# FireFighter Arrested by CHP. Thoughts?



## BobBarker (Feb 1, 2017)

This story/incident is almost 3rys old, but after commenting on another thread, I was asked to create a new thread of this incident to see people's thoughts.
There was a car accident on the freeway and Chula Vista Fire Department and an ambulance responded. The Engineer parked the fire engine behind the ambulance, to protect the crew in the lane of traffic. A CHP officer asked him to move it and he refused to, citing his protocol to leave the engine there to protect the crew. Long story short, the officer arrested the firefighter and he was release 30 minutes late.

Story can be read here: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...-chp-arrest-handcuff-2014mar25-htmlstory.html

Here's another site with a lot of specifics: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In FDCO 20160218A18/GREGOIRE v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

What are your thoughts?


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Feb 1, 2017)

We have had multiple run ins with CHP out here while on traffic collisions on the freeways. Sadly it seems as if CHP's main priority is keeping lanes open despite crew safety.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 1, 2017)

So to me it seems as though this simply became a richard measuring contest between two males Nothing more, nothing less. Hardly the same as someone insisting another human being needs care rendered, then being held back (aggressively, or not).

Every other fire engine was cancelled, and it sounds like your typical over inflated rescue response. The AMR crew parked in a better and most likely courteous position than this FF and his hero-complex-sounding having self. The cop asked him...repeatedly...to move. He was just milling around (like that never happens when a fire engine shows up to an over triaged call?), and claimed he was rendering aid by what? Holding a flashlight or some crap, gimme a break.

Both guys puffed their chests out at one another, and IMO in hindsight, both look silly, and have brought a bit of embarrassing publicity to their agencies. The FF got his feelings hurt, and it completely backfired on him when the cop called his bluff. The cop did warn the FF though, and no other providers gave him a hard time on scene of this call. LE does have ultimate control of a scene's safety, and even though we may not like it, can we cite the law, and their job in regards to the overall scene like we can the medical care, and aspects? Why can't we all just get the damn job done, and go home? Lol., geezuz.

The medical portion is our domain; the keeping us, and the other first responding agencies from being mooshed like pancakes is theirs. Now, if after complying with LE/ highway patrol, whomever, God forbid said FF, or paramedic was injured, or killed well now, that sounds like a justifiable lawsuit for them and/ or their families. But because you want to prove a point to "the boys back at the firehouse" and instead know nothing about California law, and end up briefly detained in handcuffs, in your bunker gear in the back of a patrol car then settle out of court, what point have you made?


----------



## BobBarker (Feb 1, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> So to me it seems as though this simply became a richard measuring contest between two males Nothing more, nothing less. Hardly the same as someone insisting another human being needs care rendered, then being held back (aggressively, or not).
> 
> Every other fire engine was cancelled, and it sounds like your typical over inflated rescue response. The AMR crew parked in a better and most likely courteous position than this FF and his hero-complex-sounding having self. The cop asked him...repeatedly...to move. He was just milling around (like that never happens when a fire engine shows up to an over triaged call?), and claimed he was rendering aid by what? Holding a flashlight or some crap, gimme a break.
> 
> ...


You might want to read the second link I put up there. The FF was actually holding C-Spine and actively caring for the patient per himself, his other firefighters and witnesses. The CHP officer also was reported to say that he "didn't care about the patients, and he wanted the engine moved".


----------



## Jim37F (Feb 1, 2017)

DesertMedic66 said:


> We have had multiple run ins with CHP out here while on traffic collisions on the freeways. Sadly it seems as if CHP's main priority is keeping lanes open despite crew safety.


It's funny because my experience with CHP has been almost the opposite. I've never seen them hesitate to shut down the freeway even if we're only on the shoulder, and have never seen them pressure us to hurry up and move rigs out of the way. Heck half the time once we get the patient loaded up they want us to wait a bit while they ask a bunch of their own questions....to the point where I've seen Fire try to urge CHP to hurry up so we can clear off the freeway! I wonder if it's a divisional attitude or something?


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 1, 2017)

Billy D said:


> You might want to read the second link I put up there. The FF was actually holding C-Spine and actively caring for the patient* per himself*, his other firefighters and witnesses. The CHP officer also was reported to say that he "didn't care about the patients, and he wanted the engine moved".


Why? It'll hardly change my opinion. He cares about the entire scene. And the highlighted remark does nothing to make me want to read further into it. It was a laughably ridiculous ego trip from both parties. My guess is they'd had run ins with one another in the past.


Jim37F said:


> I wonder if it's a divisional attitude or something?


It could be, or just individually based. Some have been very polite and cordial, others have been the same as @DesertMedic66 has mentioned. Guess I expect them to control the overall safety of the _scene, not the individual patient(s)._

Do we not expect this of LEO on a shooting or stabbing? Least that's the analogy I could come up with on such short notice. In other words, why would I expect the LEO to care about patient care? 

I don't care about them telling me to move the unit to the point where I'd let myself get handcuffed.


----------



## BobBarker (Feb 1, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> Why? It'll hardly change my opinion. He cares about the entire scene. And the highlighted remark does nothing to make me want to read further into it. It was a laughably ridiculous ego trip from both parties. My guess is they'd had run ins with one another in the past.
> 
> It could be, or just individually based. Some have been very polite and cordial, others have been the same as @DesertMedic66 has mentioned. Guess I expect them to control the overall safety of the _scene, not the individual patient(s)._
> 
> ...


I'm sure they had run ins in the past with each other because this normally wouldn't happen out of the blue. The engineer/FF in question was rendering direct patient care, so it's not like he can just jump up and move the rig, especially when your holding c-spine and preparing to transfer the patient to the gurney/ambulance. If you read the 2nd link, it stated an off-duty emt who was helping them prior EMS arrival was the one who stated that the firefighter was holding c-spine and helping them transfer the patient to the gurney, which would defeat your accusation of him, "Holding a flashlight or some crap".

From the article:
Mitchell, who was in the same vehicle as Hutton(off-duty emt), stated that when the CHP officer told the fireman to move the truck, the fireman was working on the injured patient at the time. (Dkt. No. 35-4, Mitchell Decl. ¶ 5.) The fireman was kneeling next to the patient and said, "I am in the middle of helping this patient." (Id. ¶ 6.) The CHP officer told him that he wanted him to stop caring for the patient and move the fire truck off the freeway and take it back to the station. (Id. ¶ 7.) The fireman replied "What about the patients?" and the CHP officer replied "I don't care about the patients, I just want you to leave." (Id. ¶ 8.) While she was there, she never heard the CHP officer ask about the condition of the patients or consult about how long or how many men were needed to help the two patients. (Id. ¶ 9.) The fireman was kneeling and preparing a backboard for the patient when the CHP officer approached and put the fireman in handcuffs. (Id. ¶ 10.)

Oh, and seeing how a judge agreed with the firefighter on most points in the lawsuit, the fact that both agencies met with each other to improve relations and it hasn't happened again to any firefighter in that area since, I say he made a point.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 1, 2017)

Meh, neither of them proved much here to me, but I'm several county's removed from that rubbish anyhow. I'm sure everything is "hunky dory" now down that way.

I'll be sure to thank him next time he's unnecessarily blocking lanes of traffic causing a jam for something that so simply could have been resolved. Again, not changing my stance.


----------



## BobBarker (Feb 1, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> Meh, neither of them proved much here to me, but I'm several county's removed from that rubbish anyhow. I'm sure everything is "hunky dory" now down that way.
> 
> I'll be sure to thank him next time he's unnecessarily blocking lanes of traffic causing a jam for something that so simply could have been resolved. Again, not changing my stance.


No problem, you are certainly entitled to your opinion as everyone is. I think it was proven by the judge and witnesses that the traffic being blocked was actually necessary.


----------



## DrParasite (Feb 1, 2017)

While I have never dealt with CHP, I have interacted with state troopers from multiple states during my career.  Most are decent individuals, most will work with you, most have their priority being "keep the traffic flowing, close as few lanes as possible." followed by firefighter/EMS safety, but if you explain to them why you need a lane shut down, they will usually do it.  Except if they are going to do an AI, than they have no issues shutting down every lane they need, for as long as they need to.

there are always two questions at scenes like this:  who is legally in charge of the scene?  don't give me any unified command BS, because if the cop IC and fire IC disagree (and they are both in the command post as US), someone has to make the decision and be held accountable.  otherwise you would have a deadlock.

and second, if the firefighter felt the officer's directions were resulting in an unsafe scene, then the captain or lieutenant (or whomever was in charge of the crew), should have discussed it with the CHP trooper, and if the trooper insists of them moving, the engine crew should have all got into the engine and left, notifying dispatch on the radio "per Trooper 123, we have been ordered off the roadway, creating an unsafe situation.  if they would like us back, we will need to have the CHP Sergeant or Lt meet us on the scene," and had their respective chief have a meeting with their chief the next day during business hours discuss the better way to deal with these situations.  

BTW, I like to shut down all involved lanes as well as an extra lane to work in (if needed).  But I also try to spend as little time on the roadway as possible.


----------



## BobBarker (Feb 1, 2017)

DrParasite said:


> While I have never dealt with CHP, I have interacted with state troopers from multiple states during my career.  Most are decent individuals, most will work with you, most have their priority being "keep the traffic flowing, close as few lanes as possible." followed by firefighter/EMS safety, but if you explain to them why you need a lane shut down, they will usually do it.  Except if they are going to do an AI, than they have no issues shutting down every lane they need, for as long as they need to.
> 
> there are always two questions at scenes like this:  who is legally in charge of the scene?  don't give me any unified command BS, because if the cop IC and fire IC disagree (and they are both in the command post as US), someone has to make the decision and be held accountable.  otherwise you would have a deadlock.
> 
> ...


By law, CHP is in charge however while reading the lawsuit documents, they must consult with EMS/Fire before making a decision. The problem with the crew just leaving, is that they were actively helping a patient. Can you go from holding C-Spine on a patient and trying to load them on a gurney to just leaving the patient there in 5 seconds? No. They didn't do that because the patient would be left there until another ambulance crew had the time to load them up. If the firefighter/his crew wasn't actively helping a patient, I would agree they should just go. But he was, so they didn't.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Feb 1, 2017)

Don't get me wrong, I have had some great experiences with CHP and then other times less than stellar. The good ones outweigh the bad ones. 

But I would hardly consider pushing a wrecked car out of lanes with a CHP cruiser with everyone working about a foot away on a patient is the safest thing to do.


----------



## CALEMT (Feb 1, 2017)

I'm just going to be the devils advocate here and I didn't read all the post... cause lazy. But law enforcement technically has control over the scene i.e. Cops tell you to move the rig you move it. Most of my experiences with CHP on TC's is more of "hey what do you guys need" I've never had a negative interaction as far as rig placement on scene.


----------



## BobBarker (Feb 1, 2017)

CALEMT said:


> I'm just going to be the devils advocate here and I didn't read all the post... cause lazy. But law enforcement technically has control over the scene i.e. Cops tell you to move the rig you move it. Most of my experiences with CHP on TC's is more of "hey what do you guys need" I've never had a negative interaction as far as rig placement on scene.


If you were in the middle of treating a patient, you would just let the patient be and leave?


----------



## CALEMT (Feb 1, 2017)

Billy D said:


> If you were in the middle of treating a patient, you would just let the patient be and leave?



Just being the devils advocate. There are partners that you can delegate that task to or have the LEO move it. I've never had CHP ask us to move the ambulance or ask fire to move the engine.

I'm curious to what @chrls thinks about this.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 1, 2017)

CALEMT said:


> I'm curious to what @chrls thinks about this.


Wurd, @gotbeerz001 as well. Also, @gotbeerz001 got any beers today? Been a helluva day, bud.

I doubt the chippie will respond, and I don't blame him one bit.


----------



## CALEMT (Feb 1, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> I doubt the chippie will respond,



He's quite frequent on here, just doesn't post all that often. I summoned him via @... next I shall try a doughnut.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 1, 2017)

CALEMT said:


> He's quite frequent on here, just doesn't post all that often. I summoned him via @... *next I shall try a doughnut*.


Oh man, this made me LOL, perhaps the the beers, perhaps "The Gambler" courtesy of señor Kenny Rogers, either way it was perfect timing CAL, thanks, lol.


----------



## DrParasite (Feb 2, 2017)

Billy D said:


> By law, CHP is in charge however while reading the lawsuit documents, they must consult with EMS/Fire before making a decision. The problem with the crew just leaving, is that they were actively helping a patient. Can you go from holding C-Spine on a patient and trying to load them on a gurney to just leaving the patient there in 5 seconds? No. They didn't do that because the patient would be left there until another ambulance crew had the time to load them up. If the firefighter/his crew wasn't actively helping a patient, I would agree they should just go. But he was, so they didn't.


Sure why not?  the incident commander gave you a direct order, which would render the scene unsafe.  best to pack up your toys and go home, especially if following the order would substantially and unnecessarily increase the danger level of the scene .  if there are any negative outcomes, it falls on the person who gave the order, as he is in charge.   And for the record, I have never heard that a cop needs to consult with anyone before making a LEO decision, and traffic control and accident investigation is a LEO decision (legally, operationally is a different story).  

Taking it to the extreme, yes, leave the patient on the roadway.  why?  because XYZ CHP trooper ordered us to, and he was in charge of the scene, and legally it's his decision.  Don't like it?  have the legislative body pass a law saying that Fire or EMS is legally in charge of every MVA, and LEO need to follow their direction.  



Billy D said:


> If you were in the middle of treating a patient, you would just let the patient be and leave?


Lets take this to the extreme: thoughtout the US, LEOs (particularly state troopers for some reason) has a well documented history of arresting firefighters for failing to follow their directions.  

Legally, the LEO is in charge of the scene.  If your supervisor were to give you a direct order, and he is legally in charge of you, why should you not follow it?  after all, if anything bad come from it, he was the one who gave you the direct order, and he is (overall) responsible for everything that happens, both good and bad, on the scene.

We (fire and ems) fight these battles all the time, 
https://www.statter911.com/2014/08/...ne-arrested-failing-obey-sheriff-crash-scene/
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1993-01-04/news/9301010633_1_clark-accident-fire-rescue
https://www.statter911.com/2016/12/...sted-for-shoving-cop-who-vented-burning-home/ (ok, this might have been justified legally, but still a poor decision by the  cop)
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/health/safety/news.php?q=1203383265
https://www.firerescue1.com/inciden...for-apparatus-placement-awarded-17-500-in-Mo/
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/0...ds-up-handcuffed-in-the-back-of-a-police-car/
https://www.statter911.com/2014/02/...r-brother-arrested-traffic-control-spat-cops/

and a new clip with video of what happened in California





most of the time, the courts side with who had legal authority to be in charge of the scene, and whether or not the LEO had the legal authority to give a lawful order (but not always, it all depends on state law).


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 2, 2017)

It's not a new clip, DrP. I stand by what I said, it should have never came to that, smh.


----------



## DrParasite (Feb 2, 2017)

you're right, it's not new, that was supposed to say "and now a clip with video of what happened."

and I agree, it should never have came to this, but the question is, and I think this is what the lawsuit is about, who was wrong in the situation?


----------



## BobBarker (Feb 2, 2017)

DrParasite said:


> Sure why not?  the incident commander gave you a direct order, which would render the scene unsafe.  best to pack up your toys and go home, especially if following the order would substantially and unnecessarily increase the danger level of the scene .  if there are any negative outcomes, it falls on the person who gave the order, as he is in charge.   And for the record, I have never heard that a cop needs to consult with anyone before making a LEO decision, and traffic control and accident investigation is a LEO decision (legally, operationally is a different story).
> 
> Taking it to the extreme, yes, leave the patient on the roadway.  why?  because XYZ CHP trooper ordered us to, and he was in charge of the scene, and legally it's his decision.  Don't like it?  have the legislative body pass a law saying that Fire or EMS is legally in charge of every MVA, and LEO need to follow their direction.
> 
> ...


Directly from the Lawsuit/Judge:
Based on these statutes, management of the scene of an emergency vests in the CHP officers while patient health care management in an emergency vests in the paramedics/EMTs. *Management of the scene requires the CHP officers to consult "with representatives of other response agencies at the scene to ensure that all appropriate resources are properly utilized", Cal. Penal Code § 409.3, and as it specifically relates to patient care, CHP officers must "consult emergency medical services personnel or other authoritative health care professionals at the scene in the determination of relevant risks," Cal. Health & Safety § 1798.6*.

The CHP officer never consulted with the Fire Department, he just abirtrarily made his own decision, probably because he was interested in keeping as many lanes on the freeway open as possible. The CHP is not an expert in patient or medical care, so how would he know what resources are needed? And in that post, it said specifically that patient health care, which they admit the firefighter in question was performing(an off-duty emt directly said that), rests in FF/EMT. As an EMT/Medic/FF, you are also a patient advocate and you try to do what's best for your patient.
Also, the same charge that the CHP used to detain/arrest the firefighter, can also be applied to the officer: 148(a), willfully/delaying policer officers and/or EMT's from discharging their duties.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 2, 2017)

@Billy D may I ask what your firsthand experience is with responding to the scene of a highway MVC as either a FF, LE, EMT or paramedic?


----------



## NysEms2117 (Feb 2, 2017)

@Billy D Is the LEO not a member of a response agency? was he/she not dispatched there? You'll learn this as well, you can consult with somebody then blatantly ignore whatever they say. They could have said, we need to be here, but when your the boss guess what.. you call the shots. As Dr. P said, if he tells you move, say "this will effect patient care" then move. Your scene is unsafe if your truck is not protecting you. However, he could have been setting up a blockage in the lane with other units half a mile down the road, idk.

One thing i learned on day 3 of my current job. Don't try to get legal unless your trained too, because you will look like an absolute fool to judges, or lawyers/prosecutors.

**curious here, how do you plan on arresting a police officer? you'd delay him from his duties as well... can't possible make the scene code 4 if the person trained to that is in handcuffs..**


----------



## BobBarker (Feb 2, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> @Billy D may I ask what your firsthand experience is with responding to the scene of a highway MVC as either a FF, LE, EMT or paramedic?


10yr, now retired, FF/EMT.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 2, 2017)

Billy D said:


> 10yr, now retired, FF/EMT.


You started when you were 13?


----------



## BobBarker (Feb 2, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> You started when you were 13?


Just noticed the year. Nope, born in 1963. Can't figure out how to change it either.
Edit: Just saw I have to contact an administrator to change the year. Doing so now.


----------



## BobBarker (Feb 2, 2017)

NysEms2117 said:


> @Billy D Is the LEO not a member of a response agency? was he/she not dispatched there? You'll learn this as well, you can consult with somebody then blatantly ignore whatever they say. They could have said, we need to be here, but when your the boss guess what.. you call the shots. As Dr. P said, if he tells you move, say "this will effect patient care" then move. Your scene is unsafe if your truck is not protecting you. However, he could have been setting up a blockage in the lane with other units half a mile down the road, idk.
> 
> One thing i learned on day 3 of my current job. Don't try to get legal unless your trained too, because you will look like an absolute fool to judges, or lawyers/prosecutors.
> 
> **curious here, how do you plan on arresting a police officer? you'd delay him from his duties as well... can't possible make the scene code 4 if the person trained to that is in handcuffs..**


Yes. Yes and so was fire. They did exactly what you said, they told the officer they were treating patients and the officer said he didn't care about the patients and to move. The FF captain explained in the deposition that they saw the ambulance 50% into the #1 lane, so they positioned their fire engine 25ft behind it, to create a safety zone for themselves and the patients.  I'm not saying to arrest the police officer, what I am saying is its ironic that the charge he used to arrest the FF on, is technically the same thing he did. And what does arresting a FF actively involved in patient care do? If he wants the driver of the engine to move it faster, how does arresting him expedite that? To be honest, only lawyers and judges


----------



## NysEms2117 (Feb 2, 2017)

Billy D said:


> Yes. Yes and so was fire. They did exactly what you said, they told the officer they were treating patients and the officer said he didn't care about the patients and to move. The FF captain explained in the deposition that they saw the ambulance 50% into the #1 lane, so they positioned their fire engine 25ft behind it, to create a safety zone for themselves and the patients.  I'm not saying to arrest the police officer, what I am saying is its ironic that the charge he used to arrest the FF on, is technically the same thing he did. And what does arresting a FF actively involved in patient care do? If he wants the driver of the engine to move it faster, how does arresting him expedite that? To be honest, only lawyers and judges


I just have a 1 sentence reply. 
"Who is the boss, who calls the shots"? In my unofficial interpretation that is the officer. (right or wrong, thats not the discussion). He says do it, you do it. It's on him, as Dr. P mentioned. You say without that truck i dont feel safe, scene is not safe, you don't enter. pack up go home, sorry to the patient, but thats life.


----------



## Kevinf (Feb 3, 2017)

"I was just following orders" hasn't been an affirmative defense since the Nuremberg trials. Good on the firefighter for sticking to his guns.


----------



## DrParasite (Feb 5, 2017)

Kevinf said:


> "I was just following orders" hasn't been an affirmative defense since the Nuremberg trials. Good on the firefighter for sticking to his guns.


you sure about that? as much as I hate using wikipedia as a reference source, outside of committing Genocide, following a superiors orders has been used and courts have found it applicable for an individual not being held responsible for their actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders, http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/41405/index.do, http://web.archive.org/web/20060910...ularprograms/ils/workshop/fall04_Martinez.pdf

We aren't talking about committing a murder; we are talking about following an order given by the person in charge of an incident.  Very big difference than what happened following WWII


----------



## Kevinf (Feb 5, 2017)

I failed to quote so that's my bad. I was specifically referring to the scenario where it would negatively affect patient care, holding c-spine and the like. If it comes down to it where EMS abandons patient care (with a negative outcome) because an officer was throwing orders around I wouldn't expect that crew to be off the hook just because a Statey was barking at them.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 5, 2017)

Kevinf said:


> I wouldn't expect that crew to be off the hook just because a *Statey* was barking at them.


Sorry for the derail, but I like learning regional lingo. This one's a humdinger.


----------



## CALEMT (Feb 5, 2017)

Kevinf said:


> Statey



Chippy.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 5, 2017)

CALEMT said:


> *CHiPpie*.


----------



## CALEMT (Feb 5, 2017)

Interesting. Never seen it spelled like that. Always seen it spelled chippy. CHiPs is the other way I've seen it spelled.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 5, 2017)

CALEMT said:


> Interesting. Never seen it spelled like that. Always seen it spelled chippy. CHiPs is the other way I've seen it spelled.


That was the purist in me.


----------



## NomadicMedic (Feb 5, 2017)

That's a regionalism. In Connecticut, where I grew up, State Police were always called "staties". Here in Georgia, they're "troopers".


----------



## Alan L Serve (Feb 5, 2017)

We've had problems with the state troopers coming into the ambulance during assessment of a patient s/p MVA. When we kindly ask them to step out for both HIPAA and space issues they will snarl and sometimes threaten us with "interfering". (They barged into our ambulance and interfered with our patient care. How is this interfering?)  We're a fire-based service so our chief went to their brass who pretended the behavior of the troopers is beyond reproach. It's a powder-keg and the troopers are giving off sparks. I love Bonnie, she's amazing.


----------



## NomadicMedic (Feb 5, 2017)

How is a Trooper in the ambulance a HIPAA issue?


----------



## Alan L Serve (Feb 5, 2017)

DEmedic said:


> How is a Trooper in the ambulance a HIPAA issue?


That is a good question. We are a service which bills and I imagine anyone who hasn't undergone HIPAA training and isn't part of our service shouldn't be in the ambulance while private medical information is being discussed. I could be wrong but it's what our project medical director and regional EMS office told us when we asked.

Looks like JEMS had an article on this a long time ago and they seem to say you can't disclose too much and should follow the rulings of your EMS overlords. I'm not a lawyer and I'm also very risk-adverse.
http://www.jems.com/articles/2007/08/sharing-patient-information-po.html


----------



## NomadicMedic (Feb 5, 2017)

It's a very specific situation, but in the case of the police officer investigating the crime or accident, the information they would gather by asking questions of the patient is allowable and is probably not a HIPAA violation. ("Where are you hurt?" "Do you remember what happened?" "Were you drinking?" "Are you taking any meds that may impair your driving?")

Of course, the space issue and the fact that cops can sometimes be douches in the back of the truck gives you all the right in the world to boot 'em out. If they really want to interview the patient, they can drive on over to the ED.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Feb 5, 2017)

DEmedic said:


> It's a very specific situation, but in the case of the police officer investigating the crime or accident, the information they would gather by asking questions of the patient is allowable and is probably not a HIPAA violation. ("Where are you hurt?" "Do you remember what happened?" "Were you drinking?" "Are you taking any meds that may impair your driving?")
> 
> Of course, the space issue and the fact that cops can sometimes be douches in the back of the truck gives you all the right in the world to boot 'em out. If they really want to interview the patient, they can drive on over to the ED.


Once we drop off the PT to the ED it's no longer my concern and I'll let the ED staff deal with those issues. I do know, however, that we've been told by our agency and governmental overlords that the troopers are not allowed on the bus unless it's to protect us or the patient and they definitely can't be in there during patient care unless the PT is in custody or we need protection.

Sometimes I feel we need protection from the troopers.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 5, 2017)

DEmedic said:


> If they really want to interview the patient, they can drive on over to the ED.


This. I have and will do this when applicable. I've had cops ask me if a (critically wounded) GSW victim would be able to be "interviewed" en route to the ED.

I get that they have a very small window to try and piece things together and what not, so my reply has been something to the effect of:

"You can sure try, but I doubt it." followed by a impromptu briefing on how to properly ventilate said patient.

We all have jobs to do, but if push comes to shove I agree they can just meet up the ED. I won't let them eat time when time is of the essence. In the long run it does nothing for even their investigation.


----------



## chrls (Feb 5, 2017)

CALEMT said:


> He's quite frequent on here, just doesn't post all that often. I summoned him via @... next I shall try a doughnut.



I lurk mostly. I'll admit I'm a few days late and haven't read the whole thread but you can't deny that donuts are delicious. 

As others have said this incident was several years ago so I don't recall the specifics and don't want to spend a bunch of time getting back into it. 

Here is my somewhat generic thoughts to what happened. Incident command authority at a crash is placed with the agency with primary traffic collision investigation responsibility. This tc being on the freeway makes it the highway patrol. This is the case in California where I, calemt, and desertmedic as well as a lot of others on this forum work. I don't know the laws in your state. 

That being said I don't know a single chippie who wants to get into an arguement over vehicle placement with fire/ems. As long as everything is getting done and is being done safely you can park most wherever you want. Just don't be that guy who blocks every lane of a freeway for some bent fenders, that's not cool. 

The only time I'll ask another first responder to move their piece of equipment is when they're taking up portions of lanes. I don't care that traffic is blocked/slowed in that lane, I care that someone who isn't paying attention is going to hit that polished piece of fender that's sticking 2 feet into the next lane. Not only does this damage your fire truck it gives me a lot more paperwork. I'm looking out for both of us if I'm asking you to move. 

As far as arresting somebody who you got into an argunement with? You look like an idiot. If I'm at a crash I have better things to do than argue with a firefighter. We all have a job to do at a scene and mine doesn't included getting into a fight. 

We are a large department. Some of us look bad occasionally. This is one of those times. 

TLR - he was an idiot, made us look bad, and shouldn't have done that.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 5, 2017)

@chrls thanks for _CHiP_ping in. I still think they both could have handled it so much better and made both of their departments look foolish.


----------



## chrls (Feb 5, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> Sorry for the derail, but I like learning regional lingo. This one's a humdinger.





CALEMT said:


> Chippy.



This works. 




CALEMT said:


> Interesting. Never seen it spelled like that. Always seen it spelled chippy. CHiPs is the other way I've seen it spelled.



CHiPs is the show, don't call us that. 



DEmedic said:


> That's a regionalism. In Connecticut, where I grew up, State Police were always called "staties". Here in Georgia, they're "troopers".



Most chippies will give you a weird look if you call them trooper/staties. Haha.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 5, 2017)

I briefly entertained the idea of joining CHP. I actually like the hat, but the aviators alongside of those a la the prison guard in "Cool Hand Luke" are mandatory.

#YetAnotherThreadDerailSoSueMe


----------



## chrls (Feb 5, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> I briefly entertained the idea of joining CHP. I actually like the hat, but the aviators alongside of those a la the prison guard in "Cool Hand Luke" are mandatory.
> 
> #YetAnotherThreadDerailSoSueMe



I may or may not wear those in tandem whenever I get the chance. 

#AddMeToTheLawsuit


----------



## Jim37F (Feb 5, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> I briefly entertained the idea of joining CHP. I actually like the hat, but the aviators alongside of those a la the prison guard in "Cool Hand Luke" are mandatory.
> 
> #YetAnotherThreadDerailSoSueMe


My dad is actually low key encouraging me to apply to CHP, can't say I'm not low key tempted lol
#YetAnotherCarOffTheTracks


----------



## CALEMT (Feb 5, 2017)

Jim37F said:


> My dad is actually low key encouraging me to apply to CHP, can't say I'm not low key tempted lol
> #YetAnotherCarOffTheTracks



Oddly enough I've been thinking about applying lately...

#TypicalSonOfACop


----------



## Kevinf (Feb 5, 2017)

They start rookie State Police out here at nearly $60,000 a year plus benefits and union protection. Not bad for a days work.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 5, 2017)

Kevinf said:


> They start rookie *Staties* out here at nearly $60,000 a year plus benefits and union protection. Not bad for a days work.


----------



## CALEMT (Feb 5, 2017)

All this terminology is making my head hurt...


----------



## NomadicMedic (Feb 5, 2017)

CALEMT said:


> All this terminology is making my head hurt...



You need an IV of D5W TKO, stat. And CPAP ASAP, or RSI if your SpO2 and ETCO2 are FUBAR.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 5, 2017)

DEmedic said:


> You need an IV of D5W TKO, stat. And CPAP ASAP, or RSI if your SpO2 and ETCO2 are FUBAR.


...good luck if you're in BFE, otherwise you'll CTD sooner rather than later and be USCWOAP.


----------



## CALEMT (Feb 6, 2017)

DEmedic said:


> You need an IV of D5W TKO, stat. And CPAP ASAP, or RSI if your SpO2 and ETCO2 are FUBAR.



See now you're speaking my language. Its when I see words like "bus" and "statie" that make my head hurt.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 6, 2017)

CALEMT said:


> See now you're speaking my language. Its when I see words like "bus" and "statie" that make my head hurt.


Whaaa? You don't wanna jump in the bus and run jobs on your tour? Fugetaboutit!?


----------



## CALEMT (Feb 6, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> Whaaa? You don't wanna jump in the bus and run jobs on your tour? Fugetaboutit!?



You have a bus and you want to go on a music tour?

#IgnorantCalifornian


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 6, 2017)

CALEMT said:


> You have a bus and you want to go on a music tour?
> 
> #IgnorantCalifornian


Oh, I dig the East Coaster terms for the EMS lingo

#SlightlyLessIgnorantCalifornian


----------



## Mufasa556 (Feb 6, 2017)

CALEMT said:


> See now you're speaking my language. Its when I see words like "bus" and "statie" that make my head hurt.



Every time I hear Statie, I think of The Departed.


----------



## DrParasite (Feb 6, 2017)

and here I was thinking I was the only one who hears Staties and thinks of The Departed....


----------



## Jim37F (Oct 30, 2018)

So...committing the dreadful crime of necro posting (at least resurrecting a zombified thread is seasonally appropriate)

Anyways, discussion of this case came up in another forum I was browsing (Quora.com ) and I looked a little into it...most recent update I could find was nearly a year old and basically says the firefighter's lawsuit against CHP was at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals still
http://www.firelawblog.com/2017/12/25/california-police-fire-wars-case-before-9th-circuit/
Just wondering if anyone has heard any other updates since last Dec, or if this is still bouncing around the courts?


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 30, 2018)

interesting thing about this case:





> Gregoire is suing the state and Officer Flores for civil rights violations. The state is seeking to have the 9th Circuit dismiss the case on the basis of qualified immunity. Gregoire wants the case to get to the jury.


So the state isn't saying they weren't wrong, they are saying they can't be sued because, as the state, they are immune from lawsuits on the basis of they are the state of Ca.  The courts disagreed, so they appealed to the Ca appeals court.

According to https://www.open-public-records.com/court/california-15420431.htm, their was a ruling to dismiss on June 28th.

The initial request to dismiss was denied, as per https://ceas.uc.edu/content/dam/aero/docs/fire/CHP.pdf

some other interesting reads, if you wanted to read the actual details of the compalint: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20160218a18

The state seems to be appealing the courts decision to dismiss.  Based on the video, and what the lawyers said, their was a settlement almost in place, and then the state appealed.  the court told them to arbitrate, which is likely where it ended.

Personally, I think it should have gone to trial; there have been too many instances of cops arrest (where the arrests maaaay technically be legal), and not enough case law that says these arrests are inappropriate.


----------



## CCCSD (Oct 30, 2018)

Please cite the cases wherein Police make arrests not based on law. You are probably getting confused with cases being pled or dismissed due to the DA not filing.

We can’t just make up arrests. There ARE legal checks which must be obeyed and followed. What “case law...are inappropriate” are you referring to? Your blanket statement is rude and dishonors the thousands of Police Officers killed doing their job- you know, arresting bad people. 

I’ll be sure to start watching the medics and EMTs more closely, as I’m going to report any deviation from protocols and company policy. Got to make sure nothing inappropriate happens...


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 30, 2018)

go back to page 1 of this thread... I posted several examples of officers arresting firefighters for failing to comply with the officers demands.  Typically the law used is "failure to comply with the directions of a peace officer" or "interfering with an investigation" or some other generic law which says the officer's directions must be followed.

And before you get all defensive, you ABSOLUTELY CAN make up an arrest, or rather, a reason to arrest someone. Did you forget about the cop who arrested the nurse for failing to comply with his illegal demands?  In case you have forgotten, that was caught on video

I'm not saying many of these charges don't get dismissed, and often the cops are disciplined for their actions (I mean, we can go back to the cop who choked a medic for failing to yield if you really wanted to), but to deny that is happens is, well, I don't know what to tell you.

You want a blanket statement, how about this: ANY TIME a member of law enforcement puts cuffs on another public safety employee for doing their job, causes a black eye for all involved.  This is generally unwarranted, and more often than not, because the cop either felt disrespected or the other person failed to do what the cop told them to do.  Before you said that never happens, feel free to review those two instances, as well as the resulting investigations, and the outcomes.  I'm sure there are legitimate reasons for doing this, however, it's rarely a time sensitive issue that couldn't be handled back at the station or between white shirts over a cup of coffee the next day.  And before you say it, if a serious crime is being committed by a public safety professional, I would support the cops doing what was needed to stop the crime and arrest the person, regardless of what they were doing.  But that isn't the case in many of the aforementioned examples.

Cops should arrest bad people.  most firefighter and EMS personnel aren't bad people, and shouldn't have to fear being arrested simply for doing their job.  I never said that all cops were bad, or most cops were bad, or that most arrests were inappropriate.  I made no blanket statement that was rude or dishonored thousands of police officers who were killed; however, those cops who arrest firefighters for doing this job are dishonoring everyone and creating a black eye for all involved.


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 30, 2018)

CCCSD said:


> What “case law...are inappropriate” are you referring to?


If the three judges had said to the plaintiff "mr plaintiff, you are correct; this law that you were arrested under is too vague to be applied properly, especially when this other law says it's a crime for anyone to interfere with you during your EMS duties." then when it happens again, the next time this happens (because we both know it's going to happen again), the attorney can say "in Gregoire vs State of California, the appeals court ruled that this is a bad law, and since the "justification for arrest" was as equally weak in this case, the charges should be immediately dismissed, and removed from my client's record."  They can then use it in a civil suit to get compensatory damages against the department for their overreach of this law. 

But I'm not an attorney (and to the best of my knowledge, neither are you), so someone who graduated law school can likely provide a more accurate description for how a judicial decision can be interpreted in the future and applied to other areas.


----------



## Summit (Oct 30, 2018)

DrParasite said:


> And before you get all defensive, you ABSOLUTELY CAN make up an arrest, or rather, a reason to arrest someone. Did you forget about the cop who arrested the nurse for failing to comply with his illegal demands?  In case you have forgotten, that was caught on video



"*Can *make up a reason arrest" is not the same as "*May *make up a reason to arrest."

The officers in the nurse case found that out when one was fired, the other stripped of all rank, and the nurse generously agreed to a mere 500K settlement... because officers MAY NOT do what they did to that nurse using the reasoning they did.

If you still cannot see the difference, try this on: An officer CAN shoot you for any reason, but he MAY NOT shoot you for any reason.


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 30, 2018)

Summit said:


> "*Can *make up a reason arrest" is not the same as "*May *make up a reason to arrest."


I do know the difference.... but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened several times in recent past (again, see previous examples).  

So when someone says 


CCCSD said:


> We can’t just make up arrests. There ARE legal checks which must be obeyed and followed.


Well, that's not entirely true, as those officers did make up reasons to arrest a person (the "arrest" in question being defined as placing handcuffs, I'm sure there is a better legal definition that I don't care to discuss).  The fact is that the arrests were inappropriate, and were done because the individual didn't do what the cop wanted, because they were doing their job.

I agree, that both the officers in question were disciplined, as their actions were inappropriate (and recorded on video for the public to see), but it didn't prevent the action from happening in the first place.  How often has a similar event occurred when no discipline was done to the cop?  The actions in question should have never happened, and, unfortunately, it's only a matter of time until it happens again.


----------



## BobBarker (Oct 30, 2018)

Summit said:


> "*Can *make up a reason arrest" is not the same as "*May *make up a reason to arrest."
> 
> The officers in the nurse case found that out when one was fired, the other stripped of all rank, and the nurse generously agreed to a mere 500K settlement... because officers MAY NOT do what they did to that nurse using the reasoning they did.
> 
> If you still cannot see the difference, try this on: An officer CAN shoot you for any reason, but he MAY NOT shoot you for any reason.


And I can almost guarantee you if there was no video of the interaction, she would have been carted off to jail and the officers would face no discipline. Also, if a normal citizen made a false arrest/detainment, they would almost certainly be criminally charged for it. Lucky for this officer, he only lost his job.He should have been criminally charged with at least battery if not kidnapping.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Oct 30, 2018)

CCCSD said:


> Please cite the cases wherein Police make arrests not based on law.


It isn't that arrests are made that aren't based on law, it's that an arrest may technically be legal but still inappropriate and unfair, and thus amounts to an abuse of power. We all know that if a cop wants to arrest you, he _will_ find a reason, and the victim pays potentially huge consequences and often has little or no recourse. We've all seen it happen.



Summit said:


> "*Can *make up a reason arrest" is not the same as "*May *make up a reason to arrest."
> 
> The officers in the nurse case found that out when one was fired, the other stripped of all rank, and the nurse generously agreed to a mere 500K settlement... because officers MAY NOT do what they did to that nurse using the reasoning they did.
> 
> If you still cannot see the difference, try this on: An officer CAN shoot you for any reason, but he MAY NOT shoot you for any reason.



Well, anyone can shoot anyone for any reason. If you do, the only way you have any chance of getting out of it without going to jail is if you are a cop. Think about that. I'm not saying that to bash police, just to illustrate the incredible authority that they have to avoid consequences for actions that would put anyone else in prison for years. It's such a huge responsibility with such overwhelming ramifications that it only has to be abused occasionally for the net injustice to be massive.

The cops in the nurse case _were_ punished, but not the same way a civilian would have been. Of course I'm not suggesting that cops should be charged with assault every time they put their hands on someone, but some more accountability for acting in ways that are clearly unfair and unnecessary would go a long way towards restoring the public trust.


----------



## Akulahawk (Oct 31, 2018)

CCCSD said:


> Please cite the cases wherein Police make arrests not based on law. You are probably getting confused with cases being pled or dismissed due to the DA not filing.
> 
> We can’t just make up arrests. There ARE legal checks which must be obeyed and followed. What “case law...are inappropriate” are you referring to? Your blanket statement is rude and dishonors the thousands of Police Officers killed doing their job- you know, arresting bad people.
> 
> I’ll be sure to start watching the medics and EMTs more closely, as I’m going to report any deviation from protocols and company policy. Got to make sure nothing inappropriate happens...


From another "world" that I am familiar with, right off the top of my head, about 10 years ago a man in San Diego was arrested and transported to the San Diego Police headquarters. What was this man's crime? He was openly carrying an unloaded handgun. At the time, this was a completely legal activity. The man was completely compliant, posed no obvious threat to anyone, and was clearly not brandishing. In short, he had not committed any crime. The Officers arrested him for "carrying a loaded firearm." This is in direct conflict with the fact that the handgun had no magazine inserted nor a bullet in the chamber. Once at headquarters, the officers held him there for approximately 2 hours while they tried to determine what they were going to book him for. They found nothing, returned him to where he had been initially arrested, handed him back his ammunition and pistol and let him go. They arrested him for a crime that didn't exist, and therefore they can't unarrest him. In effect, they kidnapped him. 

What was the result? The City had to pay $35k and issue a finding of factual innocence in regard to the arrest. The guy's arrest record will always have that arrest on it... but at least it now has a "factually innocent" note along with it. From what I also recall, the Sgt. was demoted and other officers had notes placed in their files, and all SDPD officers had to go through training regarding this... all because the arrest was improper.

Bad arrests do happen. On the whole, the incidence of bad arrests is likely quite low. However, given the right circumstances (and sometimes video), these do make the news. Same with bad shoots...

Lastly: reminder to everyone to keep things civil.


----------



## akflightmedic (Oct 31, 2018)

Officer: Place your hands behind you back, stop struggling, stop resisting!
Me: What am I being arrested for? 
Officer: I am arresting you for resisting arrest!
Me: But why the initial arrest??
Officer: (As I am slammed and cuffed), you are arrested for resisting arrest!

And the beat goes on....


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 31, 2018)

Remi said:


> Well, anyone can shoot anyone for any reason. If you do, the only way you have any chance of getting out of it without going to jail is if you are a cop.


That's not true at all.  For example, check out this incident from North Carolina.  However, I think the majority of people who criticize the cops for doing this would do the same thing in their position, or would end up dead at the hands of the victim.  But I will also admit there have been several "bad shoots" that made the news, and sometimes those officers were criminally charged.


Remi said:


> It isn't that arrests are made that aren't based on law, it's that an arrest may technically be legal but still inappropriate and unfair, and thus amounts to an abuse of power. We all know that if a cop wants to arrest you, he _will_ find a reason, and the victim pays potentially huge consequences and often has little or no recourse. We've all seen it happen.


I think Remi said it better than I tried to.  Just because something is technically legal doesn't make it appropriate.

Further, most of the time, when an inappropriate arrest is made, the most effective recourse is a very public lawsuit (all too often simply filing a complaint goes nowhere, and can put a target on your back for future retaliation), which all too often comes down to he said she said.  Body cams and dash cams have lead to more transparency (as well as cleared more cops from wrongdoings than incriminated), but it's often an uphill battle for the victim to get this information.

HOWEVER, the vast majority of the cops are good, hard working people. They are simply doing their jobs to the best of the ability, and quite honestly, you couldn't pay me enough to be a cop in the current political environment they are forced to operate in.  But the few bad apples who do abuse their power, who do put cuffs on people who refuse to follow their directions, who look for reasons to arrest someone just because, and when their is video evidence of their actions, they are often shown the door.  And then their are good cops, who act appropriately, and defend themselves (appropriately), and they, too, are shown the door, because of political reasons, which is why I have 0 desire to go into law enforcement.

for the TLR, most cops are good, but those who use their power inappropriately are bad, even if their actions are technically legal.  There have been documented cases of such, especially when their actions are captured on video and/or a lawsuit is filed.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Oct 31, 2018)

DrParasite said:


> That's not true at all.  For example, check out this incident from North Carolina.  However, I think the majority of people who criticize the cops for doing this would do the same thing in their position, or would end up dead at the hands of the victim.  But I will also admit there have been several "bad shoots" that made the news, and sometimes those officers were criminally charged.



Sure it’s true. NC has a fairly robust castle doctrine, so perhaps it’s a little less true here than elsewhere, but I assure you that if it comes down to your word vs a cops, you’ll lose every time. 

And what about states that don’t have a castle law?


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 31, 2018)

Listen, I can't help it that many states aren't as progressive as NC... (ok stop laughing, event I can't say that with a straight face).... You can't make that as a blanket statement saying "the only way you can do it is if your a cop", because it does happen if the shooting is justified.  But I will admit that there is a belief that cops commit a higher percentage of "justified shootings" than civilians, especially when their life is in danger.  And I will also say that many shopkeepers have shot armed burgers and not been charged, because they were acting in self defense when their life was threatened.

And I will tell you, as a civilian, if you break into my house, and are approaching me with the intent to cause me or my family harm, I will put as many bullets into your body as I can until you are no longer a threat.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

and I agree with you, your word vs the cop, you will lose every time (as indicated by every speeding ticket I have gotten, there was no objective evidence, only the cops word that he did his job properly, actually saw the number, when it was my car, and since the judge knew him, and I was a random resident from another county, who is a judge going to believe?).  Hence why I 100% support body cameras, they provide an objective and unbiased recollection of everything that occurred.


----------



## Tigger (Oct 31, 2018)

CCCSD said:


> Please cite the cases wherein Police make arrests not based on law. You are probably getting confused with cases being pled or dismissed due to the DA not filing.
> 
> We can’t just make up arrests. There ARE legal checks which must be obeyed and followed. What “case law...are inappropriate” are you referring to? Your blanket statement is rude and dishonors the thousands of Police Officers killed doing their job- you know, arresting bad people.
> 
> I’ll be sure to start watching the medics and EMTs more closely, as I’m going to report any deviation from protocols and company policy. Got to make sure nothing inappropriate happens...


So no law enforcement officer has ever detained someone inappropriately? Get a grip man, nobody is trying to dishonor cops here. The hyperbole that you come up with anytime law enforcement is remotely questioned is exactly why issues between the citizenry and law enforcement exist. Tone it down.


----------



## RocketMedic (Nov 1, 2018)

So here’s my take on the original issue: it is far easier to take off handcuffs than to knit a broken bone, rehab a fractured pelvis or explain why Dad isn’t coming home. That large, heavy fire engine is a blocking device keeping Joe Motorist from traumatic interaction with my body. That is its purpose in life. If Joe and Susie are inconvenienced by it, or even rear-end someone else because they’re dumb, that’s not my problem. The fire engine, tow trucks and blocking vehicles are there to shield me from Joe and Susie when they ignore all of the other warnings, and anyone who wants them moved before I deem it safe can either sod off or put me in cuffs in a safe spot (if they’re willing to pay for it). Mean and non-team working? I’m ok with that, far more ok than I am with losing someone to a preventable accident.


----------



## DrParasite (Nov 1, 2018)

Akulahawk said:


> From another "world" that I am familiar with, right off the top of my head, about 10 years ago a man in San Diego was arrested and transported to the San Diego Police headquarters. What was this man's crime? He was openly carrying an unloaded handgun. At the time, this was a completely legal activity. The man was completely compliant, posed no obvious threat to anyone, and was clearly not brandishing. In short, he had not committed any crime. The Officers arrested him for "carrying a loaded firearm." This is in direct conflict with the fact that the handgun had no magazine inserted nor a bullet in the chamber. Once at headquarters, the officers held him there for approximately 2 hours while they tried to determine what they were going to book him for. They found nothing, returned him to where he had been initially arrested, handed him back his ammunition and pistol and let him go. They arrested him for a crime that didn't exist, and therefore they can't unarrest him. In effect, they kidnapped him.
> 
> What was the result? The City had to pay $35k and issue a finding of factual innocence in regard to the arrest. The guy's arrest record will always have that arrest on it... but at least it now has a "factually innocent" note along with it. From what I also recall, the Sgt. was demoted and other officers had notes placed in their files, and all SDPD officers had to go through training regarding this... all because the arrest was improper.
> 
> ...


For those of you who don't believe this actually happened, because it does seem pretty unreasonable that something like this would occur, I suggest you hear the "arrestee in question" explain exactly what happened: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2599522/posts

And for he actual outcome, which was the result of a lawsuit: https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/s...ence-for-improper-unloaded-open-carry-arrest/

Like I said, not all cops are bad, and I don't even think these cops are bad guys (although they were ignorant of the law, and arrested an individual based on that ignorance); but just because a LEO puts cuffs on a person does not mean that the arrest is legal, or appropriate.


----------



## johnrsemt (Nov 1, 2018)

Interesting thing is why does it happen so often in CA?  I worked in Indiana in EMS for 10 years, I never had a problem with PD getting upset with EMS/Fire closing lanes, they closed roads for us.  Same here in Utah, and Nevada.  Not sure about other parts of the country:  but I hear about a lot of problems in CA with the PD getting upset about it.

Do the police just not work well with others there?


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Nov 1, 2018)

johnrsemt said:


> Interesting thing is why does it happen so often in CA?  I worked in Indiana in EMS for 10 years, I never had a problem with PD getting upset with EMS/Fire closing lanes, they closed roads for us.  Same here in Utah, and Nevada.  Not sure about other parts of the country:  but I hear about a lot of problems in CA with the PD getting upset about it.
> 
> Do the police just not work well with others there?


We have a lot of hot heads here in CA. It’s not solely PD’s issue and it’s not solely FD’s issue but rather a combination. Put a cop who is trained and taught that he is always right and never to doubt himself with a firefighter/captain who is also taught that same thing and they will bump heads.


----------



## chriscemt (Nov 1, 2018)

DesertMedic66 said:


> We have a lot of hot heads here in CA.



A lot of _everything_ in CA.  It'd be the 8th biggest country in Europe by population.  Compared to Nevada, Utah, and Indiana (just mentioned in the recent post), it's triple the population of all three _combined_.


----------



## Akulahawk (Nov 2, 2018)

DesertMedic66 said:


> We have a lot of hot heads here in CA. It’s not solely PD’s issue and it’s not solely FD’s issue but rather a combination. Put a cop who is trained and taught that he is always right and never to doubt himself with a firefighter/captain who is also taught that same thing and they will bump heads.


One of the other issues with LE is that they _know_ they're not experts in legal matters... so they have been known to fall back upon the idea of "take 'em to jail and let the DA sort it out." This is one reason the phrase "you may beat the ticket but you won't beat the ride" exists. They generally know what's legal and what's not legal, so if you do get arrested, it's quite likely there's something "close enough" to hold you until the DA can review the case and that can take up to 72 hours from the time of arrest. If they can find that _something_ it's easier to then "unarrest" you at that point and then good luck suing them at that point. In the case I pointed to above, they _couldn't_ find something to hold the guy on so the arrest wasn't proper nor legal. Had they not transported him away from the scene, it would have only been an investigative detention and that's legal. Because they kidnapped him under color of law, they couldn't "unarrest" him. That's why the finding of factual innocence is important in this instance.


----------



## vc85 (Nov 2, 2018)

In general:

Just because a DA decides to drop charges doesn't mean the underlying arrest was necessarily unlawful

Just because a jury or judge finds the defendant not guilty doesn't even mean the underlying arrest was unlawful. Remember arrests are based on probable cause. Convictions are based on beyond a reasonable  doubt which is a higher standard.It is possible for an officer to arrest on legitimate probable cause and then have the court find that the prosecutor did not meet the higher burden. 

I don't know enough about this instance so I'm not going to comment on it.


----------



## vc85 (Nov 2, 2018)

vc85 said:


> In general:
> 
> Just because a DA decides to drop charges doesn't mean the underlying arrest was necessarily unlawful
> 
> ...



In my state there are 4 levels of police encounters 

Level 1: Request for information  -"Hi can I talk to you for a minute". Objectively credible reason. Can be criminal or community service related 
Level 2: Common law right of inquiry - founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot (has been committed, is being committed, about to be committed). Officer may ask pointed and accusatory questions 
Level 3: Reasonable Suspicion- reasonable and articulateable suspucion that criminal activity is afoot (also level needed for a car stop for traffic violations and a Terry stop). Objective and reasonably cautious officer would believe criminal activity is underway
Level 4: Probable cause - Reasonable and prudent officer would believe that the elements of a specific crime and required mental state are present. Enough to arrest.


----------



## johnrsemt (Nov 5, 2018)

Problem is when the PD is telling fire to move apparatus then they are opening Emergency personnel and equipment up to higher danger by other vehicles;  happened a few years ago on the east coast somewhere,  Police officer actually moved an engine that was blocking a lane on a freeway at a bad wreck.  Semi hit the corner of an ambulance and further injured a patient in the ambulance, and the EMT and Medic,  also injuring 2 more EMS people on the ground and critically injuring a FF that was pinned between the ambulance and a vehicle in the 1st wreck.  But the officer got the other lane open {just before he managed to close the entire direction of the freeway.


----------

