Sandra Doorley is being investigated and is calling for her resignation after a traffic accident. Where things are

Two weeks after Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley’s speeding ticket — and the subsequent viral video of her argument with a Webster police officer — there are multiple investigations and ongoing calls for Doorley’s resignation.

Doorley apologized in a video, an interview with WHEC-TV (Channel 10) and a column in the Democrat and Chronicle. But what will matter most is the continued investigation spurred by her refusal to initially stop when the officer turned on the lights and siren, and her combative attitude toward him when she actually stopped at her home and he her issued a ticket.

So what happens now? Here is an overview with some questions that can be answered and others that remain unanswered.

Who is investigating?

Currently, the state’s newly created Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct is expected to investigate, as well as an attorney grievance board and Monroe County ethics regulators.

Doorley’s office also referred the matter to the Onondaga District Attorney’s Office for review. However, this office determined that the incident was properly submitted to the investigative commission of the prosecutor’s office.

The Onondaga District Attorney’s Office did not act as a special prosecutor, but rather considered whether there were criminal opportunities that should be investigated. Possible crimes would still have required the election of a special prosecutor from outside the county.

Is there a criminal investigation?

The ethics-based investigation is likely more significant, but there remain many questions about whether Doorley committed any crimes in addition to the speeding violation and how they would be investigated.

In short, there is no criminal investigation, nor have there been any clear crimes related to Doorley’s actions, according to conversations with several criminal defense attorneys.

First, Doorley exceeded the speed limit by 20 mph – 55 mph in a 35 mph section – and a felony of fleeing a police officer requires a speed of at least 25 mph over the speed limit to indicate reckless driving.

Doorley said she called the Webster police chief from her car to alert him that she planned to drive to her nearby home from Phillips Road, where the officer had pulled her over at a high rate of speed. She said she wanted Chief Dennis Kohlmeier to alert Officer Cameron Crisafulli that she was not a threat.

Kohlmeier did not discuss the phone call. He released a statement praising Crisafulli’s professionalism, but the chief did not address the call with Doorley in the statement.

“Due to the ongoing investigation, further comment is inappropriate,” Kohlmeier said in the statement.

Did she illegally “obstruct” the police?

What about the crime of “obstructing government administration,” a charge often leveled against those accused of interfering with investigations? Critics of local policing say the accusation is sometimes unfairly used when a person is viewed as rude to police who may just annoy the officer.

For example, over a decade ago, local activist Emily Good was accused of the crime when she used her phone to film the police interrogation of a black man in Rochester. This case, like Doorley’s, became national news.

Good was charged with obstruction because police claimed she hindered the apprehension. Prosecutors later dropped the charges.

An obstruction offense occurs when a person “prevents or attempts to prevent a public official from carrying out an official function,” one of which, according to the law, is the use of “intimidation, physical force or interference.”

When meeting Crisafulli, Doorley emphasized that she was the prosecutor, which could potentially be a form of “intimidation.” But she ultimately accepted the ticket and pleaded guilty to the violation.

Doorley also called the officer an “a–hole.” Oddly enough, just a few months earlier, a federal appeals court ruled that the public could criticize the police, even if it included profanity.

In this case, a Buffalo officer charged a man with a noise ordinance violation after the man yelled at the officer, “Put the lights on, a–hole.” The officer was reportedly driving with his lights off and would have almost hit a pedestrian.

“Terrible enough in itself”

Doorley’s guilty plea raises a whole other issue that some lawyers have been talking about. This issue: Did Doorley’s quick admission to speeding block the possibility of further charges?

This brings with it the legal guarantee against “double jeopardy,” namely double jeopardy for the same crime. Some have suggested that by admitting guilt, Doorley managed to prevent any investigation into possible crimes.

Local attorney Ed Fiandach, known nationally for his defense in suspected drunk driving cases, said a prosecution could still occur because the crimes were “different offenses” under the law. The differences between the speeding offense and possible felonies would be so great that other charges would be possible, he said.

Still, Fiandach said, he doesn’t see a clearly applicable crime in the incident. On the one hand, he said that the incident had run its course and Doorley had paid a public price for it.

“It was one of those things where the event itself was terrible enough,” he said.

The ethical questions

This could be a bigger dilemma for Doorley, who has reported herself and her behavior to a lawyer’s grievance panel. While blaming Crisafulli, she told Crisafulli that as a prosecutor she would simply prosecute the speeding incident herself.

Doorley will certainly say that she had no intention of continuing like this and that her comments were made in heated banter. And the Grievance Committee may impose disciplinary action, which includes written reprimands, suspension, or loss of license.

In the meantime, Doorley’s case will likely be one of the first to be reviewed by the state Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct. Gov. Kathy Hochul referred the incident to the commission.

“We all know that prosecutors are the most powerful players in the criminal justice system and that they need to be held accountable just like people in other professions need to be held accountable,” said Bill Bastuk, an Irondequoit resident who has advocated that the Commission does not do this is toothless.

Bastuk was accused of raping a teenage girl and acquitted 15 years ago in a trial in which the alleged victim’s honesty became a central theme. Since his acquittal, Bastuk has worked to combat prosecutorial misconduct and founded a nonprofit organization called It Could Happen to You.

Bastuk said he couldn’t imagine a scenario in which the commission found no wrongdoing in Doorley’s actions.

“You just can’t get away with pushing an officer like that into rank by calling the chief, and that’s obviously what she was trying to do,” he said. “There must be some references.”

The New York Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers called for Doorley’s resignation last week.

“It is the nature of a district attorney’s responsibility that fidelity to his professional and ethical duties is essentially self-regulatory,” the association said in a statement. “But when, as here, a district attorney engages in such blatantly unethical and unprofessional behavior, there is no longer any basis for public confidence in the district attorney’s ability to police her own conduct.”

Possible conflicting ethics cases?

Doorley’s case has the potential to become a test not only for the DA’s new conduct commission, but also for its relationship with the attorneys’ grievance committees. Under the law, the commission can recommend a penalty, but the appeal committee still decides whether that penalty is appropriate.

For the commission to have the power to hand out penalties, voter approval of a constitutional amendment would be required.

“If we see a pattern where the grievance committees ignore recommendations for punishment, sanctions or accountability, then we will advocate for constitutional amendment,” Bastuk said.

Doorley could decide to simply leave the investigation to the commission.

“We would like to see Sandra withdraw her request for a Complaints Committee investigation and leave the matter to the commission,” Bastuk said.

The county Ethics Commission and the Office of Public Integrity are also investigating the incident.

The county’s code of ethics says officials should not use their official positions “to use or attempt to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions.” The Ethics Committee can recommend the governor’s removal from office.

(Includes reporting by Journal News reporter Asher Stockler)

This article originally appeared on the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: Sandra Doorley faces investigation and calls for her resignation. Where things are