Any opinion on Matt Sullivans arrest?

[Clipper]

Hell, you are so damned tough, they would probably have to use an electric fence controller instead of a taser. Who knows, ya might like it, and then you would be back on the truck route in Yorkville, looking for something portable and battery operated that would bring that same jolt, hahaha.

[Disgusted-Daily]

Hey, I would guess it wouldn't even get to that point, Dispatch would most likely call off the pursuit per Captain No-Name LOL.

[bobbbiez]

lol!!!!!!! Todd, I know you don't know me that well yet, but what "pursuit?" I kind of lose my cool when I'm really pi**ed and usually stand my ground or fight till I hit the ground. ;D

[dgriffin]

Sullivan rejects plea offer


May 12, 2009 at 3:55 PM EDT

UTICA, N.Y. (WKTV) - New York State Police Investigator Matthew Sullivan has rejected a plea offer made by the Oneida County District Attorney's office.

The rejection means Sullivan, who faces six separate charges and multiple counts on some of those charges, will most likely see a trial.

Sullivan was pulled over February 6 on Route 12 in the Town Of Trenton for speeding. Court documents state Sullivan fled the scene and drove home, before turning himself in.

According to the District Attorney's Office, the plea deal offered to Sullivan would mean he plead guilty to all 10 counts against him, and the judge would sentence him. If Sullivan accepted the offer, he would have avoided a trial.

www.wktv.com/news/local/44806947.html


I'm no trial lawyer, but I would think this is a good decision for the Trooper. He'll get a lot more sympathy from a jury than a judge, I'm thinking.

[Swimmy]

It depends on the jury selected. Juries are so unpredictable. There have been many cases presented to a jury where all the legal-trained people knew it would turn out a certain way only for the jury to come back differently. Take, for example, the OJ Simpson trial. Everyone was convinced he would be convicted, yet he was found not guilty.

In any case, I think a lot of people are miffed at the idea this guy fled the scene of a crime, and had no ramifications for doing so. I know my father said that if he ever gets pulled over he will use Sullivan's acts to justify his not stopping for an officer. I advised him otherwise, but I know many others have felt the same way. I think public opinion so outweighs any chance this guy might have had if he were not an officer of the law that he should have either asked for a bench trial or taken the plea.

[wcup102]

I am glad you advised your dad otherwise swimmy. I was afraid of the reprocussions that may arise out that statement. That is so not the attitude to have when stopped.."left to avoid a confrontation". Even if that was the case, the public does not know the history between these two troopers and they may have had personal beefs between them that when they both were placed in that situation, personalities and attitudes got the best of them. No one will know except for those two, but the mentality or suggestion that to leave to avoid a confrontation, is ludicrous and will put otherwise normal or law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when they are eventually caught up with. The officer will not know why they are taking off, he will only assume that they have something to hide or to just trying to get away. Someone is going to get hurt if this thought process spills out in the community and people act upon it.

[Swimmy]

"Someone is going to get hurt if this thought process spills out in the community and people act upon it. "

I agree. I'm glad that the DA decided to prosecute this matter. If it does anything, it at least shows the public that it does not pay to disrespect the law or the officer enforcing the law.

[chris]

This story kind of reminds me of the story here about a cop who was sentenced. Justice has been served. Some think because they have a badge they are above the law. This story only proves that they are no different than we are....humans with all the flaws. They chose to uphold the law then they should rightfully respect it also.

www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=greece

[bobbbiez]

Chris, you stated the keys words, a cop is "human with all the flaws." The public has to stopped thinking a cop is on some kind of pedestal and isn't capable of making any bad judgments. They are just as human as the general public and if one does do wrong they should be punished, but one bad apple shouldn't ruin the whole basket and the bad should not be allowed to tarnish the good. As much as we condemn the bad cop we should always maintain respect and praise for the good cop.

As in the OD today, Sullivan's story gets front page news again but if ya read further into the OD there is a much smaller story about two cops given awards for outstanding service for going beyond their call of duty.

I'm sure when a police cadet takes the oath to uphold the law they have all the good intentions of keeping their vow in doing just that, but no one can predict what will happen down the road. Just as in taking marriage vows some honor their oath and others don't, but the bad doesn't prove the institution of marriage is all bad.

I for one knowing quite well the pros and cons of being a police officer and the dangers they're facing today on the streets, would never consider becoming one. I hold a higher respect for them then most of the general public because I do know in detail what they deal with on a daily basis, but even with knowing that I am the first one to agree without a doubt the bad should be punished. Lets just not forget to always compliment the good just as strongly. Lets always keep in mind for that one bad cop there are many, many more out there who are up holding the law and putting their lives on the line for us every single day.

[gearofzanzibar]

It looks like the dashboard video could be released by the end of this week. If it is, I predict it makes national news by the end of next week.

[Clipper]

If anyone else but the OD was to petition for it's release it would be different, but for Donna Donovan and the OD to make such a production and media circus about it is simply hypocrisy when she was able to squash the media frenzy when her brat damn near ran over someone drunk, tore the door off the old mans car and could have easily struck and killed him, and then ran home to hide behind mommy's skirt. His crime was in Utica, and mommy's influence made it all go to NH where she could excercise her influence. That was pure unadulterated bullshit.

I have heard that there is a history between these two cops that comes into play, and I am with Sullivan's lawyer in seeing no reason to release the video. After the case has been adjudicated, then those of you with an insane desire to see him hung can watch the video. Heck, maybe it will be available for rent at Blockbuster on DVD. NONE of us know what is involved, and that is why we have courts. Donna Donovan is not a judge, and she and Matt Sullivan don't see eye to eye on other issues. There is a history there also.

The OD should exercise some of it's desire for release of documents and evidence, right in NH and bring something to the news that is of interest to the public, and has some real impact on others. The Observer Disgrace once again proves it's worth as a worthless rag, scraping for news to report.

With Aney for a lawyer, I doubt that we will see the video before trial, but I could be wrong.

[gearofzanzibar]

I don't disagree in the slightest about the handling of young Mr. Donovan's case, but there's a lot more to the release of the dash video than Trooper Sullivan's trivial charges. If the current description of the events surrounding his arrest are accurate the video would, at the very least, make a strong case for reforming the way the State Police handle such cases.

Of course, those descriptions could well be wrong, but Mr. Aney's reaction to even the hint of the video getting out into the wild would tend to discount that theory.

[Clipper]

I really don't see how we, or the OD have some constitutional right to force evidence in a criminal case to be released to the public media before the case has been tried.

When the case has been tried, I have no objection to the release of the video. Hell, after the case has been tried, put it on "Cops" on the TV. I am an advocate for freedom of information, but I also an advocate of privacy for an individual that is arrested until they have been proven guilty of something. No matter how evident it may seem that Sullivan is guilty, he hasn't been proved to be such by a court of law.

[dgriffin]

I'll defer to Swimmy's judgment, but I would think if a trial is public, then so must be the evidence.
Also, I don't see where there is anything inherently private about a police video. It is an accurate record of an event (out of context, perhaps) and in this case that event took place (evidently) on a public roadway.

Nothing about this is a nice process.

[Swimmy]

Remember, the issue being raised against releasing this video is that it would taint the jury pool. From that perspective, I think the jury pool was tainted the day the story broke. I tend to agree with Clipper with respect to the whole "convict in the court of public opinion and the court conviction will soon follow." In fact it's one of the reasons I'm against putting cameras into the courtroom; that and it would turn the process into an entertainment media delight.

Anywhooo. To make a privacy argument, you need to show that you had a reasonable expectation of privacy. I won't get into the nitty gritty of what that phrase means. However, Dave is 100% correct when he says this happened on a public road. Keep in mind, that the evidence is known to the defendant, that's the constitution's concern, not whether average joe can access it before trial.

There is a difference, however, because a police officer has special protections. For example, the tape would not be released under FOIL because it was part of an ongoing investigation. Additionally, under Public Officers' Law s 50 (if I remembered the correct section), information being used in an investigation of whether a public officer such as law enforcement will remain employed is, likewise, no accessible.

And from a public policy standpoint, there is good reason for these laws (though I disagree with the special treatment). We don't want to undermine the public's trust in law enforcement. For example, how effective would a police officer be if a woman claimed the officer raped her and left her for dead, but after thorough investigation it turned out to be completely false. Disclosing the information to the public would be horrible.

In any case, while I think the tape should be released, there is the real likelihood that we won't be seeing the tape until it is presented at trial.

I have to wonder if things would be different were this individual an ordinary civilian. Given my experience, I regretfully believe that a judge would not even entertain oral arguments or review submitted briefs.