Driver of vehicle that killed U-M student allowed to drive while investigation continues
The driver of this vehicle, which struck and killed Sharita Williams in early August, is allowed to drive while the investigation is ongoing. The incident has raised new questions about Ann Arbor's pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.
Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com
The driver of the vehicle that struck and killed Sharita Williams early this month is still allowed to drive her car as the investigation into the crash continues, police said.
Ann Arbor police Lt. Renee Bush confirmed the woman was still allowed to drive her car, despite the fatal crash. The incident took place about 3 p.m. Aug. 7 on Plymouth Road between Traverwood Boulevard and Nixon Road.
Williams was brought to the University of Michigan Hospital, where she died early on Aug. 9 from her injuries. Her funeral was scheduled for Saturday morning.
Bush said the case is still an open investigation because police have yet to interview the driver.
Sharita Williams
Facebook photo
“She failed to show up for an interview with us the next day,” Bush said, adding that the woman’s attorney called police and informed them she would not be coming in.
The 20-year-old Williams was a Clinton Township native who was studying to become a social worker.
Bush said police are still working the case, though the lead investigator has been out of the office for several days. No charges have been filed against the driver because the case has not been sent to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office for review.
The woman’s driver’s license could be taken away should charges be filed, Bush said. Police will request the Michigan Secretary of State’s Office to review her license if charges are filed, Bush said.
Williams was crossing Plymouth Road from south to north when a green Chevrolet Cavalier hit her in the pedestrian crosswalk. Witnesses told AnnArbor.com the lights at the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon crosswalk had been flashing for at least 30 seconds before the crash.
The Cavalier struck Williams and sent her flying through the air onto a grass median at least 10 feet away from the point of impact.
- To donate to the fundraiser to help Williams' family, click here
Kyle Feldscher covers cops and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at kylefeldscher@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
thinker
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 12:53 p.m.
I am not saying this is true in this case,but very often this type off delay is used by attorneys and their clients to detox before they agree to the interview. Just saying......
Frustrated in A2
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4:50 a.m.
The Secretary of State issues driver's licenses and suspends driving privileges. Everybody is mad at the police but not the SOS. I've never seen a police department issue a driver's license. I say let the police do their job and let them do a proper and effective investigation so that if/when this case goes to court they are prepared. People need to understand most investigations involving a death can take a while to be properly investigated and then sent through the court system. Check annarbor.com and see if you can find a murder case where the trial was 1 week after the incident.
Fat Bill
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 3:35 a.m.
It seems that a number of folks posting comments on this article would support a Judge Dredd type of approach. Swift justice, instant retribution and all that. Almost any one of us could find ourselves in a similar position; we would want careful and deliberate consideration and respect for our right to due process. The courts won't be closed for business next month; this isn't some deranged axe murder suspect running around.
Frustrated in A2
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4:45 a.m.
Finally someone that seems to make sense everybody else wants to be judge, jury and executioner without a complete investigation being done.
DoTheRightThing90
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 3:11 a.m.
Pedestrian have the Right Of Way. NO MATTER WHAT!!!!
matt1027
Sat, Aug 24, 2013 : 7:32 p.m.
But here on planet earth people make mistakes...so putting yourself in harms way is a bad idea. There is what should happen...and what actually happens in reality. Try joining us here on planet earth.
matt1027
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 2:52 a.m.
The fact remains, I don't trust cars to stop at red lights at intersections and I don't walk into traffic until I see them stopping. We are all taught in preschool that you don't step into traffic unless vehicles are stopped. Perhaps a point we are all missing here is that each individual is responsible for ensuring their own safety because people make mistakes and accidents happen. Is it legally the driver's fault? Probably. Would Ms. Williams still be alive if the principles of looking both ways and (as the local law states) waiting for drivers to come to a stop were followed? yes.
matt1027
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 2:40 a.m.
It took for months for friend's case to make it from the AAPD to the prosecutor's office for review, and it didn't involve the death or injury of anyone. The efficiency of the AAPD is questionable at best. In the case of my friend, she was allowed to continue driving after a DUI, only after her court date were any restrictions imposed. This means that because of the AAPD a person who regularly drove drunk, and was caught doing so, was driving for an additional four months unrestricted. We have a real problem here... And seriously, this isn't the Bronx (where there is a major backlog), or some other city with an epidemic of major felonious crimes. It's inexplicable.
Barbara Clarke
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 2:23 a.m.
I wonder if a person shot another person dead with a firearm, would the person who fired the gun be allowed to possess the weapon and "roam" around? One wonders what is delaying the interview of the driver of "death weapon"?
matt1027
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 2:43 a.m.
Right?!?! I imagine that even if I discharged my gun legally (someone robbing my house,etc) my gun would be confiscated until the courts sort things out. This is beyond absurd. Unless it wasn't the driver's fault and the police aren't releasing pertinent information, but instead letting the public try the driver in the court of public opinion. I will say that I think these crosswalks are extremely dangerous, and if Williams was hit at the speed reported she clearly did not stop at the crosswalk and wait for cars to stop... that is the law. It's not meant for pedestrians to blithely stroll out into moving traffic.
JRW
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 12:39 a.m.
"Bush said police are still working the case, though the lead investigator has been out of the office for several days. No charges have been filed against the driver because the case has not been sent to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office for review." So, is the lead investigator on vacation? What the heck is going on?
JRW
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 12:33 a.m.
No interview yet? This is unbelievable. The driver is a flight risk, to say the least. The driver doesn't show up for the scheduled interview and is allowed to drive. She could leave the area making it much moire difficult to prosecute.
Tom Joad
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:16 p.m.
Prosecutors RARELY bring charges against a driver in an accident involving pedestrian death or injury, not unless the driver is legally drunk. A study conducted by the CENTER for Investigative Reporting conducted a major study proving as much. They focused on California but it could equally apply to Ann Arbor with a large pedestrian population and frequent car-pedestrian accidents. One striking sentences sums it up: "District attorneys fail to charge the drivers, saying juries sympathize with the motorists. " I challenge Mlive to do a similar study here in Ann Arbor and specifically ask whether prosecutors are hamstrung from prosecuting drivers who injure or kill pedestrians here A http://cironline.org/reports/bay-area-drivers-who-kill-pedestrians-rarely-face-punishment-analysis-finds-4420
rm1
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4 a.m.
"Prosecutors RARELY bring charges against a driver in an accident involving pedestrian death or injury . . . .." Actually, the linked article says 40%, which is not "rarely", let alone "RARELY"; although the article does note that punishments are often too lenient. This so-called "major study" surveyed 434 pedestrian deaths, in only five counties in the Bay area of California. One third of these were struck in crosswalks. That gives us a sample of only about 135 possibly analogous cases. And to me, the area doesn't seem that analogous to Ann Arbor. Among the reasons for not bringing criminal charges was that the hit-and-run driver was never found. It's hard to see how a fairly small sample of non-prosecution decisions by five DA's in California, in not very similar circumstances, casts much light on this Ann Arbor incident and the decision the prosecutor will have to make -- let alone whether the prosecutor is somehow "hamstrung"(??) in making that decision.
Gary Haller
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:15 p.m.
Right or wrong the family usually sues the driver for wrongfull death and in Michigan depending on how much insurance you have can be compensated for the loss
Gary Haller
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:10 p.m.
While the investigation is under way you are not charged with any crime.. after the investigation the file is turned over to the prosecutors officer for decision
rm1
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 10:19 p.m.
There's been some seriously underinformed talk about the April Supreme Court decision on self-incrimination, Salinas v. Texas. Here's the actual Court decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf And here's what the Court actually held: "Petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self- incrimination in response to the officer's question." That case probably has no relevance whatever here, because the driver has counsel, who no doubt expressly invoked the privilege on the driver's behalf. So that fact would not be admissible, and can't be used against her -- unlike in the proceeding against Mr. Salinas, who failed to invoke. That just means the police and prosecutor will have to prove the case with other evidence and without admissions from the driver. But so what? It seems likely that the case won't be difficult to prove, in light of what's been reported of other witnesses' testimony and of the accident reconstruction. It seems like a pretty strong case, and one that may easily be resolved with a plea-bargain including a prison sentence. The prosecution surely will demand jail time in any plea bargain, in light of the victim's death.
P. J. Murphy
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 9:19 p.m.
Thanks. For the clear explanation of the relevance (or not) of the prior case. And also for a consise, real-world summary of what's likely to come.
Eduard Copely
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 9:02 p.m.
As a pedestrian, I should be able to push a button that will change the traffic signal from "Green" to "Red" which (typically) is an indicator to drivers to stop their vehicles. In addition, as pedestrian, I should receive feedback in the form of a signal or lights letting me know that it is now safe to use the crosswalk. However, as an experienced pedestrian within an urban environment, I should still exercise caution and look both ways before entering the crosswalk. However, pushing a button that then flashes yellow lights at drivers is an unfamiliar mode of signaling to drivers that a pedestrian wishes to enter a crosswalk; it is a CHANGE in the traffic laws and I believe the culprit as to why Sharita Williams was hit. Furthermore, if it is true that vehicle that hit her went around the vehicle that had stopped. Well, that just further proofs my point that most drivers are completely unfamiliar with the NEW traffic laws and signage.
matt1027
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 2:47 a.m.
Exactly. And the fact remains, I don't trust cars to stop at red lights at intersections and I don't walk into traffic until I see them stopping. Perhaps a point we are all missing here is that each individual is responsible for ensuring their own safety because people make mistakes and accidents happen.
Laurie Barrett
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 8:33 p.m.
Kinda creepy when we talk in terms of "most dangerous intersections for pedestrians in Ann Arbor." Seems like the concept diminishes the responsibility, makes running down pedestrians expected, acceptable in some weird way.
zanzerbar
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 7:29 p.m.
Just witness this afternoon on Carpenter at the pedestrian crosswalk recently install near the senior highrise. A senior activated the signal and cars stopped at the lane where he was crossing, he then proceeded to the middle of the intersection, looked for traffic and a car came by at about 40 mph with out even slowing down. not heeding the flashing light and the other cars stopped.
Basic Bob
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 2:29 a.m.
The master planner thinks she's a traffic engineer.
JRW
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 12:36 a.m.
We see this all the time on Carpenter. It's only a matter of time before someone is killed crossing Carpenter between Wash Ave and Ellsworth. Pedestrians are darting across Carpenter in heavy traffic frequently and many are not in the crosswalks. Very dangerous area.
Brad
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 5:54 p.m.
What ever happened with the pedestrian that got hit in the crosswalk on Washtenaw near Platt? Was that driver ever named and/or charged with anything?
talker
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 12:37 a.m.
There were no lights flashing at the time the bicyclist was hit. As I recall reading, a driver in one lane stopped to allow the bicyclist cross at a place where there were white, crosswalk markers on the street. I believe it was a driver in another lane that hit the bicyclist. While a horrible incident, that incident appears to have been been different and not as clearly negligent as the Plymouth Road incident. There were many factors on Plymouth Road, including flashing lights to alert drivers. Does anyone know how the bicyclist is doing? It's possible she has permanent injuries that she doesn't want to discuss publicly and we need to respect that. It's also possible she's in a coma. Another possibility is a lawyer has advised her not to discuss her injuries and a civil suit publicly.
Kyle Feldscher
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 10:27 p.m.
Indeed. Actually, in that crash, both driver and bicyclist were cited but neither was charged with a crime. Interesting comparison, I agree.
Brad
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 10:14 p.m.
Thanks, Kyle. So it appears in that case that the driver was never charged with a crime (and I'm not saying they should have been). Actually if you read the description of what happened on Washtenaw there seems to be some parallels to the Plymouth Rd incident.
Kyle Feldscher
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 6:01 p.m.
Brad - Here's a link to what you're asking about. http://annarbor.com/news/traffic-light-nearly-operational-10-months-after-bicyclist-suffered-catastrophic-injuries-when-hit-b/
dfossil
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 5:31 p.m.
Why haven't the police gotten a warrant to arrest this no show and haul her in? Her attorney would show up then but she clearly is evading this or there is probable cause she's evading this; let her explain herself to the Magistrate/judge.
dugster
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 5:28 p.m.
So to avoid punishment just never talk to the police. They aren't apparently going to force the issue (or at least in Ann Arbor), so if you don't talk you can't be convicted. This is apparently your "get out of jail free" card.
windjmar
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:35 p.m.
If one reads part of the law from another AA article ... Council woman gives states "Third, when any vehicle is stopped at a crosswalk — marked or unmarked, with or without a signal — in order to let a pedestrian cross the roadway, drivers of other vehicles approaching from the rear may not pass the stopped vehicle." , the driver should have been immediately given a citation. The charges would then be upped after the death of Sharita. Who is involved here AA.com? So if no charges are pressed you just "shut up" the press? What about some of the other incidents people have reported here? I am interested in learning what happen in JNS131 post. Report the news, please.
Sam Smith
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:12 p.m.
This is what JUSTICE is in MICHIGAN. The victims pay for crimes they get injuried or killed from.
eone
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:55 p.m.
Why not be allowed to drive???? Has this been to trial???
mady
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:40 p.m.
WHAT?!?!?!?!?!
Woman in Ypsilanti
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:32 p.m.
This is outrageous. A young woman is dead. The driver of the car is in all likelihood negligent and it probably doesn't take an interview with the driver to determine it. Arrest the driver and charge her with a crime! Interview the witnesses. This woman needs to be off the streets and possibly put in prison. There is no excuse for this delay.
DCW
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:23 p.m.
These pedestrian crosswalks are truly scary. I cross one close to my job and I refuse to cross until cars on both sides have come to a complete stop. I caution everyone to do the same. DO NOT assume that just because the small yellow lights are blinking (barely noticeable on a bright sunny day) that oncoming cars will stop. I'm saddened by this story because I believe it was completely preventable. I do agree that we shouldn't rush to put ALL the blame on the driver. Of course she played a big part in the accident, but at these crosswalks there's a speaker that says something like "Caution; Cars may not stop." So, there is responsibility on the pedestrian to not cross until they no for sure that it is safe. What scares me are young children who may attempt these pedestrian crosswalks without paying attention to all the signs.
Tangimpahoa
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:32 p.m.
You are absolutely correct about the pedestrian crosswalks in Ann Arbor. By allowing Main St. close on game days, the City is admitting that there's way too much traffic. Downtown Ann Arbor should become car free--but that will never happen because the DDA won't let it happen. Plymouth Road is a disaster and much of the fault there belongs to the University. You are also correct that the accident was completely preventable.
Veracity
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:13 p.m.
From the first annarbor.com article about the death: "...the driver of the vehicle did not appear to see Williams as she crossed the street." and "Williams came to rest in the median between the eastbound and westbound lanes, at least 10 feet away from the crosswalk." http://annarbor.com/news/crime/police-u-m-student-struck-while-in-crosswalk-on-plymouth-road-dies/ and this from an even earlier article: "The Cavalier stopped about 30 feet east of the crosswalk and was positioned in both of the eastbound lanes. The front end of the car was damaged, with parts of the grill on the roadway along with other debris. The smashed windshield had a circular impact on the driver's side near the side mirror." http://annarbor.com/news/pedestrian-struck-on-plymouth-road-in-ann-arbor/ How fast do you believe the Cavalier was going when it entered the crosswalk to kill Sharita Williams?
Basic Bob
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 2:27 a.m.
Rough guess 30 mph. Any faster and the car would have traveled further before stopping.
Mangohater
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:01 p.m.
I can not believe what I just read...the girl is dead, and there is still do much unresolved?!
Orangecrush2000
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.
It makes you wonder where their priorities are.
windjmar
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:32 p.m.
It will be very interesting to learn who the driver is ... makes you wonder, whose daughter is she or what position she holds or a family member holds in the AA arena. Whether or not she is charged, the public has the right to know who it is. Sharita lost her life and you published her name. There is no doubt who hit her, so the public should have the right to know who it was especially since the police seem to be holding back on this one.
andralisa
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:24 p.m.
Why! Why? Is this person still driving - what is going on here? There should NEVER be a driver going so fast in that particular area that a person crossing is killed ...NEVER. Please get that thing (person) off the road.
Gyll Stanford
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:13 p.m.
A lot of comments refer to the Constitution and the Rights we have as citizens of this country. Those rights state we do not have to be a witness against ourselves. This U-tube video is a good education at to what can go sideways if you get mixed up in a legal mess. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc It is unfortunate of the loss of this person. It is a good lesson for all of us to;1 be a defensive driver, 2 be a defensive pedestrian. Don't assume that car will stop, confirm it will and stay alert.
5c0++ H4d13y
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 3:07 a.m.
Woman in Ypsilanti you are 100% wrong.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:27 p.m.
Because the driver has not yet been charged with a crime, she actually doesn't have 5th amendment rights to remain silent and her silence can be used against her in a "if she wasn't guilty, why did she refuse to talk to police" sort of way (Salinas v Texas)
Barbara Brown
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.
I've got kids and as a mother find the tone of many of these commentators heart-breaking. This is an individual who was killed and to make glib anonymous comments about her intellectual abilities to cross the road saddens me.I can only imagine how this distasteful tone would be perceived by the victim's family. Now, really don't think this has to do with police states or reducing people's constitutional rights and I do agree with other commentators that the police seem to not be on the ball in terms of moving this case forward. Let me put this hypothetical - If the legal owner of a firearm shot and killed your loved one, and it was unclear exactly what the circumstances of that death were (i.e did the person startle the gun holder, was the gun faulty, etc., etc.) do you think that person should keep hold of their weapon? Especially if they used this weapon on a daily basis. A car is not a weapon, I agree, but it was used in this case to kill someone. It is also safe to assume that the driver needs their car for transport to a certain extent and is using it. Does the public's right to safety trump the driver's right to transport? No one is saying seize her license permanently, I think, common sense dictates that until the investigation is finished (and why it isn't' is a whole other issues) this individual should not be driving.
jondhall
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.
Well move to a communist country then and be happy! First off that crosswalk is the stupidest yet to come out of TREE CITY, why not make a pedestrian bridge she would be alive , we would save gas, and you would feel better! I hardly think she was hit on purpose! I went thru that same area a year ago and first time there I can see how this happened !! Did I say pedestrian bridge ?? Charge those that made the crosswalk!! Better yet call SAM!
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:53 p.m.
It will be interesting to learn whether this woman drove that route before, or if this was her first ever time. It is difficult to believe anyone could miss those bright flashing lights and crosswalk signs. But if they drove that route multiple times, I could never believe it. The facts of the case should establish whether this is a mere traffic ticket, or a criminal case that could result in prison.
talker
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 12:25 a.m.
I've driven that route recently and the extra caution I'd expected to see wasn't there among some drivers. It's sad that some drivers don't respect pedestrians enough to honor the lights completely.
TryingToBeObjective
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:56 p.m.
Agreed. And that car she pulled around that was stopped at the crosswalk already? I'm sure she does that all the time too. She ignored all the basics of driving.
PhillyCheeseSteak
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:40 p.m.
Kyle Feldscher - I'm confused about where there's a "grass median" at this point of Plymouth Road? Thank you for clarifying this point for me.
Kyle Feldscher
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:35 p.m.
The grass median is a pedestrian island in the middle of the road. There's a sidewalk that cuts through it, but the portion where Ms. Williams landed was grass.
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:30 p.m.
Why didn't they interview her at the scene? Justice delayed is justice denied for the family.
Kyle Feldscher
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:35 p.m.
Nicholas - I know police talked to the woman at the scene, but I don't know the extent of their questioning while there.
Brian
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:20 p.m.
First let me express condolences to Sharita's family and sympathies for the driver who I'm sure must be torn up knowing she killed someone. Now, I agree with many who have said that pedestrian crosswalk lights need to be red and not yellow. This having been said it is clearly marked at the crosswalk to be prepared to stop when lights are flashing. In an earlier report it was noted that the driver said she didn't even see Sharita until she hit her. This shows the driver wasn't paying attention to her driving. If she was being mindful of her driving and the road she would have seen Sharita before she was on top of her car. Michigan law requires that every driver be in control of their car which also includes paying attention to your surroundings. Michigan law also requires that cars yield to pedestrians. Sharita had clearly activated the signal which had been flashing for some time. Another sign the driver was not paying attention to her driving. This having been said she is smart to retain an attorney. The police are not her friend. It is their job to find evidence to prosecute her for a crime. A citizen doesn't have to help in their prosecution. There is a time and place to require appearance but she still doesn't have to speak if she chooses not to. The state has to prove the case based on the law which is a far better process than a citizen having to prove their innocense or be hung by public sentiment. As heartbreaking as this case is you wouldn't want to live in a place where you were guilty first. This is a sad situation all around. It could have been prevented by simply paying attention.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:25 p.m.
Her refusal to be interviewed can be used against her though.
jondhall
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:18 p.m.
Brian Thanks very well put !! Run for election as a a libertarian
a2susan
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:17 p.m.
Maybe a surveillance camera should be put at these crosswalks so that events can be documented. I know that with so many new crosswalks, new islands at traffic lights, new road configurations, driving is a lot more difficult and confusing in Ann Arbor. My hope is that the police are building a case in such a way that when it goes to the prosecutor it will be solid and they can actually do something so that the life of this young woman was not taken in vain.
thecompound
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 1:39 a.m.
MichU, I believe that is the question everyone wants to know the answer to and could possibly a game changer.
MichU
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 6:31 p.m.
And find out if the driver was on the phone or distracted....
justcurious
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:09 p.m.
Totally unacceptable reasons for not attempting to bring this woman up for charges - or not. "Bush said the case is still an open investigation because police have yet to interview the driver. "She failed to show up for an interview with us the next day," Bush said, adding that the woman's attorney called police and informed them she would not be coming in." They have no authority to make her come in to be interviewed about this FATAL accident? "Bush said police are still working the case, though the lead investigator has been out of the office for several days. No charges have been filed against the driver because the case has not been sent to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office for review." No one else is able to do what that one person does?? What is wrong with this picture? Sarina died over 10 days ago. What is wrong with our justice system. Doesn't her death count for anything?
johnnya2
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:08 p.m.
She does not need to talk to police, BUT then she can not refute anything said by witnesses who say she is at fault. The police have the right to arrest her on probable cause (just as they arrest a drunk driver without a warrant. They can hold her and read her her rights. Once she says , I WANT A LAWYER, they must stop questioning. The family of the dad girl will have a much easier case in their wrongful death suit. Once she is sued she will be REQUIRED to give a deposition.
Brian
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:46 p.m.
The police can not require appearanc or someone to talk.. They can ask the Prosecutor's Office to issue an arrest warrant once enough evidence exists to file formal charges but she still doesn't have to talk. Once arrested on formal charges there will be despositions but she still doesn't have to talk. Once a trial begins she can refuse to be a witness in her trial. So whether or not the police speak with her is not up to them it's decided by her. Between accident scene forensics and eyewitness accounts there is probably enough evidence to bring an arrest and formal charges without her account of what happened. There may even be video from a street camera.
laura1234
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:16 p.m.
"They have no authority to make her come in to be interviewed about this FATAL accident?" No, and this is a good lesson for all of us -- don't talk to police if you are a suspect in a crime. That being said, it seems like there is plenty of evidence to charge her without her statement.
Brad
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.
As far as the theory where the driver was first stopped behind other car(s) and then pulled around, the damage to the vehicle makes me skeptical. That would be a low-speed collision but the car looks worse than that.
Kyle Feldscher
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:34 p.m.
From what I understand - and this has not been confirmed by police, but is going off of what I saw at the scene of the crash and the investigation that took place - is that the Cavalier may have been traveling behind the stopped cars and switched lanes to pass on the right. I do not know if the Cavalier was stopped or simply was passing.
Brad
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:27 p.m.
It's a Cavalier. They aren't going to accelerate that much in a couple of car lengths.
TryingToBeObjective
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4 p.m.
I read further down, and the amount of damage described, including the smashed windshield, suggests the driver was NOT going slow.
TryingToBeObjective
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:52 p.m.
Not if she was in a hurry. Lead foot didn't care. She could have pulled around quickly, and the damage threw the poor woman she killed several feet, flying through the air. I gentle tap wouldn't have necessarily thrown the woman and dented the hood of the car as easily, IMO. Is the windshield broken in that pic? I can't tell for sure.
Mick52
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:04 p.m.
Me too. And had the driver been stopped, accelerating to go around should have been at a slow speed and thus enough room to stop. That scenario does not make much sense...
PhillyCheeseSteak
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:37 p.m.
I thought that too, when I saw the photo of the damage on the car.
Veracity
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:55 p.m.
What is meant by "further investigation" after almost two weeks have passed since the incident? Are drug and alcohol test results still pending? Were blood samples even obtained for such testing? Isn't such testing required as standard procedure in deaths like the one reported? I guess that we may never know who the driver was if she is never indicted. People, like myself, will wonder if the driver was given special treatment and considerations due to her position in our society and her connections. Obviously the law is applied differently depending on who you are, IMHO.
laura1234
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:24 p.m.
All we know about the driver is she was driving an older model cavalier. What makes you think this is a well-connected person gettnig special privilege?
justcurious
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:23 p.m.
Good comments throughout Veracity. I'm finding that we rarely find out the results of accidents whether they are fatal or otherwise. Someone in authority does not want the public to know.
Veracity
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:36 p.m.
Am I wrong to believe that police usually test the driver in a fatal accident for the use of drugs and alcohol either at the scene of the accident or shortly thereafter? I find no mention of such action in any article published about this killing so far nor mention of any mitigating factors. Also, when the police request drug and alcohol testing and the driver refuses, isn't the driver's license confiscated by law and the driver not allowed to legally drive?
Kyle Feldscher
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:32 p.m.
Veracity - I know the police spoke to the driver and passenger at the scene. I was there for about an hour, and I do not remember seeing the officers give anyone a sobriety test. That does not mean there wasn't one, but I did not witness it. To this point, I have not been given answers to specific questions when I ask police because Lt. Bush defers to the investigating officer, who is on vacation and not available.
Veracity
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:50 p.m.
Brad - I would expect that if the driver passes a sobriety test at the scene of the death that the initial annarbor.com article would report it and, of course, her continuing privilege to drive would support that conclusion also. But a sobriety test was not mentioned in any of the annarbor.com articles. Your comment about a warrant is also correct but since a warrant was not mentioned I presume that one was not issued (and I do not know if one was sought). Many aspects of this case do not make sense. Perhaps the State Police should investigate.
Brad
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:01 p.m.
Good question about the drug/alcohol tests. I guess if the driver passed a field test that would be the end of it. At the time they didn't know it was a fatal accident. As far as refusing the test, if they really want your blood they just get a warrant and drive you to the hospital where they take your blood.
Ricardo Queso
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:33 p.m.
Get rid of the flashing yellow lights and install a good old fashioned red light. Everyone understands the meaning of a red light. Only in Ann Arbor is yellow used as a stop signal.
Doug
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:05 p.m.
In most places yellow means speed up to make it through the intersection before it turns red!
linuxtuxguy
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:48 p.m.
Flashing red is the same as a stop sign.
LaMusica
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:28 p.m.
Just WHAT?! She hasn't been interviewed yet???? This was an accident, but a girl still DIED! omg...
msrock1954
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:27 p.m.
Her lawyer says she's not coming in to be interviewed? I hope I'm missing something here! I'd be a little irate if,I was a family member of the deceased!
Cathy Doran-McMillion
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:23 p.m.
How can this person be allowed to drive? Seriously, where is the evidence that he or she is a safe driver? If this person hurts someone else perhaps it's not an accident, but an accident waiting to happen. Honor Sharita's memory and protect the public, suspend this person's license—at least until he or she proves that they have the skills to drive safely.
Eduard Copely
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:19 p.m.
In America we do not take away people's cars. You should know that by now.
Angry Moderate
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 6:36 p.m.
"Seriously, where is the evidence that he or she is a safe driver?" Presumably, he or she took a driving test to receive a license.
Basic Bob
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:35 p.m.
she has not been charged with a crime
a2citizen
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:13 p.m.
"...had been flashing for at least 30 seconds..." I'm not defending the driver but I would question the eye witnesses on the length of time the lights actually flashed.
matt1027
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 2:49 a.m.
Not everyone is aware of this (absurd) local law. Flashing yellow lights in most everywhere else in the world don't mean stop...they certainly don't mean someone is about to wander into traffic.
RunsWithScissors
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:34 p.m.
I agree. 30 seconds takes a lot longer than most people think.
734baggins
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:10 p.m.
This is tragic. My condolences to the family and friends. From a root cause perspective, these crosswalks and the way they are visually presented to motorists are the problem. YELLOW does not mean STOP as clearly as RED. Change the lights to RED, people. The motoring public sees YELLOW and think they have the OPTION to stop. RED MEANS STOP. Fix the problem; SAVE LIVES.
cook1888
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 1:23 p.m.
Total agreement. I think the city or the manufacturer of these lights are going to face some problems. I am not sure these lights are even the yellow we normally expect for caution. They are a light sparking, strobe effect. They seem more like a white light, than a yellow. They are nothing we have been taught to recognize. If the city is going to continue with the huge increase in pedestrian crossings, they need to install a uniform system with RED lights. Admit these are a problem and save lives!
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:31 p.m.
Pedestrian in crosswalk means STOP. BRIGHT LIGHTS and prominent signage alert to crosswalk. LEARN and obey the law; SAVE LIVES.
Jim Osborn
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.
Yellow means caution, and anyone who has a driver's license should know that you must stop at a crosswalk. Seeing a caution light, a driver should look at why, seeing a "crosswalk ahead" sign and a crosswalk should be enough. Other cars already stopped and a yellow caution light? At the very least, this driver should have been going 5 MPH past the other cars, if they were going to ignore the law and not stop or were unsure that there was a crosswalk. California makes all drivers pass a written test when renewing their license. Everyone then reads the driver's handbook and learns about new traffic laws as well as relearning long established laws such as stopping at a crosswalk. Sadly, Michigan drivers do not need to pass a written test
chapmaja
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:57 a.m.
My personal opinion of this is that the drive should still be allowed to drive until chargers are filed. My problem is that it has taken this long for charges to be filed in this case. From everything I have seen and heard of this case, it should be that difficult to turn what they have over to prosecutors in this case. This is the case as I have heard it and seen it reported. Ms. Williams activates the lights of the crosswalk and proceeds to walk through the well lit and clearly marked cross walk. The majority of traffic stops for Ms. Williams to use the crosswalk as designed. The driver of the vehicle in question does not stop and may have pulled around stopped traffic and proceeds into the crosswalk where her car strikes Ms. Williams, tossing her into the air and causing fatal injuries to her. Someone please explain to me what the drivers statement really has to do with what seems to be an open and shut case? If they really need the driver to be interviewed, I'm pretty sure I know how it would go anyway at this point. She comes in with her lawyer, and the lawyer advises her not to answer any questions. The driver declines to answer any questions on the advise of her lawyer and the police get nothing but wasted time.
craigjjs
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:23 p.m.
I agree. The police delay is inexcusable, even if "the lead investigator has been out of the office for several days."
Tru2Blu76
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:51 a.m.
Just pointing out an actual fact in such situations: the universal cautionary advice to people who are "called in" for an interview with police is to FIRST talk to an attorney and, if it's prudent, to also have the attorney present when being interviewed. This "lawyering up" has a bad rap: because in practice, the police interviewer's JOB is to detect any signs that a criminal case may be built on the basis of EVEN CASUAL remarks by the person being interviewed. Particularly when the "person of interest" has undergone an emotional event - the advice applies to many situations. Being "not yourself" during an interview can be a road leading straight to a trial, with attendant "detention" and other 'inconveniences" like huge legal costs. It would be helpful to know if such a long delay before the interview is "common" or not. But in any case, it's probably the attorney's opinion that "going in too soon" might put their client at risk. I doubt the woman who hit Ms. Williams is "hatching a plot" to escape punishment.
John
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:42 p.m.
Glad to know I can schedule a police interview at my convenience when I am under investigation for vehicular manslaughter. I'd hate to miss my favorite shows.
chapmaja
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:08 p.m.
I completely understand the driver getting a lawyer and "lawyering up." I have no problem with this. My problem is what it has taken this long to forward the case to the prosecutors office even without her statement. From all accounts there were multiple witnesses who will testify that the driver failed to stop for a pedestrian in a clearly marked cross walk and caused her death. There are multiple witnesses who will state that the crosswalk lights were activated at the time and that Ms. Williams was inside the crosswalk prior to being struck. Many other jurisdictions would have charges filed in this case within 24-48 hours of something like this happening. What it has take two weeks on a pretty open and shut case is my issue. Turn this over to prosecutors, who will then file charges. Let the lawyers then hash out any plea agreements or whatever and allow the police to close their investigation of this and move on to other business they need to attend to.
Deb Clark
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:50 a.m.
The issue is not about the driver's due process rights, in my opinion. The issue is that her car struck a pedestrian (facts no one disputes) and there should be a means to seize her license until the investigation is over. This has nothing to do with constitutional rights to legal representation, it is a public safety issue and her 'right' to drive is clearly trumped by the public's right not to have drivers like her on the road. According to all reports I read, the light was clearly flashing and other cars had stopped, so the fact that this car did not show recklessness at a minimum and the police have a duty to prevent reckless drivers from driving. I really hope Sharita's family has hired their own lawyers, perhaps the only thing the city will listen to is a big fat lawsuit.
Anthony3261
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:24 a.m.
I can tell that you have never actually read the Constitution, the assumption of innocence's should be protected by all of us regardless of what we think. I am surprised that I share the same Constitution with people that just decide to let the police or some pencil pusher decide the penalty for someone not even charged with a crime.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:17 p.m.
While I agree that due process is important, in this case, it seems that due process could be happening a LOT faster. How long does it take to charge someone with a crime?
Tano
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:34 p.m.
@Clark "This has nothing to do with constitutional rights to legal representation" Right. It has to do with the Constitutional right to due process, which is separate from the right to representation. The government cannot deprive you of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That means a formal accusation, a judicial hearing in which evidence may be presented against the accused and the accused has a right to counter the evidence and present their side of the story. You seem to want to replace this with a system where the police can decide on their own to yank someone's license. The name for such a system, where the police have such power, is "police state".
Veracity
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:26 p.m.
Absolutely! If there is any doubt that the pictured vehicle hit and killed a pedestrian who was legally crossing the street then I can understand the failure of the judicial system to deliver and indictment by now. But none of the facts originally presented have been withdrawn or refuted. At the least the facts presented warrant an indictment for manslaughter and if the driver was affected by alcohol or drugs then the indictment should be increased to second degree vehicular murder. If the police refuse to charge the driver then they should stop monitoring driver compliance with the crosswalk law and not issue $100 citations when cars are driven through crosswalks being used by pedestrians.
craigjjs
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:20 p.m.
This has everything to do with the driver's due process rights. We do not punish people before they are convicted of a crime. The driver has not yet been charged with this woman's death. It is not in police discretion to seize licenses and there is no law authorizing the seizure of licenses merely because an accident takes place. If we start throwing out constitutional rights because we believe they conflict with "a public safety issue", there will be little left of the constitution.
FredMax
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:33 a.m.
If critical crossings simply had a pedestrian controlled red light, probably we would not be discussing this today. Why RRFBs? Perhaps trendiness, flashiness, making a statement play into it?
cook1888
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 1:13 p.m.
I totally agree. The standard we all expect for stopping is a flashing red light. I have never seen this type of light anywhere else. This was a very poor design choice for pedestrians and drivers.
Mick52
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:51 p.m.
My thought exactly. I am not familiar with this RRFB. My wife says it is like a strobe light, but white. Not a common signal and could be confusing. And I wonder why it differs from the light on Huron that is a regular red signal the pedestrian activates. To have different types is stupid and Ann Arbor has to take some responsibility if they have done this.
Ann
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:30 a.m.
We should never assume any driver is going to stop whether it be a a four way stop, a traffic signal, or a crosswalk. This is very sad!
Anthony3261
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:20 a.m.
As a driver in Ann Arbor, I so much agree with you. I walk and driver in Ann Arbor as if everyone is trying to kill me and proceed at every intersection and every road with this assumption and this helps me avoid a lot of problems.
Brad
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:43 p.m.
@EEP - no need to stop at every green but you bet I check the cross traffic. Why? Because "right of way" is no match for a moving vehicle.
chapmaja
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:16 p.m.
While you are correct, there are limits to this as well. It was reported that the driver of this car may have pulled around cars stopped at this crosswalk. Could Ms. Williams even have seen this car until just before it hit her? On a road like Plymouth Rd it is possible that it would seem clear of traffic, or traffic is stopped, then a car pulls out and strikes someone. This is no different than someone crossing Maple Rd at Jackson. If you are coming across the road and someone decides to illegally turn without paying attention at the corner (where it says no turn on red), you are not expecting them to turn. I have seen multiple times pedestrians nearly get hit by cars illegally turning on the corner there. Is that the pedestrians fault that they were almost hit because they didn't stop for a car that the didn't know was there and that violated the law in the first place?
Eep
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : noon
So do you come to a full and complete stop at every green light to check and see if the drivers who have a red light are actually going to stop? I'd hate to be driving behind you.
zip the cat
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:25 a.m.
Other than providing an ID I would not say anything to the police until getting a good lawyer. It makes no difference if your in the right or in the wrong They( the police) call it being un cooperative I call it using my head
Mick52
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:49 p.m.
No intelligent police officer would call it being uncooperative when someone does not give a statement. If you do, however, it does make the police believe you are at fault. That is a clue
Tano
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:24 p.m.
The driver already has a lawyer whether you read the article or not.
LaMusica
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:31 p.m.
If you read the article, the driver already has a lawyer.
chapmaja
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:11 p.m.
You are correct. You are required to state very little to the police except your basic identity. The only people who will try to hide that information are people with something to hide (ie warrants). Beyond that give police your ID and then say nothing else. They will call it being uncooperative, but it is your legal right not to answer questions of the police.
Fat Bill
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:23 a.m.
Due process IS a right. The police don't get to make the decision of whether or not she drives. There is no disputing who was driving. Even a super-drunk suspect gets a temporary license while the case is adjudicated. We don't want to live in a country where police are judge, jury, and executioner.
Ron Smith
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 2:23 a.m.
Kyle, I think I see a problem with your headline. Sure it is factual, but then everyone with a driver's license is "allowed" to drive. Perhaps a more accurate headline would be something like, "After X days, still no charges or even license suspension for the driver who killed U-M student." You won't make any friends in AA police or legal circles, but then that isn't your job, is it! Respectfully,
Kyle Feldscher
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:21 p.m.
Fat Bill- Multiple people asked me this question last week on stories about this person being able to drive. I sought to answer those questions. Also, lumberg, I fail to see how my age impacts the accuracy of the headline. There is no "implication" at all, the headline is just a statement of fact.
justcurious
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:15 p.m.
What ever happened to "swift justice"?
lumberg48108
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:04 p.m.
Bingo - and that is why the headline is biased; it makes the case the driver should not be driving when that is not the case at all but they have twenty somethings writing headlines so cut them some slack
Basic Bob
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:07 a.m.
The minivan driver that was wanted for questioning in the death of two children on US-23 got a lawyer and was never charged or publicly identified. I'm sure she is still driving, too.
brian
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:19 p.m.
I've been waiting to hear what happened in that case for a long time.
justcurious
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:14 p.m.
Another prominent citizen?
thinker
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:06 a.m.
I am wondering also about the Ann Arbor police policies or annarbor.com's. There was the terrible fatality at Dexter and Maple last year, (two cars), and we never got any follow-up on that, beyond the implication the driver that killed the gentleman MAY have had a medical condition at the time.
Kyle Feldscher
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:19 p.m.
Thinker- At the time, the police told me the police was caused by a man who passed out while driving because of a medical condition. The information on what caused him to pass out was protected by HIPAA and could not be released publicly. No charges were ever brought against him. justcurious- Here's the story reporting her name and the charges brought against her. http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/77-year-old-woman-betty-chisholm-ann-arbor-police-motorized-wheelchair/
justcurious
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:13 p.m.
And how about the woman who knocked the man in his wheelchair and his dog down downtown and then drove home? She was a prominent Ann Arbor citizen..is that why we hear nothing more?
Judy
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11 a.m.
Dipstick, How is it jumping to conclusions when the cross walk is clearly marked and the lights were flashing at the time per Ann Arbor.com's earlier report.....yet the driver is still allowed to drive! How are the police to do an investigation if the drive does not have talk to the police. If I remember in the first story she had no problem talking to the police at the time she that struck Sharita Williams. Something just does not sound right.
Anthony3261
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:18 a.m.
The girl that was walking across the road was completely in the right, the lights were flashing, the cross walk was marked. However, the person that was walking across the street should take some responsibility in this as she should have been watching where she was going. It appears this was a terrible accident where both parties had some liability.
Richard Carter
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 2:59 a.m.
"Her refusal to be interviewed can be used against her now. " Sorta but not quite... essentially the Court's decision says (though I disagree with the logic myself too) that you actually have to say "I'm invoking my 5th amendment right," rather than just implying that you are.
Eduard Copely
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:20 p.m.
Judy, in American we do not take away people's cars. What are you, a communist?
Leon Lapham
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 5:36 p.m.
technically at this point if the the pedestrian was not in the walk, failed to clear the intersection in time -- there are many many things that could resolve to this not entirely being the drivers fault-- \ You have a Right to Drive on roads ...
Woman in Ypsilanti
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:49 p.m.
Her refusal to be interviewed can be used against her now. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf
Judy
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:15 p.m.
DennisP and Dipstick, I am totally for the Constitution and I agree with you on that point. I was just trying (poorly I must add) how bad Ann Arbor did with putting in these crosswalks. As far as I am concern crosswalk only belong at traffic lights this is were drivers expect them. It is hard for people along with me to understand how police can investigate when they can not talk to the driver. Thanks for your well thought out reply.
DennisP
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:15 a.m.
Yeah, I know. How in the world can they do an investigation if this Constitution thingy keeps getting in the way. Look, regardless of how bad the circumstances look or how plainly evident someone's fault or guilt seems in the paper, we have a fundamental thing called due process in the US. We have 4th, 5th and 6th amendments (go look them up). The police are cognizant of these "hindrances" and most times successfully work around them in a legal manner. They gather evidence from witnesses and forensics. The story merely indicates the police consider this an "open" investigation because the driver didn't show for a scheduled interview. It's their job to offer someone an opportunity to tell their side. Doing so, the person may find that what they say can be used against them in a trial. It is up to the driver to either consent to an interview or refuse. If she refuses, the investigation closes and the evidence gathered goes to the prosecutors who will then decide whether to issue a warrant for her arrest and to arraign her on charges. While under arrest, the police will attempt to interrogate her, but she has an attorney who will need to be present and she still doesn't have to answer. I believe there were witnesses and it is very likely this woman will be arrested. But, let the system work. As for her being on the road, the law begins with that presumption of innocence. There often are instances when a serious accident occurs and a driver was not at fault. We don't pull their license until an investigation is complete as that can cause people to lose jobs or miss medical appointments, etc. You have to wait.
Dipstick
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 10:35 a.m.
This headline is very biased. It's very sad that a person lost her life but lets not all jump to conclusions! I thought that in this country we were assumed innocent until proven guilty?
Woman in Ypsilanti
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:46 p.m.
That just applies to the law. Private citizens can presume as much guilt as they want.
Tano
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:14 p.m.
@Pizzicato, Putting someone on paid leave is hardly comparable to taking away their drivers license. Paid leave means that you not only are not losing your freedom or property, you are actually continuing to get paid while doing no work. A drivers license is far more than a privilege in the modern world. Maybe you could have considered it as such in the days when a car was simply an expensive toy. But we have built up the infrastructure of our country around the car to such an extent that preventing someone to drive can severely impact their ability to function in society - to get to work, to buy groceries etc. The impact would seem to be of sufficient scale as to fall under the sanction of the fifth amendment - that the government cannot deprive one of such property without due process of law.
lumberg48108
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:03 p.m.
I think the headline is a little biased since it takes the de facto position the driver SHOULD NOT be allowed to drive during the investigation; if that was not the case than the headline is meaningless in other words, the headline makes it seem that it is news the driver is still driving when that is not really news at all
Pizzicato
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:03 a.m.
@Dipstick: I'm fairly confident that "the driver" was "driving" the car who hit Ms. Williams - in other words, I don't think that those facts are under dispute. Are you suggesting that the police should be out there looking for another car involved in the collision? Furthermore, there are many instances where individuals face suspensions after certain events - police can be put on paid leave following a firearm discharge, pilots can be placed on leave following accidents, etc. A Michigan driver's license is not a right, it's a privilege -
John Q
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 10:54 a.m.
Biased how? Sounds accurate to me. It doesn't say anything about the driver's innocence or guilt.
jns131
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 10:24 a.m.
So here is my question to the police. How come a follow up to the driver who hit the AAPS student last December is still allowed to drive and yet even though this is a death? That other driver failed to yield to a school bus. I just don't get it. Ann Arbor is so messed up. I heard the other driver was given a citation and let off the hook. If this driver is charged I am going to ask where is the justice for the girl who was almost killed while trying to get to a school bus. No difference there. I have theories and won't discuss them here.
craigjjs
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:56 a.m.
A driver cannot have her license suspended unless she has actually been charged with a crime (perhaps with DUI being an exception).
grimmk
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 10:23 a.m.
Wait. They have YET to interview the driver?! Are you kidding me?! This is outrageous! This person should have been the first person to interview. I bet if they had they would not let this person drive!
Youwhine
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:24 p.m.
Chapmaja: Actually, you are incorrect. I believe you meant to say if a person is arrested under SUSPICION of DUI. In Michigan, this is called OWI. Simply being arrested for it does not cause you to lose your license. You are arrested, processed, held until you sober up and/or see a judge and then you are released. You are then still free to drive all you want. In fact, the police issue you a new paper driver's license when you are arrested for OWI. If you refuse the breath test at the station, then you lose your driving priveleges until the Secretary of State decides to give it back. The only ones who can decide whether or not you drive are the Secretary of State, or a judge who may impose conditions of bond/release/ sentancing. A basic understanding of the criminal justice system will show you that the police are not the judge, jury, or prosecutors in the U.S. They only investigate and enforce violations of criminal law. They do not get to impose punishments prior to charges being filed. They do not get to pick and choose who keeps their license. Those of you stating the police should not allow her to drive (author of the article included) seem to have no clue of how the judicial process works or are engaging in knee-jerk sensationalism. As far as those outraged that the police have not interviewed the suspect, I would suggest that you a) read the article to see that she declined to be interviewed and then b) check in to the real world and realize that the police can not MAKE somebody talk. They can't even MAKE you or your lawyer come to the police station unless they plan to arrest you and take you into custody. Even if they do that, what makes you people think that the suspect will want to talk and/or tell the truth? Sadly, investigation of crimes take a while. It would seem that the author of this article, and a2.com, simply want to engage in a little sensationalism which only serves to rile up those who have no idea how the world works.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:38 p.m.
Interestingly, because of a recent Supreme Court ruling, her refusing to be interviewed can possibly be admissible in court as evidence of her guilt, i.e. why would she refuse an interview if she isn't guilty? I don't like that ruling but that is the law these days.
Joe Kidd
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:19 p.m.
Chap, these are completely different types of incidents that can lead to prosecution. The DUI laws have those provisions in the law, suspension of license. However it does require significant evidence/facts, a breath test (usually two, PBT and breathalyzer). With this incident it will all come down to witness accounts unless the driver agrees to some charge negotiated by her attorney. I agree completely with you Dipstick. It is somewhat scary to me how people lack this understanding of how our systems works.
chapmaja
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:59 p.m.
Dipstick, Depending on the crime, a person can lose their driving privileges if they are charged with a crime. If you are arrested under the suspension of DUI, you lose your license immediately. If you fail to take a breathe test, you lose it immediately. Remember driving is not a Right, it is a privilege in this country. You have certain responsibilities to maintain that privilege. The question is what do the laws about hitting a pedestrian say about the lose of this privilege?
craigjjs
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:51 a.m.
Bcar - The article states that her attorney cancelled the interview scheduled for the day after the collision. She already had a lawyer.
Bcar
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:11 a.m.
She was probably SMART and decided to wait for an attorney to be present.
Dipstick
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 10:47 a.m.
What I don't understand is why do people know so little about the law and the justice system in the USA? The police can't just "interview" her. Even if they do, they don't have the right to stop here from driving.
klatte
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 10:12 a.m.
They still haven't interviewed her? That is inconceivable and easily remedied. I can see the thing the next day being a problem for some reason, but what about all of the days since?
Leon Lapham
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 5:33 p.m.
are you people aware of your right to remain silent-- it is up to police to advance their theory... you are free to dispute it, but by doing so-- one waives all rights to remain silent
Woman in Ypsilanti
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:14 p.m.
@Joe Kidd. Well Dipstick doesn't seem aware of the recent supreme court ruling (Salinas v Texas I think). As this driver has not yet been charged with a crime, she actually does NOT have a 5th amendment right to refuse to be interviewed.
Joe Kidd
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:05 p.m.
Of the three opinions here, only Dipstick seems to understand the US Constitution gives a person the right to remain silent. Bring her in with her attorney or call the attorney on the phone you may get the same result, no statement. There likely will never be an interview. I am troubled about the delay here. There should be more than one investigator who could walk this to WCPO.
Pizzicato
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11 a.m.
@Dipstick: I agree with this right. So, let's bring her and her lawyer in for questioning.
Dipstick
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 10:21 a.m.
I'm sure on the advice of her lawyer she declined to speak to the police as is her right under the US constitution. You may not agree with this.