Police: Officer ‘horseplaying’ before wreck

[yerasimos]

Police: Officer ‘horseplaying’ before wreck

(Article and dashcam video can be found via the link above)

CLUTE — Clute Police Department Officer Scott Morton was driving at least 20 mph over the posted limit and getting right behind another Clute officer when he lost control of his car, skidded across three lanes and hit a guardrail, according to police.

A Department of Public Safety report released Friday states Morton, 41, was driving at least 70 mph in the center lane on Highway 288, also known as Highway 332. Morton was approaching Officer Tony Standley, who also was driving a patrol car in the center lane, at 2:47 a.m. Nov. 18.

Before the accident, Morton had been speeding up and getting close to Standley’s bumper before Standley would accelerate to get away, Clute Police Capt. Robin Carlton said.

Both officers were headed to Whataburger, where they were set to meet other officers for a meal. Carlton said the pair were “horseplaying” when the wreck occurred.

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.

“He was closing that gap too quickly,” said DPS Trooper David Wyman, who investigated the wreck and submitted his report to Clute police.

Morton then overcorrected, went into a skid, hit the shoulder and flipped at least twice in the ditch, Wyman said. He was not wearing a seat belt and was thrown from the car 40 to 50 feet.

Morton was flown to Memorial Hermann Hospital from the scene with broken ankles, a broken pelvis, collapsed lung and slight bleeding in his brain. He is at home healing from the accident, and The Facts could not reach him for comment.

Morton still is using a wheelchair, but soon will start physical therapy so he can walk, Carlton said.

He will receive no traffic citation, Carlton said. The Department of Public Safety simply puts together the report, and it is Clute’s responsibility to take action, DPS Sgt. David Janak said.

“We will handle it in-house,” Clute Police Chief Mark Wicker said. “We won’t do anything until he’s well and back to 100 percent.”

Punishment options include a letter of reprimand or a few days off without pay, Carlton said.

Video footage and audio of calls to the Clute dispatcher indicate Standley immediately stopped and called for an ambulance. The Facts obtained the video through an open records request.

Standley also was speeding during the accident, Carlton said. Standley will receive no punishment, though it appears the wreck would not have occurred if he hadn’t switched lanes, Wicker said.

The Clute Police Department is investigating Standley’s role in the accident, Wicker said. However, it appears he wasn’t feeling well and simply was ready for his shift to end, he said.

Wicker said he hopes speeding is not common for officers because speeding and getting close to someone’s bumper are inappropriate, he said.

The patrol car Morton was driving, a 2007 Ford Crown Victoria, was totaled, but it already was set to be replaced within the next few weeks, Wicker said. It would have been passed down to a school resource officer, he said.

The department has no plans to buy a new car to replace the vehicle, he said.

Morton worked for the Clute department for three years, then moved to the Richwood Police Department for a year before returning to Clute in June, Carlton said.

Katlynn Lanham covers Clute for The Facts. Contact her at 979-237-0150

[C-dub]

I'm very sorry for the officer that was injured. Collapsed lung, Broken ankles, and pelvis, OUCH!

However, I'm also disgusted that they will not receive citations the same as I and a friend would had this been us. A while back a DPD HOV officer was caught in his personal vehicle alone in the HOV lane by another HOV officer. A television crew happened to be with the officer that day doing a story on HOV lane violators so the whole thing was recorded and went on the news. He received a ticket, but it was later dismissed because of a documentation error on the ticket. On my last speeding ticket, about 10 years ago when I was late for a class, the officer wrote the wrong date. I tried to have it dismissed for that reason and the judge told me that it only had to be within a couple of days. I ended up doing deferred adjudication and it dropped off after six months.

In a weird way I think police are similar to professional athletes or celebrities in that they get special treatment when they get in trouble. At least when it's not real serious trouble. However, in my opinion, if either of these groups of people deserve special treatment it would be the police. The trouble is that their not supposed to get special treatment.

[karl]

First off I hope he recovers, I generally don't wish ill upon others.

Second, just about every single police officer to ever walk this earth speeds and disobeys countless traffic laws without any fear of legal penalties; it disgusts me too. He should be let go for what he did, he's lucky he's alive.

[jbirds1210]

First off I hope he recovers, I generally don't wish ill upon others.

Second, just about every single police officer to ever walk this earth speeds and disobeys countless traffic laws without any fear of legal penalties; it disgusts me too. He should be let go for what he did, he's lucky he's alive.

I ran a red light once in a patrol car for no good reason.......the behind chewing I got from my FTO is a lesson I will NEVER forget. I obey the transportation code unless there is danger to life and even then I stop at intersections. While I wouldn't go so far anymore as to say that officers have no reason to fear legal penalties...I am still more scared of that FTO! I seriously think about it everytime I get into a hurry.

Jason

[steking]

First off I hope he recovers, I generally don't wish ill upon others.

Second, just about every single police officer to ever walk this earth speeds and disobeys countless traffic laws without any fear of legal penalties; it disgusts me too. He should be let go for what he did, he's lucky he's alive.

+1 Next time I get pulled over, I'll use the excuse, I'm in a hurry to Whattaburger to have a meal with my friends. Let's see how far that gets me.

[srothstein]

There are two points you need to consider about the citing of this officer. I am not sure many of you are aware of either one.

The first is that the officer was not breaking the law. He might have been going 100 mph over the posted limit, but it would have been legal. The Transportation Code specifically allows officers to exceed posted limits. Yes, it was intended to allow them to do their job, not horseplay. But the way the law was written, the officer would be found not guilty. It might be possible to make a charge for negligent collision stick, but it is harder than most people realize.

Second, if we look at the Transportation Code, the most the ticket could cost the officer is a couple hundred dollars. This is somewhat significant to us, but not nearly as great as a $2500 fine would be. By handling the case internally, the department can suspend the officer for quite a bit of time. A two week suspension would not be unreasonable and he could be fired over it. This will cost the officer a lot more than the ticket possibly could, and could affect his job, future promotion possibilities, his retirement, and even possible jobs with other departments. Depending on the department rules, they could even withhold some part of his paycheck to pay for the car he totaled. he will not get off with this accident without being punished.

I do agree that many officers disregard the law and cause more problems for society than can possibly be justified. But, as with many other things, there are hidden punishments for the officers that can be much worse than what would happen to a citizen in the same situation. The system may not look fair at first glance, but justice almost always comes about in the long run.

I hope he does heal 100%, but I would be willing to bet his injuries will make him learn not to play in cars much more than a ticket could. I know I have injuries that will remind me when I am older of the stupid things I did in my youth (and some were just doing my job, not fooling around - not all but some).

[nitrogen]

You really need to explain to police departments that they ahve to explain this kind of stuff to us better.

It'd make people like me that know nothing about these things a lot less angry.

[C-dub]

There are two points you need to consider about the citing of this officer. I am not sure many of you are aware of either one.

The first is that the officer was not breaking the law. He might have been going 100 mph over the posted limit, but it would have been legal. The Transportation Code specifically allows officers to exceed posted limits. Yes, it was intended to allow them to do their job, not horseplay. But the way the law was written, the officer would be found not guilty. It might be possible to make a charge for negligent collision stick, but it is harder than most people realize.

Really? Even when not responding to a call? I certainly could have been wrong all these years, but I thought in order for an officer to break traffic laws like this they must be responding to a call. Since they were not they couldn't also be charged with speeding and or reckless driving? At my company there are positions where your employment is dependent upon a clean record. If one of these folks were to do something like this and receive a ticket they might or might not lose their job. It depends on how clean they were up until this point. I doubt that if they were to lose their job the court would forget the ticket or that the officer would even decide not to write the ticket in the first place. Add it to the pile.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that these two officer's shouldn't be required to look for new careers. As those who speed are told, you put others at risk, not just yourself and that is what these two law enforcement officers did. If it were up to me I would have to take their entire service record into account and they would have to explain to me why what they did was wrong and I would have to believe that they sincerely believe what they tell me.

[chabouk]

There's a definition of "authorized emergency vehicle" in the statutes, but I can't find it. Maybe I'm not using the correct phrase.

[srothstein]

Chabouk,

Authorized emergency vehicle is defined in Transportation Code section 541.201.

C-Dub,

The problem with the responding to call is the list of exceptions in 545.365 where it includes "police patrol". Since the first line says an emergency vehicle responding to a call and the second line is police patrol, it is clear that it includes cops who are not responding to a call. Of course, this was to allow cops to make traffic stops for speeding since on-site activity like this is not responding to a call. The same phrase is repeated in a few other areas, like driving on shoulders, etc.

The reckless charge might be able to be made, but it really is a hard case to prove. You have to prove that he is driving with wilful or wanton disregard for others safety. This is really harder to prove and when you see a reckless driving conviction, 90% of the time it is a plea bargain down from DWI (in my experience). I would think this incident would make the case, but 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.

Nitrogen,

I agree with you about the relaying of information. One of the worst problems cops have in this country is they really do not seem to understand how to work with public image and public perceptions. A large part of this comes from their historic bad feelings about the media, which is the primary way they communicate. I have some ideas on how to improve this, including full and open information anywhere it does not jeopardize a case. I think most people would understand a lot better if a Chief said "I don't know what happened because I wasn't there, but we are investigating" instead of jumping on the defensive. The problem is the media is showing the people what happened and many of them see even the above statement as defensive. Long term, I still believe the communications problem can be solved, but it will take work.

[C-dub]

Thanks for the insight Steve.

Unfortunately, much of the public's perception of the police is much like that of anyone that has had a bad experience with a particular breed of dog or a race of people. If one or two Pits or Rotties attack or kill someone the breed should be banned and it is all over the news for days. After 9-11 there was a lot of backlash against Muslims because some ignorant people thought that all Muslims must be in on it. And if a few bad cops violate someone's rights or worse people become wary of the police in general. And when a cop get's away with something that we would not, without having things like this explained the way you have, we all become very suspicious and distrusting. But, this also happens with executives and other people with privileges that the average person does not have. With the police it does not seem to boil down to money, but with many others it does.

Guilty should be guilty no matter how much money one makes or who you know.

[Keith B]

I think most people would understand a lot better if a Chief said "I don't know what happened because I wasn't there, but we are investigating" instead of jumping on the defensive. The problem is the media is showing the people what happened and many of them see even the above statement as defensive. Long term, I still believe the communications problem can be solved, but it will take work.

This is a very good point, but it can be a pacifier. My Brother-In-Law was Chief in my hometown for about 6 years. He had an officer get caught on videotape lightly kicking a handcuffed perp in the leg (once) after he was on the ground. This was right after VHS video cameras hit the market. The people taping immediately called the television station and the media showed up at the station with the tape. They showed it to my BIL and immediately wanted to know if he was going fire the officer, suspend him, etc. My BIL answered like you stated and said he needed to investigate the issue to make a determination on the circumstances. They kept pushing, but he stood his ground. They left and didn't even end up showing it on television or talking about it because there was no big issue made out of it. In the end, the investigation revealed that as the officer was handcuffing the guy, he was telling the officer he knew where he lived, and as soon as he made bail would be 'hunting down the officer's family and killing them'. When he got up from cuffing the guy, the guy was still mouthing and he kicked at him and told him to shut up.

Was the officer wrong in what he did? Yes, and he was put on probation for 6 months with a letter in his file because of the incident. The reason it was not more severe is the officer had a spotless record , including several commendations for his 12 years since becoming a cop.

[steking]

What if this extremely reckless, totally irresponsible action would have killed your son or daughter driving on that same road. Something to think about. There is absolutely no excuse.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

Whatever happened to "Click it or ticket?"

It's hard to understand how you can get all the way to
41 years old and you don't know that you should always
use your seat belt.

Even if you didn't plan on hotdogging in your Crown Vic
to the extent that you crash it and get ejected from the vehicle.

It could happen!

Sheesh.

SIA

[PeteCamp]

The problem with the responding to call is the list of exceptions in 545.365 where it includes "police patrol". Since the first line says an emergency vehicle responding to a call and the second line is police patrol, it is clear that it includes cops who are not responding to a call. Of course, this was to allow cops to make traffic stops for speeding since on-site activity like this is not responding to a call. The same phrase is repeated in a few other areas, like driving on shoulders, etc.

I'm surprised at this. In classes during my 6 years in Fire/EMS we were instructed (by DPS) that we could only violate traffic laws when we activated lights/siren and were responding to a call. In my subsequent 7 years as a Police Chaplain, I have again heard DPS (repeatedly) say almost the same thing (in essence) in training sessions: An officer could violate traffic laws if there was sufficient reason to do so. He should use lights and siren unless the tactical nature of the call precluded it. Safety of the officer and the public should always be paramount in the mind of the officer. Officers making traffic stops usually use lights and sometimes siren. I seem to remember specifically the humorous instruction that "going for coffee" was not responding to a call.

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.