This morning at 9:30, amid the late-session bustle, there will be a press conference in the State House rotunda regarding national Victim’s Rights Week. Lawmakers would do well to stop by, to hear what the advocates for the victims of violent crime, sexual and domestic abuse, and drunk driving have to say. To think one more time about Adam Wilson.

Adam Wilson was 9 years old back on the evening of June 10, 1995, when he was struck by a speeding car while riding his bike along a country road in South Thomaston. He suffered severe head injuries and spent five months in the hospital. He suffers still from disabilities, his parents, Kenneth and Theresa, are buried under debt from medical expenses.

An accident, an unfortunate tragedy, but for this: the speeding driver, Michael Fitzgerald, had been in the custody of Rockport police just 90 minutes earlier. He and a couple of buddies had been caught sitting in a parked car that reeked of marijuana smoke. Marijuana was found in the car. So was open beer — one bottle was wedged between Fitzgerald’s seat and the door. A half-empty bottle of whisky was on the front seat.

Despite strong circumstantial evidence of potential intoxication, the two Rockport reserve police officers on duty performed no field sobriety tests on Fitzgerald. They had not been trained to perform such tests, their department had no policies about administering such tests. Instead, they had Fitzgerald drive himself to the police station, where he was issued two tickets — one for marijuana possession, one for furnishing alcohol to a minor — and sent on his way. On his way to a catastrophic meeting with Adam Wilson.

This is of concern to the Legislature because the question of whether Rockport was negligent in preparing its officers will remain unanswered unless the Wilsons get their day in court. And they will not get that unless lawmakers remove the immunity shield Rockport enjoys under the Maine Tort Claims Act.

The bill to give the Wilsons access to the courts, L.D. 1945, has a curious history. It initially had a slim margin of approval from the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee. After a weekend of deep thought, or perhaps intense lobbying, the committee changed its mind and now recommends against it.

This is an important matter that must not be dismissed by concerns, as expressed by some committee members who changed their votes, about not wanting to second-guess the immunity shield law. Maine has a very restrictive tort claims act, its government entities enjoy a high level of protection from litigation. The height of the bar that must be cleared before a town, a county or the state can be sued must not be used as a blanket excuse for denying citizens access to the courts; the restrictiveness of the law is the very reason lawmakers must consider each case thoroughly. Rockport should not be immune because towns usually are immune. Rockport should be immune only if the Legislature, after full consideration of the facts, determines that Rockport had the training and policies in place that make it deserving of immunity. There is no indication that the committee had that discussion.

It’s also important because Maine prides itself on strong local control; home rule rules. If communities want to make law-enforcement training and policy decisions for themselves, they must be held accountable for those decisions. The flip side of local control must be local responsibility. If passage of this bill would set a precedent, it is a precedent that ought to be set.

Finally, Maine boasts of having one of the toughest drunk-driving laws in the nation. That law does little good if possible drunk drivers are not tested, if possible drug-impaired drivers are handed tickets — along with their car keys. The passage of LD 1945 will do more than give the Wilson family its day in court — it will send to a message to all police departments in the state that public safety is more imnportant than municipal immunity.