Hey, there! Log in / Register
Drunk driver with suspended license hits teen, sent home
By J on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 10:54pm
What's wrong with our state's legal system? We need tougher drunk driving laws now, and courts that don't shrug off attempted murder.
"An alleged drunk driver is accused of hitting a 17-year-old in a Waltham crosswalk early Sunday morning.
Hicks was arraigned in Waltham Monday morning on charges of operating under the influence. Prosecutors say Hicks was driving with a suspended license, a suspended registration and had no car insurance.
Hicks was released after her arraignment on the condition that she would not drive"
"According to police, Causland was rushed to Lahey Clinic, where he is being treated for life-threatening injuries. Causland's aunt, Jill Papazian, told WBZ's Sera Congi the teen underwent brain surgery on Sunday, and is now in a drug-induced coma. "He had severe head injuries… At this point, we're taking it hour-by-hour."
Causland was on his way to work when he was hit, his aunt said. He works at a senior center located near the intersection where the accident happened.
Hicks was released after her arraignment on the condition that she would not drive – a decision that did not sit well with Causland's family. "I would really like to know why she's on the street right now. She didn't even spend a night in jail," said Papazian."
Neighborhoods:
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 agree. Any info on the
I agree.
Any info on the state and what it does with drug offenders like this? I’m all for committing individuals like this to mandatory rehabilitation centers, and then jail if they don’t take rehabilitation seriously.
Save jail for the violent criminals and violent crime that also involves drug charges.
Either way, an OUI offender that might be charged with homicide shouldn’t be released. She’s already shown poor judgment abilities by getting behind the wheel and putting a kid in the hospital.
Innocent, etc...
I sometimes wonder if the folks who comment on TV should watch more Law and Order or do something to understand the justice system.
This person hasn't had a trial yet. They were arraigned - effectively charged with a crime. They then decide what to do with the accused until the trial date. Unless they're a flight risk or there's a risk of committing more crime, most people are released on their own or after paying bail. At some point in the future we have trial, evidence, and actually prove someone's guilt; after which they may go to jail.
Yet we still get people making comments wondering why someone doesn't start their 20 year sentence 5 minutes after the 'crime' has been committed. "I would really like to know why she's on the street right now. She didn't even spend a night in jail," said Papazian." Well, until you prove this was a crime and not a horrific accident, yes, they're not going to be put in jail. Prove they did something using evidence and trail - then yes, she'll be spending many days in jail...
sorry, just a sore point. :)
"was driving with a suspended
"was driving with a suspended license, a suspended registration and had no car insurance"
She is a risk. She has shown that she has no care for the consequences caused by her actions, and "promising to not drive" is useless when she already drove when not allowed to!
If someone walks into a store, starts waving a gun around, it discharges and hits someone, they are not sent home with the promise that they will not wave around a gun again. They go to jail.
Driving drunk is just as dangerous as waving an unlocked gun around.
Further, what trial is needed to prove that she broke the law? Fact: she had a suspended license. Fact: she has no car insurance. Isn't there any punishment associated with breaking these laws?
New York recently passed a law requiring ignition locks for drunk drivers after the first offense, we need that here. Theyre also pushing to allow cops to take blood when the driver refuses a breathalyzer test. (currently a nurse is needed) We need these laws here.
Question - What do
driving on a suspended licence, driving with a revoked registration, and driving without insurance all have in common?
Answer: They're all CIVIL infractions, and not criminal offences. And while I do not condone this woman's apparent actions, it should also be pointed out that these infractions are totally unrelated to the apparent cause of this accident, OUI, which this woman HAS been charged with.
lets change the " social norms"
First off. Can someone identify the bufoon who released her?
Secondly. How can we begin to change the "social norms" regarding drunk driving? Especially the norms that exist in the court systems. I assume that most offenses are rejected or minimized by clerk magistrates. (Remember Anthony Gallucio in Boston a couple of yrs ago!) The few DUI offenses that are heard by a judge also seem to be handled as if DUI's are no big thing.
John Causland is near death! Hicks was ( OK alleged to be ) under the influence at 6:30 AM, had a suspended license & registration ( for what?). Sure- she deserves her day in court but why release her with a " promise that you won't drive-OK".
Geez- we lock up people who protest on our streets swiftly & aggressively. We lock up alleged terorrist who have hurt no one. Ms. Hucks hurt a 17 year old young man. His family is suffering. They are facing humungous hospital bills, years of lawyers & courts to compensate them. Shit Ms. Hicks has no insurance. Odds are she lacks money to go with her lack of morals. Ms Hicks should have spent time & money on treating her own health issues (
We need a campaign to change the norms. the laws, the oversight the discretion of cops & clerks & judges. Why do we continue to enable people who abuse alcohol and drive & injure others to walk free while countless innocent people like John suffer.
Lets follow the money. Reverse this trend. Go beyond what MADD has accomplished. Mr. Galluccio, Ms. Hicks & everyone else who abuses alcohol & drives needs to suffer and pay swiftly for their actions. I fail to see what is "normal" about any of this. If DUI's are the norm than we are in a heap of trouble.
please read john mcbostons comment above...
he does a great job of explaining why this woman wasn't locked up. they released her because there was no real legal reason to hold her. she may still see jail time.
risks involved with her release until there is a trial
Sure I get the innocent until proven guillty ( except for hundreds of peoples who MAY BE terrorist).
What risks might this women pose until her trial? Well she has shown that having a suspended license will not stop her from driving. Having a suspended registration will not stop her from driving. Being with out insurance will not stop her from driving. Potentially being under the influence will not stop her from driving.
Does the judicial system allow for more stringent conditions? Could something more than a promise & personal recognizance be required? Drug testing? Ignition lock device ( oops sorry she won't drive will she)? Ankle bracelet? $$$$$$$$$$$$$
IANAL, but i believe ignition locks in MA can only be used...
after the second convicted offense of drunk driving. nothing i have read says this is anything other than her first drunk driving offense. she admitted to drinking and she refused a breathalyzer. the refusal of the breathalyzer alone means she loses her license for 180 days. not a big deal, clearly, since her license was already suspended. but it means the drunk driving is not an automatic.
i believe you can't force a drug test on her for any legal reason.
it's interesting, though, that there appear to be a couple of cases put before the courts on this topic regarding your more stringent conditions. the courts, as near as i can tell, have come down on the side of not having a reason to hold people for dangerousness before trial for alcohol related offenses. GPS's are only used when there is a location-related crime, such as violating a restraining order. an ankle bracelet, in this case, would do nothing because her crime is not location-related.
look, i know it's frustrating, and i want to make it clear that i am NOT defending this woman's action. if the case is like it sounds, i hope she gets some serious repercussions for her actions. all i am trying to point out is that many of the sanctions people would like to impose on her are either not legal or not practical. she simply hasn't been convicted of the crime yet. and until then, she (and all of us) has a fair number of rights about what the criminal justice system can do to us.
Impoundment?
In understand the legal issues involved, but it does seem that a promise not to drive is a fairly ineffective deterrent from someone who was already breaking a legal requirement to carry insurance and not drive with a suspended license. It's tough to trust the promise of someone who has already shown disregard for the legally binding "promises" that we take on whenever we drive.
Could they have legally impounded her car, or taken her license plates?
Since proof of insurance is required to obtain plates here, it seems that since it has been proven that she doesn't have insurance, it would be fairly easy to take her plates and prohibit her from re-applying for them until the trial.
I realize that removing the plates wouldn't actually keep her from driving the car, but it's a lot easier for a cop to notice than a suspended license, and therefore more effective at ensuring that she will keep her promise.
According to state law, once the RMV is notified of
a motor vehicle insurance policy cancellation, they are supposed to contact the police so they can go and confiscate the plates. This is the relevant text:
Chapter 90: Section 34P. Notice to law enforcement officials; failure to provide or maintain liability policy, bond or deposit; seizure of registration plates
Section 34P. The registrar after receipt of a notice as referred to in section thirty-four H, that a motor vehicle which is subject to the provisions of section one A and for which a motor vehicle liability policy or bond or deposit required by the provisions of this chapter has not been provided and maintained in accordance therewith, and upon the effective date of revocation pursuant to said section thirty-four H, shall notify state law enforcement agencies and the municipal police department of the city or town of principal garaging of said motor vehicle of such failure to provide and maintain said policy or bond or deposit. Further, such notice shall include the name and address of the owner of the motor vehicle and the address of the principal place of garaging.
State law enforcement personnel or the police of the city or town in which such motor vehicle is so garaged shall, upon receipt of said notice from the registrar seize the registration plates in use on said motor vehicle or when said registration plates are affixed to any vehicle or are in the possession or custody of any individual whether on a public way or private property and return them forthwith, unless the owner shall present a notice of reinstatement from the insurer or evidence of a new motor vehicle insurance policy dated at least two days prior to the effective date of revocation pursuant to section thirty-four H; provided, however, that municipal law enforcement agencies shall have the primary authority and responsibility to seize revoked registration plates within the limits of their jurisdiction; and, provided further, that no provision of this section shall prevent a state law enforcement official from seizing a revoked registration plate when in the performance of his duties.
Don't know how much this provision is actually enforced, but it may seem that somebody dropped the ball here.