This site is a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech. We believe this site increases the availability of information, encourages healthy debate, and makes possible new connections between people.
While reporting on topics, we will ask the questions some newspapers don't. We will print the questions that some newspapers won't.
All sources of information are confidential.


Email The Fact of The Matter at:

tfotmwestfield@gmail.com


Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Westfield Firefighter Pleads Guilty to Downgraded Charge from D.U.I.

     The heavy handed conduct of Westfield Police Chief David Wayman convinced the Clark prosecutor to recuse himself from a recent trial that saw a Westfield Firefighter plead guilty to a lesser charge of Reckless Driving, downgraded from D.U.I.
     The Clark prosecutors recusal required the Westfield prosecutor to prosecute the case.
     There was a motion to suppress evidence, by the defense. Westfield Police Chief Wayman was allegedly afraid the prosecutor from Clark would not pursue the case as vigorously as Wayman would have liked.
     It would seem that the actions of Westfield Police Chief Wayman, to rally support for his subordinates, the arresting officers involved in the case, in the face of a motion to suppress evidence allegedly illegally obtained, resulted in convincing the Clark prosecutor to withdraw from the case leaving the prosecutor from Westfield in the unenviable position of having to downgrade a D.U.I. To Reckless Driving.
     It would seem that motions to suppress evidence obtained by the Westfield Police Department are treated more seriously in Clark Municipal Court than Chief Wayman is used to.
     This is the second time the W.P.D has had it's hand slapped in Clark by a judge who knows the law.
   

11 comments:

  1. This is a bit confusing. Why were Wayman or his officers involved if the DWI was in Clark. At least I assume it was in Clark if the Clark prosecutor was initially involved. How does Wayman have the pull to cause the Clark prosecutor to withdraw?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Anonymous above about this whole story. Can you please simplify what happened? I am very confused about the chain of events written above. I would think that a person getting pulled over and ticketed by police would simply be dealt with by that municipality's police/court system. I really don't understand how/why the WPD could be involved in this at all and what their motives might be to help or not help the driver/firefighter in question.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A source has confirmed that the motor vehicle stop and subsequent arrest for D.U.I. occurred in Westfield. Due to the fact that the defendant is a Westfield firefighter, a conflict of interest arose and the case was moved to Clark Municipal Court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.

      Delete
  4. Wayman was doing Fire Chief Dan Kelly and Administrator Jim Gildea's dirty work trying to get the firefighter fired. It all backfired in their face because Wayman is a bafoon and Kelly and Gildea are bigger bafoons to think Wayman could pull it off. Someone should look into Wayman trying to influence the Clark prosecutor.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cronyism lives and thrives in Westfield.....

    ReplyDelete
  6. So this firefighter who was arrested for DUI will be routinely driving our brand new million dollar fire truck?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maybe he got set up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't put it past FD Kelly, PD Wayman, and POS Gildea to do that.

      Delete
  8. How can a DUI be pleaded down? Am I correct in assuming he either refused the test or the test showed he was over the legal limit ?

    ReplyDelete
  9. A plea bargain allows the defendant to plead guilty to a downgraded offense while the prosecution is still able to achieve a conviction. TFoTM has learned that the gathering of evidence in this case was allegedly tainted by the WPD which caused the defense to file a motion to suppress the allegedly llegally obtained evidence against the firefighter.

    ReplyDelete