Cops Speeding in Non-Emergency Situations

[dazzleman]

A city near me (Milford, CT) is under major fire for some incidents involving major speeding by police officers in non-emergency situations, including an accident in which 2 people were killed.  This has been compounded by the destruction of a tape taken by a dashboard camera that was supposed to be evidence in a speeding case.

_____________________________________________________________

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Milford-suspended-cop-who-drove-over-100-mph-690572.php

MILFORD -- The city's police department, already under fire for a crash in which two teenagers died when their car was hit by a speeding police officer, suspended another officer last year for driving more than 100 mph on three occasions.

Officer James Kiely was suspended last September and prohibited from driving a police vehicle for nine months. Kiely had been given the department's safe driving award three months earlier. He has since resumed patrols in a city police cruiser.

The three incidents showing Kiely driving more than 100 miles per hour were part of the 14 DVDs of files from dashboard cameras provided Tuesday to the lawyer representing one of the two Orange teens killed on June 13, 2009, in a collision with a Milford police cruiser.

Bart Halloran received a total of 86 digital files Tuesday in response to his request under the state Freedom of Information Act. The lawyer had received seven DVDs of Milford police dashcam video in December. Halloran and lawyers for the city and the police department will square off at an Oct. 18 hearing before the state Freedom of Information Commission on another set of dashcam videos that Police Chief Keith Mello said was inadvertently deleted despite his order to retain them.

Halloran, the lawyer for the parents of David Servin, said he intends to use the video to establish a pattern of Milford officers using excessive speed. Servin and Ashlie Krakowski were returning to Servin's home in Orange when their car was hit broadside by a Milford cruiser driven by Officer Jason Anderson.

John Wynne, the Krakowski family lawyer, said even with the release of the video Tuesday, "They apparently destroyed a lot. This wasn't the cop involved in our incident, but it may expose the city to a separate claim of reckless conduct if we can show the city was aware of the pattern and either condoned it or looked the other way.''

Anderson's speed was estimated at more than 90 mph in the moments before the crash on the Boston Post Road, where he was returning to Milford after a mutual aid call in West Haven. The dashcam video from the cruiser behind Anderson's captured the crash. Anderson was fired last December and has been charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter.

Kiely's high-speed driving occurred while he was being dispatched on emergency calls, with his lights and siren activated. Not all Milford police cars have dashboard cameras; the ones that do begin recording when an officer turns on his light bar or siren or exceeds 80 miles per hour.

The crash that killed Servin and Krakowski was captured only because Officer Rick Pisani in the trailing cruiser turned on his light bar when he came upon the accident. Officer Jeff Nielsen, the department spokesman, said the hard drive that records the video "spins back'' a few seconds when it is activated. The crash video has been preserved as evidence in Anderson's criminal case.

It will also be the centerpiece of the lawsuit that Halloran and Wynne intend to file against the city and the police department in the teens' deaths, and the lawyers are looking through what was turned over on Tuesday. "We are curious about footage of Anderson, and what the department's policies and procedures are,'' Wynne said.

"It does seem kind of incredible that some (digital video) was destroyed, but that will be explored in discovery in the civil case,'' the Krakowskis' lawyer said. "It looks like it can't be recovered but who knows, forensics can do magical things.''

Mayor James L. Richetelli Jr. said Wednesday he has "100 percent confidence'' in Mello and does not plan an investigation of his own. "The policies that are in place worked in this case and the appropriate discipline was imposed,'' the mayor said.

Carleton Giles, the Police Commission chairman and himself a Norwalk police officer, said Wednesday he "could not immediately recall'' the circumstances surrounding Kiely's suspension. The commission must approve any suspension longer than one day.

Mello would not comment Wednesday on whether Kiely's excessive speed was discovered when the videos were reviewed in preparation for releasing them to Halloran. But Kiely's suspension was in September 2009; the lawyer filed his FOI request in December.

The 590-page General Orders of the Milford Police Department, provided to the Post after an FOI request, states that "at least on a bi-monthly basis MVR (Mobile Video Recording) data will be randomly reviewed, to assist in assessment of officer performance.''

A state law, CGS 14-283a, gives police the right to pursue suspects at high rates of speed as long as it can be done safely. Kiely is responding to emergency calls -- the codes "L'' and "S'' that signify an emergency are stamped onto the video -- when he approaches and exceeds speeds of 100 mph downtown and on the Boston Post Road. But strictly speaking, the officer is not pursuing a suspect, he is responding to a call.

Mello would not comment on whether the state law applies to situations like the ones for which Kiely was suspended.

Richard Altschuler, a criminal defense lawyer in the area for 32 years, said the situation is a "double-edged sword.'' Without addressing the Kiely case specifically, Altschuler said people want the police to respond quickly when they call for help.

"They are breaking the law responding to someone who is allegedly breaking the law,'' the defense lawyer said. "A bigger issue, I think, is the local (police) departments that have a reputation for enforcing the law differently for the public than they do for themselves.''

[bing_oh]

Kiely's high-speed driving occurred while he was being dispatched on emergency calls, with his lights and siren activated. Not all Milford police cars have dashboard cameras; the ones that do begin recording when an officer turns on his light bar or siren or exceeds 80 miles per hour.

So, then, what's the issue with the speed? If this is a "pattern of Milford officers using excessive speed," then every department in the nation is guilty of it. We have lights and sirens on our cruisers so that we can respond rapidly to emergencies. States have laws that permit us to do this! If these were incidents where officers were just driving 100 mph for no legitimate reason and without emergency equipment activated, then I can see a point in it. This sounds more like lawyer BS.

"They are breaking the law responding to someone who is allegedly breaking the law,'' the defense lawyer said. "A bigger issue, I think, is the local (police) departments that have a reputation for enforcing the law differently for the public than they do for themselves.''

At least in Ohio, this wouldn't be true. Ohio law specifically states that a LEO isn't subject to traffic laws when responding with lights and sirens to an emergency.

[dazzleman]

So, then, what's the issue with the speed? If this is a "pattern of Milford officers using excessive speed," then every department in the nation is guilty of it. We have lights and sirens on our cruisers so that we can respond rapidly to emergencies. States have laws that permit us to do this! If these were incidents where officers were just driving 100 mph for no legitimate reason and without emergency equipment activated, then I can see a point in it. This sounds more like lawyer BS.

At least in Ohio, this wouldn't be true. Ohio law specifically states that a LEO isn't subject to traffic laws when responding with lights and sirens to an emergency.

I think the issue here is that some of this speeding was taking place in non-emergency situations.  In the June 2009 case where 2 people were killed, the officer was not using lights and sirens, and there was no emergency.  They were simply heading back from a mutual aid call in a neighboring town.  I don't think speed should be questioned in a legitimate emergency situation.  But lawyers are a curse, and once they get on the bandwagon, there's always a problem.

I'm pretty pro-law enforcement, so I hesitated to post this, because I knew certain people would jump all over it.  I hope it doesn't become another pissing match between the two well-known factions in this section.  But I was interested in hearing opinions from LEOs about how widespread this may be in non-emergency situations, and your reaction to it.

[bing_oh]

I think the issue here is that some of this speeding was taking place in non-emergency situations.  In the June 2009 case where 2 people were killed, the officer was not using lights and sirens, and there was no emergency.  They were simply heading back from a mutual aid call in a neighboring town.  I don't think speed should be questioned in a legitimate emergency situation.  But lawyers are a curse, and once they get on the bandwagon, there's always a problem.

I'm pretty pro-law enforcement, so I hesitated to post this, because I knew certain people would jump all over it.  I hope it doesn't become another pissing match between the two well-known factions in this section.  But I was interested in hearing opinions from LEOs about how widespread this may be in non-emergency situations, and your reaction to it.

The non-emergency situation is a totally different story from the emergency one. Responding at very high speeds without lights and sirens is extremely dangerous and is probably a violation of state law and department policy pretty much everywhere. Getting into a crash in that situation will almost certainly end up in departmental discipline, if not criminal charges.

Extremely high speeds pretty much require lights and sirens. It's a simple safety issue. Now, do we sometimes respond to higher-priority but technically non-emergency calls faster but with no lights and sirens? Absolutely. But we're not talking 80-100 mph in the city, either. Quick response is necessary and expected by the citizens. How quickly an officer responds depends totally upon the call.

The problem I see with the article is, the lawyers are trying to use legitimate emergency response (speeding with lights and sirens) to imply that the department permitted reckless driving. If the officer who killed the two people was speeding without lights and sirens, then he was probably in violation of department policy and, therefore, is personally liable...the department is in the clear. If the lawyers can show a pattern of reckless driving by multiple officers, then they can imply that it was an accepted practice by the department and the city is liable. In short, the lawyers know that the individual officer doesn't have much cash himself, so they're trying to hold the city responsible to get into deeper pockets.

[dazzleman]

The non-emergency situation is a totally different story from the emergency one. Responding at very high speeds without lights and sirens is extremely dangerous and is probably a violation of state law and department policy pretty much everywhere. Getting into a crash in that situation will almost certainly end up in departmental discipline, if not criminal charges.

Extremely high speeds pretty much require lights and sirens. It's a simple safety issue. Now, do we sometimes respond to higher-priority but technically non-emergency calls faster but with no lights and sirens? Absolutely. But we're not talking 80-100 mph in the city, either. Quick response is necessary and expected by the citizens. How quickly an officer responds depends totally upon the call.

The problem I see with the article is, the lawyers are trying to use legitimate emergency response (speeding with lights and sirens) to imply that the department permitted reckless driving. If the officer who killed the two people was speeding without lights and sirens, then he was probably in violation of department policy and, therefore, is personally liable...the department is in the clear. If the lawyers can show a pattern of reckless driving by multiple officers, then they can imply that it was an accepted practice by the department and the city is liable. In short, the lawyers know that the individual officer doesn't have much cash himself, so they're trying to hold the city responsible to get into deeper pockets.

I understand the issue with the lawyers.  Most lawyers are lowlifes, and they're going to try to twist the facts so that they can get money.  That's really all they care about.

The officers who were speeding in non-emergency situations opened the department up to this problem, and the lawyers are twisting and abusing the situation, in their usual fashion.

[SVT666]

I get pretty upset when I see cops turns their light bar on and go through a red light and then turn their lights off.  I've seen cops speeding without their light bar on just to go back to the precinct for shift change as well. 

[ifcar]

There was a crash in Virginia a few years ago in which the officer was responding to an emergency at high speeds with the lights but not siren on and struck a car that tried to make a left turn in front of her. That's probably the most ambiguous situation, as it the officer was speeding for a purpose with the lights on but wasn't necessarily obvious to the driver trying to make a turn.

If the officer has the lights and siren on, everyone else just needs to get out of the way.

[NomisR]

There was a crash in Virginia a few years ago in which the officer was responding to an emergency at high speeds with the lights but not siren on and struck a car that tried to make a left turn in front of her. That's probably the most ambiguous situation, as it the officer was speeding for a purpose with the lights on but wasn't necessarily obvious to the driver trying to make a turn.

If the officer has the lights and siren on, everyone else just needs to get out of the way.

Yeah, and people need to safely get out of the way.. not just slam on the brakes when they see an emergency vehicle.  I've seen taht reaction way too often almost causing accidents.

[Vinsanity]

When I was driving through a side street in San Fran a few weeks ago, there was this cop car stuck to my tail for a few blocks. Being from out of town and thinking that he was looking for an excuse to pull someone over, I made complete stops at all the stop signs and stuck to the 25 mph residential speed limit. Next thing I know, the cop pulls into the oncoming lane of traffic and guns it past me full throttle, no lights and sirens, and cuts back into the one northbound lane.

Same set of rules for everybody, huh?

[NomisR]

When I was driving through a side street in San Fran a few weeks ago, there was this cop car stuck to my tail for a few blocks. Being from out of town and thinking that he was looking for an excuse to pull someone over, I made complete stops at all the stop signs and stuck to the 25 mph residential speed limit. Next thing I know, the cop pulls into the oncoming lane of traffic and guns it past me full throttle, no lights and sirens, and cuts back into the one northbound lane.

Same set of rules for everybody, huh?

Lets not forget fact that the Police are well trained to speed while us civilians don't know how to drive worth a squat. 

[Vinsanity]

the worst was about 9-10 years ago when I was driving in the left lane overtaking a cop who was driving 5 mph below the limit, and I had to change lanes in front of him to make a right turn ahead. I made sure both of his headlights were in my right side mirror to give enough clearance, but this asshole swerves into the shoulder and accelerates to block my maneuver, and yells out "you can't just cut in front of people like that!"

The icing on top is that he continued to accelerate through the intersection while the light was red

[NomisR]

the worst was about 9-10 years ago when I was driving in the left lane overtaking a cop who was driving 5 mph below the limit, and I had to change lanes in front of him to make a right turn ahead. I made sure both of his headlights were in my right side mirror to give enough clearance, but this asshole swerves into the shoulder and accelerates to block my maneuver, and yells out "you can't just cut in front of people like that!"

The icing on top is that he continued to accelerate through the intersection while the light was red

Yeah, I had a situation where a cop chased me down on a downhill portion of the 101 near SLO.  I was going about 75mph at the time in a 65 because I got a ticket about an hour earlier.   And he yelled at me for being dangerous by speeding. 

The funny thing is, I passed him while he was completely stopped and about 1/2 mile ahead before he pulled out.  And when he caught up to me, he was going over 100mph judging from the distance and the time it took for him to catch up to me.

Yet he has the nerves to yell at ME for speeding?  Yeah, seriously.. it's safer to speed in a CV?  Hypocrite.

[MX793]

I see no issue with an officer exceeding the speed limit when responding to an emergency call (especially when lights and siren are on to warn other drivers that he's coming).  There are many cases where the officer may not be in hot pursuit of a suspect, but his or her presence is needed ASAP (i.e. an armed robbery in progress, responding to a car accident with injuries, etc...) that would justify traveling at high speeds.

However, when not responding to an emergency or in hot pursuit of a suspect, I feel the police should be bound to the same traffic laws as everybody else.  They have no business running red lights, running stop signs, traveling at excessive speed, etc without some legitimate justification beyond "I have a badge so I can break traffic laws".

[bing_oh]

I get pretty upset when I see cops turns their light bar on and go through a red light and then turn their lights off.

When I was driving through a side street in San Fran a few weeks ago, there was this cop car stuck to my tail for a few blocks. Being from out of town and thinking that he was looking for an excuse to pull someone over, I made complete stops at all the stop signs and stuck to the 25 mph residential speed limit. Next thing I know, the cop pulls into the oncoming lane of traffic and guns it past me full throttle, no lights and sirens, and cuts back into the one northbound lane.

Same set of rules for everybody, huh?

You assume that he decided to ride your bumper and pass you just because he's a cop and he could do it. Or that he ran that red light because he was late for lunch. My first though is that he was enroute to a mid-priority call that needed a quicker response but didn't justify going full lights and sirens (a very common occurance). There are also times when we need to approach particular calls silently and without drawing attention to ourselves for tactical reasons. The public doesn't generally understand this and assumes it's a simple abuse of power.

[Vinsanity]

The incident a few weeks ago in San Fran could very well have been a response to a call, but I can't imagine how the other one I posted from 9-10 years ago could have ever been justified. Or Nomis's incident near SLO, for that matter.

[Catman]

You assume that he decided to ride your bumper and pass you just because he's a cop and he could do it. Or that he ran that red light because he was late for lunch. My first though is that he was enroute to a mid-priority call that needed a quicker response but didn't justify going full lights and sirens (a very common occurance). There are also times when we need to approach particular calls silently and without drawing attention to ourselves for tactical reasons. The public doesn't generally understand this and assumes it's a simple abuse of power.

I have given up trying to explain this.  The knee jerk response is always assumed to be an abuse of power.

[NomisR]

I have given up trying to explain this.  The knee jerk response is always assumed to be an abuse of power.

But does using the lights to get across and red light just to pull into a Krispy Kreme count as abuse of power?  Because that one I've actually seen myself.. too bad I didn't have a camera ready.. it was really funny at the time. 

[SVT_Power]

I've noticed as of late that Toronto police cruisers are sticking pretty close to the limit. Even a couple of years ago, I'd see them driving through traffic in the city at 15+ mph over the limit for no reason (no lights/sirens).

[SVT_Power]

Oh and it's getting pretty rare to see cops changing lanes without signaling.

It's like the cops finally got a memo about their driving behaviour...

[Vinsanity]

hell, I'd rather cops drive faster than the flow of traffic than slower, because if a cop goes the speed limit on the freeway, it causes an instant backlog of traffic behind him. but when they pull dangerous maneuvers on the road only to yell at another driver (as illustrated by Nomis's and my story) is simply unprofessional, to put it in a nice way.

[SVT666]

I have given up trying to explain this.  The knee jerk response is always assumed to be an abuse of power.

The incident I described where the cop used his lights to go through a red light only to head back to the precinct happened about 8 years ago.  It was at 1 am or so and I was stopped at a red light.  He comes through with his lights on, goes through the red light and then shuts his lights off.  At that point the light turned green and I followed him.  He was speeding (so was I) and he was changing lanes without signalling and even turned at an intersection and once again into the precinct parking lot without signalling.  Yes, I filed a complaint the next day.  10 years ago I saw stuff like this happen all the time.  Now, it's a pretty rare occurrence.  That tells me it was an abuse of power.

[Catman]

The incident I described where the cop used his lights to go through a red light only to head back to the precinct happened about 8 years ago.  It was at 1 am or so and I was stopped at a red light.  He comes through with his lights on, goes through the red light and then shuts his lights off.  At that point the light turned green and I followed him.  He was speeding (so was I) and he was changing lanes without signalling and even turned at an intersection and once again into the precinct parking lot without signalling.  Yes, I filed a complaint the next day.  10 years ago I saw stuff like this happen all the time.  Now, it's a pretty rare occurrence.  That tells me it was an abuse of power.

So because you see it less now means that 8 years ago it was abuse?  Maybe it was, I don't know.  Over the years I've done the same the same thing but never to get a coffee, etc.  I've had to do it to return to the station because of a prisoner acting up or a disturbance in the lobby.  I frequently blew through red lights in order to keep a vehicle I was tailing in sight.  There's a million reasons.  No doubt there's idiots that may abuse their power.  There's about 800,000 of us in my country so a portion of them will be idiots, no way around it.

[J86]

I understand the issue with the lawyers.  Most lawyers are lowlifes, and they're going to try to twist the facts so that they can get money.  That's really all they care about.

The officers who were speeding in non-emergency situations opened the department up to this problem, and the lawyers are twisting and abusing the situation, in their usual fashion.

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.  (Sounds kinda like the police in that regard, doesn't it?)

[hounddog]

But I was interested in hearing opinions from LEOs about how widespread this may be in non-emergency situations, and your reaction to it.

Most of us will refuse to post with regards to this topic because we will just be met with super-thoughts like this;

The incident a few weeks ago in San Fran could very well have been a response to a call, but I can't imagine how the other one I posted from 9-10 years ago could have ever been justified. Or Nomis's incident near SLO, for that matter.

It is nothing more than mere hearsay, but that will never matter to those here.

[Catman]

LOL "Super-Thoughts"

[TBR]

I rarely see a LEO who isn't speeding. You can deny or justify all you want, but it's pretty clear that many LEO's feel the traffic laws don't apply to them because they have a badge. In some situations is it justified? Certainly, but not 100% of the time. Hell, I have been in a state trooper's personal car (a fairly senior one at that) while he was going 90 in a 65, and he basically brushed it off by saying that if he got pulled over he would just flash his badge and be on his way. That's obviously not appropriate.

[TurboDan]

I have given up trying to explain this.  The knee jerk response is always assumed to be an abuse of power.

I think it depends on the area. In New Jersey, generally speaking, power is abused openly and rudely. I have a good friend who is an officer and I've personally seen him speed 90 mph, intoxicated, beer bottle in the cup holder, on the highway and laugh hysterically when I asked him if he'd get in trouble if he was pulled over. This situation was pretty much confirmed by the story which ran a year later with the NJSP trooper who got away with three DUIs in the same town within two years and never received a summons. I have friends and relatives with PBA "gold" cards and "courtesy shields" who speed and ignore every traffic law in the book and say "That's why I have my gold card" when I remind them that they're in an area with high traffic enforcement. It's a sickening disgrace what goes on in this state.

Anecdotally, I've heard a lot of this stuff doesn't fly in other parts of the country, and I believe that. But in New Jersey, power is abused to such an extent where nobody will ever believe a police officer's defense strategy in a court case such as this one.

[ifcar]

Why would you ride with someone who's driving at 90 mph drunk?

[Catman]

I think it depends on the area. In New Jersey, generally speaking, power is abused openly and rudely. I have a good friend who is an officer and I've personally seen him speed 90 mph, intoxicated, beer bottle in the cup holder, on the highway and laugh hysterically when I asked him if he'd get in trouble if he was pulled over. This situation was pretty much confirmed by the story which ran a year later with the NJSP trooper who got away with three DUIs in the same town within two years and never received a summons. I have friends and relatives with PBA "gold" cards and "courtesy shields" who speed and ignore every traffic law in the book and say "That's why I have my gold card" when I remind them that they're in an area with high traffic enforcement. It's a sickening disgrace what goes on in this state.

Anecdotally, I've heard a lot of this stuff doesn't fly in other parts of the country, and I believe that. But in New Jersey, power is abused to such an extent where nobody will ever believe a police officer's defense strategy in a court case such as this one.

I've been down there to provide training to a PD near NY.  I admit I was pretty horrified what I found. 

[dazzleman]

Why would you ride with someone who's driving at 90 mph drunk?

Not a bad question..