If these allegations are true, this person should never be allowed to drive legally again.

by BeyondDC on Mar 1, 2012 12:22 pm • link • report

Police claim that one of the reasons the ticketing officer did not cite Toles for exceeding the speed limit initially was that the officer had no radar, had not properly calibrated his speedometer, and did not have time to pace her actual speed while giving chase.

See below. This should be all the evidence they need for a charge of reckless driving (high speed + unsafe lane changing):

Law enforcement sources have said the officer’s cruiser camera shows his vehicle traveling as fast 108 miles per hour and not gaining ground on the councilwoman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/police-officer-who-pulled-over-councilwoman-did-not-have-time-to-pace-her/2012/02/29/gIQAV642iR_blog.html?tid=pm_local_pop

by Falls Church on Mar 1, 2012 12:25 pm • link • report

Frankly, the "driving off the roadway" to pass ticket concerns me the most. That suggests a seriously aggressive driving maneuver.
As far as the speeding goes, at least it was on a closed access highway free of peds and bikes. My last ticket was 95 in a 70 on I-70 in Kansas. If you've ever driven through it, you know why I was going that fast.

by thump on Mar 1, 2012 12:41 pm • link • report

The State's Attorney's Office does not prosecute payable traffic offenses. The individual police officer serves as the representative for the State at those cases.

by lawyer on Mar 1, 2012 12:47 pm • link • report

+1 @BeyondDC, mainly because of the allegation that she was evading and obstructing the police. I get caught doing that, my career is over.

When I had a car, I sped. I sped a lot. I sped on the Beltway. But I curbed that habit a lot when Montgomery County and DC started adding speed cameras. This incident is a stellar example of why we should have them.

If Ms Toles drives like this frequently, she would frequently be subject to camera tickets. Yes, she probably should have been arrested and no a speed camera wouldn't facilitate that, but after a half dozen or so tickets arrive in the mail (she can't throw her title around to a speed camera the way she intimidated the police) I bet she'd be a little more vigilant and slow the hell down. No wonder PG County has been dragging their feet on speed cameras.

by Dave Murphy on Mar 1, 2012 12:52 pm • link • report

I dont see anything here about obstructing the police. Yes, the police put out a lot of cars to stop here -- but that doesn't mean she was evading them. And I like the difference between "career is over" and "lifelong driving suspension." as penalities.

But what do you expect? This is PG county? Mr. Heard, I suggest you get out now. It is just going to get worse.

I've known plenty of people ticketed for 90 or higher; usually they were going faster. They were able to get it down to a speeding charge, not reckless driving.

by charlie on Mar 1, 2012 1:14 pm • link • report

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by jag on Mar 1, 2012 1:17 pm • link • report

Fine. +1 to BeyondDC. Apparently questioning whether or not she's amoral will have to wait until she actually kills someone.

by jag on Mar 1, 2012 1:43 pm • link • report

It does more that 'defy logic'. It's clear bull-puckey. 99.99% of people who get stopped doing triple-digits will get a citation. The police need to review -- both to issue a citation and to instruct the officers on scene about inappropriate "discretion" to benefit politicians, celebrities, and even other police officers. While I think speed limits are set too low, and I freely admit to driving above the speed limit almost every time I set out behind the wheel, I have never driven as recklessly as that. Never that much in excess of the speed limit and never that fast, which is a reckless speed under any conditions except maybe a racetrack.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Mar 1, 2012 1:46 pm • link • report

"and the requirement that the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt."

And this is why the officer could not cite for speeding. The officer was not using a radar gun and the officer's speedometer was not properly calibrated or certified as the officer was normally assigned to administrative, rather than patrol duties. There are rules regarding evidence, even in traffic cases.

The judge would have, properly, thrown out the speeding ticket in court. There simply isn't any evidence that can be accepted by a court. That is the way the system works.

I give the officer credit for 2 things. One, he did NOT write a ticket that he knew wasn't supported by evidence. It would be far worse to write a speeding ticket without proper evidence and hope that driver would not contest it. That is an abuse of police power.

Two, he wrote her for the unsafe lane change, despite her protestations about being an elected official.

Now it is up to the rest of the county council to do the right thing and vote to take away this member's right to drive a county car. Then, they should examine why members of the council are given taxpayer-funded cars in the first place.

by dcdriver on Mar 1, 2012 1:59 pm • link • report

Wait. Elected officials are subject to laws? The circus never leaves town in PG...

by MJ on Mar 1, 2012 2:10 pm • link • report

This is reason enough to set up a recall.

by Redline SOS on Mar 1, 2012 2:26 pm • link • report

The PG Council is going to name her the 2012 Jack & Leslie Johnson Ethical Public Servant Award winner.

by Axel on Mar 1, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report

No speeding tickets in Ward 9!

by Dave_J on Mar 1, 2012 2:51 pm • link • report

Mr Heard. I get your point. But a woman speeding is NOT, in ANY WAY akin to what Jack Johnson did. Heck, an officer could've stopped an attractive man/woman and the result could have been the same as with Toles.

This has nothing to do w/how PG conducts itself.

WRT your other point, it's no surpise that an elected offical/celebrity in any city/state/jurisdiction gets preferential treatment. We can b and moan about it..but that's never gonna change. It just won't.

by HogWash on Mar 1, 2012 2:52 pm • link • report

a. aren't there rules about driving county vehicles? That should be suspended until her court date (or she pays her ticket) at least.

b. anyone who is driving near twice the speed limit should lose their liscense for a set time. If you want to go fast then wait until you can hit the raceway.

And how do you expect public officials to start acting better until they actually start facing penalities for their actions?

by Canaan on Mar 1, 2012 2:56 pm • link • report

When I didn't see this as a post on this site yesterday, I was hopeful about the direction of the site.

by selxic on Mar 1, 2012 2:57 pm • link • report

@hogwash; no. County officals are not immune from the law. I think others have put forth a good case on why the police would not bring charges, but her status shouldn't be one of those excuses.

A ford edge is more of a CUV than a SUV. At 100 MPH, I am sure it more more stable than, say a Ford Explorer or Navigator. However, it is not a sedan and sudden lane changes would present a higher rollover risk.

I would not be in favor of being excessively speeding losing their licenses. There may be a technologial solution -- in term of ODBII tracking. Go over 70, youre back in court.

by charlie on Mar 1, 2012 3:02 pm • link • report

Mr Heard. I get your point. But a woman speeding is NOT, in ANY WAY akin to what Jack Johnson did

They're not the same, but they are akin-- flagrant violation of the laws with an expectation that the laws themselves did not apply to her.

Also, the police cars not being calibrated to pull someone over and issue a ticket by pacing the driver? What are police cars patrolling the beltway for, anyway? The refusal to pull over immediately is also a red flag that she should have been ticketed for.

Some people simply don't have respect for not just our laws but civilized norms of behavior. I accept this, but feel they shouldn't be in elected office.

by JustMe on Mar 1, 2012 3:35 pm • link • report

@CharlieCounty officals are not immune from the law. I think others have put forth a good case on why the police would not bring charges, but her status shouldn't be one of those excuses.

If you read what I wrote, you would see that at no point did I insinuate that officals "should" be an excuse. Instead I pointed out the well known/accepted fact thay they "are."

@JustMe, an offical making an illegal u-turn is not the same as the same official committing murder. Although both are violations of the law. So no, they aren't similar.

by HogWash on Mar 1, 2012 3:43 pm • link • report

Personally I'm starting to think I'd rather have a councilmember who gives and takes bribes rather than one who is liable to kill me if he or she is coming up behind me on the beltway.

by Canaan on Mar 1, 2012 3:46 pm • link • report

I look forward to the inevitable article by Eric Weiss in the Washington Post citing this $90 ticket as further evidence of the War On Drivers.

by cminus on Mar 1, 2012 3:48 pm • link • report

Why is it that so many of those who are sworn to make and enforce the laws are exempt from obeying the law and paying the consequences for non-compliance?

How are the rest of us - the voters and taxpayers supposed to respect them?

These are the clowns who get free restricted parking - in government-owned vehicles - at or near the courthouse and government buildings while those of us who pay the bills are required to pay for parking - or use transit.

by ceefer66 on Mar 1, 2012 4:50 pm • link • report

@dcdriver -- "And this is why the officer could not cite for speeding. The officer was not using a radar gun and the officer's speedometer was not properly calibrated or certified as the officer was normally assigned to administrative, rather than patrol duties. There are rules regarding evidence, even in traffic cases."

You buy this? If she was blowing past the other cars and the cops had to drive in excess of 90 or even 100 to catch her, she could be cited for reckless speeding, even if a precise number couldn't be fixed. Speeding tickets were issued long before there were radar guns.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Mar 1, 2012 5:18 pm • link • report

If the officer's speedometer is so poorly calibrated that when it registers 108 he's not sure if he's speeding then he shouldn't be driving that car.

by Falls Church on Mar 1, 2012 9:44 pm • link • report

Why is it so out there to some that if the equipment isn't calibrated, the ticket can be thrown out easily? This happens all the time for Breathalyzers and radar guns. DC is just now getting new Breathalyzers because of issues they had with their last batch. Go to a court room and the only question the judge will likely ask is if the equipment was calibrated properly.

by selxic on Mar 2, 2012 7:25 am • link • report

@ selxic and others: I think the radar/speedometer calibration issue is only potentially relevant to a traditional speeding charge (i.e., exceeding the posted speed limit). It's not an essential factor for reckless driving, evasion of the police, or obstruction of justice -- all of which would seem to be potential charges in this situation. It's also likely not an essential factor for the general charge of traveling at an unsafe speed.

@ lawyer: My understanding is that the State's Attorney's Office typically handles jailable traffic offenses, which would include reckless driving, as well as "must appear" traffic offenses, such as evading the police, obstruction of justice, etc. And the State's Attorney has the legal right to bring any criminal charge in her jurisdiction, regardless of whether the police may also bring the charge. So there would absolutely be a role for the State's Attorney's Office to play here.

by Bradley Heard on Mar 2, 2012 8:07 am • link • report

Heard is correct. An uncalibrated speedometer would be a factor for a speeding ticket charge, and would be noted as lack of evidence _for the exact speed_ of a driver when in court. A defendant could credibly contest the actual speed at which they were alleged to be traveling.

In a case like these, when the defendant has so clearly exceeded the posted speed limit by a wide margin, she could argue that she was traveling below 75, and get her citation reduced to a speeding violation, but there is no conceivable way that the evidence from the cruiser would be thrown out summarily.

I'm not sure of MD law, but reckless driving can usually be charged when two or more traffic violations occur in conjunction with each other. Improper lane change and speeding would do it. Excessive speed alone must be 320 MPH or more above the posted limit.

by CJ on Mar 2, 2012 10:01 am • link • report

320 MPH over? So no one not in a jet aircraft has ever been convicted of it?

by Dave_J on Mar 2, 2012 10:15 am • link • report

@Bradley Heard: One of the reasons I was hopeful this wouldn't appear on GGW is because I knew the goalposts would move a lot within comments. You can link to any laws you want thrown at her, but in practice, specific speed is often important to the charges. Your comment does not change my post that calibration is important to specific charges and calibration will be the primary question the judge asks the officer.

What else can be said about Councilmember Karen Toles and what she had done for the region? I don't intend to imply that this isn't a significant charge, but I want to know what she has done with policy or even ideas that are not in line with "improving the vitality" of the region.

by selxic on Mar 2, 2012 11:18 am • link • report

She sounds like she is probably a drug addict or has some other kind of mental illness. How else to explain her completely reckless behavior in regard to her own life and those of others.

Also, that county shouldn't be supplying SUV's to their workers.

by James on Mar 2, 2012 11:19 am • link • report

@ selxic

calibration is important. The defendant will have a good chance of contesting the specific speed recorded on the speedometer of the cruiser. Will she be able to cite calibration to justify a speed 35MPH below the top speed (allegedly) shown on the cruiser's instruments? I doubt it.

Why is her voting record an issue here?

by CJ on Mar 2, 2012 11:24 am • link • report

@Bradley HEard; again, you are overstating the facts. Facts might support a reckless charge. They don't have anything on obstruction or evasion. I think you might get an evason charge thrown in -- maybe -- butt hey aren't thrown down everytime somebody is speeding.

So you strory is then some is stopped for going 100 MPG on the beltway and not getting a reckless charge. That is a very common occurence.

by charlie on Mar 2, 2012 11:37 am • link • report

"Why is her voting record an issue here?"

Once again, I am not diminishing the seriousness of the charges, but that question proves that this issue is not what this website is about. The only reason she is mentioned on this site is because she is a Councilmember in Prince George's County and it's her job to help "[improve] the vitality" of Prince George's County.

by selxic on Mar 2, 2012 1:36 pm • link • report

@ selxic: There's no moving of goalposts here, and your statement that calibrated speed matters above all else is just simply not true, either as an evidentiary matter or as a practical matter. Calibration is most important to a speeding charge. But, as others have noted, it's not even absolutely necessary there.

And this is not a post about Karen Toles' overall legislative accomplishments (not that I would necessarily view the freshman councilwoman as having all that many accomplishments yet -- it's only her first year as a councilwoman). This is a post about a public official's reckless driving and egregious conduct outside of the council chamber -- conduct that needs to be addressed by law enforcement, regardless of what her legislative accomplishments are or may be.

The conduct (or misconduct) of public officials in the DC Metropolitan area can have a significant impact on the vitality of the region, or the lack thereof. Indeed, many people have opined that it is the general culture of misconduct and corruption among public officials in Prince George's County that has negatively impacted developer and employer interest in the county. That certainly has a negative impact on the vitality of the region. So yes, it's a topic worthy of coverage by GGW.

@ charlie: The facts are what they are; I'm not overstating them. Even you agree that they arguably support reckless driving and evasion of police -- neither of which she was charged with. I think the councilwoman's belligerent conduct and multiple references to her government position also constitute an actual or attempted obstruction of justice, either of which is a chargeable offense.

And no, darting across multiple lanes of Beltway traffic at 100+ mph, then ignoring police lights and sirens for more than a mile, then attempting to intimidate police under some claim of official authority is most certainly not a very common occurrence. And if we don't want it to be in the future, the police or prosecutors need to charge her with the offenses that probable cause supports, and then let her answer the charges.

by Bradley Heard on Mar 2, 2012 1:51 pm • link • report

@Bradley Heard; no, you are overstating.

At 100MPH, a mile on the beltway would be about 30-45 seconds. And that is not including braking.

And to be clear -- facts support a reckless conviction. That can be done. Facts support a evasion charge -- it isn't hard -- but I doubt you would get a conviction. A prosecutor has to weigh that.

by charlie on Mar 2, 2012 2:06 pm • link • report

"your statement that calibrated speed matters above all else is just simply not true"

Your statement that all current Prince George's County Councilmembers are failing the County is simply not true either. Huh? You didn't say that? Please do not distort or overstate my comments to attempt to make a point.

by selxic on Mar 2, 2012 2:14 pm • link • report

@ Charlie: Nope, not overstating the facts at all. Actually, I think you may have some of the facts mixed up (at least the facts that have been reported and alleged to date). She was not stopped on the Beltway. She was stopped on Branch Avenue. The police had caught up to and were behind her at a stop light, lights and sirens blaring, and she failed to pull over, for more than a mile, until other officers joined the chase. Once the vehicle was stopped, her vehicle was surrounded, and some of those officers felt the need to approach her vehicle with guns drawn -- which typically indicates there was some concern about the arrestee's willingness to comply with police commands. The police even thought they might've been dealing with a stolen vehicle situation, based on the driver's behavior. I think that's a pretty solid evasion case.

And sure, prosecutors need to weigh whether they can ultimately get a conviction on charges, but most prosecutors I know would say the time for that kind of weighing is after indictment and before trial. You indict on all the charges that probable cause would reasonably support based on a preliminary investigation. Then you conduct a fuller investigation, interview more witnesses, etc. Then, you negotiate with the defendant and her counsel and attempt to obtain the best plea deal you can or, if you have to go to trial, you might consider dropping the charges that you feel you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

We both agree reckless driving is a no-brainer in this situation, so prosecutors should probably stick to their guns on that. Evasion, obstruction, and unsafe speeding are all viable as well, though possibly less so than reckless driving. So there would likely be room for the parties to work out a reasonable plea.

What you shouldn't do, though, is short-circuit a case, harm your negotiation posture, or deny yourself an opportunity to conduct a full investigation just because someone's a public official.

@ selxic: Your statement was, "calibration will be the primary question the judge asks the officer" -- i.e., that calibration matters above all esle. I wasn't distorting or overstating what you said.

by Bradley Heard on Mar 2, 2012 3:08 pm • link • report

Okay... we're moving the discussion from the actions of the officer at the scene (which were questioned) to what a judge would ask an officer in court (which was arguably a counterpoint to claims calibration wasn't significant). Carry on.

by selxic on Mar 2, 2012 4:16 pm • link • report

@Bradley, you are making it too easy.

First, you are new to PG county. The police come at you with guns everytime they pull over a black person. The councilwoman is lucky she didn't get the dogs as well! There is a reason why the FBI is interested in PG County, and it isn't for HQ.

The facts, as you are detailing the, aren't going to get you a convinction on either. Multiple police cars? A mile on the beltway while she is exiting? Please.

Again, I'm not condoning speeding like that on beltway. I would have no problems with a reckless ticket. But to allege these facts, and then allege some sort of favoritism is a bit too much.

We're probably talking at cross purposes here. But your basic message -- further investiagtion is needed -- isn't needed. This happen a lot, and the usual penatly is a reckless ticket. The officer here decided not to issue it, and I suspect for the good reason that without more evidence it would get pled down to speeding. HIs judgment was essentialy correct.

by charlie on Mar 2, 2012 4:30 pm • link • report

The councilwoman is lucky she didn't get the dogs...

I tho't you were going to say "get her dogs shot dead"

by Tina on Mar 2, 2012 4:44 pm • link • report

@Tina; no, I was referring to the FBI investigation into whether the PG County police was letting police dogs attacks suspects.

The PG county shooting dogs, of course, is another well known story but I don't think the FBI started investgating on that.

And to top it off, I'm sure we'll hear about the councilwoman again after the FBI public intregrity section investigates her.

by charlie on Mar 2, 2012 4:50 pm • link • report

@ charlie: I've lived in the county for more than 4 years now. I'm not that new. And what's tenure of residence got to do with anything, anyway? It doesn't take that long to figure out how this county operates.

We'll agree to disagree on whether these facts represent favoritism and unfair treatment. I'll note, though, that even you say that the "usual penalty" for Toles's behavior would be reckless driving -- which is not what she got. And you've also said the evidence at least minimally supported an evasion charge. So maybe her belligerent and repeated throwing of her title around got the officer to do some second-guessing. Wonder if he would've done that with you or me?

I'll also say that if this evidence isn't sufficient to warrant charges other than "unsafe lane change," we should all be very concerned about the safety of our highways and/or the efficacy of our judicial system. Fortunately, I don't think that's the case.

by Bradley Heard on Mar 2, 2012 5:16 pm • link • report

FWIW, I agree with selxic on the relevance to urbanism. And charlie has the best line yet, about the FBI's interest in PG County not being for a headquarters site...

by Richard Layman on Mar 3, 2012 11:09 am • link • report