# Trooper pleads not guilty to OUI charges



## no$.10 (Oct 18, 2005)

Trooper pleads not guilty to OUI charges
By Crystal C. Bozek

LEOMINSTER -- A suspended Holden State Trooper pleaded not guilty Monday to a charge of drunk driving and two counts of leaving the scene of a property damage accident for allegedly striking two parked cars near her home in the early hours of Sept. 5.

Trooper Elizabeth McClure, of 13 Lowell Ave., Holden, already faces charges of assaulting four local police officers and a family member in Leominster District Court from a Sept. 15 incident at her home.

She has been on leave from the State Police Holden Barracks for undisclosed reasons since April.

Police reports say McClure allegedly struck the parked cars and a utility pole on Blueberry Lane in Holden, and then sped off with a flat tire, driving approximately 300 yards.

Police at the scene found utility wires hanging in the street, glass along the road, damage to a utility pole and groove marks on the road's surface, according to reports.

From witness testimony and marks on the roadway, officers found the suspect vehicle -- a banged-up white sports utility vehicle -- by McClure's home.

The engine was warm to the touch. The only people present in McClure's home were the trooper and her 8-year-old daughter, police wrote.

Police stepped up to her door and saw McClure "yelling, crying and (appearing) unable to control her emotions while standing by herself in the kitchen," before she noticed the visitors.

The trooper stumbled, lost her balance and spoke incoherently when speaking to the Holden officers and a state trooper.

McClure told police she had been home for three hours, and that a neighbor baby-sat her child that evening. The neighbor told police they hadn't watched the girl.

She then said her husband could have driven the vehicle, but then refuted herself by saying he hadn't been home all evening, according to reports.

Police found sunglasses and a purse on the front passenger seat. They did not arrest McClure that night, instead giving her a citation.

*(Gulp!)*:blink:


----------



## Piper (Nov 19, 2004)

*Her getting a crim app for the OUI was quite a gift*


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2005)

The woman obviously has a serious problem with the bottle. I hope she gets the help she needs, soon.


----------



## Irish Wampanoag (Apr 6, 2003)

The officers better thank the high spirit she did not decide to drive the car with her 8yr old daughter after they left and continue with her mass destruction. I would nt have done what those officer did but thats just me.:A!::thumbdow:


----------



## Clouseau (Mar 9, 2004)

Irish Wampanoag said:


> The officers better thank the high spirit she did not decide to drive the car with her 8yr old daughter after they left and continue with her mass destruction. I would nt have done what those officer did but thats just me.:A!::thumbdow:


Not if she didn't let you inside the threshold. You'd need a warrant.


----------



## JF5 (Aug 23, 2005)

Clouseau said:


> Not if she didn't let you inside the threshold. You'd need a warrant.


Not with "exigent circumstances" present you wouldn't!


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

JF5 said:


> Not with "exigent circumstances" present you wouldn't!


And what would you claim as "exigent cirumstances"??


----------



## csauce777 (Jan 10, 2005)

> And what would you claim as "exigent cirumstances"??


Good question...probably wouldnt fly...

She probably wouldnt have had access to the car anyway because she left it "by her home." This would lead me to believe that they probably towed the vehicle from the road. That criminal app sure was a gift though...


----------



## JF5 (Aug 23, 2005)

I would use the safety of the 8 year old child as being exigent. The trooper was evidently screeming yelling and upset before the officers entered the house. Then she is denying it was her later to change her story. 

Definately not in any condition to care for a young child.

What do you think? feedback?


----------



## JF5 (Aug 23, 2005)

csauce777 said:


> Good question...probably wouldnt fly...
> 
> She probably wouldnt have had access to the car anyway because she left it "by her home." This would lead me to believe that they probably towed the vehicle from the road. That criminal app sure was a gift though...


Do you know for a fact it was towed? I am going by what the story says.

Keys confiscated?

Just the facts of the story.

What brings on exigency is if they didn't enter the house without "a warrant" she still could have had access to the car. What if she drove intoxicated with the child?


----------



## Irish Wampanoag (Apr 6, 2003)

JF5 said:


> I would use the safety of the 8 year old child as being exigent. The trooper was evidently screeming yelling and upset before the officers entered the house. Then she is denying it was her later to change her story.
> 
> Definately not in any condition to care for a young child.
> 
> What do you think? feedback?


my thoughts exactly!!!!(JF5)

P.S. If the police were already in the house (The article does not state wether they were or were nt) you would not need a warrant! Let alone the fact there was an 8yr old child in the house, fact not with standing she was observed by officers as stumbling, losing her balance and speaking incoherently. Again those officers should thank the "High Spirit":martini:enough said!


----------

