Maryland's AG ordered troopers to speed for him
ANNAPOLIS — Maryland's attorney general ordered troopers to drive him around with lights and sirens on, and to speed and run red lights on the way to appointments, according to written reports by state police officials.
Documents obtained by The Washington Post showed Doug Gansler directed troopers to bypass traffic jams by driving on the shoulder. In one case, police said Gansler insisted on driving himself, running red lights with sirens blaring.
Gansler is now a Democratic candidate for governor. His campaign released a statement on Sunday after the police reports and memos were made public and said the accusations were part of a political attack.
“The picture being painted by these documents is not an accurate reflection of reality,” Gansler's statement said.
At one point, Gov. Martin O'Malley was briefed and authorized police to take whatever action they deemed necessary, including revoking Gansler's transportation services, the newspaper reported.
O'Malley has since endorsed Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, Gansler's opponent in the Democratic primary for governor on June 24.
Gansler was elected attorney general in 2006. The tension between him and state troopers lasted for at least five years, according to a December 2011 memo by Lt. Charles Ardolini, the commander of the state police executive protection section.
“This extremely irresponsible behavior is non-stop and occurs on a daily basis,” Ardolini wrote in the memo.
Ardolini's memo said Gansler insisted on driving with lights and sirens to breakfast meetings and to his children's sporting events.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.