The Globe reported on Dec. 7 that it found “at least 10 cases where police departments kept officers on the payroll when they lost their driving licenses for refusing the test, giving them paid leave or duties around the station instead.”
And this is from an editorial published Wednesday
Police departments commit a dangerous error in judgment by refusing to release the names of officers who are apprehended for drunken driving. Such subterfuge drives a wedge between the police and the public, crushing the credibility of law enforcement.
If police departments around the country expect to held in high regard by the public going forward, they really need to take a good look in the mirror and purge the rotten apples in their midst. ‘Serve and protect’ applies to the population at large and not their own ranks.
I have always had great respect for police officers, but most have always “protected their own” to one degree or another. The difference now is a light is being shined on their closing ranks tight when any of them is suspected of wrongdoing, as it has during other periods in history.
It’s going to take the many, many great officers getting fed up with the few protected offenders to make a real difference.
The absurdity of publishing the names of anyone just suspected of, but never arrested for, OUI at a checkpoint, even after passing a breathylyser test, is one thing that makes this so offensive.
@Marti,
Where have you seen names of people not arrested for OUI published? It seems odd to me so I’m just curious…
TWT, in the local paper of the town where the checkpoint was set up. It publishes the police log just like most local papers including Newton’s. No drinking or any other impairment was involved.
Marti, you’re saying that a local paper publishes the names of drivers who are stopped at OUI checkpoints but are not arrested, charged, or cited – with anything? What do they publish – “Mary Smith was stopped at an OUI checkpoint, was found not to be impaired, and was allowed to continue on her way to church”?
@Marti,
I have to say in all my time, I have never seen a local paper print the names of people simply because they were stopped for a potential violation. I have to imagine the Newton Police makes lots of motor vehicle stops, not just for potential OUI cases but for all sorts of violations. Not once have I ever seen names in the Tab or the News Tribune or any other source.
Maybe @greg can shed some light on this…
Don’t change my words Tricia. And TWT, I’m not making anything up no matter what you have seen or heard in all your time.
A citation was issued for OUI at a checkpoint with a court date for no reason other than the officer did not like the way s/he looked. S/he was taken to the station without being allowed to get his/her laptop or phone, the car was impounded, s/he passed a Breathilizer test (because no drinking or other impairment existed), was told to call someone to pick him/her up, go home, not to pick up the car for 24 hours, and they’d see him/her in court. To compound matters, when the charges were paid to get the car, the laptop and phone were gone, and an expensive lawyer was hired but could not get the charges dropped, the charges were reduced to something like “driving irregularly” when no driving was observed since it was at a checkpoint and a fine was imposed.
I don’t know why you are both so outraged. It happened and was in the local paper. I wasn’t trying to bring light to anything and was only mentioning it in relation to publishing names. End of story.
Actually I have a problem with police logs being published. In the early 90’s I formed a group to work to prevent domestic abuse arrests being published in local papers and succeeded. Abused mothers, in particular who live in small towns, will rarely call the police when they should if their children’s friends will see it in the paper. Or their husband’s bosses.
Tricia, I would also like to say how terribly rude it is to ridicule something you know nothing about, particularly making a cruel joke at this person’s misfortune. A condition caused this person to seem overly nervous when the officer asked questions and another condition causes a tonic pupil and a redness in one eye. This person now carries a card from their doctor with their drivers license that can be given to an officer if it should happen again. I sincerely wish the officer had sent them on their way, that this person on a fixed income didn’t have to hire a lawyer and go to court, pay a fine and have their name in the paper. I also hope it doesn’t happen to you or anyone else. Don’t be so quick to ridicule. There but by the Grace of …. You know the rest.
Easy there, Marti. I’m sorry about what happened to your friend, but I wasn’t twisting your words or ridiculing anyone. Your post read like: people are stopped at OUI checkpoints, pass a breathalyzer test and are let go without being charged or cited, but their names are listed in the local paper’s police log just for being stopped. That made no sense. Now it seems that a particular person was stopped and this person WAS cited for OUI (although that charge was later dropped), which explains how they ended up in the police log – they were in fact charged. These logs in the papers have the disclaimer “An arrest does not indicate a conviction” or “Individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty”, but you’re right – that doesn’t help a person who is later found not guilty.
@Marti: I agree with Tricia, your original comment seemed to be saying something quite different. Glad you clarified.
@Marti,
I simply asked a question and then responded to your answer. Please don’t take my head off. As Greg said, what your original post suggested and what your further posts say are two entirely different things.
This is getting ridiculous.
The inferences being made about my simple sentence are wrong.
This reminds me of cable news forming expert panels to discuss something (say education, climate change, neutrino’s mass) and choosing someone who has research and facts to back up their claims to represent one side and someone with an opinion not substantiated by facts or research to represent the other side and treating them as equally credible “viewpoints.”
The facts are that what I said, stands alone without generalized interpretations. “Publishing names of anyone just suspected of, but not arrested for, OUI at a checkpoint even after passing a breathalyzer test.”
Everyone has to stop if they approach a checkpoint. So right away, TWT’s interpretation has nothing to do with my sentence. No one us being stopped because they are observed doing anything suspicious or for any of the other reasons. And Tricia’s “just for being stopped at checkpoints” is what makes no sense. Likewise with sending Mary off to church.
They were not arrested. Being arrested is different from being cited (getting a ticket) and involves fingerprints, mug shots and Miranda rights. Any interpretation that I meant anything but “not arrested” is wrong. They were treated like they were arrested in the paper. So the local paper published the name and offense of someone who passed a breathalyzer test, had no impairment in walking the line or in any other test, had no alcohol (or anything else such as a mint) on their breath (because they had not been drinking) and had not been observed driving.
I did not say they were let go. The interpretation that concludes with Mary driving on to church after being stopped is flippant and wrong. OUI checkpoints are usually at night. Of course they should have let them go on their way.
The point is the name was published and was a simple post on a thread about names being published.
TWT, I fell for the “I’m just curious” line thinking you meant what you said (without interpretation) when you were plainly just fishing for ways to prove me wrong. Too bad you misinterpreted what I said so badly that your post had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. No wonder you didn’t just take my words as they were written.
There could be other points to be made of course. That anyone who just doesn’t look right in an officer’s opinion for any reason, even when the factual evidence that is used in court to convict them doesn’t exist, is susceptible to being treated the same as someone who has actually committed the violations.
Tricia, the charges were not dropped so evidently your reading comprehension is lacking too. “An expensive lawyer was hired to try to get the charges dropped, but couldn’t” is what I said. Being forced to plead guilty to a lesser offense (driving irregularly or something like that, without being observed driving) and paying a fine or go to trial (meaning more lawyer fees, court costs, waiting for a trial date at least 6 months away and maybe even being convicted) is not dropping charges.
Greg, thanks for piling on. It seems you have a problem trying to interpret other sentences too. “Seems to be saying” and actually saying are quite different.
@Marti: At the risk of complicating this conversation further, I have two questions (and I’m not asking to be flip but really because I’m not clear).
1. Did the incident you are referring to happen in Newton?
2. Is/was the ‘local paper” the TAB or another publication that covers Newton?
There is no way you could have been clear about where it was because I never said, but No. I don’t even know of any checkpoints in Newton.
Thanks for clarifying Marti. In that case, I’m going to close this thread since our primary objective here is to discuss issues relevant to our own community.
I mean, Any checkpoints that have been in Newton.
@Marti – I’m confused too. You said” A citation was issued for OUI at a checkpoint” and later made it even clearer with “They were not arrested. Being arrested is different from being cited (getting a ticket)”
Maybe I’m wrong, but as far as I know you can’t get a citation or a ticket for OUI, you can only get arrested.
My only guess is that maybe they were stopped at an OUI checkpoint and then were issued a citation for some non-OUI related violation. If so, I agree that publishing their name in a report about OUI stops would be wrong.