Rousso Charged with Reckless Homicide, Aggravated DUI; Bond Set at $500K

The Lake County State's Attorney's Office has charged the 18-year-old who drove into a family on Labor Day, killing a 5-year-old girl, with four counts of aggravated driving under the influence and one count of reckless homicide.

The 18-year-old who , , was charged with one count of reckless homicide and four counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicating compound on Wednesday morning, according to the Lake County State's Attorney's office.

Carly Rousso surrendered herself before Judge Raymond Collins Wednesday morning, where her bond was set at $500,000. Her bail was posted shortly after. As of 3 p.m. on Wednesday, Rousso was still in processing, but was set to be released Wednesday evening under the same .

On Monday, Sept. 3, at 2:31 p.m., Highland Park police responded to a crash. Investigation revealed that Rousso had driven a Lexus coupe onto the sidewalk on the 700 block of Central Avenue and into , her mother and two brothers. Jaclyn was killed, and her mother and brothers sustained injuries. 

Toxicology reports indicate that the compound Difluoroethane was detected in Rousso's blood, which is found in a commercial cleaning product uncovered in Rousso's car.

Rousso's charges come as a result of a joint investigation by the and the Major Crash Assistance Team (MCAT). The investigation revealed that Rousso was driving eastbound on Central Avenue when she veered across multiple lanes of traffic and onto the sidewalk, striking and her three children.

Rousso was cited for driving under the influence shortly after the crash, at which time she submitted blood and urine samples. Police told Patch earlier this week that Rousso .

"We are investigating the use of huffing agents or huffing materials with relation to this," Deputy Chief of Support Services George Pfutzenreuter told Patch on Monday.

Aggravated driving under the influence is a class two felony that can lead to a prison sentence of three to 14 years. Reckless homicide is a class three felony that can lead to probation or up to five years in prison, .

Jaclyn's . About a hundered people attended the funeral mass, including , and .

During the bilingual service at Saint James Parish in Highwood, Rev. Thomas Baldonieri called Jaclyn "a joyful child" who enjoyed dressing in pink, like a princess.

"Jaclyn was born and received into loving hands and hearts," Baldonieri said. "Even now, we see just how many people are touched by Jaclyn's life and tragic death, even those who never met her."

Rousso's next court date is on Oct. 9 at 10:30 a.m.

For more news and updates, "like" us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

David Greenberg September 16, 2012 at 08:34 PM
Relax. Again Benny, I do understand the issues fought by addicts. It's a life-long battle that they engage in, and yes, they do have to want to stop. Some of it has to do with brain chemistry/structure, DNA, and some has to do with past experiences. I never claimed that it'd be possible to "cure" an addict by giving them some drinks before they were 21. I stated that expecting persons to act responsibly when using a substance after they're 21 requires some experience beforehand, and the way they get that experience is under the supervision and direction of a parent/guardian. Obviously this doesn't apply to those who are pre-disposed to addiction or who have a familial history of substance abuse.
David Greenberg September 16, 2012 at 08:39 PM
I agree Huffing is a serious addiction. Before "dust off" it was spray paint, or paint thinner, or whatever they could get their hands on. There's many reasons for the abuse, but look at one of the root causes - the inability to get a different, less injurious substance. Arguably, marijuana is one of those less injurious substances - no one's ever overdosed and died on marijuana because humans fall asleep long before they even get close to the LD50. Contrast with paint thinner or some other inhalant - they can cause, and have caused, death pretty quickly. They also have deleterious effects from long-term use. If you don't want kids to abuse drugs or other substances, you need to talk to them. Find out what the reason(s) is/are for using the substances, and go from there.
David Greenberg September 16, 2012 at 08:44 PM
Benny - there was nothing funny intended about my comment, and taking portions of it out of context is ignorant. People who are depressed get therapy, take medication, work to get better, and don't drive high - that's 100% serious, nothing is uninformed either - it's a fact. And again, I DO understand the addictive personality traits. There's nothing wrong with attempting to understand an individual's personality or make sense of it - it's not ignorant, and psychologists/psychiatrists do it every day.
David Greenberg September 16, 2012 at 08:48 PM
Peer pressure? Inability to obtain some other substance that isn't instantly addictive? Ready availability of cash for purchases? Disbelief that they'll become addicted because they grew up in a "good neighborhood"? Bad dose? Too strong of a dose? Some adulterant in the dose? Or any of the others you mentioned. I agree with you about the legal system - it doesn't do anything to address the root causes, just the actions. Other countries have addressed the root causes and provided treatment rather than incarceration, and they've had great success with many (but not all) users. Given that we've been fooling around and wasting money on this War on Some Drugs for decades, it certainly couldn't hurt to try a different approach.
David Greenberg September 16, 2012 at 08:54 PM
Benny - I don't know what you misunderstood, but to help clarify: * Alcohol was prohibited. That prohibition created lots of crime - black markets, and people used alcohol despite the law. Bad booze was made sometimes, and it made people go blind or killed them. We repealed the prohibition - now we regulate and tax alcohol, and things have largely gotten better. Are some people still addicted? Sure. Do some people still do stupid things? Sure. You're never going to get rid of all the problems. We tried - and it didn't work. * The war on some drugs is quite similar to the war we had on alcohol. Only we haven't repealed the prohibitions yet. So we have black markets, overflowing jails/prisons, gazillions of dollars spent on enforcement that doesn't work, cartels digging tunnels/building submarines to bring in the substances. People who are addicted can't really get the help they need unless they fund it themselves. People sometimes die from certain substances due to variability in potency or adulterants. Other countries have decriminalized, and they have less issues. Again, a full discussion can't take place in 1500 characters. * With regard to alcohol - we used to let kids drink when they were 18. We used to allow them to have alcohol at home with their parents. Then "zero tolerance" came on the scene and it's made the problems WORSE. Got it now?
Benny G. September 16, 2012 at 09:00 PM
David, why are you bringing examples of non addicted, non predisposed people when the subject matter of Carly Rousso is apparent that she is an addicted person most likely. It makes your discussion moot and non- sequitor at best. No one cares about your views on drugs and alcohol as they relate to non- addicted people. Those views have no bearing on this incident.
Benny G. September 16, 2012 at 09:03 PM
How can you say I took your views out of context? I quoted them verbatim cut and paste. The other thing David does when he gets challenged is to "over write" his words. You use big words to mask your lack of any real depth and understanding. I find it quite humorous. Sorry for the ad hominem remarks but it is just all too easy.
David Greenberg September 16, 2012 at 09:05 PM
Benny-Chill out with the melodrama, calling me a putz isn't going to get me mad at you and only makes you look like a fool because I've never done anything to you to warrant your anger toward me. I'd prefer to have a civil conversation. I know precisely when MADD was founded. Over that timeframe, they've been pushing and pushing and pushing for harsher and harsher laws and it's only relatively recently that "Zero Tolerance" has been implemented (and not just by MADD). I've NEVER said that people should drive intoxicated. What I've said about "zero tolerance" and alcohol is that it's caused issues with people because we have "ZERO TOLERANCE!!!!!!" (finger wag) for people under 21 imbibing any amount of alcohol, and then somehow we expect them to know how to drink responsibly when they turn 21. It's insane (and again Benny, I've never advocated giving addicts or those predisposed to addiction intoxicants). I've never discussed pills so I don't know why you think I did. Personally I believe that you take the pills that are prescribed for you by a Dr. and nothing else. I agree that Rx abuse is pretty bad too. Finally, in 1500 characters it's difficult to get into a discussion of "zero tolerance"-but here's an example of Zero Tolerance that's just crazy: "Elementary School has a ZT policy against firearms. Kids are playing 'cops n robbers' in the playground, one kid makes the shape of a gun with his fingers - and is brought up for expulsion." Now that's insane.
Benny G. September 16, 2012 at 09:06 PM
Yes David, I understand how it's all broken regarding prohibition, taxing it and zero tolerance. It is an epidemic and will remain so. You are pointing out the obvious like you have arrived at the Theory of Relativity. Spare us please.
David Greenberg September 16, 2012 at 09:21 PM
David Said: ""I could care less if Carly was adopted - lots of people are adopted and don't go out and drive high. Lots of people get mauled by all kinds of animals - they don't go out and drive high. Lots of people are depressed - they get therapy, take some pills, work to get better - they don't drive high. Benny said: "Take some pills".....This is just funny and so uninformed." Commenting on one portion "take some pills", calling it funny and uninformed was taking it out of context. What is it that you believe I don't understand? Or that I haven't explored deeply enough?
David Greenberg September 16, 2012 at 09:30 PM
The points I've made are not irrelevant and are do follow the argument that I was making which is that the war on some drugs, and zero tolerance of alcohol have created many more problems than they've solved. We don't know all the aspects of Ms. Russo's personality or birth-family history, so maybe there's a predisposition of addiction, maybe not. Was she sent to "rehab"? Sure. But there's many reasons why she may have ended up there to begin with, and being an addict is one possibility - but what triggered the abuse is perhaps another. The bearing on this incident is that the War on Some Drugs has attempted to restrict marijuana greatly. Tests have been developed. And it likely drove her to a different substance - with greater effects. Ms. Russo may have been using marijuana to deal with some issues she was experiencing or maybe just because she enjoyed the effects. Regardless, the illegality of the substance got her into trouble, she was sent to rehab, and knew testing would pick up future use. She likely still had the underlying issues disturbing her, so she turned to a different substance - one which wasn't so easily tested for, chose to use the substance in a vehicle, and tragedy ensued.
David Greenberg September 16, 2012 at 09:32 PM
Sometimes the obvious isn't so obvious for some people. I'd argue that many people in this Country have had their heads in the sand with regard to the War on Some Drugs, and recent discourse on that issue - legalization by States, etc. has helped to illuminate some of the abuses and problems that have arisen as a result of the "War".
Benny G. September 16, 2012 at 10:02 PM
David Greenberg said: "The points I've made are not irrelevant and are do follow the argument that I was making which is that the war on some drugs, and zero tolerance of alcohol have created many more problems than they've solved." STRONGLY DISAGREE. You are delusional. Since this will remain the law of the land we will really never know so for you to say it is easy with no accountability. You are a typical liberal flap jaw boob with little common sense. So your argument is now that since she couldn't get her hands on weed so she went to Dust Off...Again, DELUSIONAL. That is the fault of the war on drugs. Are you reading this David. Think about what you are writing dude. It's Highland Park, Illinois. The dealers know it and flood the market with anything you want to get your hands on. Yes, Dust Off is easy but give me a break.
Benny G. September 16, 2012 at 10:08 PM
David, when you say weed is not lethal please qualify it by saying it is not lethal for non-addicts. Yes, alcoholism and drug addiction is probably inherited. The joke in AA is that if there were no Irish Catholics there would be no AA. We know that addiction crosses all races creeds and colors and that there is a strong likelihood of genes being involved for sure and it effects roughly 10% of the population. We ALL know someone that is effected. The reality is we are closer to curing cancer than solving drug addiction and alcoholism. Let me point something else out. Rousso was huffing, she had it in her system. There is no such thing as recreational huffing. She is an ADDICT in my opinion. Addicts take drugs so they do not feel. They do not want to feel. We have a vehicle on Mars with 150 cameras beaming pics down to us on earth but in 77 years the best we have on alcoholism is a 12 step spiritual answer. To say its the fault of the war on drugs is truly imbecilic...David.
Benny G. September 16, 2012 at 10:10 PM
If it wasn't Dust Off it would have been something else. These actions are really more suicidal than homicidal. Inhalants melt your brain quickly. They cause heart attacks and death. So many deaths caused from inhalants. They are really suicides....all caused by the War of Drugs according to David Greenberg--AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAH
Benny G. September 16, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Alcoholism- Little or no control when drinking and when the drinker wants to stop they cannot. Once they pick up a drink they start an allergy which develops into the phenomenon of craving where they cannot stop. That's the bodily part. The mental, emotional spiritual malady is the second part. It is a two fold disease. Drug addiction is a kindred spirit to the above. This is the best we have, unchanged in 77 years per Alcoholics Anonymous. David Greenberg's going to solve the malady by blaming the War on Drugs- AGHGAHGSHGAGHAGAGAHAGAGGAAHGSGHHAHGSGHAHAHSAGGSHAHAH
David Greenberg September 17, 2012 at 06:06 PM
Benny, calling me a liberal has me ROTFLMAO - everyone who knows me, knows that I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. It's entirely possible that Ms. Russo went on to another substance such as DustOff, not because she couldn't acquire marijuana, but because she would be tested for it. And perhaps the main reason she'd be tested for it is because the War on Some Drugs made it illegal. Granted that it ought to be illegal for those under 18, but right now - it's the Drug War that's created many of these problems. People are prohibited from using something, want to get high, and get something else. And I'll concede the point that dealers will give you whatever you want - it's a business, they're out to make money, and that's done by fulfilling customer wants and desires.
David Greenberg September 17, 2012 at 06:11 PM
Benny, marijuana is not lethal for anyone - there is no LD50 for humans. The one rat that they determined an LD50 on was essentially soaked in a tank of the stuff, (and probably died a very happy rat). There's no way for a human to ingest enough marijuana to die from the marijuana itself via overdose. Now that said, if someone gets into a vehicle and is driving stoned - that's a totally different discussion - whether they're an "addictive" personality or not. Marijuana is not physically addictive - a user can stop anytime. Contrast with alcohol or heroin - both can be physically addictive. I also agree that there's no such thing as recreational huffing - it might start out that way, but rapidly degrades into addiction. The War on Some Drugs has only served to drive people to substances different than the ones they may have preferred to use, had this silly war not been undertaken in the first place. Whether someone is an addict by nature and gets addicted to something, or isn't - has nothing to do with the drug war. It's genetics, family history, etc...
David Greenberg September 17, 2012 at 06:14 PM
In her case? From what we've seen reported thus far, probably. And yes, SOME are caused by the War on Some Drugs because users were essentially forced to use a different substance because of the "war". I know, I know - no one literally held a gun to their head and said "HERE! HUFF THIS!", but when someone wants to do something, they're going to find a way to do it. And when they want to get high, if they can't get their drug of choice (for whatever reason), they're going to move on to something else. In this case, the young lady apparently moved on to something that was quick, cheap, and not easily detected.
David Greenberg September 17, 2012 at 06:19 PM
I never said we were going to "solve" the problem by blaming the War on Drugs. I said that SOME of the problems were likely caused by the War on Some Drugs. Drug addiction - whether it's alcohol or something else is a complex disease. You want to solve it? First look at genetics to try and figure out who's predisposed to it, then counsel those individuals accordingly (yes, there's a whole other discussion related to genetic testing, and counseling - I understand that). Then look at the root causes for someone wanting to drink, needing to drink. Address those root causes. Economic issues? Family issues? Abuse? Stress? More counseling. And yes, the key part is that the person has to WANT to get better. I understand that (always have). But we have to accept that some people may not want to get better - and in their case, we need to keep them from getting behind the wheel of a vehicle.
Benny G. September 18, 2012 at 10:22 PM
David Greenberg said: "Marijuana is not physically addictive - a user can stop anytime." WRONG. Come on David THC is so addictive. Why do you keep bringing up LD-50? Who cares. Any drug, including alcohol can be lethal when used by addicts. It's just that simple and probably the case with this huffing incident as well in my opinion. Again, you are trying to makes sense of something that absolutely makes no sense. An addict does not purposely go from weed to Dust Off or to something else with any rational thought at all. They do what they can do when they can do it. To think the Rousso girl made a conscious decision to huff because she would not get tested for it is a ridiculous notion. Thanks for the banter David on this important and misunderstood topic.
Cliff Hanger September 18, 2012 at 10:51 PM
David Greenberg is absolutely correct. Marijuana is not physically addictive. This is not to condone putting any mind or mood altering substance into young, forming minds and bodies, it's just to set the record straight - not even the DEA goes to that level of misinformation, in fact, they package it for patients with Glaucoma. It's a weed, has been for thousands of years and will be for thousands more. Chocolate is 'addictive' if you don't have the good sense to stop eating it...
Benny G. September 18, 2012 at 11:20 PM
Cliff Hanger, the whole point of my discussion is that addicts do not HAVE the "good sense." THC is physically, emotionally and mentally addictive...you just have to ask any addict.
Benny G. September 18, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Mushrooms and peyote are weeds too. Last time I checked, mescalin was very illegal. Cliff Monger, please pop head out of rear end sir...
Cliff Hanger September 18, 2012 at 11:32 PM
Benny G, you don't ask an addict, an addict will tell you that whatever substance they're hooked on taking is addictive, (and I am by no means suggesting that there aren't substances that are) By your reasoning, food is addictive because it removes the responsibility from the mouth that eats too much of the stuff, or have you failed to note the obesity plague? Facts, are what you check with the experts; the medical and drug enforcement specialists who deal with the chemical properties.
Benny G. September 19, 2012 at 02:54 AM
Cliff, I didn't mean literally ask an addict...LMAO- Google "is THC addictive"...all you have to do. Thanks Cliff, we get it. You have smoked weed every day, 5 times a day for thirty years...but you're not addicted to it...at least not "physically addicted" to it...We get it---AHAHAGAHGAASHSAGAH
David Greenberg September 19, 2012 at 07:32 PM
Benny-there are two main types of addiction-Physical and Mental. Some substances such as alcohol and heroin can and often are physically addictive. That is, when someone stops using the drug, they have physical manifestations that can sometimes be life-threatening, and that makes getting off the drug a long process because they can't go 'cold turkey' or they could die. The aspects of mental addiction take many forms and can have many root causes-but stopping cold turkey isn't going to cause a physical manifestation that kills the user. Marijuana has no physical addiction, but it can have mental addictions. I keep bringing up the LD50 because people claim that Marijuana will kill you from mere use - that's incorrect. You can't overdose on it because the LD-50 is so extreme that no human could ever reach it-they'd fall asleep long before doing so. No one has ever overdosed on marijuana. As for going from marijuana to "Dust Off" because she couldn't use or obtain marijuana makes perfect sense. We have someone who's not physically addicted to marijuana, but apparently has a mental addiction to escape from *something* unknown to us. Getting in a ton of trouble, just getting out of rehab for marijuana, still being tested for marijuana, and still having the mental issue that requires escape forces a user to become creative in obtaining their high. So why not turn to something that's not often tested for, and is for all intents and purposes, virtually undetectable?
David Greenberg September 19, 2012 at 07:35 PM
There is a physically addictive substance that we all use. If we use too much (overdose), we can die because of an imbalance in our bodies. If we use too little, we experience a longing for it that drives us to the substance until we get it, and if we don't get it, we can die from an imbalance in our bodies. We have to ingest it in a specific manner or we can die. That substance? Fresh water.
jackie jordan September 25, 2012 at 08:32 AM
it doesnt matter- a child is gone forever and an attire family is in hell and will be lost forever because of somebody else's need to get extremely high (to lose full control of her body) while driving a vehicle... If you must do drugs... do them without harming anybody then yourself...There was no fear of consequences in this heinous crime.. People just do not care and do what they will do when they want to do it... selfishness is murder
Mick April 29, 2013 at 05:36 PM
Greenberg is right. prohibition doesn't work, regardless of the vilified substance or object. A hundred years of moralistic and righteous condemnation against the substance alcohol led to misguided federal legislation, desperation and ultimately , a failed social experiment. It is the same with narcotics, firearms or anything else that has been a part of western culture for 500 years. When used with sensibility, none of these materials are harmful. When in the hands of those facing social problems imposed by a system that punishes instead of treats, a society that throws billions at attacking symptoms but not a dime against the disease itself, tragedies will continue. To make Carly Rousso bare the brunt of this, regardless of the loss of human life, is nothing but folly. I am not saying that evidence does not indicate she is responsible, but all of us who vote, bear a little responsibility in what happened.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something