Are the police allowed to speed without sirens? [WA]

[CdwJava]

Fine. Complain about it. No one is saying you can't. But, there are consequences to restricting the response of officers. if the community is willing to accept those consequences (time, safety, etc.) that is a decision they may choose to make.

And, yep, Jim, if you cut in front of someone you might get a ticket. in this instance, the complaining party just wanted the officer talked to ... i.e. a warning.

Like I said, they shouldn't do it, but it is a liability most of us accept in this job. If the public doesn't want their cops responding expeditiously, they can put pressure on the Chief or Sheriff to stop it, and they can live with the consequences. I've seen it done before, but the community never seems to like the results .. oddly enough.

Oh, and Jim, responding to a fist fight does not authorize a "code three" response ... you wanna be on the receiving end of a good pummeling while the officers make their way across town following every law and rule? Ever been in a fight for even four minutes? In my town, four minutes is the average response time ... and a two minute donnybrook can feel like an hour if you're getting beaten down, imagine four ... or, if you are in the county, imagine 20 to 30. But, if that's what the community wants, I am sure the agency will be happy to comply. Heck, it'll save the officers from a lot of liability and complaints!

Yeah, yeah, I know I'm gonna hear a whole lot about the double standard, blah, blah, blah. Okay, I'll admit it - it is. But, the alternative is unacceptable to most everyone so it is granted a good deal of leniency by all. So, until you can come up with a better way of doing it, it is what it is and we're stuck with it. Feel free to advise the legislature on what they can do better, or to enforce a zero tolerance, "obey all the laws when responding to calls" rule for your town - I'm sure the victims will be happy.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Here it is: https://forum.freeadvice.com/speeding-other-moving-violations-13/police-speeding-twist-426280.html

And the officer involved deserved to be prosecuted. He screwed up, he abused the discretion, and he committed a heinous and inexcusable act.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Fine. Complain about it. No one is saying you can't. But, there are consequences to restricting the response of officers. if the community is willing to accept those consequences (time, safety, etc.) that is a decision they may choose to make.

And, yep, Jim, if you cut in front of someone you might get a ticket. in this instance, the complaining party just wanted the officer talked to ... i.e. a warning.

Like I said, they shouldn't do it, but it is a liability most of us accept in this job. If the public doesn't want their cops responding expeditiously, they can put pressure on the Chief or Sheriff to stop it, and they can live with the consequences. I've seen it done before, but the community never seems to like the results .. oddly enough.

Oh, and Jim, responding to a fist fight does not authorize a "code three" response ... you wanna be on the receiving end of a good pummeling while the officers make their way across town following every law and rule? Ever been in a fight for even four minutes? In my town, four minutes is the average response time ... and a two minute donnybrook can feel like an hour if you're getting beaten down, imagine four ... or, if you are in the county, imagine 20 to 30. But, if that's what the community wants, I am sure the agency will be happy to comply. Heck, it'll save the officers from a lot of liability and complaints!

Yeah, yeah, I know I'm gonna hear a whole lot about the double standard, blah, blah, blah. Okay, I'll admit it - it is. But, the alternative is unacceptable to most everyone so it is granted a good deal of leniency by all. So, until you can come up with a better way of doing it, it is what it is and we're stuck with it. Feel free to advise the legislature on what they can do better, or to enforce a zero tolerance, "obey all the laws when responding to calls" rule for your town - I'm sure the victims will be happy.

- Carl

1. The code 3 rules you speak of are simply a matter of policy, not law... right? Policy can easily be changed in the interest of safety and public service. Or is the intent to leave a little vagueness so that the public can't really tell it the cop is responding to a call or just in a hurry because the Krispy Kreme just turned on the "hot donuts now" light.

2. I think the legislature has spoken. It has created an entire vehicle code without exceptions for cops not responding to legitimate calls. You simply choose not to enforce it.

3. As in the other thread, you describe a situation that amounts to blackmail. The concept of "we won't respond quickly if we aren't allowed to abuse our authority" is ridiculous.

 

[CdwJava]

Oh, and when responding to emergency calls (and 'emergency" is not defined - hence the rub), officers are exempt from adhering to the provisions of many Vehicle Codes:

21055. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is exempt from
Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 21350), Chapter 3 (commencing
with Section 21650), Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 21800),
Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21950), Chapter 6 (commencing with
22100), Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348), Chapter 8
(commencing with Section 22450), Chapter 9 (commencing with Section
22500), and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650) of this
division, and Article 3 (commencing with Section 38305) and Article 4
(commencing with Section 38312) of Chapter 5 of Division 16.5, under
all of the following conditions:
(a) If the vehicle is being driven in response to an emergency
call or while engaged in rescue operations or is being used in the
immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or is
responding to, but not returning from, a fire alarm, except that
fire department vehicles are exempt whether directly responding to an
emergency call or operated from one place to another as rendered
desirable or necessary by reason of an emergency call and operated to
the scene of the emergency or operated from one fire station to
another or to some other location by reason of the emergency call.
(b) If the driver of the vehicle sounds a siren as may be
reasonably necessary and the vehicle displays a lighted red lamp
visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrians.

A siren shall not be sounded by an authorized emergency vehicle
except when required under this section.​

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

And the officer involved deserved to be prosecuted. He screwed up, he abused the discretion, and he committed a heinous and inexcusable act.

- Carl

Nice outrage, Carl. You sound a lot like the congressment who were outraged by the AIG bonuses!

If the cop in the article was so deserving of prosecution, why didn't your cop get a ticket??? Does someone have to die before the law applies to a cop???????????

 

[Jim_bo]

Oh, and when responding to emergency calls (and 'emergency" is not defined - hence the rub), officers are exempt from adhering to the provisions of many Vehicle Codes:

21055. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is exempt from
Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 21350), Chapter 3 (commencing
with Section 21650), Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 21800),
Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21950), Chapter 6 (commencing with
22100), Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348), Chapter 8
(commencing with Section 22450), Chapter 9 (commencing with Section
22500), and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650) of this
division, and Article 3 (commencing with Section 38305) and Article 4
(commencing with Section 38312) of Chapter 5 of Division 16.5, under
all of the following conditions:
(a) If the vehicle is being driven in response to an emergency
call or while engaged in rescue operations or is being used in the
immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or is
responding to, but not returning from, a fire alarm, except that
fire department vehicles are exempt whether directly responding to an
emergency call or operated from one place to another as rendered
desirable or necessary by reason of an emergency call and operated to
the scene of the emergency or operated from one fire station to
another or to some other location by reason of the emergency call.
(b) If the driver of the vehicle sounds a siren as may be
reasonably necessary and the vehicle displays a lighted red lamp
visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrians.

A siren shall not be sounded by an authorized emergency vehicle
except when required under this section.​

- Carl

Fine, but where does it say it is illegal for him to simply turn on his lights when responding to an emergency so the public can be alerted????

 

[CdwJava]

1. The code 3 rules you speak of are simply a matter of policy, not law... right?

A little of both, actually.

Policy can easily be changed in the interest of safety and public service. Or is the intent to leave a little vagueness so that the public can't really tell it the cop is responding to a call or just in a hurry because the Krispy Kreme just turned on the "hot donuts now" light.

I hate Krispy Kreme dounts.

Being a flip, are we?

2. I think the legislature has spoken. It has created an entire vehicle code without exceptions for cops not responding to legitimate calls. You simply choose not to enforce it.

Actually there are exceptions.

And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, enforcement in all things is political. I do not know of any agency that issues citations to their own officers ... do you? We can make up a la-la-land where this happens, but you probably won't get anyone to work there.

I'm sorry you don't like it, Jim, but whining about it is not going to change the facts as they are.

3. As in the other thread, you describe a situation that amounts to blackmail. The concept of "we won't respond quickly if we aren't allowed to abuse our authority" is ridiculous.

No, it's true.

There are consequences to such things. Just as when San Diego and San Jose instituted a mandatory program to track racial profiling ... when they mad e two page report for a warning, they found that officers instead issued citations to almost everyone they stopped ... why? because the one page citation was easier and took about half the time to complete!

It's the law of unintended consequences.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Fine, but where does it say it is illegal for him to simply turn on his lights when responding to an emergency so the public can be alerted????

Nothing. But, policy does restrict it because the same legal provisions that provide legal protections to officers do not generally fall into place without both lights and sirens. And, studies have shown that people very often react irrationally when they suddenly see lights behind them ... nothing like having a driver suddenly jerk in an unpredictable direction and slam into a car as they glance up and see flashing lights on their tail. In some instances, it is far better to proceed without both.

I'm not in a position to get into a discussion of Emergency Vehicle operations, Jim, as that is not my forte. Sorry.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Nice outrage, Carl. You sound a lot like the congressment who were outraged by the AIG bonuses!

If the cop in the article was so deserving of prosecution, why didn't your cop get a ticket??? Does someone have to die before the law applies to a cop???????????

Nope. But is a cop any less deserving of a warning than the average driver?

And, since I know you're really wanting to hear me say this, here it is: I Will NOT give one of my officers a ticket. I'll give him a counseling, days on the beach, forward a complaint to the DA as the result of an I.A., even terminate him for his actions, but he won't get a ticket.

Two reasons ... one, it's just not done. And, two, the legal reason, I can't. I didn't see it. Absent a private person making a complaint and willing to sign a complaint that can be forwarded to the DA I can NOT issue a citation.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

A little of both, actually.

I believe the policy... I haven't seen the law.

I hate Krispy Kreme dounts.

Being a flip, are we?

I am... and no offense intended. Just a witty way to make a valid point.

Actually there are exceptions.

And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, enforcement in all things is political. I do not know of any agency that issues citations to their own officers ... do you? We can make up a la-la-land where this happens, but you probably won't get anyone to work there.

If you are suggesting that demanding that police officers obey the law would be such a deterent that you wouldn't get anyone to work, then you have a much lower opinion of your fellow officers than I do. What you are talking abot is NOT the law of unintended consequences, rather it is a culture of complaicency.

I'm sorry you don't like it, Jim, but whining about it is not going to change the facts as they are.

I see... so I (the public) should just shut up and mind our own business because the police are not answerable to anyone??? Are you thinking before you write this stuff??? Are you really trying to defend this???

No, it's true.

There are consequences to such things. Just as when San Diego and San Jose instituted a mandatory program to track racial profiling ... when they mad e two page report for a warning, they found that officers instead issued citations to almost everyone they stopped ... why? because the one page citation was easier and took about half the time to complete!

It's the law of unintended consequences.

- Carl

Once again, your "unintended consequences" is merely the result of complaicency... or laziness in the scenario you described.

 

[Jim_bo]

Nothing. But, policy does restrict it because the same legal provisions that provide legal protections to officers do not generally fall into place without both lights and sirens. And, studies have shown that people very often react irrationally when they suddenly see lights behind them ... nothing like having a driver suddenly jerk in an unpredictable direction and slam into a car as they glance up and see flashing lights on their tail. In some instances, it is far better to proceed without both.

I'm not in a position to get into a discussion of Emergency Vehicle operations, Jim, as that is not my forte. Sorry.

- Carl

I'm surprised you grabbed this tarbaby at all!!! It sounds like you are saying it is safer for cops to drive at excessive speeds WITHOUT alerting the public!!!

 

[Jim_bo]

Nope. But is a cop any less deserving of a warning than the average driver?

And, since I know you're really wanting to hear me say this, here it is: I Will NOT give one of my officers a ticket. I'll give him a counseling, days on the beach, forward a complaint to the DA as the result of an I.A., even terminate him for his actions, but he won't get a ticket.

Two reasons ... one, it's just not done. And, two, the legal reason, I can't. I didn't see it. Absent a private person making a complaint and willing to sign a complaint that can be forwarded to the DA I can NOT issue a citation.

- Carl

Carl, I'm sorry you got roped into this conversation. I can imagine how well your position might sound if it were part of an interview with the local news anchor. Like my dad used to tell me... when you find yourself in a hole... stop digging!!!

 

[CdwJava]

I believe the policy... I haven't seen the law.

You haven't looked at civil law, Jim.

"The effect of Vehicle Code sections 21055 and 21056 is: where the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is engaged in a specified emergency function he may violate certain rules of the road, such as speed and right of way laws, if he activates his red light and where necessary his siren in order to alert other users of the road to the situation. In such circumstances the driver may not be held to be negligent solely upon the violation of specified rules of the road, but ay be held to be negligent if he fails to exercise due regard for the safety of others under the circumstances. Where the driver of an emergency vehicle fails to activate his red light, and where necessary his siren, he is not exempt from the rules of the road even though he may be engaged in a proper emergency function, and negligence may be based upon the violation of the rules of the road." (City of Sacramento v. Superior Court (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 395, 402-403 [182 Cal.Rptr. 443], internal citations omitted.)

"If the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is responding to an emergency call and gives the prescribed warnings by red light and siren, a charge of negligence against him may not be predicated on his violation of the designated Vehicle Code sections; but if he does not give the warnings, the contrary is true; and in the event the charged negligence is premised on conduct without the scope of the exemption a common-law standard of care is applicable." (Grant v. Petronella (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 281, 286 [123 Cal.Rptr. 399], internal citations omitted.)​

Note the exemption only exists for sirens AND red light.

If you are suggesting that demanding that police officers obey the law would be such a deterent that you wouldn't get anyone to work, then you have a much lower opinion of your fellow officers than I do. What you are talking abot is NOT the law of unintended consequences, rather it is a culture of complaicency.

Start a crusade, Jim. Good luck.

The vast majority of officers follow all the rules when they are able to ... much of what we do requires us to stop, turn, and even speed at times we probably shouldn't. I'm sorry you don't like that. We will persevere in spite of your ire.

I see... so I (the public) should just shut up and mind our own business because the police are not answerable to anyone??? Are you thinking before you write this stuff??? Are you really trying to defend this???

I'm merely stating the facts as they are. If you want to change the world and the way it works, go right ahead. Good luck.

Once again, your "unintended consequences" is merely the result of complaicency... or laziness in the scenario you described.

No, it was the result of an impractical solution to a perceived problem. When you make things more complicated, you deter it ... sort of like taxes - if you tax it, you deter it. In that case, if you make it more work for an officer to do something that he might get second and third-hand guessed on anyway, he's just going to issue the citation - it's easier, it is within policy, it is lawful, and it keeps him out of trouble. For the officer it's a win-win. My agency was smarter - we had to complete an FI card - it was the same work as a citation ... all that happened in my agency is that total stops dropped about 25%, thought citations remained steady as traffic officers still cited most the people they stopped anyway, patrol officers merely decreased their total discretionary stops.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

I'm surprised you grabbed this tarbaby at all!!! It sounds like you are saying it is safer for cops to drive at excessive speeds WITHOUT alerting the public!!!

In some cases that is quite true.

Like I said, I'm not the guy to engage in EVO tactics as I am not an expert in that realm (merely an experienced practitioner), but there are studies that suggest precisely that.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, I'm sorry you got roped into this conversation. I can imagine how well your position might sound if it were part of an interview with the local news anchor. Like my dad used to tell me... when you find yourself in a hole... stop digging!!!

Really ... hmmm ... I didn't think I was digging.

Like I have repeatedly said Jim, it ain't right, but it's what we do and the officers accept the liability for their actions ... it's what they do. if you want to advocate for them to obey all the laws all the time, then you can do so. However, there will be consequences to such a policy, but if that is what the community wants I am sure the local agencies will be happy to follow it.

And I stand by what I wrote - I not only will not cite one of my officers (though I might discipline him) but I legally can NOT cite him.

- Carl