Police: Officer ‘horseplaying’ before wreck

[lil red]

It sounds like his injuries were his own fault. If so. I hope the department suspends him without pay and benefits until he's able to perform the duties he's paid for. No reason for the taxpayers to pay for his reckless disregard.

[karl]

All that aside, I believe an officer should be, above all other citizens, a model for obedience to the law and plain old common sense. Our chief holds all of us to that high standard. I am thankful for it.

Well put, too bad the responsible ones don't get paid more for acting in such a way.

[KD5NRH]

the cause of the accident was listed as the other officer's changing lanes. Makes it much harder to show the one who wrecked was driving with wanton disregard.

Actually, if the one who came up with that "cause" drove to the scene, then he should be checked for DUI.

As Morton quickly approached again, Standley went to the left lane to get out of the way, Carlton said. Morton also went to the left lane and attempted to pass in the median, the report stated.

Might as well try to claim that someone going through a green light is the cause when the guy running a red light hits them.

[chabouk]

It sounds like his injuries were his own fault. If so. I hope the department suspends him without pay and benefits until he's able to perform the duties he's paid for. No reason for the taxpayers to pay for his reckless disregard.

I sincerely hope this isn't being covered under worker's comp. "Outside the scope of duties" and "wanton or reckless conduct" spring to mind.

[chabouk]

Chabouk,

Authorized emergency vehicle is defined in Transportation Code section 541.201.

Thanks, that helped me search the rest of the TC.

In TC chapter 545, I find an exemption for Authorized Emergency Vehicles (and "police patrols") when it comes to speeding (545.365).

I find it interesting that 545.156, which requires yielding to emegency vehicles using audible and visual signals (or police vehicles using audible signals only), says this specifically: "TC 545.165 (b): This section does not exempt the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway." And that is with sirens, not when horseplaying.

Getting right down to the nitty-gritty, we find this (bold added):

Transportation Code Sec. 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. In operating an authorized emergency vehicle the operator may: ( . . . )

(3) exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365, as long as the operator does not endanger life or property;


There's more of that to come. Reading on down the TC, we find:

Sec. 546.004. EXCEPTIONS TO SIGNAL REQUIREMENT. ( . . . )

(c) A police officer may operate an authorized emergency vehicle for a law enforcement purpose without using the audible or visual signals required by Section 546.003 if the officer is:

(1) responding to an emergency call or pursuing a suspected violator of the law with probable cause to believe that:

(A) knowledge of the presence of the officer will cause the suspect to:

(i) destroy or lose evidence of a suspected felony;

(ii) end a suspected continuing felony before the officer has obtained sufficient evidence to establish grounds for arrest; or

(iii) evade apprehension or identification of the suspect or the suspect's vehicle; or

(B) because of traffic conditions on a multilaned roadway, vehicles moving in response to the audible or visual signals may:

(i) increase the potential for a collision; or

(ii) unreasonably extend the duration of the pursuit; or

(2) complying with a written regulation relating to the use of audible or visible signals adopted by the local government that employs the officer or by the department.

Wow, none of that seems to apply here.


I think this is the kill shot:

Sec. 546.005. DUTY OF CARE. This chapter does not relieve the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle from:

(1) the duty to operate the vehicle with appropriate regard for the safety of all persons; or

(2) the consequences of reckless disregard for the safety of others.

I'm about burned out on reading the Traffic Code for tonight, but I assume there are a variety of ways in which a reckless driver can be charged for playing, which is what this officer was doing. The sections I found make it clear that officers have to exercise due care, even if they're running with lights and sirens while responding to a major felony in progress. No less can be expected of the officer in this case, who was not displaying visual or audible signals and was not responding to any call at all.

This is a good exchange of ideas, and if there is a section of the Statutes that I've missed, I surely welcome correction.