TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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).