# Tennessee Deputy Tickets Responder at Crash Scene



## bstone (Jun 21, 2012)

> KNOX COUNTY, Tenn. -- A Knox County sheriff's deputy cited the driver of a Rural/Metro firetruck after the firefighter allegedly wouldn't move his engine out of a lane of traffic at a crash scene on Interstate 75. Source: http://www.jems.com/article/news/te...ne@gmail.com&utm_campaign=Jems+eNews+06-21-12



We've been through this before. The federal judge ruled that the fire service can put their trucks wherever they want and the police dept must not interfere. In this case the FF has got a summons to court, which hopefully the DA will immediately dismiss along with an apology.

For some legal backround:


> U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Ann Medler has already ruled that Greeves did not have probable cause to arrest Wilson, and that under state law, "Captain Wilson and his crew were *entitled to park their fire engine irrespective of the traffic laws and/or city ordinances*."



This is from the case a few years ago where a fire captain was arrested for the very same "offense". I feel reasonably sure that the presiding judge will rule the very same way in this case. It's also pretty certain that once the criminal complaint is dismissed there will be a civil suit against the LEO.


----------



## JPINFV (Jun 21, 2012)

What if Missouri's laws are different from Tennessee's laws?


----------



## bigbaldguy (Jun 21, 2012)

I smell ego. Most likely from both sides of the story.


----------



## bstone (Jun 21, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> What if Missouri's laws are different from Tennessee's laws?



Very likely, tho it's unlikely to change in this regard. I await the legal outcome.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 21, 2012)

Reading the article, one thing that was blatantly obvious is that each side is doing everything they can to quash any rumors of an agency pissing contest.


----------



## Aidey (Jun 21, 2012)

If the engine could have been moved while scene safety remaining intact, he should have moved the engine. We have a tendency to be very self centered on scene and it is entirely appropriate for the officer to be concerned about traffic. 

I have been on multiple crashes were we initially shut down traffic, and then open it back up once PD and other units arrive on scene and can help direct traffic.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 21, 2012)

Aidey said:


> If the engine could have been moved while scene safety remaining intact, he should have moved the engine. We have a tendency to be very self centered on scene and it is entirely appropriate for the officer to be concerned about traffic.
> 
> I have been on multiple crashes were we initially shut down traffic, and then open it back up once PD and other units arrive on scene and can help direct traffic.



Agreed, but it is entirely dependent upon information we don't have in the article.  Law is usually more concerned about restoring traffic flow, whereas EMS is more concerned about maintaining control and safety of the scene.


----------



## Aidey (Jun 21, 2012)

I would say that the officers are also almost as concerned about scene safety. I think the number of officers hit on the side of the road isn't far off from the number of Fire/EMS people hit.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 21, 2012)

I think it comes from a different thought on the source of the problems.  Law believes that traffic backed up causes more accidents than smooth flowing (even if slowed down) traffic.

EMS believes any moving vehicle is a threat to their safety.


----------



## Hunter (Jun 21, 2012)

Aidey said:


> If the engine could have been moved while scene safety remaining intact, he should have moved the engine. We have a tendency to be very self centered on scene and it is entirely appropriate for the officer to be concerned about traffic.
> 
> I have been on multiple crashes were we initially shut down traffic, and then open it back up once PD and other units arrive on scene and can help direct traffic.



Maybe he was busy


----------



## glasshalfEMT (Jun 22, 2012)

I agree with the 'scene safety' aspect, otherwise, I feel it was out of line to tell the FF to move his vehicle.

My instructor told me a story--I forget if it happened to him personally, or if it's secondhand info-- that the police refused to block traffic for a MVA, so he did it himself with his rig and the PD gave him all sorts of hell about it. He justified it, rightly so I believe, by saying that traffic was too dangerous, and that the patient's life (and, of course, his own) was the priority.

It just seems unprofessional to me to let someone's life pass because you have to be the big dog. While I understand impeding the flow of traffic can be an annoyance, well, if it were my life in the balance, I say people can be annoyed in traffic if I live to see another day. Logically, I don't believe a closed or narrowed roadway causes more accidents, unless you're still going 70 mph when traffic is stopped...


----------



## Handsome Robb (Jun 22, 2012)

Others have said it. We don't know the details. 

I've been on plenty of accidents on the interstate that did not require us to close all lanes of travel. Like Aidey said, initially yes they may get closed then reopened after we establish a good size up and what our needs are. Hell I've been on an extrication accidents that didn't close the highway completely.  I've only been on one accident that completely closed the highway in one direction and that's because there was a couple hundred gallons of diesel fuel everywhere not because we needed the space. 

Maybe they needed the space, if they did I'm sure it could have easily been resolved with a calm conversation rather than a pissing match on scene that ended with this mess. I'm sure you could argue that both parties were at fault.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 22, 2012)

glasshalfEMT said:


> I agree with the 'scene safety' aspect, otherwise, I feel it was out of line to tell the FF to move his vehicle.
> 
> My instructor told me a story--I forget if it happened to him personally, or if it's secondhand info-- that the police refused to block traffic for a MVA, so he did it himself with his rig and the PD gave him all sorts of hell about it. He justified it, rightly so I believe, by saying that traffic was too dangerous, and that the patient's life (and, of course, his own) was the priority.
> 
> It just seems unprofessional to me to let someone's life pass because you have to be the big dog. While I understand impeding the flow of traffic can be an annoyance, well, if it were my life in the balance, I say people can be annoyed in traffic if I live to see another day. Logically, I don't believe a closed or narrowed roadway causes more accidents, unless you're still going 70 mph when traffic is stopped...


So what happens when you back up traffic so far that it goes to the next blind hill or curve?  People proceeding down the road at normal speed are not expecting to come to an immediate stop.  This can, has, and does cause more accidents; and it is an issue LE (in general) is more aware of than EMS.


----------



## glasshalfEMT (Jun 22, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> So what happens when you back up traffic so far that it goes to the next blind hill or curve?  People proceeding down the road at normal speed are not expecting to come to an immediate stop.  This can, has, and does cause more accidents; and it is an issue LE (in general) is more aware of than EMS.



You're right, I didn't think of hilly terrain or whatnot... the story I related, though, involves road flatter than pancake for hundreds of miles with few, if any, turns or curves. Additionally, I imagine, unless it's a serious MVA that requires a whole lot of cleanup and patient extraction, that the road will only be closed or narrowed for a reasonably short amount of time.


----------



## Kevinf (Jun 23, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> So what happens when you back up traffic so far that it goes to the next blind hill or curve?  People proceeding down the road at normal speed are not expecting to come to an immediate stop.  This can, has, and does cause more accidents; and it is an issue LE (in general) is more aware of than EMS.



Sounds like LE should be directing traffic and placing markers out to prevent that until the rescue and medical side gives the OK. I'm sure there is a clear cut policy in place for these two organizations for such situations. This would hardly be the first time there has been an accident on a roadway that temporarily impedes traffic.

I'm siding with the FF on this one.


----------



## CANDawg (Jun 23, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> So what happens when you back up traffic so far that it goes to the next blind hill or curve?  People proceeding down the road at normal speed are not expecting to come to an immediate stop.  This can, has, and does cause more accidents; and it is an issue LE (in general) is more aware of than EMS.



Than this means there should be a squad car with lights at this sight line restriction, both to cause people to slow down, as well as direct traffic if necessary.

If traffic needs to be restricted, traffic needs to be restricted. It is LE's job to identify problem areas with the traffic having been slowed or stopped, and address these. If this means sitting down the road from the incident site, than so be it. Quite frankly, if there aren't any other scene safety issues, a bunch of LEOs milling around within 20 feet of the patient isn't really necessary in most cases.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 23, 2012)

Agreed, assuming there is one available.


----------

