CONVICTED,take away his guns,since THEN he would NOT be a legal lawful gun owner. If we're going to continue keeping Americans "Innocent Until Proven Guilty",let's apply it to ALL Americans,right?

Kramer - 2/3/2013 11:53 AM
0 Votes
he just wanted her "bling" so they gave him a "sting"

Kramer - 2/3/2013 11:52 AM
0 Votes
As long as you're playing Clarence Thomas here, what about the $500 bail for the guy starting a 10 acre fire? Or the guy who started a fire that Destroyed 29 houses & no charges? It isn't easy for the average person to raise this bail, the fees are high, and often after arrest/release a person gets some perspective. The justice system is supposed to decide (however imperfectly) who is a threat; and there is a Constitutional presumption of innocence (or is this China?). Vigilante-ism is just as much a reflection of the knee-jerk, in-your-face culture we see in NV as is an over-aggressive 4-bye. So, get used 2 it!

GMann - 2/3/2013 8:33 AM
0 Votes
His bail was set at $23,740.00? That's all? Drinking and driving, leaving the scene of an accident, and then attacking an officer, and his bail is only $23,740.00? I say make it $230,740.00. As citizens, we really don't need this sort out on our streets. Who is the judge that set this amount? Perhaps it is time for a new judge when election time comes around?

What's On

You may also view our Sitemap

Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.