HOLDEN, Maine — A traffic stop made for lack of working rear lights in June has turned into a felony perjury charge for one vehicle occupant and an aggravated operating after license revocation conviction and $1,000 fine for another.
On June 10, Holden police officer Chris Greeley observed a white, 2003 Dodge Stratus with a male driver at the wheel pass by as he was monitoring traffic on Route 1A. The vehicle had no working lights on the rear end.
“He observed that the female was in the passenger seat when the car went by, and then when he initially made the stop, the male was behind the wheel, but when he got to the car, they had switched places,” said Sgt. Eugene Fizell. “She said she was driving, and not the other occupant, but officer Greeley told them he saw them switch seats.”
“She” was Heidi Archambault, 26, of Pittsfield. The other occupant was Shane Wagner, 30, of Pittsfield.
After getting licenses from both of the car’s occupants, Greeley discovered that Wagner’s license had been revoked. He then arrested Wagner for operating after suspension.
Greeley said Archambault eventually admitted both to him and another officer on the scene that Wagner was, in fact, driving her car.
“But then in a court trial last October, she changed her story despite telling two officers at the scene to the contrary,” said Fizell. “So she essentially perjured herself on the stand.”
Wagner was found guilty of aggravated operating after revocation as a habitual offender, a Class C felony, and assessed a $1,000 fine with no jail time.
“The operating after revocation conviction supports the fact she was not believed, and that gave us grounds to charge her with perjury,” said Fizell, who credited Pittsfield police for help with the perjury case.
Archambault is now scheduled for a Dec. 12 court date for charges of perjury and permitting unlawful use of a motor vehicle.
“The permitting unlawful use charge happened because it came out that she knew he was unlicensed and allowed him to drive her vehicle anyway,” Fizell said.
Archambault faces a maximum fine of $5,000 and maximum sentence of three years in jail.
“It does not happen that often,” Fizell said of the perjury charge. “I’ve been doing this job 40 years and that’s only the second time in my career that I’ve seen it happen.”
That’s some expensive tail lights.
Unbelievably stupid!
basically she P—– the police off by lying against them, trying to make a fool of 2 police.. how stupid is right
Not saying she did not lie in court . But most the time a Perjury charge is never made . People lie in court much more than we would like to believe.
agreed….. but as I said above, someone pushed IT!!
It all depends on what your definition of was is. Er, or is was. Pergury is for those out of power and or brains.
I cannot tell a lie, I am glad they were charged.
How many times have LE lied in court ? Too me if you ask a LE or DA A question and they say they do not recall that is a lie even if do recall.just hard to prove. Police are instructed to LIE. If a DA. Lies in court he is not criminally charged . What I would love to do at trial is ask the police if they even lied in court if the answer is no . Charge them with perjury if we find out at a latter date that they lie before. It is not a perfect world . I know of at least one assistant DA. who “misled” in court to me is a lie.
Sorry you had a bad experience and sadder that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s okay, you’re not the first cop hater and you won’t be the last.
I am not a cop hater . Just some seem use thier position for personal gain. Toss politics into the mess and you have a system that is far from perfect.
In every profession, there are bad apples, but LEO’s are “sworn” officers; that means, sworn to tell the truth, when it comes to testifying. Once a cop is known to lie, any defense attorney can destroy their credibility in any case simply by saying “you have lied before so how do we know you’re not lying now?” Basically, once a cop lies and is caught in it, his career is over.
Right when they are caught in it. TThat is why they are trained how to lie . Like saying I do not recall because it is hard to prove,
what comes to mind is the OJ Trial. Homicide detective, Mark Fuhrman ! lied…
That is the same sort of logic that says if one person rips of welfare, all welfare recipients are cheats. It is that kind of simplistic approach that comes from the dumbing down of America. Thanks for playing.
lying by omission…. is when they say they can”t recall..BS as we know it!!
So funny at my OUI trial the witness who helped me get my car running said in court . “I called to police to help him with his car” That man is now a cop in the Belfast area. Funny how the story changed at trial about why he called the police. .N perjury in that case . I guess it depends on what you consider a lie and who you are.
The TV show “Two and half Men” had an episode where Charlie exchanged seats with Jake in order to save the kid from losing his licence. Nice training film for folks like these two.
Ms. Archambault, your pants are on fire.