Hey, there! Log in / Register
DA's run in with another motorist at South Bay not criminal, but still warrants a look from the state Ethics Commission, attorney general concludes
By adamg on Thu, 02/11/2021 - 1:48pm
WFXT reports the state Attorney General's office has determined Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins did nothing criminal when she started yelling at another motorist in a traffic dispute at the South Bay Mall in December.
However, the station continues, the AG's office has forwarded its files to the state Ethics Commission for a look.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Much to do about nothing
What could possibly be an ethics violation? I suppose driving her kids and shopping in her take home vehicle could be an issue.
Is it common?
I did some googling and found that the state's policy on take-home vehicles is "official use only." Any idea if it's common that people drive their take-home vehicles for non-official use? Not saying that necessarily makes it OK, but just curious how serious of a violation this would actually be viewed as. I'm wondering this because the policy also states that all traffic and parking laws must be followed at all times, and we all know how state vehicles are constantly parked wherever the fuck people want to park them.
Every policy will be a little different.
But she works for the DAs office so I assume it comes out of that budget. One odd thing is that there are no provisions in any state law which says she can use her lights or sirens in a “situation”. The horn is usually in a separate place than the air horn, so it’s probably “inappropriate” to use it in this situation. Not a big deal in the long run.
As for putting her kids in the car that’s probably a no no. Can she stop at the supermarket or resturant after work and drive home? Sure. But I’m guessing the insurance policy isn’t going to cover her kids.
About the lights and siren
Why does the District Attorney need them? She might want to get to a crime scene, but she is not exactly the most important investigator at the crime scene.
And to be fair, I feel the same way about the mayor's official vehicle having them. I once had to pull over so Menino could get somewhere less than important. Police, fire, EMS- sure, but beyond that it is vanity.
100% agree
I would extend it further:
If you aren't a first responder actively rushing to an emergency, get in traffic with the rest of us.
Maura Healey
Profile in Courage
Okay DA Anon, what's the
Okay DA Anon, what's the charges you would be pressing here?
So
Remind me, what happened when someone else tried to file this type of false police report? Should be easy to remember, it was all over the news for several months.
I don't remember, maybe you
I don't remember, maybe you can tell us what you are saying rather than making us do the work.
It’s not a charge, it’s a
It’s not a charge, it’s a standard of behavior.
They didn’t interview Rollins?
How can you make a credibility assessment without interviewing someone?
This is a classic scenario where he parties claim contradictory facts. Both of them should have been pressed on any inconsistencies in their story in an effort to determine who was telling the truth.
Were there any eyewitnesses? Did the cameras identity any other vehicles whose occupants may have seen the confrontation? This appears to have been a rather cursory review, and not a probe designed to determine what actually occurred. The people of Suffolk County deserved better.
Both had similar stories.
And the video was inconclusive. Not that complicated. (Although the reporting party did have a witness)
Still
Similar, but not identical. So: why wasn't Rollins required to sit for an interview?
There is a major discrepancy where Rollins 100% denied using lights in the parking lot (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/14/metro/attorney-general-maura-heal...), whereas the CP said she did. The report is (intentionally?) ambiguous on this point: "[Rollins] does acknowledge briefly using her emergency alerts." Why "alerts," whereas "lights" and "siren" are mentioned in the complaint?
Is she acknowledging that her first statement was a lie?
It’s a horn.
Police cars have a siren (sometimes multiple) , and a black button which will sound a loud horn type sound. That’s what most unmarked cars have.
She said the initial police report that she didn’t tell the officer that any “sirens” or “lights” were used, only the “horn” (when Rollins allegedly left the parking lot right in red)
Lights
I'm not talking about sirens or horns. I'm talking about the lights.
Lawson says Rollins used the lights in the parking lot. Lawson says the initial report had it wrong about use of blue lights to blow through a red light. But we still have her allegation of blue lights in the parking lot during the merge dispute.
Rollins is initially very adamant that she did not use her blue lights at either time.
What conclusion did the AG come to about use of blue lights in the parking lot? Either (1) there is an unresolved discrepancy on what seems to be a pretty big issue that the AG is simply punting on without explanation; or (2) Rollins has admitted she lied and we're all just moving on as if there's nothing to see. Is there another possibility that I'm overlooking?
Pete, let the investigators handle this one.
Their stories weren't similar. That's the whole point. If Rollins did what the complainant suggested, she broke the law! Further, Rollins made contradictory statements to Fox 25 and Howie Carr. An investigator takes that information and uses it to probe a witness/suspect in order to expose holes in their story.
Disinterested party?
Did the reporting person have an actual disinterested witness come forward? Or was it just her sister or whoever who was with her and has been leaving vulgar harassing comments on DA Rollins' social media for weeks?
Her finance was in the front seat.
And I assume it was the black man shown in the fox 25 piece. He was the one who took the photo of her car.
What's up with Rollins?
Everyone has a bad day. But threatening to have people arrested for talking back to you and swearing at motorists and all that....not too cool for a public figure. I like her politically but find this sort of stuff extremely off-putting- smells a bit like the onset of corruption, power going to the head, etc. Hopefully it was just a bad day.