Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Sheriff's Deputy Fired After Fatal Crash (http://www.wjfw.com/stories.html?sku=20110812092539)

Homicide charge filed against deputy in Hwys. 35/OT crash (http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_d42b9d2c-23fe-11e0-aace-001cc4c002e0.html)

Lights and sirens on. Responding to emergency call. Entered intersection and hit other car killing the 16 y/o occupant (no seatbelt, 16 and out at 1 am?).

She was fired today. Charged in January.

I can understand the firing. Breaking an intersection at over 90 is a little excessive. Probably violates a number of well known and written policies of her department.

But I thought the fact she was on official duty and responding to a call with lights and sirens would prevent any type of criminal charge. She doesn't appear to be impaired in any way. She may have miscalculated what safe and prudent is but I would think that is covered by as a duty related judgement/action.

Is this a criminal offense?

It depends on the law. Is that in Wisconsin?

In Connecticut, operators of emergency vehicles are required to proceed with due caution. Depending on a number of circumstances, it could very well be criminal.

It could also be a political maneuver to charge the cop with something. Unless I saw the accident reconstruction report myself, I couldn't say for certain.

I think it's WI. It came up next to another article on the board.

I can see finding her at fault in the accident. I would put the liability for that with the sheriff's office as she was acting in her official capacity. I thought there were very broad immunities offered to officials that act out of their official duty.

Could be criminal in Oregon too. In fact, an officer was charged and convicted of man slaughter for going through a stop sign at high speed hitting a van with a family in it in a neighboring police department a few years ago.

The age of the victim and the time is immaterial in a case posted. Even if he were wearing a seatbelt, getting t-boned at that speed is going to be fatal. How would it be different if the other person was 35 years old and coming home from work? And hitting an intersection at 90 is more than a "little excessive". She was doing 106mph 1.6 seconds before the crash. I can easily see how someone approaching that intersection, especially if there are any hills, trees or other minor obstructions would have no idea someone was coming down the road that fast.

They ran us through some training on how ineffective a siren is even as slow highway speeds. At that speed, it's worthless.

The age of the victim and the time is immaterial in a case posted. Even if he were wearing a seatbelt, getting t-boned at that speed is going to be fatal. How would it be different if the other person was 35 years old and coming home from work? And hitting an intersection at 90 is more than a "little excessive". She was doing 106mph 1.6 seconds before the crash. I can easily see how someone approaching that intersection, especially if there are any hills, trees or other minor obstructions would have no idea someone was coming down the road that fast.

My noting the age and time of incident has more to do with the officers state of mind. A 16 year old is an inexperienced driver. The officer's view of safe and prudent may factor in the types of drivers and pedestrians out at that particular time ( 1 a.m. on that road is different than 2 pm in front of the high school). It doesn't change the fault of the accident at all but state of mind about what speeds are safe might have been affected. I thought that would play a role in assessing the criminality of the act. If she believed it was safe to operate at that speed and safe to enter the intersection (based on her beliefs, experience and conditions) and she was responding according to her duty, I thought she would be immune from criminal prosecution. I can see the department firing her for violating policy but elevating it to "criminal" seems a little excessive.

Let's put it this way, if photo radar had caught her doing 100 mph with lights and sirens and she didn't get in an accident, I don't think they would give her a criminal speeding ticket just because it was greater than department policy. I think they would defer to the officer's judgement. The accident makes it a horrendous misjudgement about the conditions, but criminal?

Let's put it this way, if photo radar had caught her doing 100 mph with lights and sirens and she didn't get in an accident, I don't think they would give her a criminal speeding ticket just because it was greater than department policy. I think they would defer to the officer's judgement. The accident makes it a horrendous misjudgement about the conditions, but criminal?

If I recklessly shoot a gun in a situation that's not department policy, I probably wouldn't be charged criminally either. If I recklessly shoot a gun not under department policy and hit someone and kill them, I no doubt would be.

Of course, she didn't mean to kill the kid, but driving that fast on a road with intersections can be reckless no matter whether she had the lights and siren on or not. Again, I'd have to see the terrain to make a judgement, but I'm assuming someone has done that.

In Wisconsin we have a "due regard" clause. As most officers here know that means that if an officer was acting without "due regard" i.e. going through a light and hitting someone. Here, just because your lights and sirens are on, doesn't mean that you are exempt from maintaining control of your vehicle and if you run a red light and hit someone, it is on you because you were the one going over the limit, just because you have lights and sirens doesn't mean everyone can see you.

During my time as an explorer I was told "as an officer, you do no one any good if you don't get to the scene, drive fast but smart."

Wisconsin also has a "privilege" statute basically stating that IF an officer is acting WITHIN the department policy they are covered from civil and criminal prosecution. But if the officer is outside the department policy, they are screwed. I don't know many departments that allow their officers to go through intersection that quickly, most departments in Wisconsin include "due regard" in their policies for reasons stated above.

Hope that helps.
MPI1

Having lights and siren on in a marked car responding to a bonafide emergency does NOT relieve me from using care and caution while running a red light. Doing so at 90 in say a lesser speed zone is getting beyond the point of justification.

I do not have the right of way while running a red light/ stop sign etc. I just have the authority to do it in safety.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________

Stratman entered the intersection on a red light and struck Jennings' vehicle at 90.6 mph, according to the complaint. Her speed was 106 mph 1.6 seconds before the crash.

You cannot safely run that kind of speed on a highway with intersections !! I have gone that fast on an interstate highway at 0230 but not an a road like this. What kind of call was she going to ?

This is a 2 lane highway that briefly goes to 4 lanes approaching and leaving the intersection with OT Highway. ( also a 2 lane road). There is a signal light as well. This is a mixture of residential and business but by no means is urban or rural. Perhaps suburban is better.

At 106 mph , she would have been travelling 155 feet per second. Her perception / reaction time wold have been approximately 1.5 seconds meaning she would have travelled 232 ft from the time she first saw the car as a hazard until her foot hit the brake.

If her speed was 90 at impact , she was certainly on the brakes prior to impact to have slowed down 16 mph. So , she perceived the other car as a hazard , hit the brakes and still travelled over 300 ft total before impact.

I would like to know the length of her skids.

The higher the speed , the more dangerous road to do it on , dept policy , nature of the call will ALL factor into the justification of charges. We do not have catre blanche to drive as fast as we want to any kind of call.

It is better to arrive a few seconds later then to not arrive at all.



Read more: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_d42b9d2c-23fe-11e0-aace-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1UuiM8Psk

I would like to know the length of her skids.

I’d be willing to bet she didn’t leave any skids.

If the numbers quoted in the article are accurate, in the 1.6 seconds before impact her vehicle travelled about 227 feet while slowing from 156.71 fps to 132.81 fps. She was probably just getting her foot on the brake and had just started applying braking when the impact occurred.

My guess is that any more significant braking input would have generated a deceleration factor higher than 0.57.

BTW, I needed a calculator to figure that out. I can’t do it in my head…

BTW, I needed a calculator to figure that out. I can’t do it in my head…

I'm so disappointed!! You totally ruined it for me!! I thought you'd done all that math in your head WHILE typing out your response!!

:biggrin5:

I’d be willing to bet she didn’t leave any skids.

If the numbers quoted in the article are accurate, in the 1.6 seconds before impact her vehicle travelled about 227 feet while slowing from 156.71 fps to 132.81 fps. She was probably just getting her foot on the brake and had just started applying braking when the impact occurred.

My guess is that any more significant braking input would have generated a deceleration factor higher than 0.57.

BTW, I needed a calculator to figure that out. I can’t do it in my head…

No need for a calculator. A quick run of the numbers tells me the train will meet the car in memphis in 2 hours and 36 minutes.

I love story problems.

No need for a calculator. A quick run of the numbers tells me the train will meet the car in memphis in 2 hours and 36 minutes.

I love story problems.

I am always better at picture problems, those story problems always lost me because I never understood why Jane was meeting Joey in the first place. They just never gave me enough info, thought it might be for a drug deal or something.