SCARBOROUGH, Maine — Prosecutors and defense lawyers say the drunken driving case against a Scarborough town councilor is likely to be settled through a plea agreement before it goes to trial.
A lawyer for Councilor Judith Roy met with a prosecutor Tuesday to discuss a plea deal, although no agreement was reached.
A motorist reported an erratic driver on Black Point Road around 10 p.m. on Sept. 17. Police say the motorist followed Roy to her home, where they met an officer.
Roy was charged with operating under the influence and operating under the influence with a blood alcohol content of 0.15 percent.
A prosecutor tells The Portland Press Herald that he offered to let the 68-year-old Roy plead guilty to operating under the influence and drop the other charge.
That’s bullsh>>>>
BAof 0.15% and they are dealing? That’s messed up. At 68, she should have known better, since she didn’t, throw the book at her. You would have if she were anyone else.
wow .15 alcohol level !!
Thats hitting the sauce.
Being that drunk would excuse the poor choice to drive.
She got home didnt she??
A warning this time is all thats called for.
theres no excuse . A few days in jail would smartin her up maybe. Im sure that this is a case of i am who i am so i can drive drunk. they should not give her a warning, they should make an example out of her. sick of cops and people of stature getting off all the time for stuff like this.
would you feel that way if she hit one of your family members head on and killed them cause she thought it was ok to drive drunk. you must be smarter than this. hope you just wrote this to stir the pot and not really how you think.
.08 is legally drunk, .15 is almost double drunk.
Is that like seeing Teddy twice?
The people of Scarborough should see that she is fired and is not allowed to enter a plea bargain. Lawyers should not have the power to do this to protect certain people!
It would seem her BAC was .15 BAC. The statute says “.15 BAC or higher” requires a jail sentence. I assume the plea agreement was offered because there is a margin of error for any machine, including a breathalyzer. That means theoretically her .15 BAC could have been lower as well. No doubt at all she was over the limit. The plea offer appears to be completely reasonable.
What poormaniac said again
Must be nice to be a politician.
Agreed. I remember a story a few years ago about a county commisioner who got caught for OUI. He got it dropped to a lesser charge because of his position and influence. No jail time, no OUI record, and, he’s still a commisioner. Look at the number of stories in the BDN about OUI’s. How many of those people got a break? I’m not saying OUI is okay, but, what’s goose for the goose is good for the gandor. You hit it right on the head, it must be nice to be a politician.
Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists among us, but the plea offer looks entirely reasonable and most likely would have been offered to any other person. No indication at all the offer was driven by who this woman was.
I belive you, Defender of the special people… I belive you, when you say that the special people don’t get better treatment in the courts/DA’s office, then the average bar hopping pot smoker.. I believe, I believe, I believe!!!!!!
I was offered no plea . I policeman never saw me even drive the car. The only witness that saw me drive was a security guard That gave my car a boost to get it going. 20 minutes before then he called the police. He is now a cop. I was no where even near my car when police arrived . At trial the security guard said he said ‘I called the police to help me with my car” . Police found me latter and was charged with OUI. No plea bargins……. So why should she get one? I do not deny Drink Just how much the fact that I was drink when the police found me did not matter on My BAC. Not involved in an accident. Thier case was not strong but I lost . Why give her a plea and not everyone politics are corrupt.