Colchester police officer has been arrested for alleged drunk driving.
Vermont State Police say they were called to assist Colchester police with a suspected DUI at about midnight Monday, because the suspect was Colchester Police Ofc. Jeremy Wyskiel, 36.
Troopers say earlier in the evening,Wyskiel was reportedly arguing with a woman in the parking lot of a Colchester bar. They later left together. Police say the vehicle was then reportedly seen driving erratically on Route 7. Colchester police caught up with the vehicle on Jason Drive and made contact with the driver, Wyskiel. Police suspected he maybe under the influence and called in state police for assistance.
State police say Wyskiel was arrested without incident and released on a citation to appear in court April 15 for DUI.
In a statement, Colchester PoliceChief Jennifer Morrison said, "VSP is handling the criminal inquiry into this matter. CPD is actively investigating a personnel matter related to this incident and will have no further comment at this time other than to offer the following public information: Jeremy Wyskiel has served as a Colchester Police Officer since September of 2008and is currently on administrative leave."
Showing posts with label Vermont. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vermont. Show all posts
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Deputy Chief Andi Higbee Arrested for DUI
Deputy Chief Andi Higbee, of the Burlington Police Department, has been arrested for Driving Under the Influence.
According to the Vermont State Police, Higbee was pulled over on Route 105 in Sheldon early Sunday morning. Officials say the reason he was stopped was for failing to use a turn signal. Higbee was subsequently arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. He was transported to the St. Albans Barracks and released on a citation. Higbee is due in court on August 12th.
According to Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling, Higbee has been placed on paid administrative leave. No one from the department was available for further comment Sunday.
This is not Higbee's first arrest. In 1999, Higbee pleaded guilty to drunk driving after crashing his car in Charlotte. In both cases, Higbee was off-duty.
According to the Vermont State Police, Higbee was pulled over on Route 105 in Sheldon early Sunday morning. Officials say the reason he was stopped was for failing to use a turn signal. Higbee was subsequently arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. He was transported to the St. Albans Barracks and released on a citation. Higbee is due in court on August 12th.
According to Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling, Higbee has been placed on paid administrative leave. No one from the department was available for further comment Sunday.
This is not Higbee's first arrest. In 1999, Higbee pleaded guilty to drunk driving after crashing his car in Charlotte. In both cases, Higbee was off-duty.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Corrections Officer Edward White Charged with Sexuallly Exploiting Inmates
A corrections officer who worked at the women's prison in Swanton is facing charges of allegedly sexually exploiting three inmates.
Edward White, a 40-year-old St. Albans resident, was held on $100,000 bail after he was arraigned Friday on three counts of sexually exploiting an inmate, according to the Vermont State Police.
The investigation into White began a year ago when an inmate alleged that White had inappropriate contact with her, police said. White was suspended during the investigation. But due to a lack of evidence, prosecutors dropped the case, and White was reinstated to his job at the Northwest State Correctional Center last month, police said.
After he went back to work, however, two other female inmates reported similar incidents that happened after his return, police said. Based on these new allegations White was again suspended, police said. During the second part of the investigation, state police received new information about the original accusation and have charged him with the alleged 2009 incident.
White is lodged at the Chittenden Regional Correctional Center, police said.
Edward White, a 40-year-old St. Albans resident, was held on $100,000 bail after he was arraigned Friday on three counts of sexually exploiting an inmate, according to the Vermont State Police.
The investigation into White began a year ago when an inmate alleged that White had inappropriate contact with her, police said. White was suspended during the investigation. But due to a lack of evidence, prosecutors dropped the case, and White was reinstated to his job at the Northwest State Correctional Center last month, police said.
After he went back to work, however, two other female inmates reported similar incidents that happened after his return, police said. Based on these new allegations White was again suspended, police said. During the second part of the investigation, state police received new information about the original accusation and have charged him with the alleged 2009 incident.
White is lodged at the Chittenden Regional Correctional Center, police said.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Sgt David Schauwecker Being Investigated for Child Porn
The Rutland police officer at the center of a Vermont State Police child pornography investigation is Sgt. David Schauwecker, according to a Rutland Herald report.
No one has been charged in the case. The Vermont State Police disclosed last week that they do not have sufficient evidence to prove the child pornography found on a laptop computer was downloaded intentionally by the officer involved.
The Herald said it determined Schauwecker was the officer based on a review of city payroll records that showed Schauwecker was the only Rutland police officer to receive administrative leave pay for the week ending Feb. 6.
Rutland Police Chief Anthony Bossi said last week that the officer who was the subject of the investigation was placed on administrative leave during that week. He was unavailable for comment Monday.
The name of the officer involved was redacted from a court affidavit connected to a search warrant; the documents were unsealed last week by Judge Thomas Zonay at the request of the Herald.
Zonay had intended to released unredacted versions of the paperwork Friday, but an attorney for the officer blocked the release by appealing Zonay's decision to the Vermont Supreme Court.
No one has been charged in the case. The Vermont State Police disclosed last week that they do not have sufficient evidence to prove the child pornography found on a laptop computer was downloaded intentionally by the officer involved.
The Herald said it determined Schauwecker was the officer based on a review of city payroll records that showed Schauwecker was the only Rutland police officer to receive administrative leave pay for the week ending Feb. 6.
Rutland Police Chief Anthony Bossi said last week that the officer who was the subject of the investigation was placed on administrative leave during that week. He was unavailable for comment Monday.
The name of the officer involved was redacted from a court affidavit connected to a search warrant; the documents were unsealed last week by Judge Thomas Zonay at the request of the Herald.
Zonay had intended to released unredacted versions of the paperwork Friday, but an attorney for the officer blocked the release by appealing Zonay's decision to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Officer's Name will be Released in Child Porn Case
The name of the city police officer involved in a child pornography probe will be made public Friday barring appeal.
A day after Rutland District Court Judge Thomas Zonay redacted the name and identifying information related to the officer from documents related to the investigation, the judge said Wednesday in a decision there was no legal basis to continue keeping the officer's identity from the public eye.
"In sum, the court simply cannot find that the privacy issues advanced … are such that they can be found to be exceptional circumstances which provide a basis for sealing the name and identifying information of the target," Zonay wrote in his six page decision.
However, Zonay didn't immediately release the name, instead giving the officer until 1 p.m. Friday to file an appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court. The officer's attorney, Matthew Harnett, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Robert Hemley, a lawyer for the Rutland Herald, which sought the release of court documents related to the investigation, said Wednesday that Zonay's decision reached a balance in preserving the rights of access for the press and the public and what privacy rights exist for the officer in question.
"By giving time for an appeal, the judge is giving an opportunity to have the decision reviewed if the individual disagrees with it," Hemley said.
On Tuesday, Zonay released more than 30 pages of documents related to a search warrant executed at the police department in September. Those documents described an investigation that started in August after state police discovered more than 150 images of suspected child pornography on a computer issued to the officer.
Additional images, discs, DVDs and VHS tapes of adult pornographic material and suspected child pornography were obtained through execution of a search warrant at the department on Sept. 22, 2009.
Zonay redacted the name and identifying information about the officer after hearing arguments Tuesday from a lawyer representing the officer, who was identified in court only as "John Doe."
Regarding the potential damage to the officer's reputation, the judge concluded that the potential stigma for the officer was not significantly different from what any other subject of a criminal investigation would face.
"The issue for the court is whether there are 'exceptional circumstances' specific to this case. … The circumstances and impact advanced by counsel are not exceptional. Rather, they are typical for any search pertaining to the underlying subject matter. Indeed, a stigma and impact may be expected to attach in any case where a warrant is executed, irrespective of the nature of the crime being investigated."
A day after Rutland District Court Judge Thomas Zonay redacted the name and identifying information related to the officer from documents related to the investigation, the judge said Wednesday in a decision there was no legal basis to continue keeping the officer's identity from the public eye.
"In sum, the court simply cannot find that the privacy issues advanced … are such that they can be found to be exceptional circumstances which provide a basis for sealing the name and identifying information of the target," Zonay wrote in his six page decision.
However, Zonay didn't immediately release the name, instead giving the officer until 1 p.m. Friday to file an appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court. The officer's attorney, Matthew Harnett, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Robert Hemley, a lawyer for the Rutland Herald, which sought the release of court documents related to the investigation, said Wednesday that Zonay's decision reached a balance in preserving the rights of access for the press and the public and what privacy rights exist for the officer in question.
"By giving time for an appeal, the judge is giving an opportunity to have the decision reviewed if the individual disagrees with it," Hemley said.
On Tuesday, Zonay released more than 30 pages of documents related to a search warrant executed at the police department in September. Those documents described an investigation that started in August after state police discovered more than 150 images of suspected child pornography on a computer issued to the officer.
Additional images, discs, DVDs and VHS tapes of adult pornographic material and suspected child pornography were obtained through execution of a search warrant at the department on Sept. 22, 2009.
Zonay redacted the name and identifying information about the officer after hearing arguments Tuesday from a lawyer representing the officer, who was identified in court only as "John Doe."
Regarding the potential damage to the officer's reputation, the judge concluded that the potential stigma for the officer was not significantly different from what any other subject of a criminal investigation would face.
"The issue for the court is whether there are 'exceptional circumstances' specific to this case. … The circumstances and impact advanced by counsel are not exceptional. Rather, they are typical for any search pertaining to the underlying subject matter. Indeed, a stigma and impact may be expected to attach in any case where a warrant is executed, irrespective of the nature of the crime being investigated."
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
A Rutland City police officer is under investigation after evidence of child pornography was found on his work computers. A 31-page warrant and accompanying affidavit released Tuesday revealed that information but not the identity of the officer, whose name was redacted at least temporarily by order of a Rutland District Court judge.
Less than a week after The Rutland Herald asked for the warrant, which was executed at the city police department in September, Judge Thomas Zonay followed through Tuesday with his order to make the contents public while withholding the officer's name to consider a pending motion that his identity be permanently sealed.
What Zonay did release revealed a state police investigation overseen by the Attorney General's office which began in August, after technicians working on a laptop issued to the unidentified officer found images of what appeared to be child pornography.
The officer told computer technicians in the department that he was searching online for information about hidden cameras and police videos when pornographic images began "popping up" on the machine, which stopped working altogether soon thereafter, according to state police Detective Sgt. Jason Letourneau. The officer under investigation told police the incident occurred while he was on duty.
Further analysis of the computer revealed 150 possible images of child pornography, Letourneau wrote, which were all added to the computer in a 13-minute time span on July 23. The detective said he also found more than 100 pornographic files of adult subjects.
In a search of the officer's desktop computer, investigators found more cause for concern, including files created for a media player that seem to refer to children's ages through characters such as Y11 YRLD and Y11 next to sexually explicit labels.
In an interview with state police, the city officer under investigation at first said he was simply researching clip-on video cameras for use in the field when pornographic images began swamping his computer.
But Letourneau said he and another investigator didn't believe that account.
"We further explained that the evidence collected during the examination of the computer clearly reveals that he visited pornographic Web sites, that they did not just pop up on his screen," he wrote. "(The officer) then told us that he may have clicked on a few adult pornographic Web sites not knowing they were pornographic Web sites. We again explained that the titles of the Web sites he visited were clearly pornographic by the titles alone."
Letourneau wrote that the officer eventually admitted to purposely visiting the pornographic sites, but he told investigators the visits were for research into the clip-on cameras he was seeking — not to view pornographic material.
"He said he visited the pornographic Web site to see what type of cameras they used," the detective wrote. "He later advised he also wanted to see what angle the cameras were used and the quality of the images/videos."
A search warrant executed at the department on Sept. 22 seized evidence from the officer's desk, locker and other belongings at the department.
Among other things, police seized a rack of 20 pornographic DVDs, four VHS tapes listed with pornographic titles, three DVDs identified as "teen porn" and a DVD titled "midget porn."
Since the warrant was executed no charges have been brought, but Assistant Attorney General John Treadwell said Tuesday the criminal investigation is continuing.
Treadwell argued last week against the Herald's request to unseal the search warrant, which was closed to the public upon its return to Orleans District Court on Sept. 29.
In the information released by the court on Tuesday, Zonay said Treadwell argued in a written motion and in a closed-door hearing on Feb. 3 that releasing the contents of the warrant would jeopardize the criminal investigation.
"The state asserted that the investigation is ongoing and that investigators have continued to interview individuals with knowledge of the matter as well as to investigate the suspect's home Internet use," Zonay wrote. "(Treadwell) further sets forth that the state has attempted to obtain probable cause to obtain additional warrants. It also asserts the investigators wish to again speak with the suspect concerning the findings they made since they last spoke with him and that any disclosure of certain information in the warrant records would impede the investigation."
In particular, the judge wrote that investigators want to locate a removable media component — such as a disc or memory stick — used on the officer's computer, which is one of the missing links in the investigation.
While the judge found no harm in releasing the documents, Zonay decided Tuesday to withhold the officer's name and identifying information until he had a chance to consider arguments made by Rutland attorney Matthew Harnett, who argued in court that his client — the officer under investigation who was identified during the hearing as "John Doe" — would suffer irreparable harm if his name was included.
"The subject matter itself is dynamite — the most stigmatizing of all types of charges. Once published, his reputation would be ruined," Harnett said, adding that his client has not been charged with a crime.
But the Herald's attorney, Robert Hemley of Gravel & Shea in Burlington, said the public interest in a transparent government and judicial system outweighed the privacy interests of John Doe.
"The public has a big interest in knowing what the operations of the police are," he said. "How are we to monitor the operations of the government? We need the press to inform us about both sides."
Zonay said he would issue a decision after considering the arguments.
Less than a week after The Rutland Herald asked for the warrant, which was executed at the city police department in September, Judge Thomas Zonay followed through Tuesday with his order to make the contents public while withholding the officer's name to consider a pending motion that his identity be permanently sealed.
What Zonay did release revealed a state police investigation overseen by the Attorney General's office which began in August, after technicians working on a laptop issued to the unidentified officer found images of what appeared to be child pornography.
The officer told computer technicians in the department that he was searching online for information about hidden cameras and police videos when pornographic images began "popping up" on the machine, which stopped working altogether soon thereafter, according to state police Detective Sgt. Jason Letourneau. The officer under investigation told police the incident occurred while he was on duty.
Further analysis of the computer revealed 150 possible images of child pornography, Letourneau wrote, which were all added to the computer in a 13-minute time span on July 23. The detective said he also found more than 100 pornographic files of adult subjects.
In a search of the officer's desktop computer, investigators found more cause for concern, including files created for a media player that seem to refer to children's ages through characters such as Y11 YRLD and Y11 next to sexually explicit labels.
In an interview with state police, the city officer under investigation at first said he was simply researching clip-on video cameras for use in the field when pornographic images began swamping his computer.
But Letourneau said he and another investigator didn't believe that account.
"We further explained that the evidence collected during the examination of the computer clearly reveals that he visited pornographic Web sites, that they did not just pop up on his screen," he wrote. "(The officer) then told us that he may have clicked on a few adult pornographic Web sites not knowing they were pornographic Web sites. We again explained that the titles of the Web sites he visited were clearly pornographic by the titles alone."
Letourneau wrote that the officer eventually admitted to purposely visiting the pornographic sites, but he told investigators the visits were for research into the clip-on cameras he was seeking — not to view pornographic material.
"He said he visited the pornographic Web site to see what type of cameras they used," the detective wrote. "He later advised he also wanted to see what angle the cameras were used and the quality of the images/videos."
A search warrant executed at the department on Sept. 22 seized evidence from the officer's desk, locker and other belongings at the department.
Among other things, police seized a rack of 20 pornographic DVDs, four VHS tapes listed with pornographic titles, three DVDs identified as "teen porn" and a DVD titled "midget porn."
Since the warrant was executed no charges have been brought, but Assistant Attorney General John Treadwell said Tuesday the criminal investigation is continuing.
Treadwell argued last week against the Herald's request to unseal the search warrant, which was closed to the public upon its return to Orleans District Court on Sept. 29.
In the information released by the court on Tuesday, Zonay said Treadwell argued in a written motion and in a closed-door hearing on Feb. 3 that releasing the contents of the warrant would jeopardize the criminal investigation.
"The state asserted that the investigation is ongoing and that investigators have continued to interview individuals with knowledge of the matter as well as to investigate the suspect's home Internet use," Zonay wrote. "(Treadwell) further sets forth that the state has attempted to obtain probable cause to obtain additional warrants. It also asserts the investigators wish to again speak with the suspect concerning the findings they made since they last spoke with him and that any disclosure of certain information in the warrant records would impede the investigation."
In particular, the judge wrote that investigators want to locate a removable media component — such as a disc or memory stick — used on the officer's computer, which is one of the missing links in the investigation.
While the judge found no harm in releasing the documents, Zonay decided Tuesday to withhold the officer's name and identifying information until he had a chance to consider arguments made by Rutland attorney Matthew Harnett, who argued in court that his client — the officer under investigation who was identified during the hearing as "John Doe" — would suffer irreparable harm if his name was included.
"The subject matter itself is dynamite — the most stigmatizing of all types of charges. Once published, his reputation would be ruined," Harnett said, adding that his client has not been charged with a crime.
But the Herald's attorney, Robert Hemley of Gravel & Shea in Burlington, said the public interest in a transparent government and judicial system outweighed the privacy interests of John Doe.
"The public has a big interest in knowing what the operations of the police are," he said. "How are we to monitor the operations of the government? We need the press to inform us about both sides."
Zonay said he would issue a decision after considering the arguments.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Trial Set for Officer Michael Wooton Accused of Shooting Neighbor's Dog
A judge has ordered the case of an Essex police officer suspected of fatally shooting his neighbor's dog to go to trial.
Michael Wootton, 35, of Waterville allegedly shot Hooch, an 80-pound mixed-breed, after it attacked his dog, Yoda, a 20-pound pug, April 30, on Phyllis Lane in Waterville, according to court papers.
Wootton pleaded not guilty in May to committing cruelty to animals and two months later asked to have the charge dismissed. Judge Christina Reiss denied Wootton's motion to dismiss Sept. 3 in Vermont District Court in Hyde Park. Jury draw for his trial is scheduled for Nov. 2.
The Essex Police Department placed Wootton, a full-time officer, on administrative duties after the shooting.
Yoda allegedly ran on to Wootton's neighbors' property and got into a fight with their dog Hooch. Wootton said he feared Hooch would kill Yoda, and after failing with two other people to keep the dogs apart, went back to his house to get his handgun, according to court papers.
Hooch's owners, Ritchie and Rosemary Rogers, arrived home after their dog had been killed.
Although Hooch died on Wootton's lawn, Vermont State Police Cpl. Mark Lucas, who investigated the case, said he found the bullet, which apparently passed through the dog, on the Rogers' driveway, according to court papers.
One Vermont law prohibits the intentional killing of someone's pet without the owner's consent, while another law permits the killing of a pet if the animal attacks, and poses a reasonable threat of injuring, another pet.
The maximum penalty for committing cruelty to animals is a fine of $2,000, up to one year in prison or both.
-------------------------
http://www.wptz.com/news/20986051/detail.html
Michael Wootton, 35, of Waterville allegedly shot Hooch, an 80-pound mixed-breed, after it attacked his dog, Yoda, a 20-pound pug, April 30, on Phyllis Lane in Waterville, according to court papers.
Wootton pleaded not guilty in May to committing cruelty to animals and two months later asked to have the charge dismissed. Judge Christina Reiss denied Wootton's motion to dismiss Sept. 3 in Vermont District Court in Hyde Park. Jury draw for his trial is scheduled for Nov. 2.
The Essex Police Department placed Wootton, a full-time officer, on administrative duties after the shooting.
Yoda allegedly ran on to Wootton's neighbors' property and got into a fight with their dog Hooch. Wootton said he feared Hooch would kill Yoda, and after failing with two other people to keep the dogs apart, went back to his house to get his handgun, according to court papers.
Hooch's owners, Ritchie and Rosemary Rogers, arrived home after their dog had been killed.
Although Hooch died on Wootton's lawn, Vermont State Police Cpl. Mark Lucas, who investigated the case, said he found the bullet, which apparently passed through the dog, on the Rogers' driveway, according to court papers.
One Vermont law prohibits the intentional killing of someone's pet without the owner's consent, while another law permits the killing of a pet if the animal attacks, and poses a reasonable threat of injuring, another pet.
The maximum penalty for committing cruelty to animals is a fine of $2,000, up to one year in prison or both.
-------------------------
http://www.wptz.com/news/20986051/detail.html
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Officer Michael Wooton Pleads Not Guilty to Shooting Neighbor's Dog
An off-duty Essex police officer accused of shooting his neighbor's dog after it got into a fight with his Pug pleaded not guilty in court Tuesday morning.
Police say Michael J. Wootton, 34, of Waterville, shot and killed his neighbor's mixed-breed dog earlier this month.
The shooting happened after Wootton's dog went to a neighbor's property and got into a fight with a dog owned by Melinda Maskell. Police say Wootton then went home, got a handgun and fired one shot at the dog.
"If he would have had his dog on a leash, none of this would have happened," Maskell said.
Maskell showed us pictures of her dog Hooch, in happier times. She described the mixed-breed as well-mannered.
"I mean the dog sat pretty, that's how well he minded, he knew commands, he went to obedience school for a year," Maskell said.
Court records show Hooch was shot in the stomach. Maskell says her two year old daughter was just feet away from Wootton, when it happened.
"They're supposed to serve and protect us and to have to explain to my children why they murdered my dog, in front of my child, is one of the hardest parts to it," Maskell said.
Maskell understands court proceedings could be far from over.
"My family and I are going to pursue this until we get justice, one way or the other," Maskell said.
Maskell said she was surprised there wasn't a reckless endangerment charge against Wootton, since her daughter was nearby at the time of the alleged incident.
_______________________
Previous Post:
http://whathappenedtoprotectandserve.blogspot.com/2009/05/officer-michael-wooton-accused-of.html
More Information: http://www.fox44.net/Global/story.asp?S=10428016
Police say Michael J. Wootton, 34, of Waterville, shot and killed his neighbor's mixed-breed dog earlier this month.
The shooting happened after Wootton's dog went to a neighbor's property and got into a fight with a dog owned by Melinda Maskell. Police say Wootton then went home, got a handgun and fired one shot at the dog.
"If he would have had his dog on a leash, none of this would have happened," Maskell said.
Maskell showed us pictures of her dog Hooch, in happier times. She described the mixed-breed as well-mannered.
"I mean the dog sat pretty, that's how well he minded, he knew commands, he went to obedience school for a year," Maskell said.
Court records show Hooch was shot in the stomach. Maskell says her two year old daughter was just feet away from Wootton, when it happened.
"They're supposed to serve and protect us and to have to explain to my children why they murdered my dog, in front of my child, is one of the hardest parts to it," Maskell said.
Maskell understands court proceedings could be far from over.
"My family and I are going to pursue this until we get justice, one way or the other," Maskell said.
Maskell said she was surprised there wasn't a reckless endangerment charge against Wootton, since her daughter was nearby at the time of the alleged incident.
_______________________
Previous Post:
http://whathappenedtoprotectandserve.blogspot.com/2009/05/officer-michael-wooton-accused-of.html
More Information: http://www.fox44.net/Global/story.asp?S=10428016
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Officer Sarah Messier Placed on Administrative Leave
Richmond Police Officer Sarah Messier has been placed on administrative leave. No reason was given.
Messier thinks it may have to do with a call she placed to Chief William Miller. She claims she called Miller after hours to discuss a rumor she heard about her future with the department.
Messier filed a complaint with the town last year claiming she was passed up for a promotion given to someone who was less qualified for the job.
Messier thinks it may have to do with a call she placed to Chief William Miller. She claims she called Miller after hours to discuss a rumor she heard about her future with the department.
Messier filed a complaint with the town last year claiming she was passed up for a promotion given to someone who was less qualified for the job.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Cpl Michael Wootton Accused of Shooting Neighbor's Dog
What are they thinking up in Essex? A police officer is charged with a crime involving a gun, yet the department fails to immediately relieve him of duty. For the sake of keeping the public's trust, the officer should have been placed on leave until the matter is settled.
Cpl. Michael J. Wootton is accused of shooting and killing a neighbor's dog which was fighting with his own dog and was charged with animal cruelty after a state police investigation. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison, a fine of up to $2,000 or both.
In a news release issued Tuesday, The Essex Police Department stated in part: "The department continues to review the incident administratively. At this time, Corporal Wootton has not been placed on administrative leave and we cannot comment further due to the ongoing administrative investigation."
This refusal to comment on an investigation into the conduct of a police officer has become an all too familiar refrain that undermines confidence in law enforcement. An employer needs to respect the right of privacy in a personnel matter, but a government has to weigh that right against the public interest, which requires transparency when looking into charges of wrongdoing.
The least the Essex Police Department should do is put the officer at a desk in a job that doesn't involve guns and involves minimal contact with the public until the matter is settled, and let the public know that this action has been taken.
A better move would be to put in him on leave and out of uniform until his court case runs its course, if for no other reason than to reassure the public that the department takes the safety of the public seriously.
We don't know all the circumstances surrounding the shooting of the dog, but the bare facts are enough to raise concern about Wootton's judgment when it comes to the use of his gun. If there are good reasons to allow the officer to remain on duty and carry a gun, they need to be made clear to the public.
Until the concerns can be cleared up -- and without passing judgment on Cpl. Wootton -- the officer should not be placed in an official role that involves carrying a gun.
When a police officer has been charged with a crime, his superiors must do everything it can to protect the reputation of the department and ensure the public's faith in the police. So far, the Essex Police Department's response to the Wootton affair serves neither interest well.
______________________________
http://www.fox44.net/Global/story.asp?S=10347893
Cpl. Michael J. Wootton is accused of shooting and killing a neighbor's dog which was fighting with his own dog and was charged with animal cruelty after a state police investigation. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison, a fine of up to $2,000 or both.
In a news release issued Tuesday, The Essex Police Department stated in part: "The department continues to review the incident administratively. At this time, Corporal Wootton has not been placed on administrative leave and we cannot comment further due to the ongoing administrative investigation."
This refusal to comment on an investigation into the conduct of a police officer has become an all too familiar refrain that undermines confidence in law enforcement. An employer needs to respect the right of privacy in a personnel matter, but a government has to weigh that right against the public interest, which requires transparency when looking into charges of wrongdoing.
The least the Essex Police Department should do is put the officer at a desk in a job that doesn't involve guns and involves minimal contact with the public until the matter is settled, and let the public know that this action has been taken.
A better move would be to put in him on leave and out of uniform until his court case runs its course, if for no other reason than to reassure the public that the department takes the safety of the public seriously.
We don't know all the circumstances surrounding the shooting of the dog, but the bare facts are enough to raise concern about Wootton's judgment when it comes to the use of his gun. If there are good reasons to allow the officer to remain on duty and carry a gun, they need to be made clear to the public.
Until the concerns can be cleared up -- and without passing judgment on Cpl. Wootton -- the officer should not be placed in an official role that involves carrying a gun.
When a police officer has been charged with a crime, his superiors must do everything it can to protect the reputation of the department and ensure the public's faith in the police. So far, the Essex Police Department's response to the Wootton affair serves neither interest well.
______________________________
http://www.fox44.net/Global/story.asp?S=10347893
Friday, May 08, 2009
Trooper Michael Studin Fined for Speeding 133mph
A Vermont State Police trooper has paid a $1,000 fine for driving at an excessive speed while on duty last October, according to the office of the state's Attorney General.
A state police investigation recently concluded trooper Michael Studin drove an unmarked, high performance vehicle on Interstate 91 in the town of Rockingham on Oct. 29, 2008.
He was clocked at 133 mph while on duty, but not responding to an emergency at the time.
Assistant Attorney General John Treadwell said the office was asked to review the initial investigation to make a determination on how to proceed.
The Vermont Attorney General's Office issued Studin a ticket for the maximum statutory penalty.
"This certainly suggests that people driving at excessive speeds will be held accountable," said Treadwell. "Clearly, there are reasons why (troopers) may need to respond to emergencies at high speeds," he said, but the law states it is only in these crisis situations.
"Law enforcement officers by law are authorized to exceed the speed limit on duty; however this exemption did not apply in this case," said Public Safety Commissioner Thomas R. Tremblay in a statement. "The speed that I witnessed in this matter was extremely unsafe and the trooper's judgment was not in line with the high standards expected of a Vermont state trooper."
A normal fine on a speeding ticket for traveling 133 mph in a posted 65 mph zone on the highway is $638.
"Trooper Studin has been held accountable and has accepted responsibility for his actions; he has my full support as he works to put this mistake behind him," said Tremblay. "In our country, more law enforcement officers are killed in traffic crashes than by armed adversaries. The safety of our troopers and the traveling public is obviously a high priority in our important public safety mission."
In a press statement from the state police, the VSP requested the Attorney General's office to conduct an investigation, and concurred with the issuing of a Vermont traffic complaint.
"While Vermont law allows police to exceed maximum speed limits, those exemptions did not apply in this case. The trooper's actions during this incident did not conform to the core values expected of a Vermont state trooper," said Major John Filipek, commander of the Field Force Division, in the press release.
The speeding ticket was paid Friday.
-----------------------------------
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2009/05/08/vt_trooper_fined_1000_for_133_mph_trip/
A state police investigation recently concluded trooper Michael Studin drove an unmarked, high performance vehicle on Interstate 91 in the town of Rockingham on Oct. 29, 2008.
He was clocked at 133 mph while on duty, but not responding to an emergency at the time.
Assistant Attorney General John Treadwell said the office was asked to review the initial investigation to make a determination on how to proceed.
The Vermont Attorney General's Office issued Studin a ticket for the maximum statutory penalty.
"This certainly suggests that people driving at excessive speeds will be held accountable," said Treadwell. "Clearly, there are reasons why (troopers) may need to respond to emergencies at high speeds," he said, but the law states it is only in these crisis situations.
"Law enforcement officers by law are authorized to exceed the speed limit on duty; however this exemption did not apply in this case," said Public Safety Commissioner Thomas R. Tremblay in a statement. "The speed that I witnessed in this matter was extremely unsafe and the trooper's judgment was not in line with the high standards expected of a Vermont state trooper."
A normal fine on a speeding ticket for traveling 133 mph in a posted 65 mph zone on the highway is $638.
"Trooper Studin has been held accountable and has accepted responsibility for his actions; he has my full support as he works to put this mistake behind him," said Tremblay. "In our country, more law enforcement officers are killed in traffic crashes than by armed adversaries. The safety of our troopers and the traveling public is obviously a high priority in our important public safety mission."
In a press statement from the state police, the VSP requested the Attorney General's office to conduct an investigation, and concurred with the issuing of a Vermont traffic complaint.
"While Vermont law allows police to exceed maximum speed limits, those exemptions did not apply in this case. The trooper's actions during this incident did not conform to the core values expected of a Vermont state trooper," said Major John Filipek, commander of the Field Force Division, in the press release.
The speeding ticket was paid Friday.
-----------------------------------
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2009/05/08/vt_trooper_fined_1000_for_133_mph_trip/
Friday, May 01, 2009
Officer Michael Wooton Accused of Shooting Neighbor's Dog
An off-duty Essex police officer could face charges for shooting his allegedly neighbor’s dog after it tangled with his Pug, state police say.
Michael J. Wootton, 34, an Essex police officer who lives in Waterville, allegedly shot and killed the mixed-breed dog Thursday afternoon.
Police say his Pug went to a neighbor’s property on Phyllis Lane and became involved in a fight with a dog belonging to Melinda Maskell, 28. Wootton returned home, obtained a hand gun and fired one shot into the dog, according to a state police.
Wootton could face charges of cruelty to animals and recklessly endangering another person. An investigation is under way.
___________________________
http://www.fox44.net/Global/story.asp?S=10284996
Michael J. Wootton, 34, an Essex police officer who lives in Waterville, allegedly shot and killed the mixed-breed dog Thursday afternoon.
Police say his Pug went to a neighbor’s property on Phyllis Lane and became involved in a fight with a dog belonging to Melinda Maskell, 28. Wootton returned home, obtained a hand gun and fired one shot into the dog, according to a state police.
Wootton could face charges of cruelty to animals and recklessly endangering another person. An investigation is under way.
___________________________
http://www.fox44.net/Global/story.asp?S=10284996
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

