Hey, there! Log in / Register
DA: Man clocked at 85 on Storrow Drive faces fifth OUI charge
By adamg on Tue, 11/22/2011 - 11:19am
A Woburn man with an apparent inability to drive sober faces a hearing tomorrow that could have him locked up without bail for 90 days on charges he drove drunk down Storrow Drive and the Harvard Bridge on Friday, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.
Thomas McCue, 42, was arrested early Friday after a State Trooper clocked him doing 85 m.p.h. on Storrow westbound before Mass. Ave:
The trooper signaled McCue to pull over as he exited onto the Massachusetts Avenue ramp from the middle lane.
McCue allegedly turned onto the Harvard Bridge toward Cambridge and didn't stop for about 300 feet. The trooper exited his cruiser and approached McCue’s white 2005 Pontiac Bonneville, at which point McCue allegedly accelerated away from him only to rear-end a taxi near the Memorial Drive intersection. The taxi driver was not injured.
Additional State Police units responded to the scene and the initial trooper once again approached McCue's vehicle. McCue allegedly refused the trooper's exit order and would not lower his driver’s side window. At that point, the trooper used his flashlight to break the window, removed McCue from the car, and took him into custody. Troopers at the scene observed his eyes to be bloodshot, his voice to be slurred, and his breath to smell strongly of alcohol.
At the barracks, McCue took a breath test three times and blew .24, .15, and .24 - well over the state's .08 limit - the DA's office says.
McCue has OUI convictions dating to 1992 from Woburn, Roxbury, and Charlestown courts.
He is scheduled for a dangerousness hearing in Boston Municipal Court tomorrow on the latest OUI charge, along with charges of negligent operation, operating after suspension and failing to stop for police. A judge can order a defendant held without bail if prosecutors can convince him the person poses an immediate threat to the public.
Innocent, etc.
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
I have to pre-emptively agree with Swirly on this one
8 OUIs, this one doing 85 on Storrow and causing an accident after getting pulled over, yet he'll get 90 days if we are all lucky. If he shot into a crowd and didn't even hit anyone you know he'd be facing years for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
I am amazed that we as a society don't take drunk driving as seriously as we should.
Right on, CraiginDaVille!
The fact that we, as a society don't take drunk driving and its consequences as seriously as we should is disgusting, and appalling to boot. It's unbelievable how so many defense atty's bend the rules to let guys like this McCue off! This guy's had 8 OUI's? How the hell did he remain on the road for so long?? I hope they catch this guy and put him behind bars before he ends up killing somebody, because by then, it'll be too late!
where did you read 8? it
where did you read 8? it cleary says fifth in the title of this page, why dont you look in your own back yard and stop critizing people that you know nothing about. you should get a life and stop butting into other peoples lives. I am sure you have done nothing wrong in your life. people mess up and if you watched the news last nite you would know that he has been in no trouble for 16 years. now go choke on your turkey
Okay, my bad...it was his fifth OUI arrest.
It's still condemnable and, other than my mistake on the number of arrests, I stand by my opinions.
Whoever wrote the police report needs to go back
to writing school and properly learn how to report facts without restoring to tired and inappropriate disclaimers.
McCue's car turned from Storrow Drive onto the Harvard Bridge. That is a FACT, and is not an "alleged" action.
McCue's car accellerated away from the officer. That is a FACT, and is not an "alleged" action.
McCue had to be forcibly pulled from the car. That FACT demonstrates he ignored the officer's command to exit the car. Whatever the reason McCue had for ignoring the order, that action cannot be described as "alleged".
The only issue in this case that has to be proven in a court of law, and can be properly described as "alleged" behavior, is the claim that McCue was drunk.
Spend much time in court?
Every single "fact" can be and often is questioned. Yeah, it's annoying to write "alleged" in every sentence, but while I have no reason to doubt the police account, I wasn't there.
Where did you get this Adam?
That blurb doesn't sound like it came from the actual report. I also don't see a reason for the trooper to use the world "alleged" if he saw him do these things.
It looks like it was written by someone trying to summerize the troopers report.
I kind of agree with Roadman and find this writing strange if it came from the actuall troopers report.
It's a press release, not a
It's a press release, not a police report. For Roadman's benefit, a trooper's report doesn't require "allegedly" because its narrative is based on his or her own observations. Unlike pronouncements from a prosecutor's office, those narratives are not beholden to the SJC's Rules of Professional Conduct, which specifically mandate that allegations of criminal conduct be accompanied by a notice that they are mere allegations until proven in court.
Inartful sometimes, but ethically necessary.
From a State Police press release
I'll post a copy later (am downtown about to go into a meeting, release is on my laptop, I'm posting this on my phone).
It's up online at
It's up online at http://www.suffolkdistrictattorney.com/front-page-... (and I beg your pardon but it's a release from the DA's office, not State Police!).
Yes, DA, not State Police
I got my press releases mixed up - I was thinking about the one the State Police issued on the captain who may or may not have been drunk, allegedly or not, in Saugus.
Disagree
Pretty much the only undisputed fact right now is that the State Police arrested someone they identified as Thomas McCue of Woburn. It's probably also safe to assume that whoever they arrested was indeed operating the car.
But they still have to prove that:
-He consumed alcohol.
-He was operating the car on a public way.
-He was impaired by alcohol at the time he was operating the car on a public way.
Which roads he was driving on, whether he had to be forcibly pulled from the car, whether he actually rear-ended the taxi, whether he consumed the alcohol before or after he operated the car... these are all facts that are subject to dispute.
What's wrong with this picture, folks?
Plenty, as far as I'm concerned! Really...something doesn't add up here! If this same guy has an OUI record dating back to 1992, there's no question that he's been arrested and re-arrested a number of times, which proves that the guy was clearly intoxicated, going too fast on a public way, and he was operating while intoxicated with alcohol. The fact that this guy has been allowed to remain on the road for so long almost defies belief!
Umm... no
It's scary that there are people like you in the jury pools.
Prior convictions prove nothing. For that reason, they are often prohibited from being mentioned at trial.
Wrong
They do mean something, unfortunately it's during sentencing. Also unfortunate because the damn judges in this state don't seem to tough enough on drunk driving.
Public intoxication tends to get more of a reprimand than OUI...
Prior convictions do mean something.
First of all, a guy who's been re-arrested five times for OUI is a real menace and deserves to be locked up.
Secondly, there's no need to resort to personal attacks on people who openly disagree with you.
So...
If every prior OUI ended calmly and he confessed every time he was pulled over, then did he NOT flee the cop on the bridge and require being pulled out through his window this time? I mean if every previous OUI means he's already guilty of OUI by your logic, then every previous NON-event indicates he DIDN'T do those things this time too, right?
Facts not in evidence
Other than the officer's word, we don't know that his car turned onto the Bridge from Storrow. Maybe the officer has a personal vendetta against this guy and followed him when he saw his car on Newbury St after leaving the Nike store. He may not have accelerated away from the officer. Maybe, in reality, he drove normally across the bridge but the officer didn't light him up until they got into Cambridge so his buddy on the Cambridge PD could arrive first and back his story. How do you know he ignored the order to exit the car? Maybe the cop didn't order anything and just walked up and busted the window out as a warning to this guy who he has a vendetta against.
I am NOT suggesting ANY of that is true...but what you have is one side of a story about how the arrest went down. You want to wholly believe it? Fine, that's your business, but labeling those things as "FACTS" is not appropriate...which is why the press release talks about them as happening allegedly....because the cop has ALLEGED that this was the course of events as he experienced them. That may easily be EXACTLY the truth of the matter, but for now, it's only an allegation of the events of that night.
Journalism 101
There are a couple of posters here (or is it only one?) who takes issue with "alleged" and "allegedly" every time either is used.
Somewhere in the first week or so of learning how to write news, they teach you to draw a clear distinction between That which you personally observed and everything else.
For example, "Neighbors found the victim in a pool of blood on the sidewalk." is not correct unless you were there; instead you write "Two people who identified themselves as neighbors said they found the victim in a pool of blood on the sidewalk."
So, the police report does not write "Mr. Jones allegedly sped away." because the officer writing the report saw it, and so he writes "Mr. Jones sped away." But if you're writing a news article, you need to say, "Police arrested Mr. Jones, alleging that he sped away..." or "The police report alleges that Mr. Jones sped away."
This is absolutely basic and fundamental; I'm not sure why it's giving anyone pause to complain.
Radar on Storrow Drive?
I think that's a first. Just about any time of day there is somebody doing 70 on that road.
Yup
Several times I've seen the staties using LIDAR westbound right before the BU bridge, where there's an emergency pull-off lane. One or two troopers will be parked there with one operating the LIDAR gun. When they nab someone they walk out into the road, stop traffic, and wave the car over to the side. They get a lot of people that way - fish in a barrel. Seems crazy dangerous though.
It's asinine is what it is.
It's asinine is what it is. The speed limit on Storrow Drive is WAY too low. There is absolutely no reason for it to be 40mph, and so I advise ANYONE READING THIS who has been, or ever is in the future, stopped for speeding on Storrow Drive, to challenge it.
Challenge it based on the fact that, under Massachusetts law, the speed limit on Storrow Drive is ILLEGAL because there has never been a formal study done to determine the safe speed on that road.
Forty mph for a six-lane divided highway? With no pedestrian crossings or traffic lights? Give me a BREAK. That speed limit makes sense for Memorial Drive. Not Storrow.
slowest common denominator
Disclosure: I am an asshole Massachusetts driver. I drive aggressively, regularly speed on Storrow Drive and, yes, think I drive better than most other people.
But the layout of Storrow Drive does not lend itself to driving any faster than the current speed limit for many people (clearly I don't apply that to myself). There are too many people out there who drive timidly, erratically, unpredictably and/or drunk to allow the speed limit any higher. The 'S' curves, the slow-ass merges from the right, accelerating into a curve while going up an incline and coming out of a tunnel with a lane merging in on your right (Eastbound at Beacon Street) - these are all driving challenges that the majority of people on the road just can't handle. (Of course I'm aces at it.)
Why does it matter
So you and I and many people can safely drive it faster. So ...
10 mph faster on a stretch of 3 or 4 miles saves you how much time?
Eliminating speedlimits on 600 miles of Montana interstate makes sense because it isn't patrollable anyway and that extra 15 or 20 mph over 400 miles means actual time saved.
Driving 70 instead of 50 or 40 mph on Storrow Drive gains you nothing. It is just entitlement and exhibitionist masturbation. There is no logical reason to care.
hmmm...
masturbating while driving Storrow...? Now there's a challenge. I think the norm is to usually do that sort of thing on public transportation, although it does open up some novel transportation revenue options -- vehicle miles yanked?
Seen it!
And many rhymes with snow jobs also. Lot of wackos on Storrow Drive (pun intended).
A study? Nahh..better yet
Why don't we just survey the families and survivors of all of the bad accidents that have happened over the years on that particular small piece of road you've mistaken for a straightaway?
I've been a professional driver in this town for 31 years and the amount of shit I've seen happen on Storrow Drive could fill a driver's ed video. My favorites are the goofs who come flying out of the Lechmere tunnel on the Westbound side, just in time to hit that disabled vehicle they didn't think would be there.
40MPH is just fine for me.
The speed limit is wrong
It should be zero. Storrow Drive should not exist at all. It was opposed by both James and Helen Storrow. After their deaths, the road project was rammed through the legislature despite strong community opposition. The road is now largely redundant given the existence of the Mass Pike extension.
The Storrow Drive tunnel is in bad shape and is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to repair.
Time to shut it down.
Amen, shut it down!
The MBTA bought the Allston CSX yard, no?
Work with them to make a ramp to funnel Soldiers field road onto the pike around that area.
Keep it two lanes with ramps to the BU bridge.
Bring it down to one lane to Charlesgate/Fenway
Make it a surface road with block by block traffic lights for pedestrian crossings. Connect it to the old grid every other street and make the median similar to Commonwealth.
Traffic going towards 93 and North station should be using the Pike / 93 anyways, or be using a surface road.
Problem solved, area becomes much nicer, reconnects the back bay with the Charles, and no need to spend millions on a construction project that will ruin the lower Charles/Storrow parks.
Never going to happen.
Wishful thinking is nice this holiday season, but you'll never see the end of Storrow Drive. I also like the fact that most of the time it's a great way to get to the airport in the morning when the Pike is backed up to the tolls.
hit the nail on the head dvdoff
I think its a great road to get downtown from places like Brighton, Newton, Allston etc.
*applause*
I'm so happy that you can drive fast and drive well and endanger others' lives. Your mom must be so proud.
But the reality is that it is a 4 to 6 lane road with multiple curves (in fact, barely any straightaways), continuous road merges and exits ever several hundred feet, and is a major thoroughfare that, when clogged by an accident, causes severe traffic impediments throughout the entire city.
That, my friend, is why the speed limit is what it is. Not so that you can feel more entitled than everyone else because you drive pretty.
"Clocked" isn't radar. Also doubt he took three breath tests.
If the trooper "clocked" the offender, this means that he paced behind the offender for at least 1/8th of a mile using the cruiser's calibrated speedometer to infer the offender's speed. Clocked is different than radar. As for taking three breath tests, I doubt it. The .15 number in the middle is the required test of the machine's simulator which must be either .14, .15 or .16. If it isn't, the test is invalid. The simulator test result can be skewed by using an outdated solution or failing to "warm up" the machine.