What are taxpayers supporting, when police agencies cannot investigate accidents and complete reports, so that they can move on to the next accident?
The Haligus Road accident involving four Marian Central High School students happened on Friday, October 26, four weeks ago tomorrow. Seems like ages ago, doesn’t it? Or maybe just yesterday?
On October 27 (the day after the accident) the Northwest Herald reported that Sheriff’s Sgt. Karen Groves said that “toxicology reports revealed that drugs and alcohol were not a factor in the crash.” I immediately questioned how such test results could be available so quickly.
Earlier this week I contacted Northwest Herald Editor Chris Krug to ask if they would be following up on this accident. Imagine my surprise to read in today’s paper that the driver of the vehicle, Eva Grys, was released from the hospital on November 4, THREE weeks ago. And yet there was no follow-up that was reported.
In today’s Northwest Herald article Sheriff’s Sgt. Carolyn Hubbard says that the crash is still under investigation and that no charges have been filed. Why not?
Sgt. Hubbard also indicated that they are waiting for “some” information to come back, including toxicology reports. When will the toxicology reports be available?
Exactly what “toxicology” results were available the next day? The Sheriff's Department needs to be more specific. On what grounds did the Sheriff’s Department, through Sgt. Groves, so quickly inform the public that drugs or alcohol were not a factor?
While I have no reason to suspect drugs or alcohol, or their after-effects, to be a factor in a Friday morning accident of a high school student, they can only be ruled out by thorough tests. My hope is that toxicology test results will be negative.
Still, is there really a good reason that the Sheriff’s Department cannot complete its investigation, issue the requisite ticket(s) and close its file? It probably could have completed it on the day of the accident or the next day. “Driver left roadway onto steep sloping shoulder. Driver apparently over-corrected and returned to road, crossing in front of oncoming truck.” Write a ticket for failure to maintain control of vehicle. End of report.
Let the insurance companies and lawyers fight about it from there.
Is it any wonder that the budget of the Sheriff’s Department is out-of-sight? How many training seminars do accident investigators have to attend (and where?) to drag out reports and keep cases open for weeks and months?
If more information becomes available later on, then supplementary reports and additional tickets can follow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
After reading this ramble the best I can get from it is that you are upset because no tickets were issued. I too have been unhappy to find no follow-up stories in the papers about local happenings but after all how else can we find out what Madonna is up to? Keep hassling local law enforcement Gus. I'm sure someday you will get what you deserve.
Let's see if I understand you... You seem to think that the driver who causes an accident that kills two and injures two should not get a ticket?
Asking legitimate questions is not "hassling" anyone or anything.
No, you don't understand me. Never will. But then again it's all about you anyway.
Bingo! This blog represents my views and opinions. Respectful comments are invited. Less respectful ones are mostly tolerated. Some disrespectful ones are deleted when found. I'll leave yours. Why don't you include your name, next time you write?
Sometimes traffic crashes, so often referred to as "accidents", really are accidents.
I do not know any of the details of this incident, only what has been reported in the media and what I have read on this blog.
But in response to Gus' comments I just wanted to suggest that not all crashes are the result of laws being broken. When they occur due solely to the totality of circumstances that result in a true accident, then no citations are issued because no laws/statutes have been violated.
Whether it is a minor fender-bender crash or a horrific and tragic crash such as this one, drivers should only be issued citations if they have violated one or more statutes.
Whether or not one or more drivers involved in a crash were issued citations has no bearing on the "who is at fault" matter. If a driver swerves to avoid an animal, loses control of his/her vehicle, crosses the center line and strikes an oncoming vehicle, it was an accident. No citation is warranted. However clearly this driver is at fault, not the unfortunate driver who was heading the opposite direction. The courts would agree, but the insurance companies would split up the fault, likely 80/20 in this hypothetical case, saying that the oncoming driver shared a portion of fault simply for being there and for not being able to avoid the crash. (this part does seem silly).
Regarding toxicology reports, quite often there are initial tests run at the hospital or even on scene, which provide initial results within hours. Those results, however, are not admissible in court. Samples must be sent to a certified crime lab for the certified results, and this takes several weeks to come back. Sometimes police agencies will release info from the initial local tests, with the caveat that the official results are not back yet.
Regarding the length of investigations, any crash of this severety (life-threatening or fatal injuries) requires in-depth investigations, reconstruction and reporting. The report must be accurate for use in litigation, and most every law enforcement agency takes this responsibility seriously. It takes quite a bit of time to do a thorough investigation, reconstruction and report on a major crash. Things are often not what they seem from the actual scene, and determining factors which contributed to the crash is painstaking and time consuming. It may involve everything from photographs and measurements to sending parts and pieces of the vehicles to specialized labs across the country for analysis.
Just some food for thought before condemning the Sheriff's office.
Thank you.
I totally agree w/ the above comment... very well written too!
Gus, New Year's resolution for you - think before you post.
This is not a respectful comment. I find your comments disengenuous in the least and cruel, incorrect and ill-informed at worst. I am appalled that you consider yourself a legitimate "news" entity. I couldn't have any less respect for you or your opinions.
Where is anyone here stating that they consider themselves a "legitimate news entity"? I thought this was a blog, where the author is sharing his opinions on-line. He has every right to express these opinions, as we have every right to agree or disagree. In fact, we have every right to read them or not read them...
In my opinion, I think it's cool that we have these freedoms to express ourselves. It would just be nice if we all did so while maintaining civility and respect toward each other, through comments and responses that are at least somewhat mature (which exludes personal attacks and/or name calling).
Just my opinion :)
See previous posts concerning gus and his "press pass" and talk of legitimate news entity. It may be gone by now though.
Thanks to the poster of the 11:34PM comment on Nov. 22. He posts good information, and I appreciate the time he (or she) took to write a factual comment.
The caveat about preliminary results of toxicology did not accompany the statement of the initial reporting sergeant. Either she didn't so inform the reporter, or the reporter or the editor omitted it from the article. So I took it at face value, as did probably many readers.
In my opinion, few crashes are "accidents" (only). In a case of deer-vs.-auto, was the driver traveling too fast on a dark country road or highway and out-driving headlights? How does a driver leave a two-lane 45MPH road in good condition and not be "at fault"?
As to contributory liability, this is a tricky one. If I start up from a red light after it changes to green and drive into the path of a driver who is running his red light, his insurance company will attempt to assign liability to me, claiming that I failed to be sure the intersection was clear before I entered it. They can claim anything they want; that's what courts are for. So I had better have looked and seen that car and believed it was slowing to stop on its red. Around here, you'd better count to "3" before entering an intersection, if the light just changed.
Should law enforcement agencies be involved in extensive accident reconstruction? How much do we taxpayers pay for this service to insurance companies and lawyers? Should private expert firms, monitored by both plaintiff and defense lawyers, be the reconstruction experts? Since these lawyers won't agree, probably two expert firms are needed.
My thanks once again to the well-written post of last evening.
RE "legitimate news entity" comment above. Although I myself have never claimed to be one, others are beginning to ascribe at least the "news entity" to this blog. What the heck? I'll even proclaim that I am legitimate. Is there someone out there who wishes to claim that I am illegitimate? CAUTION: Check the limits on your personal liability insurance for slander coverage.
In Valerie Plame Wilson's new book, Fair Game, on Page 284 she writes, “...the Libby trial was the first federal case in which independent bloggers received the same official credentials as reporters from traditional news media.”
My Press Pass is as valid as that of any reporter. Should I be reporting regularly at the State Capitol or another government office, I would present my identification, credentials (maybe even proof of citizenship or document of legal residency) and be issued a pass specific to that venue.
John Kass (Chicago Tribune, legitimate news service )was right we are too stupid to survive.
Gosh,Gus you really are a pinhead.
Just to elaborate on the hypothetical car vs. deer accident presented in my earlier post, I neglected to include the assumption that no violations of traffic laws or common sense were occuring. I was trying to illustrate a scenario where a crash could occur without laws having been violated. This doesn't mean the driver who swerved wasn't "at fault", only that he/she shouldn't be cited with traffic tickets. Naturally, if the driver was travelling too fast, or without headlights, etc., he/she should be appropriately cited.
But all too often people jump to conclusions and are so quick to judge based on surface "facts" sprinkled with ample speculation. This is why, I suppose, it's a good thing we have courts with judges and juries to sort these things out, based on factual evidence.
I agree with your red-light scenario. It's always best to look both ways, even when the light is green. Else you may be struck by the person talking on the cell phone, eating lunch, applying makeup, etcteras. Happens all the time, unfortunatley.
However you would not receive a citation for this, the driver who ran the red light would. This is regardless of whether or not the insurance companies "assign" their blame... which is a different matter than whether or not one or both drivers have violated law and been cited for same.
I respectfully disagree with your final comment suggesting that law enforcement should not investigage traffic crashes. This is not done "for the insurance companies and lawyers". It is done for the benefit of victims, their families, and the judicial system when violations need to be discovered, with appropriate actions afterward. While I did say earlier that it is done "for litigation", what I meant was for the judicial system to run its course. Insurance companies already do their own investigations and reconstructions, so they can spin the crash whichever way they want. The law enforcement investigation is not biased in any direction, it is based solely on factual evidence.
Thanks for your reply to my reply... and for the opportunity to share my opinions here.
We want the person above to write more. Can you give him your password, Gus? It's way more factual and interesting than your rants. Please?
Bingo.
A blog is not a news entity. This one especially is a self serving rant not even worth the amount of cyber-space it takes up.
I disagree completely. Gus provides information that you will NEVER see in NWH - like this bizarre case (three weeks and still no results?? we really live in Hicksville - this is massive incompetence), and also the Woodstock Stooges story about the pending Tax Slam IV that Webster, Sager, and Wreski all star in on Dec. 4th at City Hall.
Let's be honest, many of the disparing posters on this blog are connected with d200, the city, and the NWH. Come clean and admit it.
Rock on Gus. Woodstock needs you!
Maybe you haven't seen anything GUS because of hippa. People are entitled to their privacy. Even a guy like you gus. Fall off of the face of the earth already old man.
You are so full of it.
No criminal suspect is entitle to "privacy." She killed two people and sent three others to the hospital. Either accidentally or criminally. It needs to be determined.
She has no privacy, none. Even our Hicksville police know that they were allowed to draw whatever fluids/tissue they wanted/needed to determine if she was under any illegal influence.
Only three options exist:
1. Officer JoeBob forgot to have blood drawn at the hospital.
2. Officer JoeBob was told NOT to do this. By whom? Why?....
3. Blood was drawn, came back showing under the influence, and the tests and samples were destroyed in a cover-up??
They would have the results in 72 hours at most. If the results cleared her her attorney would have insisted on front page reporting of this.
No, there's a massive cover-up or gross incompetence here.
The only thing we know for sure is that the Northwaste Herald won't be doing any more reporting on this as they are lapdogs to every crony in the county.
Keep up the great work Gus.
Gus, reading what you have written here in your blog, tells me you really dont know anything about law enforcement. You talk about how you were a CSO in some state, but the turth is you really could not make it as a Police Officer. Before you comment about anything maybe you should get all the facts first. As a Police Officer you should know that when you send blood to get tested like in this accident it could take months to get it back from the State. I am sure what Sgt Groves was talking about was the blood work done in the ER where this poor girl was taken. Maybe you should find a new choice of work, that you cant make it in.
Post a Comment