No charges will be filed against the off-duty Boston police who was at the wheel in a fatal crash on I-93 in Boston last year. When I last wrote about this, I recall comments accusing the state police of covering-up a crime to the benefit of the Boston officer. I didn't see it then and I don't see it now. From the Boston Globe:
A State Police reconstruction team found that Griffin hit Vibert as she was parked in the right lane around 2:20 a.m. on Aug. 12, not realizing in time that the vehicle was not moving.
Absent some evidence of intoxication or reckless driving, there's nothing to charge. The crash victim was sitting in a car that was parked in the travel lane of an interstate highway in the dark of night. No crime; just tragedy.
Lesson? If your car breaks down on the road, get out of the car and get out of the road.
you've got to be kidding. the SUV driver who just happened to be returning from the Purple Shamrock at 2.30 in the morning, was speeding, and happened to be an off-duty cop was NOT tested for alcohol?? hello??
this is a complete travesty. you are giving the driver of the suv a pass. clearly, he was wrong. i hope the woman's husband sues the driver. horrible tragedy and travesty of justice. my sympathies and condolences to the family of the woman killed.
Posted by: dan | January 10, 2007 at 03:51 PM
Testing him for alcohol, as I recall state law, would have required that he be arrested, which would have required probable cause. I wasn't there; I don't know what happened. But I've seen enough policework to know that no one brooms a homicide.
Posted by: carpundit | January 10, 2007 at 04:48 PM
testing is not a preliminary to arrest. testing gives cause for arrest, refusal of the test is also reasonable cause. testing itself does not then require arrest. i am not suggesting that they "broomed" a homicide. i am suggesting that it APPEARS that the off-duty cop was given preferential treatment by a brother officer. that is what it appears on the surface. i wasn't there either. simple due diligence would have required a test, if nothing else, to eliminate the possibility that the suv driver was drunk driving. this should have been done especially since the woman in the car was killed. your personal knowledge of police work that "noone brooms aside a homicide" does not mean that it never happens. do you really believe that when a motorist involved in a fatal accident tells the investigating officer that they are returning from a pub at 2.30 in the morning, that the officer wouldn't give the driver a breathalyzer? of course they would! that is reasonable police work. that fact that no breathalyzer was given to the suv driver is cause for concern. this is a serious matter that any motorist and citizen of the state of massachusetts should be concerned about.
Posted by: dan | January 11, 2007 at 08:14 AM
>No charges have been filed in the crash, which is under investigation. Sylvia was ordered to undergo drug and alcohol testing.
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=176484
this is from today's Herald. the story involves the heroics of a driver who saved a state police trooper's life yesterday. the driver of the truck that hit both the trooper's car and the hero's is to be tested for drugs and alcohol. this case does not involve a fatality.
this further suggests that the SUV off-duty cop driver was given preferential treatment by not being tested.
Posted by: dan | January 11, 2007 at 08:24 AM
Dan-
If by "test," you mean field sobriety tests administered at the side of the road, I don't know whether they were administered and neither do you. They do not require arrest. I believe that a breathalyzer test does require an arrest.
The testing of a commercial truck driver is a different matter, and is covered by all manner of state and federal regulations. You are mixing apples and oranges.
You said it was a "travesty" and the driver got a "pass." That's brooming. I don't think it happened. Cops do give cops breaks, that's for sure. But they don't give them breaks when they're drunk and they killed someone.
Posted by: carpundit | January 11, 2007 at 09:46 AM
Thanks for your replies.
Being a former Bostonian still interested in my home town I followed the case fairly closely. I feel terrible for the poor woman and her family. I am just suggesting that if any apparent favoritism was shown the suv driver for whatever reason, the authorities should look into it.
-dan
Posted by: dan | January 11, 2007 at 10:19 AM
can't help but add this to the discussion.
patriot ledger seems to concur...
http://www.patriotledger.com/articles/2007/01/12/opinion/opin01.txt
Posted by: dan | January 12, 2007 at 01:14 PM
Yes, that was the state of the law when I left the state police many years ago; I didn't think it had changed.
Posted by: carpundit | January 12, 2007 at 04:25 PM
Lucky to find you, keep on the good workk guys! Best of luck.
Posted by: Willem | November 05, 2008 at 08:45 AM
A fantastic site, and brilliant effort. A great piece of work.M
Posted by: Suzan | March 21, 2009 at 09:46 AM
I can find the prayer I want. I thank God for this website.
Posted by: Alex | April 01, 2009 at 06:04 AM
This website is very nice and colorful too. Its nice to have something to show others where you attend church and to show all the smiling people filled of the goodness of the Lord. You have a wonderful website here. May God rich bless you always.o
Posted by: Bob | May 10, 2009 at 06:51 PM
Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Posted by: coach sale | July 12, 2010 at 04:43 AM