Two big no-nos

LLF

LLF

NES Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
779
Likes
1,221
Location
Wuville
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
Per The Boston Globe Tuesday January 14 2025:

A Westborough police officer was arrested Friday for allegedly driving drunk in Northborough with a loaded department-issued firearm in his vehicle, according to court records.​
​
William P. Kearney was stopped in his personal vehicle around 8:20 p.m. in the area of West Main and King streets after an officer noticed his car crossing over the double yellow lines, police said in a report.​
​
“Mr. Kearney showed signs and symptoms of impairment,” the report stated. “His eyes were bloodshot, red, and glossy, his speech was slurred, he admitted to consuming alcoholic beverages earlier in the evening, and there was a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his mouth as we spoke.”​
​
Kearney agreed to field sobriety tests, allegedly failing the first two and passing the third, police said. His preliminary blood alcohol reading was 0.15, nearly twice the legal limit of 0.08. He was arrested and taken to the Northborough police station for booking.​
​
While there, he allegedly informed officers “that his department-issued firearm was in the glovebox of the vehicle and asked if he could lock it,” the report said. “The firearm was loaded with one in the chamber. The firearm was made safe and unloaded.”​

Driving under almost twice the legal limit for intoxication. Bad. Loaded firearm in the glove box. Bad. If this had been one of us peasants we would be prohibited for life from possessing firearms. I hope the judicial system treats this case with same seriousness that we would be subjected to.
 
LLF said:
Driving under almost twice the legal limit for intoxication. Bad. Loaded firearm in the glove box. Bad. If this had been one of us peasants we would be prohibited for life from possessing firearms. I hope the judicial system treats this case with same seriousness that we would be subjected to.
Click to expand...


Driving under almost twice the legal limit for intoxication. Bad. Definitely- lock him up. Loaded firearm in the glove box. Bad. No, not bad in normal America. If this had been one of us peasants we would be prohibited for life from possessing firearms. I hope the judicial system treats this case with same seriousness that we would be subjected to. Agreed, though nobody should face charges for a gun in the glove box. Since we would be locked up for that, so should he.
 
While there, he allegedly informed officers “that his department-issued firearm was in the glovebox of the vehicle and asked if he could lock it,” the report said. “The firearm was loaded with one in the chamber. The firearm was made safe and unloaded.”
Click to expand...


Never talk to the cops!!! Even if you are one :rolleyes:
 
I don’t see the issue with the firearm.

But I don’t agree with any gun license, gun registration or gun control so I’m probably the wrong person to give an opinion on that aspect of the gun related charges.
 
Dead to rights on the DWI as far as the firearm I'm not sure as he was drunk and in possession of a firearm even if he's a LEO. I agree though if it were us poor mortals we'd be in big trouble loss of LTC and have all our firearms and related equipment seized never to be seen again.
 
he knows better than to do the roadside Olympics and to take a B.A.C. test

But he will get a C.W.O.F. and be back to work after his 45 days loss of license, some of which he will do in rehab to make a case for him being afflicted with a disease.

Why is a "patrol officer" putting his dept issued weapon in the glove compartment, most guys just leave it in the holster on the duty belt and put it in the trunk.
 
My brother in law got a DWI and had a handgun in his glovebox

He is a Permanently prohibited person and basically was told he needs a pardon from the governor to ever get his LTC back, the piece of shit cop that arrested him stated in his report that the gun was loaded and it was not.

I'm pretty certain this won't happen to this cop
 
appraiser said:
he knows better than to do the roadside Olympics and to take a B.A.C. test
Click to expand...
I'm going to assume the following:
  • The cop has no prior DUIs.
  • The cop knows they've been drinking enough so they are in jeopardy.
  • The cop isn't blitzed enough to be irrational. If they are, they wouldn't "know better."
  • The case receives enough press coverage so it can't be waived away or "disappeared."
Under those assumptions, here's are the choices the cop is facing:
  • Refuse the breathalyzer and field tests. In Massachusetts, this is an automatic 180-day suspension of license, even if the original stop wasn't valid. Note that he can still be arrested and have a blood draw done without consent or a warrant, so if he started at 0.15 he'll still probably ring the bell. His car gets impounded, an "inventory search" done, the gun is found, and he's still facing the gun charges. Unless he and MFOP can work out a deal, he's out half a year's pay, and likely still faces the gun charge in court even if he's not charged with DUI.
  • Walk the walk and blow the blow as he did. He gets an attorney. The attorney asks for video evidence of the stop. Unless there's video or another witness who can testify of the erratic driving, the lawyer may be able to get the whole thing thrown out as an invalid stop. They can also challenge the calibration of the breathalyzer. Neither is likely winner nor an automatic loser. But let's assume it's a good stop. As you point out, the most likely result in a CWOF conditioned on completion of an MID program. Their license will be suspended for 45-90 days, but they are more likely to get a hardship exemption, and MFOP is more likely to be able to cut out a deal for desk duty, D.A.R.E. or whatever. He's still out a few grand for the attorney and the MID program,
So in this case and many others, "implied consent" gives you two choices. Both stink, but depending on the exact circumstances either can be less bad.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if there will be a standard cap mag charge.
Duty issue most likely = 15 round mag and he was off duty.
Isn’t that a problem under the latest law?
 
Punishment should be like when I first got caught smoking. Had to smoke an entire carton.

Make the guy drink back to back handles of Mr. Boston.

I always look forward to seeing what happens in these cases. Sometimes, books get thrown, other times professional courtesy comes in and a small intentional over-step allows the entire set of charges to get tossed. Which is which is just a matter of which department owes who favors.
 
LakeTrout said:
I hope you mean in the eyes of MA law and not yours
Click to expand...
Agreed. "Direct control" should mean the firearm is in close proximity and the owner is able to reach it quickly if necessary. Removing a firearm from a holster and placing it in a glove box or console should be permissible, as long as the owner is in the vehicle.
The commonwealth disagrees and insists that a firearm be on one's person to be under "direct control". Otherwise if the firearm is not unloaded and in a locked container the owner has broken the law and will have their LTC and their firearms confiscated.
I feel a little bad for the cop. He made some very poor decisions that night. But if we have to obey the laws, as much as we may disagree with them, and suffer the consequences if we don't, then so should he.
 
LLF said:
Agreed. "Direct control" should mean the firearm is in close proximity and the owner is able to reach it quickly if necessary. Removing a firearm from a holster and placing it in a glove box or console should be permissible, as long as the owner is in the vehicle.
The commonwealth disagrees and insists that a firearm be on one's person to be under "direct control". Otherwise if the firearm is not unloaded and in a locked container the owner has broken the law and will have their LTC and their firearms confiscated.
I feel a little bad for the cop. He made some very poor decisions that night. But if we have to obey the laws, as much as we may disagree with them, and suffer the consequences if we don't, then so should he.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I don’t believe there should be any law related to the firearm at all. It should not be illegal to keep your gun in your glove box whether or not you are wasted or in the vehicle.

I wouldn’t say that the cop should be charged if we are charged. I wouldn’t say just say there should be no charges related to that for anyone.
 
He probably agreed to do the roadside Olympics because he was to hammered to know better, his ego got in the way, and he thought the thin blue line was going to save his ass.
It will be interesting to see the unredacted body cam footage, if there is any, and if it hasn't mysteriously been erased or disappeared due to technical difficulties.
 
LTCRN said:
He probably agreed to do the roadside Olympics because he was to hammered to know better, his ego got in the way, and he thought the thin blue line was going to save his ass.
It will be interesting to see the unredacted body cam footage, if there is any, and if it hasn't mysteriously been erased or disappeared due to technical difficulties.
Click to expand...
The final result will be interesting. Do they treat him like anyone else or does it disappear...
 

Similar threads

Ordered suppressor number two
2
Replies
45
Views
722
GM-GUY
GM-GUY
SCOTUS denies cert on two 2A cases.
Replies
2
Views
359
MickeyD’s
M
Smith and Wesson teases "No Lock" new revolvers
2 3
Replies
68
Views
1K
67ray
67ray
Wicked big gun, used to start preemptive avalanches
Replies
10
Views
438
garandman
garandman
Co-witness No-witness. Are iron sights needed?
2 3
Replies
68
Views
1K
P51MA
P
Back
Top Bottom