Difficulties in Prosecuting Distracted Driving Cases Sgt. Andrew - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Difficulties in Prosecuting Distracted Driving Cases

• Sgt. Andrew Gallagher

Stamford Police Dept. C.A.R.S.

Distracted Driving

 Sgt. Andrew Gallagher is a 30 year veteran of

law enforcement with both the Bethel and Stamford Police Departments. As a patrol officer he served in uniformed patrol, traffic enforcement, narcotics, and an anti-gang task force.

 As a Sergeant he has supervised in uniformed

patrol, narcotics, property crimes and is the on- call supervisor of the Traffic Enforcement Unit, and the Collision Analysis and Reconstruction Squad.

Distracted Driving

 The following investigataion, from 2006,

was the first time that Stamford PD C.A.R.S. attempted to use cell phone records in a serious injury collision.

Distracted Driving

 The collision involved a motor vehicle that

was originally E/B on Broad St. Witnesses said that the vehicle, a white Toyota, made an improper turn onto Greyrock Pl. The Toyota then struck a pedestrian that was attempting to put items in her trunk, pinning the pedestrian between the vehicles, causing her leg to be amputated.

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

 The operator of the offending vehicle

could not, or would not say what happened, the only thing that she would tell us is that she lost control of her car.

 After the initial on scene interview the

• perator contacted her attorney who told

her to have no further conversations with the police.

Case Investigation

 A witness provided a statement that said

the operator was on her cell phone as she was getting out of her car after the crash.

 With that information we prepared our

first ex-parte search warrant for cell phone records.

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

 The cell phone carrier returned 4 pages of

phone calls that were made and received by the operator that day.

 The records showed that the operator of the

vehicle had been on her phone around the time that the collision occurred, discrepancies between the time on the records, and the time at our dispatch center led the prosecutor’s office to deny charging the

• perator for being on her phone.

Case Investigation

 We were however, able to charge the

• perator with several other charges to

which she pleaded guilty and received a 30 day jail sentence that was suspended.

Case Investigation

 On May 9, 2016 C.A.R.S. was called in to

investigate a fatal MV vs Bicycle collision.

 The collision occurred on Tresser Blvd.

(Rt. 1) near the intersection of Edith Sherman Dr.

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

 Initial investigation revealed that the van

was traveling E/B on Tresser Blvd. and the bicyclist was originally traveling W/B on the sidewalk of Tresser Blvd.

 The bicyclist suddenly attempted to cross

Tresser Blvd. and rode into the passenger side of the van.

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

 Sgt. Gallagher and Ofc. Booth were

notified by Ofc. Lynch of the Youth Bureau, who, at the time, had just come back from a training class covering social media use in investigations, that a video

• f the bicyclist that was killed had been

posted on Facebook.

Case Investigation

 Ofc. Lynch had sent us the page that the

video had been posted on, the name on the page was “Lady Sparkles”

Case Investigation

 Officer Boeger, who was assigned to

Crimes Against Persons was able to track down “Lady Sparkles” and get us her real name and address.

 Upon going to her house and interviewing

her, she told us that she had seen the

• perator of the van that struck the

bicyclist was on his cell phone at the time

• f the collision.

Case Investigation

 Upon review of a second video of the

collision, the operator of the van can be seen talking on his hand held cell phone, which was being held up to his left ear.

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

 Based on the information from the witness

and the video evidence, Ofc. Booth prepared an Ex-Parte order for the cellular phone records of the operator of the van.

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

 The results of that Ex-Parte indicated that

he was indeed engaged in a telephone call from his cell phone at the time of the collision.

Case Investigation

Case Investigation

 The operator of the van had hired a local

attorney to represent him. When confronted with the evidence of being on the phone, the operator, through his attorney, gave us an affidavit claiming to have been on a Bluetooth device.

Case Investigation

 Based on the results of the Ex-Parte and

the video evidence, the initial investigating

• fficer, Ofc. McAllister applied for, and

received a Prosecutor’s Summons for the

• perator, charging him with Operating a

MV while on a Hand Held Phone.

Case Investigation

 While fault in the collision was ultimately

determined to be placed solely on the

• perator of the bicycle, as investigators,

we must do our due diligence to ensure that all avenues of any case are followed up to completion.

Case Investigation

 The operator was subsequently charged

and released on a promise to appear.

 Within 2 weeks of this collision, the

• perator of the van was the subject of a

narcotics investigation that led him to be arrested for numerous narcotics violations including Felony Possession of Marijuana and Operating a Drug Factory.

Case Investigation

 Subsequent to the narcotics charges, as

part of case consolidation and plea agreements, the decision was made to drop the cell phone charge.