Investigation into the November 10, 2007 Death of Ann-Marie McNally July 16, 2008 Police Commissioner Edward Davis 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 Dear Commissioner Davis: The Suffolk County District Attorney's Office has concluded its investigation into the November 10, 2007 fatal motor vehicle collision involving a Boston Police cruiser operated by Officer Jesse Stots and a vehicle operated by Ann-Marie McNally at the intersection of D Street and West Broadway in South Boston. That collision, which occurred as Officer Stots was responding to an emergency call, resulted in the death of Ms. McNally. The death of Ann-Marie McNally was a tragedy in the truest sense of the word. She was killed violently and unexpectedly doing what most citizens do everyday--traveling in her car on the street near her home in South Boston. The collision occurred in the middle of the day and was not the result of mechanical error or weather conditions. In what can only be described as a tragic irony, Ms. McNally was killed when struck by a police car operated by an officer sworn to protect her and all citizens of Boston, an officer who was responding to an emergency call to assist other officers in trouble. From meeting Ms. McNally's family, it is clear to me that she was a woman full of love and promise who cared greatly for others. Her tragic death left a void in the lives of all who knew her. We issue these findings fully and sadly cognizant that no investigation, however thorough, and no findings, however detailed, can ever restore the loss that befell the McNally family on the day of Ann-Marie's death. As you know, the District Attorney's Office, by statute, has the duty and authority to oversee all death investigations within the City of Boston. As such, the primary goal of our investigation was to determine if any person bears criminal responsibility in connection with Ms. McNally's death. Pursuant to the same statute, I designated the State Police Detective Unit assigned to my office, under the direction of Detective Lieutenant William Christiansen to conduct a full and thorough investigation, including the initial on-scene response. This investigation was conducted in conjunction with senior attorneys of my staff, specializing in the prosecution of motor vehicle fatality cases. Our investigation consisted of numerous witness interviews, a review of crash reconstruction and scientific data and conclusions, physical evidence from the scene, medical and autopsy reports, and expert examination of the two vehicles involved in the collision. Based upon our comprehensive review of the relevant evidence and facts, and for the reasons stated below, the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office has concluded that it will not pursue any criminal charges in connection with this case. Our findings are as follows. On November 10, 2007 at approximately 1:00 PM, Boston Police Officer Jesse Stots was on-duty at the intersection of D Street and Cypher Street in South Boston when he monitored a police radio transmission for an officer in need of assistance at Orton Marotta Way. Stots immediately responded in his assigned police cruiser. With full lights and siren activated and traveling in excess of the posted speed limit, Stots traveled onto D Street headed towards Old Colony Avenue. By the time Officer Stots approached the intersection of D Street and West Broadway, he was traveling at an estimated 51 miles per hour. The posted speed limit in this area is 30 miles per hour. As Stots entered the intersection, his vehicle struck the car driven by Ann-Marie McNally, who had also entered the same intersection while traveling east on West Broadway. Stots' police cruiser struck Ms. McNally's driver's side door and the impact drove her vehicle diagonally across the intersection into a light pole, and ultimately, a building on the opposite corner. Ms. McNally was killed as a result of the impact. At the time of the collision neither alcohol nor drugs had been used by either driver. In addition, our investigation determined that Ms. McNally was not responsible for causing the collision by any improper or negligent conduct. Any movement of her car by Ms. McNally into or out of the intersection was done with the intent to comply with the law and to avoid a collision with Officer Stots' cruiser as it approached at a high rate of speed. At all times, Ms. McNally acted cautiously and reasonably and bears no responsibility for the collision. A primary factual question is whether the color of the traffic signal was red or green when Officer Stots entered the intersection of D Street and West Broadway. On this crucial point, our investigation uncovered conflicting accounts. Officer Stots stated that prior to reaching the intersection of D Street and West Broadway, he began to slow down because he saw that the signal at the intersection was red. Upon seeing the signal change to green, however, he continued into the intersection at the speed he had been traveling. The only other witness who indicated that he observed the color of the traffic signal at the time of the collision provided a different account. This witness stated that he was traveling in the same direction in front of Ms. McNally shortly before the impact at the intersection, pulled over and witnessed the police cruiser traveling on D Street at a high rate of speed and colliding with Ms. McNally's car at the intersection. This witness account suggests that at the time of the collision the signal was green for Ms. McNally. Although conflicting, the accounts offered by Officer Stots and this witness are the most comprehensive versions of the incident. Neither account could be sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence. Numerous other witnesses who observed different portions of the collision were unable to offer definitive accounts as to which vehicle had the green - or red - signal. Boston Police officers who respond to emergency situations within the city of Boston are guided by the Massachusetts General Laws, which are incorporated by reference in the Boston Police Department Rules and Procedures Manual, which in part provide as follows: The driver of a vehicle of a fire, police or recognized protective department, and the driver of an ambulance shall be subject to the provisions of any statute, rule, regulation, ordinance, or by-law relating to the operation or parking of vehicles, except that a driver of a police or recognized protective department or the driver of an ambulance, in an emergency and while in performance of a public duty or while transporting a sick or injured person to a hospital or other destination where professional medical services are available, may drive such vehicle at a speed in excess of the applicable speed limit if he exercises caution and due regard under the circumstances for the safety of persons and property, and may drive such vehicle through an intersection of ways contrary to any traffic signs or signals regulating traffic at such intersection if he first brings such vehicle to a full stop and then proceeds with caution and due regard for the safety of persons and property, unless otherwise directed by a police officer regulating traffic at such intersection. GL c. 89 § 7B; Boston Police Department Rules and Procedures, 302. An element in establishing the crime of Motor Vehicle Homicide is proof of negligence on the part of the driver. After considering the factual and legal issues presented, it is our conclusion that evidence is insufficient to prove negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. Our analysis took into account the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct of Officer Stots, including his intent and his duty to respond in this situation. Officer Stots was acting in good faith in responding to an emergency call at an increased rate of speed. As noted above, conclusive evidence is lacking on the very issue of whether Officer Stots had a red signal. Moreover, even if the Commonwealth could prove that Officer Stots had a red signal and failed to stop, the case law in our Commonwealth states that the failure of a police officer to stop at a red signal while responding to an emergency does not necessarily constitute negligence. Hence, under all of the circumstances, the Commonwealth would not sustain its burden of proof in a criminal prosecution. Notwithstanding our conclusion that the Commonwealth could not sustain the burden of proving the crime of Motor Vehicle Homicide beyond a reasonable doubt, I am deeply troubled by this case and conclude that it was an unnecessary and avoidable tragedy. It is largely undisputed that Officer Stots, regardless of whether he faced a green or red signal, drove through an intersection at 51 miles per hour without any evidence of braking or slowing down. Even if it were established that his signal was green, Stots' failure to slow his vehicle as he entered the intersection represents a serious lapse in judgment. The conduct of Officer Stots raises serious concerns about the manner in which police officers respond to emergency calls in the City of Boston. This investigation highlights a serious and ongoing public safety issue that, as demonstrated by this case, needs to be addressed by the Boston Police Department. Police officers must respond quickly and adequately to emergency situations. An officer's response, however, should never create a risk of danger to the public that is greater than the danger necessitating the response. I urge the Boston Police Department, under your leadership and direction, to review all policies related to emergency call responses to ensure the safety of innocent motorists and pedestrians traveling our city streets. Perhaps most importantly, the Department also must address the practices and habits of responding officers who drive police vehicles at increased rates of speed. Department policies must ensure the safety of the public, and officers in practice and habit must adhere to those policies. The Department's review should consider all aspects of reasonable emergency response and safe driving practices, including academy training, repeated in-service training, driving speeds, stopping at red lights and stop signs, travel through intersections, communication among police units and dispatchers, the role of supervisors in determining and monitoring responses, the use of technology in police vehicles (including the installation of dashboard cameras in cruisers), and a process for monitoring compliance and accountability. It is certainly a challenging task for the Department leadership to reassess policies and reassert a culture and practice that promotes rapid but safe responses. But as this case demonstrates, that task must be undertaken in order to avert further tragedies. No police officer should believe that an emergency response suspends the rules of safe driving or good judgment. No police officer should believe that an emergency response relieves him from considering and protecting the safety of unsuspecting motorists and pedestrians. Based upon the foregoing, the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office concludes that criminal charges are not warranted against Officer Jesse Stots in connection with his conduct in this matter. I recommend, however, that the Department seek appropriate internal discipline relative to Officer Stots' conduct. On behalf of the McNally family, I also request that you keep them apprised of and involved in any action you take relative to internal discipline and/or changes in department policies and procedures resulting from this case. I am hopeful that your department will take this opportunity to ensure that a similar tragedy does not occur in the future, and that no other family has to suffer the tragic, devastating and avoidable loss suffered by the family of Ann-Marie McNally. Sincerely, Daniel F. Conley Suffolk County District Attorney Return to the Press Releases page.