Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
When was the last time someone was arrested for OUI, transported to the station, and released from custody with no charges filed and NO BT ?

Glodis ride cut short in Webster
Conflicting reports on late-night incident

The sleek BMW was loaded in more ways than one.
When it was pulled over by police in the early morning hours of June 11, its occupants included the sister-in-law of a powerful Central Massachusetts lawmaker and a high-profile state senator running for sheriff of Worcester County.

But My Guy Glodis beat a hasty retreat from the scene before the driver was placed in handcuffs and taken to the Webster Police Station, only to be released with no charges filed, despite some indications that she was to be arrested for drunken driving.

Police insist that no special consideration was given to Renee Dupont, sister-in-law of state Rep. Paul Kujawski, D-Webster, and that it was of no consequence whatsoever that Ms. Dupont and My Guy had been in the company of the town's provisional police chief at a Glodis campaign event before the Beamer was stopped on Thompson Road.
"The officer used his discretion," said Webster Chief William J. Keefe. "She was given a written warning for speeding and sent on her way ... Someone is trying to stir up trouble."

Discretion is surely a wonderful thing, but some are indeed questioning the police version of events while others are frantically dropping dimes to media outlets far and wide in an apparent attempt to embarrass My Guy, the Webster chief, Ms. Dupont, Rep. Kujawski or all of the above. Because the only thing dirtier than the sheriff's race in Worcester County is town politics in Webster.

"I'm trying to get some answers myself," said Selectman Mark G. Dowgiewicz, a retired state trooper. "It's a funny situation."

A Webster police officer was more blunt in his assessment. "This one stinks from the get-go," said the officer, who for obvious reasons asked not to be identified.

Chief Keefe is a South County coordinator for the campaign of My Guy, who is trying mightily to unseat Sheriff John M. Flynn, who enjoys the support of Rep. Kujawski and several Webster police officers. On June 10, a campaign event was held for My Guy at the Webster Elks. After the party, some of the attendees headed to Waterfront Mary's to unwind, including My Guy, Chief Keefe and Ms. Dupont.

According to My Guy, Ms. Dupont asked him shortly before 1 a.m. if he wanted a ride to his car, which was parked at the Elks. My Guy and one of his staffers accepted. My Guy is a friend of Ms. Dupont's husband, Jan Kujawski, who, in a nifty bit of irony, happens to be an investigator for the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission.
Neither Ms. Dupont nor her husband returned phone calls this week.

Officer Thomas V. Ralph said he pulled Ms. Dupont over for speeding on Thompson Road and then smelled alcohol coming from the car. He said he asked Ms. Dupont to step out of the Beamer, but says he did not administer a field sobriety test because she was wearing three-inch heels, a revelation that yesterday prompted one of my colleagues to note that he planned to wear three-inch heels while driving from now on.

My Guy, meanwhile, described Ms. Dupont as distraught.
"There was an animated conversation that took place between her and the officer," was how he put it. "She was saying that she wanted to talk to someone in charge."
Likely sensing that no good would come of his continued presence, My Guy said he asked the officer if he could drive Ms. Dupont's car to his own car at the Elks, which he did. Asked if he believed Ms. Dupont was intoxicated, he said, "That's not for me to comment on." He later added, "She didn't appear intoxicated to me."

After My Guy left, Officer Ralph acknowledged that he slapped handcuffs on Ms. Dupont, placed her in his cruiser and radioed to the dispatcher that he was bringing someone in "under 90-24," the state's drunken-driving statute.

Once at the station, however, he said he determined by speaking with Ms. Dupont that she was not intoxicated, and she was released. No Breathalyzer was administered, he said.

Chief Keefe, meanwhile, acknowledged that he received a telephone call about 1:25 a.m. from someone notifying him that Ms. Dupont had been "stopped and brought to the station." He declined to identify the caller. He said he called the station again about 25 minutes later, and Ms. Dupont had already been released.

Officer Ralph said he never spoke to the chief that morning. But the chief said that when he called the station, he spoke to Officer Ralph. Which means, although it's none of my business, that these men should try harder next time to get their stories straight.
When told that Officer Ralph offered a conflicting version of events, Chief Keefe said, "This is a bogus thing. I had nothing to do with this. I never made a call to let her go and I have nothing to hide ... I can't say why the officer did what he did and I can't speak for the officer. But I don't play games and I don't play favorites."

Officer Ralph, meanwhile, maintained that stopping Ms. Dupont was a "no-win situation" and that no special favors were given. "I don't owe anything to anyone," he said. "Personally, I've been screwed by this town ... The town would like nothing more than to get rid of me."

He was referring to his recent demotion from deputy chief to patrolman, just one in a series of shake-ups in a department plagued last year by so much rancor and paranoia that some members of the force became "wandering paparazzi, snapping photos of each other," according to an investigative report.

A camera would have come in handy June 11. Because despite police protestations to the contrary, something tells me we still don't have the full picture.
 

·
Founder of MassCops
Joined
·
6,401 Posts
Because despite police protestations to the contrary, something tells me we still don't have the full picture.
That's an understatement! If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it's a friggen duck!

How much you wanna bet if they did have a camera the recorder would have ate the tape or succumb to some other mechanical defect.
 
G

·
This is what happens when a the second in command is busted of his rank and forced to be a patrolman.....not only did they demote him but how does your ego take the fact that now you don't even your choice of shift I feel bad for the guys that have the work this shift with him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Bigboy, are you suggesting the officer acted improperly by arresting her? To me, the only ones that acted improperly were the chief and the senator who is on the public safety committee.
 

·
Chapter 90 Enforcer
Joined
·
3,299 Posts
I agree with you 100%
Bigboy, are you suggesting the officer acted improperly by arresting her? To me, the only ones that acted improperly were the chief and the senator who is on the public safety committee.
My standards are simple "you violate, you get clinked"... OUI, they get locked up - regardless of who they are. A fellow Officer? You betcha'! I'd lock 'em up just like any other, PO's are held at a Higher standard in my book... and I don't want to be part of a favoritism News story or up on obstruction of justice charges... Their family and friends are equal too... PO's are supposed to be role models, how can we be role models if we cheat our own system? PO's that do political or friendly favors such as this are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves. Integrity is everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,172 Posts
Who remembers the incident involving the Ware chief a few years ago?

My coach arrested a state rep on 391 in Chicopee for OUI...the guy admitted to sufficient facts, there was a brief blurb in the Onion News, and the arresting officer suffered no repercussions!

Have no fear: lock them up...they may try to do something, but the resulting stink in the media will protect you!
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
3,231 Posts
RPD931 @ Wed 23 Jun said:
My standards are simple "you violate, you get clinked"... OUI, they get locked up - regardless of who they are. A fellow Officer? You betcha'! I'd lock 'em up just like any other
You also have discretion as an officer, which is an important part of your job. A fellow cop may save your life one day!!

Stay safe!!
 

·
Chapter 90 Enforcer
Joined
·
3,299 Posts
RPD931 @ Wed 23 Jun said:
My standards are simple "you violate, you get clinked"... OUI, they get locked up - regardless of who they are. A fellow Officer? You betcha'! I'd lock 'em up just like any other
You also have discretion as an officer, which is an important part of your job. A fellow cop may save your life one day!!

Stay safe!!
You're right that he/she may save my life someday, But I look at the fact that he just put many other lives at risk by OUI. I would look at the fact that if he/she is only getting arrested for OUI that he/she is getting a "break", because what if he/she struck another MV and killed those occupants, then they would also be charged with manslaughter (and whatever else) and living with the guilt that he/she had killed someone. I am ALL for discretion but not when lives are endangered, when that happens "all bets are off" and the cuffs go on. Yes, I have discretion, and I use it generously, but not when lives are at stake. Potential danger = ZERO TOLERANCE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Worcester Telegram and Gazette
Wednesday, July 7, 2004

State Police Association gives backing to Glodis

Campaign Notebook

LEOMINSTER- State Sen. Guy W. Glodis, D-Auburn, candidate for Worcester County sheriff, has received the endorsement of the State Police Association of Massachusetts.

Union President John Coflesky appeared with Glodis on the steps of City Hall yesterday. Mr. Glodis is running against the incumbent, fellow Democrat John M. "Mike" Flynn. Mr. Coflesky said Mr. Glodis has continually taken the lead on the important issues facing law enforcement officials.

END

That's nice. This guy has never even been to a correction academy, or even worked full-time in a correctional facility. How is he qualified to run one?

Would any police officers here think a part-time officer, without even a basic training academy is qualified to run their police department?

Based on what is in this topic and his work record reported in another topic posted here, he shouldn't be dog catcher.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
4,316 Posts
I think it has to do with the fact that he assured alot of the police departments that his main focus is corrections and not patrol and county lockup with pickup of prisoners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
He makes lots of promises. However, Sheriff Flynn has held the office since 1987 and has never sought to patrol any city or town.

Sheriff Flynn's main focus has been corrections, not patrol. He has almost 700 employees. Less than 20 are assigned to patrol the external perimeter security, 24/7. I think this fact proves where his focus is.

Sheriff Flynn has been trying to get funding for a regional lockup for several years. Senator Glodis has done nothing to make this happen. He only began talking about it when he began campaigning for sheriff.

It must be something else.
 
G

·
My standards are simple "you violate, you get clinked"... OUI, they get locked up - regardless of who they are. A fellow Officer? You betcha'! I'd lock 'em up just like any other, PO's are held at a Higher standard in my book..

I doubt you would say that after you were stopped. I hope your remarks were just to flame up a response. As always there are people on this job who allow their job to become their identity. Everyone deserves a chance at somepoint in their life. Any cop who dosent give a cop the benefit of the doubt is an asshole.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
3,231 Posts
MSP2724 @ Thu 08 Jul said:
As always there are people on this job who allow their job to become their identity. Everyone deserves a chance at somepoint in their life. Any cop who dosent give a cop the benefit of the doubt is an asshole.
MSP2724,

Well said!! There are enough people out there trying to screw the police without us screwing each other.

Stay safe and look out for one another.
 

·
Chapter 90 Enforcer
Joined
·
3,299 Posts
RPD, How many cops do you have drunk driving at the Mass General Hospital property that you patrol? Use your head and turn your radio off at home. They look for people like you in the psych testing. MSP2724 and Palm beach brother, I'm with ya. Benefit goes to a fellow brother before anyone else. The media is against us: must we be against each other. This guy has never worked 'the road'.
Let me clarify.. I DO NOT only work at MGH. I'm also a Patrolman in a MA Town... I currently "work the road". You're right, the media is against us. And I want to keep my job and don't want to be smudged in the papers. I'll keep my integrity. And by doing my job I'll help keep my department's integrity. Incidents of "leniancy" for PO's make it to the papers from leaks within the department.

MSP2724 said: Everyone deserves a chance at some point in their life. Any cop who dosent give a cop the benefit of the doubt is an asshole.
If you're innocent, the court will say so. You get the same "benefit of a doubt" as EVERYONE else. But if you're OUI, you're OUI. Discretion? sure, Hinged or chain? The only "benefits" I give PO's are on tickets. I don't give out "passes" for most criminal offenses. C.Y.A. !! Are there offenses where there is room for discretion? Absolutely!! And there are many times people deserve "chances". But OUI is not one of them. Sorry, but an Offense that claims so many lives each year does not have room for discretion.
"Benefit of the doubt"? Like what, should I maybe think "well, he didn't mean to drive drunk". To me thats the same as saying "well, he didn't mean to punch her in the face". Instead of injuring his "significant other" he put many citizens of the general public at risk by OUI. The fact that he/she didn't kill anyone is his/her "benefit".

I don't drink much, but have I been drunk? Of course!! :beer: , but I've always been in the right mind to sleep it off for 6-8 hours if I am. And I keep it under 3 beers if I don't have a designated driver. Sorry, Mommy raised a good boy.


The media is against us: must we be against each other?.
No, but your not dragging my ass down for your stupidity.
Guess that makes me an "asshole"!?!?
 

·
Founder of MassCops
Joined
·
6,401 Posts
To break this up a little, I had an OUI the other night and the guy was insistent on a little professional courtesy (open can of worms), after all he has towed many cars for OUI arrest for Boston and State Police. He went on to state how he risks his life everyday to tow our arrestees cars.

When that didn't work he went back to calling me a racist pig. :? He must tow more for the MSP than Boston because he told me I had not right to be on the highway "impersonating a State Police car" :lol:

BTW: Some things are better left unsaid (not posted). (i.e. pc, can of worms, etc...)
 

·
Founder of MassCops
Joined
·
6,401 Posts
VOR @ 7/12/2004 9:59:08 PM said:
BTW: Some things are better left unsaid (not posted). (i.e. pc, can of worms, etc...)
Hint, hint. The world is watching...from California to Everett...
Everett?? Oh no not again!!!! :D

The world is watching....(stats for July)

#reqs: %bytes: domain
--------- : ------: ------
107828350: 85.60%: [unresolved numerical addresses]
13150943: 9.50%: .com (Commercial)
6273271: 3.14%: .net (Networks)
1808117: 1.12%: .edu (USA Higher Education)
499606: 0.25%: .us (United States)
228827: 0.22%: .mil (USA Military)
261905: 0.11%: .org (Non Profit Making Organisations)
21672: 0.02%: .gov (USA Government)
6136: 0.01%: .ca (Canada)
5659: 0.01%: .at (Austria)
1198: : .nl (Netherlands)
824: : .de (Germany)
1727: : .uk (United Kingdom)
662: : .it (Italy)
1155: : .tr (Turkey)
583: : .au (Australia)
558: : .mx (Mexico)
758: : .se (Sweden)
944: : .pl (Poland)
480: : .sg (Singapore)
377: : .cc (Cocos (Keeling) Islands)
101: : .il (Israel)
345: : .pk (Pakistan)
591: : .jp (Japan)
1597: : .gr (Greece)
360: : .fi (Finland)
473: : .fr (France)
202: : .dk (Denmark)
235: : .be (Belgium)
217: : .br (Brazil)
106: : .tw (Taiwan)
142: : .ch (Switzerland)
220: : .ar (Argentina)
708: : .tt (Trinidad and Tobago)
200: : .nz (New Zealand)
256: : .ky (Cayman Islands)
48: : .hu (Hungary)
24: : .kr (South Korea)
40: : .in (India)
36: : .by (Belarus)
25: : .biz (Businesses)
32: : .sk (Slovakia)
37: : .my (Malaysia)
9: : .za (South Africa)
6: : .no (Norway)
9: : .ie (Ireland)
12: : .ad (Andorra)
16: : .th (Thailand)
4: : .ru (Russia)
19: : .ee (Estonia)
10: : .yu (Yugoslavia)
3: : .ro (Romania)
2: : .info (Informational)
22: : .cz (Czech Republic)
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top