Procedure reviewed after sheriff's crash January 6, 2012 By Lee Hammel TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFFWorcester County Sheriff Lewis G. Evangelidis was involved in an accident in August that has generated talk among people unhappy with the glare of publicity on the Nov. 2 accident of Lt. Gov. Timothy P. Murray. Read more: http://www.telegram.com/section/local
"A spokesman for the state Democratic Party was critical of the Republican sheriff. Kevin Franck said, “There's less transparency about that (civil process) fund". “So the question is why the sheriff elected to pay for such expensive damage out of a secret slush fund instead of from his budget, which would be open and transparent to the public. The sheriff should release the black box information from the vehicle since all public safety vehicles have one.” State vehicle, the black box information is public record and should be released upon request. Will all the people who vociferously and defiantly defended the initial decision by the MSP to not release the black box information of Lieutenant Governor Murray's state-issued car after his 108mph crash (and after he lied about it) now come to the defense of Sheriff Evangelidis, and also declare "Nothing to see here, move along"? Bueller? Anyone??? Yeah....that's what I thought.
What would be the point of releasing the black box records in this accident? It sounds more like there is question about how the repairs were paid for than the circumstances of the accident. I'm also not sure what difference it makes which account the repair bill was paid from. Why would anyone think it more prudent to pay for the repairs out of what I can only imagine is a tight budget when there is another account when there is another account that available that they have used to pay for vehicle repairs in the past? The whole thing seems a bit silly. If they're saying he lied; then, I guess the black box would show that. But, it sounds like they're questioning the source of the payment which has nothing to do with the black box. So basically, they're grasping at straws to serve what purpose? If people were really concerned, wouldn't they have questioned this months ago? As for the Lt. Governor, I'm not going to argue that with you again. Like I said before, neither of us is going to change the other's opinion and I don't like being a position where it appears that I'm defending someone I can't stand. All I'm going to say is that the only the black box proved is that he is a liar which we already knew. It still doesn't account for where he really was going or coming from when he was "surveying storm damage" in the dark. The only thing I got from the black box data that I didn't know before was that he was to be the luckiest son of a bitch in the world. He rolled his car at 100+ mph, wasn't wearing a seat belt and only had a few scratches on his wrist. The guy must have a horse shoe up his ass because odds are he should have been thrown from that car and most likely killed or at the very least severely injured.
Because it's the law if someone requests it? Does that not matter to you? I was absolutely, positively, 1001% vindicated in the case of Murray. Exactly as I speculated, the MSP brass were trying to cover-up a scandal that implicated a political big shot. There's no point in even debating that anymore. As I've said many times before, I have yet to wreck a police cruiser in 24 years, but if I ever do, I have absolutely no problem with the city releasing the black box information, because I have (and will have) nothing to hide.
I understand that it is the law. My question is what purpose do they think getting the black box records is going to serve. It sounded more like they were questioning the use of funds to pay for the repairs than they were the circumstances of the accident. Not to mention that if the circumstances of the accident were that much of a concern they would have asked for the black box months ago. They wouldn't have waited until all this garbage with the Lt. Governor started. You're right, you were 1001% correct the black box showed that he is a liar. The problem is that's not news. We all knew from the get go that he was lying and that he was driving too fast. What no one has been able to tell me is where was he coming from or going to at that hour of the morning. He said he left his house to survey damage, but we don't know that for sure and the black box won't tell us that. Maybe he was coming from some place else and was in a hurry to get back home who knows. The scandal isn't that he was speeding and lied. The scandal will come when the media decides to do some digging into what he was really doing out at that hour of the morning because it sure as hell wasn't surveying damage, unless he has night vision. I know you're convinced that there was some major conspiracy among the MSP to cover up the fact that he was speeding and lying, but since we all know he was doing both it would seem that if a cover up was their intent they didn't do a very good job. I'm not really sure what your beef is with the MSP, but the whole MSP cover up argument reminds me of every episode of that Brad Meltzer show where no matter what they are investigating the Free Masons are involved in the cover up. I know you say you would have nothing to hide if you were in an accident and I believe you. This wasn't a question of hiding something or not, it was a question of selectively applying a policy. You'd think being a union guy and knowing how far some chiefs will go to screw a guy over that you can at least see my point even if you don't agree with it.
Political ammunition, because the Democrats absolutely hate that a single elected office is held by a Republican. The problem is, they (Dems) have the law on their side, and while I usually vote Republican (I'm officially "unenrolled"), I will always side with the law, provided it's reasonable and just, which the Public Records Law is. They likely didn't know about the black box, and that it was subject to a public records request until Murray's crash. Shitty timing on the part of the sheriff. My beef isn't with the MSP, but rather their command staff, which routinely and almost gleefully tosses any member of the department overboard at the first sniff of a scandal, regardless if the accusations are even plausible, including a friend of mine who has been on *unpaid* administrative leave because of bullshit domestic violence allegations. So, yeah.....I'm enjoying this shit show, because the big shots at the MSP are getting a little taste of their own medicine for trying to cover this up. Do you have any other plausible excuse for why they stonewalled the release of the black box information for so long, other than they knew it would explode in their faces? If you do, I'm dying to see it. For the umpteenth time, the Massachusetts Public Records Law is just that......A LAW!!!! It's not policy, and a police department's policies and procedures cannot be in conflict with the law. My department could issue a policy tomorrow that all men with Justin Bieber haircuts will be arrested on-sight, and while as much as I would love to comply with that policy, it's in conflict with the law, and is therefore.....drum roll please.....unlawful. Sorry to break this to you, but any MSP *policy* about not releasing public records is in violation of *the law*.
So what your saying is that if the media requests records that don't exist; then, the department should create the requested records so that they can be released? Because that's essentially what happened in the murray accident. While the raw black box data existed the report on it did not. So the department had to pull the black box and interpret the data to create a report that did not exist. And the reason it did not exist is because they don't pull black boxes, interpret the data and generate a report in those types of accidents. The policy is not that they don't comply with FOIA requests. The policy, as I understand it, is they don't pull the black box in crashes that don't involve serious injury or death. And actually I may be incorrect in calling it a policy, it may be standard operating procedure and not actual policy. In any event, whatever you call it, unevenly applying the rules is never a good thing. I have a neighbor who works for the city (not PD) who regularly parks his city owned vehicle in front of his house for hours on end while he is on the clock. Now, if I file a FOIA request for a report of his daily activity. For sake of argument there is a gps in the car to track the locations of vehicles but the data is only downloaded under a very limited set of circumstances. Should the city download that data and create a report that would otherwise have not existed just because I asked for it?
Really? So the MSP fabricated the black box data that showed that Murray's car topped out at 108mph right before he crashed? Is that seriously what you're trying to say? Just so we're clear......you're claiming that the black box information from Murray's car was "created" as a result of the public records request? The information didn't exist until the public records request? Do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous you sound by saying that? Well, they do when there is a public records request, and the appropriate duplication fees are paid. Lesson learned for the MSP brass. For the Umpteenth AND A HALF time......I'm going to type this big, so you can read it clearly......POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY CANNOT AND DOES NOT TRUMP THE LAW!!! Get it? Just in case, I'll repeat it; POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY CANNOT AND DOES NOT TRUMP THE LAW!!! POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY CANNOT AND DOES NOT TRUMP THE LAW!!! POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY CANNOT AND DOES NOT TRUMP THE LAW!!! Do you have a problem with reading comprehension, or are you just being obstinate? As long as you pay the associated costs with retrieving and duplicating the data, then absolutely, positively, unequivocally, 1001%.............YES!!! YES!!!!! YES!!!!! Is that clear enough?
NO! What I said is the raw data existed. The reports did not. There is a big difference between raw data downloaded from a recording device and the reports detailing that data. Maybe if you took a deep breath, sat back, let the MSP hostility go a little and read what I wrote; then, you would understand what I'm saying. I have never seen black box data, but I would presume that the download does not come out all nice and neat in an easy to read report. If I'm wrong then I am sure you will correct me. The raw data is just that raw data. Which again is not routinely pulled in this type of crash. If the data has not been pulled; then, no report can be derived from it and therefor no report exists. Honestly, if it were me I would have dumped the raw data on the media and said here you go have at it. I'm going to take the high road on this one and let it go. I'm not going to continue a debate with an opponent who's argument has been reduced to sarcasm, repetitive yelling (all caps) and an insulting tone. You and I are on the same page on a lot of things, but on this we're just going to have to agree that you believe you are right and that I am an idiot and I'm not going to waste any more time debating it with you.
Why do you insist of repeating the fallacy that I have hostility towards the MSP as a whole? For the......I don't know how many times I've repeated this.....I have a problem with the MSP command staff for refusing to comply with THE LAW. If your definition of hostility is expecting a law enforcement agency to comply with the law, then by your definition (which would be ridiculous), I guess I'm hostile. In any case, let's review; the Massachusetts Public Records Law states that all public records (including the black box information of publicly-owned vehicles) shall be provided when a public records request is filed, and the associated retrieval and duplication fees are paid. That's the law. Police department policy cannot and does not trump the law. The media filed a public records request, and agreed to pay the associated retrieval and duplication costs, but the MSP defied both the request, as well as the MA Secretary of State's order to comply with the request. Since police department policy cannot and does not trump the law, I'll ask again; why did the MSP brass stonewall the public records request and the order of the MA Secretary of State for so long? Given that it would cost exactly nothing (and probably make a profit, since duplication fees are pretty hefty, which I know from experience), why did they refuse to comply with a lawful public records request and a subsequent order from the secretary of state, other than they knew it was a political hand grenade? Why? I typed it in all caps because you have obstinately refused to believe or accept anything that runs contrary to the party line coming out of the state house and from GHQ in Framingham. I never said you're an idiot, but I'm starting to suspect that you wear French & Electric Blue pajamas.
I'm only responding to remind everyone that I am not now, nor have I ever been a police officer for any agency in any city or any state or for the federal government for that matter. I also have never taken any civil service exam, nor have I applied to any non CS department, have never had any desire to be a cop, have never dated a cop, have never had a casual fling or one night stand with a cop and did not marry a cop. I just want to make sure that fact is abundantly clear to everyone. Although considering the sweatshirt I have on has faded to a blue that is somewhat close in color to the lighter MSP blue I suppose you are half correct in your assumption that I have French and Electric blue pajamas. Now with that said, this moron is bowing out of the discussion.
And, I'd like to remind everyone that never once did I call you or infer that you're a moron, an idiot, or otherwise less-than intelligent. I merely refuted your assertions that police department policy can overrule the law, which it cannot and does not.
I heard the Msp took a crown Vic at Devens track and took it up to 108 mph then downloaded the data. Hahahaha I'll sell you a bridge on 190 for short money too, PM me if interested !!!
FWIW, after many years of handling public records requests, my *opinion* is that the data in the black box is a record generated at government expense. Government owns the car and paid for it to be used. The data is subject to request and must be turned over pursuant to MGL subject to reasonable costs. OTOH, the data is just that. It's not likely to be in human-readable format and there is no requirement that the government make it so. The media can buy the software or pay an expert to interpret it for them. Disclaimer: it's been 7 years since I had those headaches. The laws may have changed. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=31.267787,-89.420160 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm seeing HH's point Delta - the media forced the collection of the black box - NOT that anyone was trying to hide that data ('cept maybe for the Democratic party?) - dept policy was they don't bother, so they didn't. Media sales and innuendo forced the data collection - so they could exploit it. **MY thoughts on the Sheriff now getting jacked up over an August blowout - is directly because Murray is caught dead to rights in lies, and now they are going after the Republican Sheriff's tire blowout "crash" insinuating some sort of wrongdoing there. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't - maybe he hit a curb and blew the tire...but he did NOT roll his shit at 108MPH and "miraculously" walk away unscathed.
And once again, my overall point was that department policy cannot be in conflict with the law. I gave the example in another thread that my department could institute a policy where we no longer notify the district attorney when a homicide occurs in the city. That flies in the face of the law, so department policy would be cast aside in favor of the law. Same thing here; MSP policy was not to respond to public records requests for black box data, and they've found out the hard way that they most certainly do have to respond. It's absolutely in retaliation for the Murray thing, and as I mentioned, shitty timing for the sheriff. The best thing the sheriff could do is immediately release any information requested by the media.....it sounds like it was a very minor car crash, so there likely isn't anything embarrassing on the black box in that case.
There isn't going to be anything to use on that Event Data Recorder, that I can say with one hundred percent certainty. Why? Because one of two things have happened. Either that EDR continually writes the last few seconds of operation until a crash occurs, or that EDR didn't record a "recordable event" if he simple blew a tire and bent a street sign at low speed. There simply wasn't anything catastrophic enough to record. Since this accident occurred in August, this is really an opportunity (albeit so fucking transparent) to try and embarrass someone on the other side of the political spectrum. The Sheriff, rightly so, will make any data available. I hope the associated costs the newspaper pays are exorbitant. I do think the body shop costs are unreasonable. He must have had the whole vehicle repainted for that kind of cake, OR he did have more than a low speed crash.
Of course it is. The Democrats are throwing a hissy fit because they've been bagged, dead to rights, for trying cover-up Crash Murray's debacle. That, or the owner of the body shop has an assistant, special, honorary, reserve, auxiliary deputy sheriff badge in his wallet.
What's interesting is that the Sheriff's Office has a $30 million+ budget their own auto garage. Why would the sheriff have a private body shop repair his department issued cruiser then have the civil process office, which is not part of the sheriff's office state budget, pay for it?? While it may all be legitimate it just appears as if the sheriff was trying to conceal his accident for some reason.
story said the sheriff had the accident on August 25, but continued to commute and park it at the jail until it went into the shop on August 30. we have inmates doing body work at Norfolk, but have dropped off at least one car in the past to the local body shop so that doesn't seem unusual except for the price........... $8000 seems a bit much for a "fender bender" maybe the new gold leaf with the sheriff's name on the door ?
