# Fired Quincy cop acquitted: Rookie officer cleared of drunken-driving charges after c



## 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.


----------



## j809

> 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.


----------



## kwflatbed

*Fired Quincy cop acquitted*

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 [email protected]._

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


----------



## 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.


----------



## j809

*Re: Fired Quincy cop acquitted: Rookie officer cleared of drunken-driving charges aft*



lifelongtesttaker said:


> 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.


----------



## K9Vinny

lifelongtesttaker said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## MallPolice

Obviously K-9 Vinny knows what he talking about!


----------



## 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.


----------



## 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.


sm5879 said:


> 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.


----------



## Pacman

sm5879 said:


> 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.


----------



## MVS

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. :lol:


----------



## 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?


----------



## Clouseau

RPD931 said:


> 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?


----------



## KindaConfused

RPD931 said:


> 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. :lol:


 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.


----------



## bbelichick

*Re: Fired Quincy cop acquitted: Rookie officer cleared of drunken-driving charges aft*



KindaConfused said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## 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.


----------



## topcop14

*Re: Fired Quincy cop acquitted: Rookie officer cleared of drunken-driving charges aft*



j809 said:


> 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.


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


----------



## MVS

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.


----------



## popo

*Re: Fired Quincy cop acquitted: Rookie officer cleared of drunken-driving charges aft*



RPD931 said:


> 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.


----------



## bbelichick

RPD931 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## 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.


----------



## ShakeEmDOwn016

:NO: Oh here we go throwing the gender issue into it....


----------



## 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?


----------



## HOTLUNCH

KindaConfused said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## sempergumby

HOTLUNCH said:


> 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.


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


----------



## 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.


----------



## 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.


----------



## USMCTrooper

> 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/journalists_handbook/?sw=3154


----------



## 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.


----------



## 94c

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


----------



## bbelichick

*Re: Fired Quincy cop acquitted: Rookie officer cleared of drunken-driving charges aft*



Giddyup said:


> 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.


----------



## dcs2244

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


----------



## 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?


----------



## 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.


----------



## popo

I think Giddyup is the fired biatch.


----------



## Giddyup

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


----------



## bbelichick

*Re: Fired Quincy cop acquitted: Rookie officer cleared of drunken-driving charges aft*



Giddyup said:


> 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.


----------



## Giddyup

U know what I do for a living?


----------



## bbelichick

Hopefully not a Cop.


----------



## fjmas1976

bbelichick said:


> Hopefully not a Cop.


 :woot: LMAO


----------



## mpd594

Giddyup said:


> 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!! :FM:


----------



## 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.


----------



## 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.


----------



## 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.


----------



## chief801

She might get hired by MSP... I've known others who have gotten on with OUI on the BOP...No kidding!


----------



## cop28

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


----------



## atrain104

chief801 said:


> 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.


----------



## 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.


----------



## j809

*Re: Fired Quincy cop acquitted: Rookie officer cleared of drunken-driving charges aft*



cop28 said:


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


:L::L::L::L: Hey, was she a Police Corps graduate?


----------



## 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.


----------



## 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?


----------



## Guest

KozmoKramer said:


> 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).


----------

