MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1

Main Page Fired Quincy cop acquitted: Rookie officer cleared of drunken-driving charges after c
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: lifelongtesttaker

How does this happen?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

BOSTON - A rookie Quincy cop fired after allegedly leading State Police on a 100-mph chase on the Southeast Expressway has been acquitted of drunken driving charges.

Siobhan O’Connor, 25, was found innocent by South Boston District Court Judge Michael Coyne. He did slap O’Connor with a fine for failing to stop for police.

O’Connor, who started on the police force in January, was fired by Mayor William Phelan less than a week after the incident on Oct. 2. Because she was still in a one-year probationary period, a hearing wasn’t required before firing O’Connor.

Police said O’Connor’s SUV was clocked near 100 mph when she was driving north on the Expressway at about 1:45 a.m. State Police Capt. Paul McCarthy turned on his siren and began pursuit.

O’Connor took Exit 18, stopping only after she crashed into a van carrying seven people near Southhampton Street, authorities said. The SUV couldn’t avoid the van because O’Connor was driving too fast, police said.

David Procopio, a spokesman for Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley, said yesterday that McCarthy was the prime witness in the case.

O’Connor refused to take a breath test, leaving prosecutors with no evidence other than McCarthy’s testimony that she was slurring her speech, had glassy eyes and smelled of alcohol, Procopio said.

‘‘The judge found that it wasn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt,’’ Procopio said.

Police Chief Robert Crowley declined comment and Phelan could not be reached, but several officials suggested that the trial won’t have any effect on the disciplinary action already taken by the city. O’Connor was one of three police officers fired by the city this year, the most in recent city history.

O’Connor’s firing contrasted with the more sympathetic treatment offered to veteran firefighter Paul O’Grady, who was granted a one-year medical leave after being convicted of drunken driving in a crash that killed a passenger. O'Grady returned to work in July following his release from jail.

Posted by: j809

Quote:

O’Connor took Exit 18, stopping only after she crashed into a van carrying seven people near Southhampton Street, authorities said.

That's why she got no break. I knew there was something more than just an OUI. Too bad, she deserved every bit of it and I am glad she is fired. You crash, you go to jail, sorry.

Posted by: kwflatbed

LOCAL NEWS

Fired Quincy cop acquitted: Rookie officer cleared of drunken-driving charges after court declares there was lack of evidence

By CHRISTOPHER WALKER
The Patriot Ledger

BOSTON - A rookie Quincy cop fired after allegedly leading State Police on a 100-mph chase on the Southeast Expressway has been acquitted of drunken driving charges.

Siobhan O’Connor, 25, was found innocent by South Boston District Court Judge Michael Coyne. He did slap O’Connor with a fine for failing to stop for police.

O’Connor, who started on the police force in January, was fired by Mayor William Phelan less than a week after the incident on Oct. 2. Because she was still in a one-year probationary period, a hearing wasn’t required before firing O’Connor.

Police said O’Connor’s SUV was clocked near 100 mph when she was driving north on the Expressway at about 1:45 a.m. State Police Capt. Paul McCarthy turned on his siren and began pursuit.

O’Connor took Exit 18, stopping only after she crashed into a van carrying seven people near Southhampton Street, authorities said. The SUV couldn’t avoid the van because O’Connor was driving too fast, police said.

David Procopio, a spokesman for Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley, said yesterday that McCarthy was the prime witness in the case.

O’Connor refused to take a breath test, leaving prosecutors with no evidence other than McCarthy’s testimony that she was slurring her speech, had glassy eyes and smelled of alcohol, Procopio said.

‘‘The judge found that it wasn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt,’’ Procopio said.

Police Chief Robert Crowley declined comment and Phelan could not be reached, but several officials suggested that the trial won’t have any effect on the disciplinary action already taken by the city. O’Connor was one of three police officers fired by the city this year, the most in recent city history.

O’Connor’s firing contrasted with the more sympathetic treatment offered to veteran firefighter Paul O’Grady, who was granted a one-year medical leave after being convicted of drunken driving in a crash that killed a passenger. O'Grady returned to work in July following his release from jail.

Christopher Walker may be reached at cwalker@ledger.com.

Copyright 2005 The Patriot Ledger
Transmitted Thursday, December 01, 2005

Posted by: lifelongtesttaker

Why is the word of a senior ranking MSP office not evidence enough? Is this a standard procedure now for anyone caught with a snoot full driving and getting caught. She still doesn't get her drivers license back right.

Posted by: j809

Quote:

Originally Posted by lifelongtesttaker

Why is the word of a senior ranking MSP office not evidence enough? Is this a standard procedure now for anyone caught with a snoot full driving and getting caught. She still doesn't get her drivers license back right.

wELL SHE COULD APPEAL since she was not found guilty and could get her license back even though she was supposed to lose it for 180 days for BT refusal. However, given the circumstances, I say the hearing officer will deny it. In this case, don't know if the Captain did it or not, for failure to stop for PO , I would also do an immediate threat regardless of the OUI but she did get found guilty for failure to stop and most likely will lose it anyway.

Posted by: K9Vinny

Quote:

Originally Posted by lifelongtesttaker

Read between the lines. It was a bench trial while 99% of DUI's go jury trial. Obviously the fix was in and the judge gave her a break.

Posted by: MallPolice

Obviously K-9 Vinny knows what he talking about!

Posted by: sm5879

Unbelievable ..she gets off scott free and hasnt learned a lesson at all since her firing-she's been spotted in bars in Quincy and Dorchester more than a few times.

Posted by: smd6169

Hey...If I got the job of a life time, screwed up as royally as she and got fired ...I would be probably drinking too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sm5879

Unbelievable ..she gets off scott free and hasnt learned a lesson at all since her firing-she's been spotted in bars in Quincy and Dorchester more than a few times.

Posted by: Pacman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sm5879

Unbelievable ..she gets off scott free and hasnt learned a lesson at all since her firing-she's been spotted in bars in Quincy and Dorchester more than a few times.

I will only comment on this, with no license, someone else driving, it is illegal to drink now? Moron.

Posted by: RPD931

So basically this judge said that if they don't take a SFST or breath test, its not enough!?!?! WTF!?!? SO any Tom, Dick or Harry can simply refuse and then fight it and get off?

Gotta love Judges. They should appoint Police Officers that are attorneys to the bench.

Posted by: mpd594

"I will only comment on this, with no license, someone else driving, it is illegal to drink now? Moron"

Call me crazy..but if I get fired for trying to outrun a trooper while drunk-the last thing I am going to do is show my face in bars in the area! I guess she has nothintg to embarassed or ashamed of though?
It is funny though how quickly this went to trial huh? And just sad that this officer's word and experience wasnt enough. What about the seven people in the car she hit?

Posted by: Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPD931

So basically this judge said that if they don't take a SFST or breath test, its not enough!?!?! WTF!?!? SO any Tom, Dick or Harry can simply refuse and then fight it and get off?

Where have you been?

You think a jury would convict?

Posted by: KindaConfused

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPD931

So basically this judge said that if they don't take a SFST or breath test, its not enough!?!?! WTF!?!? SO any Tom, Dick or Harry can simply refuse and then fight it and get off?

Gotta love Judges. They should appoint Police Officers that are attorneys to the bench.

No the judge said there was lack of evidence due to no test. If you're a PO, then you know you need to gather evidence to convict someone of a crime. You can't just say "They are guilty because I feel they are" as much as you want to be able to. This is how our legal system works.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by KindaConfused

True enough, but the Courts and Legislature have made it nearly impossible to gather evidence in a case like this. Any nitwit can beat an OUI.

Posted by: THE RP

Let her walk off into the sunset...she paid the price and will be paying the price for some time, she has to live with it...We will all forget about her as soon as the next dumb ass scandal hits anyways...this thing with her is nothing new...cops, new and old, have been jammin themselves up for centuries for dumb things. It's a genetic flaw inherent to us all. We should all actually be thanking her for reminding us of this.

Posted by: topcop14

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Hearing Officer?
The Judge at the DIstrict Court In my area reinstates the license on a not guilty on request of the defense

Posted by: RPD931

Interesting. I had a case with no SFST and no breath test, he refused both. It was his 3rd OUI. I observed slurred speech, glassy eyes and the wonderful odor and a few open containers and an open case of Heineken. Guilty and serving time.

Posted by: popo

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPD931

Interesting. I had a case with no SFST and no breath test, he refused both. It was his 3rd OUI. I observed slurred speech, glassy eyes and the wonderful odor and a few open containers and an open case of Heineken. Guilty and serving time.

Every court is different. In Brockton that would fly too and a guilty finding. In Fitchburg and Worcester County it's a long shot.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPD931

Jury Waived? I can see a Jury finding guilt, they are a crapshoot. But a Judge finding of Guilty on odor of alcohol and slurred speech? I find that VERY hard to believe.

Posted by: OciferpeteHPD3500

Well she is a female, and has a full time academy, and was found not guilty. Is she moves quickly shell be on another dept soon.

Posted by: ShakeEmDOwn016

Oh here we go throwing the gender issue into it....

Posted by: Sgt Jack

It would be interesting to see what happens next as far as work goes...anyone think that she'll get a back door deal and be put back on given a little time to have things cool off?

Posted by: HOTLUNCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by KindaConfused

Observations by a trained professional ARE evidence. While I see your point about physical evidence, this was not a case that hinged upon physical evidence. It's pretty much an entirely observation collar. Observations made by a cop that has probably had (I'm guessing here) several DUI collars in his career. It sounds as though the fix may have been in, which is also how our legal system works sometimes.

Posted by: sempergumby

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOTLUNCH

Welcome to Massachusetts....The courts truly don't give a shite about our Evidentry observations when it comes to UOI's.... They might in this case though......

Everbody loves firemen. but man, do they hate the Cops!.LOL

Posted by: 94c

The rules in district court are simple.
1. Refuse the breath test and field sobriety
2. lose your license for the refusal (which of course cannot be introduced at trial)
3. Case dismissed
4. Apply to have your license reinstated.

the oui laws are written by lawyers for lawyers. There is no reason for the law to be as expansive and difficult to read as it is. Try picking up 90-24 and all it's subsections and call me in a week or so when your finally done reading it.

Posted by: Giddyup

All I have to say is I'm glad this individual has won her case. This is a difficult thing for any individual to go through and I'm glad things went her way. Regardless of what the paper says, I know for a fact she was found not guilty on ALL accounts. There was no slap on the wrist or fine for failure to stop for police.....why would there be a fine anyways.....this is a criminal charge. As for getting her license back, a motion can be made to the judge on that matter. As for all of you who feel she has something to be ashamed of......why would she?? She was found innocent.

Posted by: USMCTrooper

Quote:

All I have to say is I'm glad this individual has won her case. This is a difficult thing for any individual to go through and I'm glad things went her way. Regardless of what the paper says, I know for a fact she was found not guilty on ALL accounts. There was no slap on the wrist or fine for failure to stop for police.....why would there be a fine anyways.....this is a criminal charge. As for getting her license back, a motion can be made to the judge on that matter. As for all of you who feel she has something to be ashamed of......why would she?? She was found innocent.

I don't know what you do or where you might work, but you are in need of a lesson in law and Judicial Proceedings.

Lesson One:

Failure to stop for the Police is punishable by a fine regardless if it is criminal in nature.

Section 25. Any person who, while operating or in charge of a motor vehicle, shall refuse, when requested by a police officer, to give his name and address or the name and address of the owner of such motor vehicle, or who shall give a false name or address, or who shall refuse or neglect to stop when signalled to stop by any police officer who is in uniform..................... shall be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars.

Lesson Two:
*NOTE: Part of article found in the Massachusetts Bar Associations Journal handbook*

Not Guilty Does Not Mean Innocent

By Newman Flanagan

All too often when I listen to the radio or read the newspapers, I hear or see "at arraignment, the defendant pled innocent" or "the defendant was found innocent by the jury." The word "innocent" is being misused. "Innocent" cannot and should not be substituted for "not guilty."

Technically, only three pleas can be entered by a defendant who is brought before the court to answer the charges against him. Under the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or nolo contendere to any crime with which he is charged and over which the court has jurisdiction. The rules that are applicable to the criminal sessions of the trial court do not provide the defendant with the option of pleading innocent. There is no such plea available.

Similarly, the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for only two possible verdicts that can be returned by a jury: guilty or not guilty. There is no verdict of innocent. And, not guilty does not mean innocent.

When a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, that means that the state has not convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt as to all the elements of the crime with which the defendant has been charged............

Read entire page here:
http://www.massbar.org/publications/...dbook/?sw=3154

Posted by: Giddyup

Whoa....all I was trying to say was I am happy for her. I know she paid no fines at all, and I was pleased that she was found "not guilty" of all charges. Didn't mean for anyone to bust our their Criminal Law books. Let's all take a deep breath.

Posted by: 94c

Failure to stop is a civil infraction. Heck, I remember when it wasn't even arrestable.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giddyup

Whoa....all I was trying to say was I am happy for her. I know she paid no fines at all, and I was pleased that she was found "not guilty" of all charges. Didn't mean for anyone to bust our their Criminal Law books. Let's all take a deep breath.

You are happy that a drunk that ran from the cops and hit a carload of innocent people got found Not Guilty?

Do you happen to have a badge? Not a square one?

Turn it in.

Posted by: dcs2244

Too right! He sounds like a friend of William Senne...

Posted by: Giddyup

Obviously you were there that night....know how much she had to drink, and know the facts of the alleged police chase. I take it you were also in the court room when this trial went on and heard what the arresting officer had to say on the matter?

Posted by: dcs2244

No doubt you can answer those questions in the affirmative. Did you give testimony under oath at the trial? I'll take the word of a seasoned officer over a 'probie', given the facts of the case. Driving at over 100 mph; striking a vehicle containing 7 people; failing to stop when signalled to do so???

I guess you're right...she was unfairly targeted by the nasty, oppressive, prejudiced police! Thankfully, she was found "innocent". In my 28 years as a cop, none of my arrestees have ever been found "innocent". Apparently the MSP Captain was a liar...lets bring him up on charges, starting with perjury...

Obviously this will not happen...because your friend was the beneficiary of a "bag job"...hopefully this POS will never hold a job in law enforcement...or security! Perhaps she could 'man' the window at McDonalds...

Good call on QPD's part: fired.

Posted by: popo

I think Giddyup is the fired biatch.

Posted by: Giddyup

Incorrect, but I do know her personally and concider her an aquaintance.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giddyup

Incorrect, but I do know her personally and concider her an aquaintance.

Well, "concider" your "aquaintance" to never be a Police Officer again.

And you should "re-concider" your line of work.

Posted by: Giddyup

U know what I do for a living?

Posted by: bbelichick

Hopefully not a Cop.

Posted by: fjmas1976

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Hopefully not a Cop.

LMAO

Posted by: mpd594

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giddyup

U know what I do for a living?

Hey genius- in a previous post you said you were on the academy with the drunk in question!!

Posted by: Pacman

Well well well. I am a veteran cop of 12 years. I am under the impression they aren't guilty until proven so. The "trooper" was looking for a silver SUV. Allegedly doing 100 MPH on 93N. This girl owns a dark blue vehicle which cannot be considered silver. She was never cited for failing to stop, or speeding. If I chased someone at 100+ and then stopped and arrested them, why wouldn't I charge them with it? The accident is question was at less than 5 mph, zero damage to the bumper, (I've physically seen the bumper) Now focus because we're still trying to be objective here. You're all saying you'd take the FST's and Breathlyzer right? How do you defend against a claim that includes this; "veteran""trooper" was chases you down, gets to your vehicle rips you through your selt belt and cuffs you without asking you to take any tests? The guy lost the person he was chasing, made an arrest and had no evidence to back it up in court. Frankly his testimony was embarrassing. Again as Giddyup stated, you don't know the whole story. You have however shown yourselves to be more cynical towards your brother and sister officers than you are occasionally to the bad guys. An arrest does not make you guilty. This wasn't a dismissal or a CWOF, it was a Not Guilty. I speak to her twice a week and I'm proud to call her my friend. I only wish you knew her like I do. Happy Holidays.

Posted by: Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacman

I only wish you knew her like I do..

So do I, I hear she is quite a looker.

Posted by: dcs2244

"Looker" or not: no police/security job for her. Perhaps she could excel at a nail parlor or as a sanitation engineer for WM/BFI. As for the damage to her vehicle, no one said she was doing a 100 mph when she struck the van.

Well, not to fear, friends of violator: this being Massachusetts, she'll get another "bite of the apple"! Perhaps next time she will kill or maim some one...while she is behind the wheel of a cruiser.

Happy lawsuit, city or town that hires her.

Posted by: no$.10

[quote=Pacman] ... She was never cited for failing to stop, or speeding."

That was her break.

"The accident is question was at less than 5 mph,"

And I am sure you would say that if some drunk hit your wife and kids, right? Yeah, thought so.

"...gets to your vehicle rips you through your selt belt and cuffs you without asking you to take any tests? "

You were there? Maybe "Glamourshots" exaggerated that part, just a little. Or maybe she left out the part just before that...

Point is, she got caught. Cest la vie.

Posted by: j809

Yeah, I am sure the MSP Captain had nothing to do that night but look to lock up a cop and make up reports and false arrest because he supposedly lost the silver SUV and took all his anger on this poor little girl ina blue SUV. Give me a break. She was driving like such an ass that a CAPTAIN, who does not regularly do traffic enforcement had a duty to act.

Posted by: chief801

She might get hired by MSP...

I've known others who have gotten on with OUI on the BOP...No kidding!

Posted by: cop28

She would never make the msp... in the msp, you cant sleep with your DI's during the academy

Posted by: atrain104

Quote:

Originally Posted by chief801

She might get hired by MSP...

I've known others who have gotten on with OUI on the BOP...No kidding!

so an oui is the worst thing in the world? come on buddy if you learn from it then it is an experience, what do you tell your kids, "dad walked the straight and narrow his entire life, so you should too"??

im sure this post will get spark fired up.

Posted by: Macop

Obviously you were there that night....know how much she had to drink, and know the facts of the alleged police chase. I take it you were also in the court room when this trial went on and heard what the arresting officer had to say on the matter?

This knucklehead is obviously a defense attorney.

Posted by: j809

Quote:

Originally Posted by cop28

She would never make the msp... in the msp, you cant sleep with your DI's during the academy

Hey, was she a Police Corps graduate?

Posted by: chief801

Never said OUI was the worst thing anyone has ever done. Just pointing out that it wasn't the end of the road for a law enforcement career for others. The other point was that some are excluded from MSP for lesser infractions. Their process can be just as political as civil circus.

Posted by: KozmoKramer

This thread has drifted into an area that sparked my curiosity.
RE: the ex probationary officer in question getting hired by another LE agency.

There have been many threads posted here about getting on the job. The BI, the oral boards etc. And I’ve seen guy’s post horror stories about getting declined a position for 1 too many traffic tickets, a blemished credit report, getting let go from a prior job under less then favorable circumstances, etc. And I’m all for that. Standards are standards. If candidate A (all things being equal) has an immaculate background and Candidate B is spotty, then by rights Candidate A should get the job.

Now in this case, you have a probationary officer, who was reminded (from what I gathered in the other thread) on more than 1 occasion to keep a low profile and avoid drinking in public until after your probationary \ FTO period. Right or wrong, Ms. O’Connor declined to follow that advice and subsequently found herself in (at best) a career ending situation.

I would be willing to bet there aren’t many police chiefs in Mass that aren’t aware of this event. And even if they hadn’t heard of it already; when your going through your BI and oral boards, wouldnt it come out? And even being declared “not guilty”, wouldn’t it still raise a red flag to the hiring staff? And with the amount of fully qualified, ambitious talent in Massachusetts vying for very few police jobs, would she really stand a chance?

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by KozmoKramer

I would be willing to bet there aren’t many police chiefs in Mass that aren’t aware of this event. And even if they hadn’t heard of it already; when your going through your BI and oral boards, wouldnt it come out? And even being declared “not guilty”, wouldn’t it still raise a red flag to the hiring staff? And with the amount of fully qualified, ambitious talent in Massachusetts vying for very few police jobs, would she really stand a chance?

That would depend very much on each individual department. Of the 300+ LE agencies in the Commonwealth, I'm sure there is at least one that would hire an academy-trained female.

This certainly isn't without precedent. A cop on the South Shore (not my PD) who was fired, for something I would consider worse than being accused of first-offense OUI, was hired by a state LE agency (not the state police, a SSPO-type position).

ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108