What do you think??

[Fragger]

Recently a freind of mine got a ticket for "failure to yield right of way to an emergency vehicle "
County Mounty was running "Hot" with no siren at around 3 pm in Crosby Tx. The Mounty stop & asked him why he did not yield and then proceeded
to lecture him on what Pete should have done .
I told him to contest it since the officer has had some issues and the fact that the officer was no running a siren..
What do you all think??
Ah , it took the officer about 20-30 minutes to write the ticket, so what was the emeregncy that entitled him to speed and endanger the public?

[Xander]

IMO, your friend should try be a more attentive driver in the future, and yield when there are emergency lights behind him as required by law.

[Xander]

As for contesting the ticket...I don't think indignation, or that the LEO didn't appear to be in a rush after all is a valid defense to an infraction already committed, I.E., not yielding. He doesn't have to be "entitled", or have his siren on...Just his lights.

My two cents.

[txinvestigator]

Recently a freind of mine got a ticket for "failure to yield right of way to an emergency vehicle "
County Mounty was running "Hot" with no siren at around 3 pm in Crosby Tx. The Mounty stop & asked him why he did not yield and then proceeded
to lecture him on what Pete should have done .
I told him to contest it since the officer has had some issues and the fact that the officer was no running a siren..
What do you all think??
Ah , it took the officer about 20-30 minutes to write the ticket, so what was the emeregncy that entitled him to speed and endanger the public?

You were doing fine until you posted "endanger the public".

You were not there, so all you KNOW is what your friend told you.

First, what does "running hot" mean?

Was does "the officer has had some issues" mean?

A siren is not required.

Did your friend see the vehicle? If so, why didn't he just pull over?

[shaggydog]

IMO, your friend should try be a more attentive driver in the future, and yield when there are emergency lights behind him as required by law.

+1

[elwood blooz]

IMO, your friend should try be a more attentive driver in the future, and yield when there are emergency lights behind him as required by law.

+1

+2

[gregthehand]

Here is the law:

§ 546.003. AUDIBLE OR VISUAL SIGNALS REQUIRED.

Except as provided by Section 546.004, the operator of an authorized
emergency vehicle engaging in conduct permitted by Section 546.001
shall use, at the discretion of the operator in accordance with
policies of the department or the local government that employs the
operator, audible or visual signals that meet the pertinent
requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702.

and a little further down...

(b) An authorized emergency vehicle that is operated as a
police vehicle is not required to be equipped with or display a red
light visible from the front of the vehicle.
(c) A police officer may operate an authorized emergency
vehicle for a law enforcement purpose without using the audible or
visual signals required by Section 546.003 if the officer is:
(1) responding to an emergency call or pursuing a
suspected violator of the law with probable cause to believe that:
(A) knowledge of the presence of the officer will
cause the suspect to:
(i) destroy or lose evidence of a suspected
felony;
(ii) end a suspected continuing felony
before the officer has obtained sufficient evidence to establish
grounds for arrest; or
(iii) evade apprehension or identification
of the suspect or the suspect's vehicle; or
(B) because of traffic conditions on a multilaned
roadway, vehicles moving in response to the audible or visual
signals may:
(i) increase the potential for a collision;
or
(ii) unreasonably extend the duration of
the pursuit; or
(2) complying with a written regulation relating to
the use of audible or visible signals adopted by the local
government that employs the officer or by the department.

So basically a peace officer on emergency can use either or. I can easily imagine that this officer might have been on emergency, and supposedly your friend did not yeild. So the officer called into dispatch and asked how many officers were enroute and how far away they were. Two might have already been on scene, or very near, and said they were secure. All he had to do then was have dispatch clear him off him being enroute, and show him out on traffic behind your friend.

[stevie_d_64]

Maybe it is a different philosophy or law in regards to vehicles responding to an emergency in Fire Departments, than those in Law Enforcement...The above explanation explains a few things...

All I know is that how I was trained, and how I drove fire apparatus to an emergency, might be a little different, all I know is that I took that responsibility very serious, knowing that the first priority is public safety and the safety of the firefighters with me in that vehicle...Everything else is a close second...I know we'll get to the scene eventually and do the best we can with whats going on there...

I understand there are conditions that Law Enforcement run on because of what was noted above, and obviously I agree with that...In this case, there may have been a reason he did not "yield" immediately to the sight of the "lights only" situation...I believe that may happen a lot more than not...I would argue simply he may not have seen the lights (for whatever reason) in time to make a timely "yield" to that traffic...

All I know and have done in the past is run full emergency traffic...That lights, sirens, and some very loud air horns that make quite a bit of racket, that we've all heard before...You're not going to miss us...

From my perspective and experience, I believe in our capacity, that emergency traffic was basically asking the public to give us courtesy (right of way) in proceeding as unhindered as possible to wherever we are needing to go...And for the most part it works...

No matter how the tone of the encounter was, I believe it is defendable...I would ask it to be dissmissed...

Just my opinion...

[stevie_d_64]

IMO, your friend should try be a more attentive driver in the future, and yield when there are emergency lights behind him as required by law.

Thats a fair statement...

Ever see the dashcam video of a high-speed pursuit??? Say at, ohhhh, maybe 130-140 mph??? Maybe even more??? At night??? On a major highway???

I've seen a DPS trooper's dashcam video of a pursuit on the beat north of Dallas...He only ran lights, because the audible siren would probably not made a difference...We kinda kicked that around...I know the trooper who drove the car and showed us the video...He eventually called off the pursuit because he ran out of gas...Go figure...

I would imagine, and I stand to be corrected, but Law Enforcement are highly trained in the operation in all conditions of their vehicles...They have a responsibility to conduct pursuits and respond in any condition of emergency traffic in as safe a manner possible...With the publics safety foremost in their actions...

I believe this incident to not be malicious in intent to impeade the responding officer...I believe the person should be given a chance to explain, and not be summarily executed...They should go to court to resolve this issue...

[srothstein]

Weeelll, I may have a slightly different point of view from most of you on this. I freely admit a bias in favor of the police in general, so you might remember that.

The law is clear on this. The officer had his emergency equipment operating and the driver did not yield immediately. That is a ticketable offense. The driver may always plead not guilty or ask for leniency from the court. His best possible defense is that he did not see the lights and did pull over when he did see them. Using any of the other parts about the officers actions would not help the case.

The officer may also want to check his actions and how he drove. Yes Stevie, we do have a legal and moral responsibility to drive safely and be aware of the potential danger to others. You cannot help at whatever emergency you were going to IF you do not get there yourself, and you may make it worse by tying up other units if you are involved in an accident. In addition, if he was driving with just lights on during the day time, he should know it is not always easy to see. If he continues to take things this seriously, he is headed for a medical problem (stroke, stress, heart attack, etc.) before he gets to retirement age.

[flintknapper]

Another plausible explanation would be that the citizen thought HE was being stopped/pulled over. Generally, LEO do not use their sirens when conducting the average traffic stop.

Mr. Citizen may only have been looking for a safe place to pull over (thus not yielding immediately in the eyes of the officer). Unless a unit is CLEARLY traveling at a rate of speed that tells me he is not pursuing ME, then I might think he is wanting to stop me.

I recognize there are situations when LEO would not want to use their sirens in route to a call, but "Joe Citizen" doesn't always know that... and I can see how a unit (Marked or not) could be upon you before you knew it (or could respond).

It is worth a little scrutiny for the sake of both sides.

[Xander]

Ever see the dashcam video of a high-speed pursuit??? Say at, ohhhh, maybe 130-140 mph??? Maybe even more??? At night??? On a major highway???

Yes, I have.

I believe this incident to not be malicious in intent to impeade the responding officer...

Malicious? I agree that it probably wasn't malicious. Negligent? Far more likely. I've also seen the COPs videos where a police car with full lights and sirens is the only car on the street, and someone still manages to make a left turn out of a parking lot right in front of them. Just today, out my office window, I saw a Cadillac poking along for the better part of a block in front of an ambulance, again with lights flashing and siren wailing, before he finally decided that he might should move lazily out of the way, and did so, I might out, without bothering to signal. I have fire stations within a couple of block of both my office and my apartment, and I see people ignoring or otherwise failing to yield to emergency equipment all the time, and some of the violators are far more flagrant than others.

I don't believe the friend of the poster was malicious. I highly suspect, that since the officer took the time to bother to give him a ticket, he probably gave off some indication of negligence or other behaviour that needed correction. I certainly can't pass judgment given the third-hand account that's been posted, but I've seen it often enough to know that it isn't a far fetched proposition.

Anyhoo, I'm sure he'll likely take his friend's advice and contest it, and the JP will get to decide exactly how out of line he actually was.

[Penn]

Just found this in the transportation code. Notice the word "AND". Also states just audible signal. What do you guys think now?

§ 545.156. VEHICLE APPROACHED BY AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY[0]
VEHICLE. (a) On the immediate approach of an authorized emergency[0]
vehicle using audible and visual signals that meet the requirements
of Sections 547.305 and 547.702, or of a police vehicle lawfully
using only an audible signal, an operator, unless otherwise
directed by a police officer, shall:
(1) yield[0] the right-of-way;
(2) immediately drive to a position parallel to and as
close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway
clear of any intersection; and
(3) stop and remain standing until the authorized
emergency[0] vehicle has passed.
(b) This section does not exempt the operator of an
authorized emergency[0] vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard
for the safety of all persons using the highway.



Is there another failure to yield code that he could be cited under?

[stevie_d_64]

Xander, I'm with you on that...No problem...Stephan brought up some good stuuf too...

Before I becamse qual'd to drive and operate fire apparatus, I sat in the jumpseats...

I was involved in a serious MVA while in an engine company responding to a confirmed structure fire...

Ironically we were t-boned by a Cadillac on a major intersection...Hit right under my feet...We were in one of the last open cab engines in the area...And it was a hard hit, she didn't even get a chance to try and stop...

All the debris that came slamming up into me was minimized because I had just gotten all my bunker gear on...

The lady that hit us, and took us out of service on that call later said, and I believed her...

She just didn't see or hear us...

That why I lean a little on the side of the civilian out there sometimes...Sometimes you just get into this "zone", and these things just happen so fast, you just freeze up or don't hear or see it in time to react and give the responding vehicle the right of way in time...

Thats why, even though I feel like I'm the best driver/pump operator in the department , I know its a scary thing for people who are not used to it to instictively know what their options are in the time required to give us the right of way...

99% of the time it works out for everyone...In that 1% of the time...I'll give them a resasonable and safe chance to snap out of it and make a safe move for everyone...I'd rather not cause a problem I'll have to get someone else to have to respond to clean up...

Thats just my opinion...

[iflyabeech]

First of all, I am a big supporter of law enforcement.

Last weekend my mom, with my daughter and stepdad on board her Expedition, pulled out of a convenience store at night. She made a left turn into the left lane. Immediately she saw flashing lights on her tail. She said she thought he was going to go around her right side, and he has honking his horn and weaving left and right. She thought it best to not move so he could go around her. Finally he went around. went a block or two away and then turned around and again pulled behind her with lights on. She pulled over to the right and was at a red light with crossing traffic. The cop began honking at her again and she said she did not know what to do. She had already pulled over to the right, but could not exit because of the traffic. Finally she was able to pull off and the cop, who was in an unmarked car and a second officer approached her.

He accused her of pulling out of a bar, and yelled at her that she had absolutely no respect for law enforcement. She said that she remained calm and told explained to him that when she saw him she did not know which way to go, she thought he was trying to go around and was letting him. The cop continued to chew her out. My daughter in the carseat was crying from the officers tone. Mom said he was smirking at the other officer and just really being rude and mean. He wrote my mom a ticket for "Failure to yield to an emergency vehicle" And left.

Mom said it made her feel like a second class citizen. We have a phone call in to this officer's supervisor to discuss this with him. My mom is a great driver, doesn't speed, wears her seatbelt. . . perfect record. . . .I know she was not rude at all to the cop, especially with my daughter in the back. This cop was totally out of line with his attitude, and makes the whole law enforcement community look bad!