.

Sudbury Resident Cited for 3rd OUI Offense Night of Lavender Incident

Officer on patrol happened to notice one-car accident on Union Avenue during the early morning hours of May 9.

UPDATED: 3:48 P.M.

A officer making her usual patrol through town came upon a one-car accident at about 12:41 a.m. on May 9 that involved the operator of the car driving over the island near Concord Road, striking two signs and colliding with a granite post.

According to Lt. Scott Nix, the female driver, and Sudbury resident, was taken to Emerson Hospital in Concord with non-life-threatening injuries.

As a result of the investigation, the operator was cited with operating under the influence of alcohol (third offense) and a marked lanes violation.

Chandra Allard of the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission deferred comment on the Lavender incident to local licensing authorities, and would not confirm nor deny if the ABCC was involved in an investigation.

Nix said an arrest was not made due to a lack of staffing that night.

"An arrest would have reduced staffing further for an unknown amount of time," he explained. "The assessment was made by the supervising officer to take that route due to staffing. It was not a budget issue."

Nix also said the criminal driving history was not known until the accident was cleared.

An officer would have had to accompany the operator to the hospital and stayed there until she was released, Nix said.

Because an arrest wasn't made, the operator's name was not issued.

Nix also said despite inquiries made to the department, a call that night regarding a missing person report did not figure into the decision to not make a formal arrest.

Although the department does not typically release timelines of events, Nix did release a timeline of that accident to help answer questions from Sudbury Patch and the public. The timeline was established by utilizing the State 911 Department's recording equipment:

  • 12:40:53 a.m. — officer on patrol comes upon motor vehicle accident on Union Avenue at Concord Road
  • 12:41:27 a.m. — backup officers start for the accident location
  • 12:42:52 a.m. — supervisor arrives on scene
  • 12:43:20 a.m. — supervisor requests a tow
  • 12:45:30 a.m. — Sudbury Fire A6 requested to respond
  • 12:45:49 a.m. — Sudbury Fire notified via ring down
  • 12:46:09 a.m. — backup officer arrives
  • 12:47:58 a.m. — Sudbury Fire on the air responding to accident
  • 12:50:54 a.m. — Sudbury Fire A6 on scene
  • 12:55:32 a.m. — investigating officer requests hard copy of operator's license via the RMV for further follow-up
  • 1:00:51 a.m. — Sudbury Fire en route to Emerson Hospital
  • 1:14:22 a.m. — initial call received regarding missing person report via business line
  • 1:14:26 a.m. — investigating officer of crash scene advises all units are clear with a report to follow
  • 1:18:42 a.m. — dispatch completed taking initial missing person information via phone
  • 1:18:59 a.m. — officer dispatched to Woodside Road residence regarding missing person
  • 1:21:52 a.m. — supervisor requests availability of vehicle information
  • 1:23:41 a.m. — officer off at missing person residence
  • 1:26:01 a.m. — party returns home
  • 1:31:06 a.m. — supervisor and sector car communication
  • 1:46:55 a.m. — supervisor arrives at Lavender with patrons remaining inside
  • 2:01:57 a.m. — supervisor reports monitoring departure of patrons remaining after hours ... reports no liquor violation observed, only after-hours violation, will be following up with senior management.

A clerk who answered the phone at Framingham District Court did not find any information regarding the OUI.

The Middlesex District Attorney's office told Sudbury Patch a criminal report had not been received as of Tuesday afternoon, and without such a report the office would not have knowledge of the person's name.

SueChap May 29, 2012 at 07:20 PM
missing person address is 94 Woodside Rd, Sudbury.
Edward Stark May 29, 2012 at 08:05 PM
From what I am hearing around town this Three Time Offender is a town employee with a very important job function. The person also lives next to one school while also working next to another. This person also admitted to having been drinking (alcohol) at Lavender’s. However in a previous patch article Selectman Larry O’Brien reinforced that there was no drinking going on that night and the only issue was that people had “lost track” of time. According to that article the words “nothing more, nothing less” were spoken. How else can we explain this person being bamboozled? According to the missing person’s report the Woodside address is that of Selectman John Drobinski. This is hard to believe seeing that in an earlier Patch article Selectman Larry O’Brien was quoted as saying that John Drobinski and Maureen Vallente were at Lavender for only 45 minutes and had left “many hours” prior. From what I know Woodside is less than 4 miles from Lavenders. The timeline just doesn’t add up. Sudbury is there more to this story or just a bunch of elected and employed town officials acting like drunken teenagers? Who knows? But I do know this: we do not deserve to be lied to by those whom we have chosen to run our town. On another note I would also hope that the THREE TIME OUI offender chose to stay off the road until they can work through the problems that they have. I would hope they do the right thing and please keep the rest of our safety in mind.
siobhan hullinger May 29, 2012 at 08:27 PM
Ok so the plot thickens here. That address is Selectman John Drobinski, who according to Selectman O'Brien, had left Lavendars earlier. So where did he go and why was he missing? Odd - or perhaps he didn't leave and was at Lavendars until the wee hours and his wife couldn't get in touch with him. So we have a felony DUI admittedly having left Lavendars and there was no alcohol served? What I want to know is if she is still allowed to drive - she could have killed anyone out there that night and how many other days and nights is she driving plastered? Was Selectman O'Brien untruthful about the alcohol statement as well as who was there? Obstruction of Justice? Hindering an investigation? Or was he truthful with the police and just not to us?
Andrew MacEntee May 30, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Chief Glavin, What is the typical staffing for the police during the early morning hours ? What was the staffing that night? What constituted a "lack of staffing" such that a 2 going on 3 time OUI offender would not be arrested? Please make public a list of personnel and their job function(s) on duty during the early morning hours of the May 9th incident. Also, please make available a replay of the radio recordings in the above outline
Thrice Rusty May 30, 2012 at 12:45 AM
Hats off to the Sudbury Police once again. For all the years we have been in town we have always admired the fine work that they do to keep Sudbury safe. If there's one thing we should/can be proud of it's the fine job that our police and fire departments do.
SkimThreePercent May 30, 2012 at 01:07 AM
Wait, so like if there was no accident, then there would be no missing person, no cops at 94 Woodside, and the party would STILL BE GOING ON! Priceless! What a well run, well lubricated, SPECIAL Town! Thank Nix for running the timeline. 2 +2 = 4. Anyone heard from Martha Coakley yet?
Edward Stark May 30, 2012 at 01:07 AM
I'm with Thrice on this one. I have always felt that we have the best police/fire in the Commonwealth. Has anyone heard from our Town Manager or Board of Selectman yet on these events? Seeing that there are no longer open comments at BOS meetings I am not quite sure what actions we could take in order to get a better explanation on these events. Robert you have done an outstanding job with all of this. Maybe you could call Maureen Valente, John Drobinski and Larry O'Brien and attempt to connect the dots on what I've heard some in town dub as this "Big Mess"
Paula Mackenzi May 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM
a THREE TIME OUI offender NOT arrested because of a STAFFING issue with PD? What kind of message does that send to everyone? party like rock stars and get drunk take out a granite post (and oh, what happens if you actually hit a human being) - will staff be a PROBLEM then? Is this person still DRIVING? This is crazy. I have no tolerance for drunk drivers - EVER. And I'm not sure about the judgment call of the officer involved - I think there's far far more to this than a 'judgment call' based on staffing - sounds like there could have been a cover-up to cover a certain butt of a certain person alleged here by other commenters to be a town employee. How many drunk drivers (1st, 2nd, 3rd time offenders) HAVE been arrested at that hour here in the town?????????????
Enuff May 30, 2012 at 12:23 PM
What I don't understand is how is it that at 12:45 the police don't have the resources to go to the hosptial and arrest a 3rd time OUI and yet a half hour later three cruisers can respond to a missing person (Selectman) report? How does Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Drobinski expect they will be able to govern the liquor license laws in Sudbury when they were both a party to the late night Lavender incident? The credibility of both of these Selectmen has been significantly diminished due to some very poor judgement. Meanwhile, Drobinski and O'Brien overrule Bob Haarde's rotation as Chairman of the Board of Selctmen so O'Brien is back at the helm. It makes no sense. Sudbury, we can do much better.
RT Paine May 30, 2012 at 04:36 PM
If, as the comments and time line seem to suggest, the OUI person was at Lavendars after town meeting and the missing selectman/person returned home at 1:26 am, did Selectman O'Brien make false statements to the police, or to the townspeople, about no alcohol being served or the missing selectman having left hours earlier? What did the missing selectman say to the police officer waiting at his residence, and did he make any false statements about his whereabouts to hide what really occured at Lavendar's. Were free drinks provided by Lavendar's too the licensing authority members who were there?
Laura May 30, 2012 at 05:16 PM
We the people should demand immediate resignation of both Drobinski and O'Brien and elect individuals who will fire Valente.
Sid Bourne May 30, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Laura: I'm with you on that one. It is high time the old boys club was shaken up a bit.
sla271320 May 31, 2012 at 01:01 PM
I'd like to know which people commenting under this article actually saw the person who was charged with an OUI. Unless you were there, you should not be assuming that this was a town employee. Drawing conclusions like this and making such statements publicly is called character defamation.
Seriously? May 31, 2012 at 05:22 PM
There is no excuse for not arresting someone who is OUI. The Sudbury police should be ashamed of themselves. Their job is to protect and serve. They are certainly not protecting anyone by letting a 3rd time OUI offender get off scott free.
Enuff May 31, 2012 at 05:55 PM
I have a funny suspicion that this person is going to get all lawyered up and this whole thing is going to go away. The average Joe would be in jail without passing go. It isn't right.
james May 31, 2012 at 08:57 PM
The offender will not get off "Scott-Free" please, read the article. The person was cited. An arrest need not be made. Misinformation and sloppy attention to detail abound on this cite!
Edward Stark May 31, 2012 at 09:25 PM
sla271329: Go to Framingham district court and ask who the person is, they will tell you if you're nice to them. I went down there and found out and can confirm that there's absolutely no slander going on here. All that has been spoke is the truth.
Robert Fucci (Editor) May 31, 2012 at 09:32 PM
For the record ... if written it is libel ... slander is spoken. And just because a nice clerk told you isn't enough proof to attempt to put that name in the comments section. Once the case becomes public record, the truth will come out, but not before then. Unless said person decides to come forward.
Edward Stark May 31, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Thanks Robert for the clarification. I don't believe anyone has listed any names on here. Have they?
Robert Fucci (Editor) May 31, 2012 at 10:30 PM
People have tried, but I've been deleting them before they go live on the site.
pmotw May 31, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Is the driver on the hook to pay for the damage to public property? Or can it just come out of the CPA fund?
ConcernedResident June 04, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Why doesn't Patch post the name? This piece of garbage rag posts every other criminal no matter how frivolous, inconsequential or meritless. Has this person threatened a libel suit against Patch? Truth is an absolute defense. Tell this alcoholic to come to First Parish on Sunday night at 730pm. There are plenty of folks there who can help her there....
Robert Fucci (Editor) June 04, 2012 at 10:42 PM
I'm sorry, but who would ever answer you after that rant?
Wendy Kaiser June 05, 2012 at 01:22 AM
I highly value the exchange that occurs on The Patch and I happen to agree with most of you on this subject. That said, I wish people had the 'guts' to use their own names as opposed to 'user names'. If you are not willing to associate your name with your opinion then unfortunately your opinion becomes less credible. I applaud the people who are willing to comment and take ownership of their opinion.
Ron C June 05, 2012 at 08:31 PM
kinda sounds like the missing person was transported to Emerson Hosp.
Ron C June 05, 2012 at 08:33 PM
GET a life and OPEN your eyes to small town politics. IT is still who you know and WHAT you know
Ron C June 05, 2012 at 08:34 PM
BINGO you are not important enough
Ron C June 05, 2012 at 08:38 PM
Again it is WHO you know
Suzanne June 07, 2012 at 04:14 PM
She is a Town Employee and a resident of Sudbury....no assumption..FACT. People are afraid for their jobs if they speak up about her and those protecting her and give her name.
Ron C June 07, 2012 at 06:57 PM
Maybe they were in the protect and serve mode.I think that you have a misconception on how it works.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something