Got pulled over for speeding-Two questions

[retired]

For those fairly new non leos intending to post in this thread and other leo threads, please read the rules in the sticky at the top of this forum re posting leo bashing threads.

Calling a leo a knucklehead or any other derogatory term is not tolerated in this forum and if one were to read the rules, one would realize that. If you cannot post without using a derogatory term, don't post. Simple as that.

[locosway]

I was lit up in Northern CA by a CHP (female too) and I waiting to exit the freeway and found a safe side street to pull down. The officer was grateful I exited the freeway, and I didn't get a ticket.

Emergency vehicles do not have the right of way. When they have their lights on they're asking for the right of way, but that doesn't mean they're granted it. As others have said, if he gets on his PA and orders you to pull over now and stop on the highway then that's a different story all together.

[nukechaser]

Mea culpa!

For those fairly new non leos intending to post in this thread and other leo threads, please read the rules in the sticky at the top of this forum re posting leo bashing threads.

Calling a leo a knucklehead or any other derogatory term is not tolerated in this forum and if one were to read the rules, one would realize that. If you cannot post without using a derogatory term, don't post. Simple as that.

I had NOT read the sticky and I was in the wrong. I missed the point that this particular forum's scope is question-to-and-from-LEOs.

In retrospect, my posting had the hint of bashing and name calling. I apologize to anyone offended and it will not happen again.

I'm very sorry.

Sincerely,
nukechaser

[Ron-Solo]

Emergency vehicles do not have the right of way. When they have their lights on they're asking for the right of way, but that doesn't mean they're granted it. As others have said, if he gets on his PA and orders you to pull over now and stop on the highway then that's a different story all together.

Oh really? I beg to differ and the vehicle code states "Shall" which makes it mandatory.

21806. Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle which is sounding a siren and which has at least one lighted lamp exhibiting red light that is visible, under normal atmospheric conditions, from a distance of 1,000 feet to the front of the vehicle, the surrounding traffic shall, except as otherwise directed by a traffic officer, do the following:

(a) (1) Except as required under paragraph (2), the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and shall immediately drive to the right-hand edge or curb of the highway, clear of any intersection, and thereupon shall stop and remain stopped until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

(2) A person driving a vehicle in an exclusive or preferential use lane shall exit that lane immediately upon determining that the exit can be accomplished with reasonable safety.

(b) The operator of every street car shall immediately stop the street car, clear of any intersection, and remain stopped until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

(c) All pedestrians upon the highway shall proceed to the nearest curb or place of safety and remain there until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

Amended Sec. 68, Ch. 1154, Stats. 1996. Effective September 30, 1996.


It doesn't mean pull into the center median because you don't want to bother with the right curb, slow down because you are going someplace important.

[eltee]

Yep...failure to yield is a common violation that is subject to penalites. "Shall" = must, not may. Use of a red light is a compelling action, not a request.

BTW, Nukechaser...your post # 18 is cool and appreciated.

[Turbinator]

Hi folks, I've actually read advice written elsewhere (long since gone, so I cannot quote properly) that a driver, if being pulled over, may consider driving to a "safe, well lit spot" and having the officer follow him / her accordingly.

This comment was in light of some of the not-too-distant fake LE pull-over-and-carjack incidents that were going on.

Based on the answers in this thread, I presume pulling over immediately is the right response from a driver. However, how are we to know 100% without a doubt that the officer doing the stop is legit?

Just curious.

Turby

[eltee]

Most of the fake pullovers inc. the celebrated Carl Chessman case, involved unmarked cars with a mail order red light. Police auction, surplused Crown Vic and a red light and you have an instant unmarked car.

I don't recall any such incidents with marked cars with rooftop light bars. In Calif. there is a lookalike cop car proscription (I think it arose out of the New York Pizza Delivery / NYPD sedans a while back).

You're right, I've told my wife not to yield in an isolated area to an unmarked car. If she gets charged with failure to yield, I'll let the court decide what was reasonable.

[Rivers]

Contrary to those opinions that one must pull over immediately, regardless of the level of safety perceived by the "presumed offender," I have just one name to say. Craig Peyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Peyer

For those with short memories, he was the CHP officer in San Diego who in 1986 murdered a coed in the dark of night, on a dark freeway, because she "had to stop immediately when instructed." One of the few smart laws that our legislature passed was the one that permitted the driver to continue at a safe speed to the nearest safe area, such as a well lit shopping center, gas station, etc.

The officer's impatience and authority do not override the citizen's safety, regardless of what they say during any stop. When in doubt, request a superior officer. If an officer insists that you engage in an unsafe act, feel free to take that up with his captain and/or the judge.

Doing the traffic stop in a safer area is for everyone's protection.

[locosway]

Emergency vehicle is code 3, has an accident, who's at fault?

It's my understanding that 100% of the time it's the emergency vehicle since they were REQUESTING the right of way, but DO NOT HAVE IT by default.

Yes, we need to yield to them and give them the right of way when requested, but from what I understand they are not automatically given the right of way.

Perhaps someone with experience in this matter can comment?

[eltee]

Each code 3 based, or any dept. vehicle involved, accident is investigated. Fault is determined by investigation. A Code 3 accident does not automatically render fault to any participant. Lots of cops have been jammed up on Code 3 collisions for violating dept. orders, state law, etc. but likewise civilian drivers are often found at fault.

Philosophically, we consider ourselves largely responsible when we use the Code 3 option...we put ourselves and others at risk. The whole Code 3 protocol and practice is the subject of ongoing dicussion, litigation, revision, etc. It is always evolving. In the academy it is drummed into us how dangerous high speed driving can be and the risks it poses to ourselves, other cops and, of course, the citizens on the road. Remember, lots of cops get severely injured and killed as the result of MVAs.

The driving training we undergo is awesome. We had a race car driver as one of the instructors. It is extremely difficult. We drive forward, backwards (high speed, timed, no mirrors), in traffic (fast and slow moving cars in our way). It is several long, grueling days of training. Additionally, patrol cars are built specifically for high speed driving, and they are scrupulously maintained (@ least in my area). I'm not an Indy 500 level driver, but I think a typical policeman in a typical police patrol car is probably better suited to traveling at high speeds than any typical civilian driver. Sure, a 20 year old with a high end road car (BMW, Porsche, etc.) may have a much better performing car than a Police Interceptor, but he probably hasn't gotten the training and probably doesn't have a car equipped with emergency lighting and siren.

Post # 19 clearly defines some of the statutory elements of the issue. The poster is someone with experience in this matter.

Like everything related to law and law enforcement, there are no absolutes.

[SoCalDep]

It is not 100 percent of the time...it completely depends on the circumstances. Code 3 is not a request, and vehicles shall yield the right of way, but that does not absolve the peace officer from safe driving.

[eltee]

Contrary to those opinions that one must pull over immediately, regardless of the level of safety perceived by the "presumed offender," I have just one name to say. Craig Peyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Peyer

For those with short memories, he was the CHP officer in San Diego who in 1986 murdered a coed in the dark of night, on a dark freeway, because she "had to stop immediately when instructed." One of the few smart laws that our legislature passed was the one that permitted the driver to continue at a safe speed to the nearest safe area, such as a well lit shopping center, gas station, etc.

The officer's impatience and authority do not override the citizen's safety, regardless of what they say during any stop. When in doubt, request a superior officer. If an officer insists that you engage in an unsafe act, feel free to take that up with his captain and/or the judge.

Doing the traffic stop in a safer area is for everyone's protection.

IMHO, that was kind of an unfair example. That was an extremely rare incident. Using extremely rare, isolated incidents to justify a particular action is a tactic that the anti-gunners use. Remember Patrick Purdy? Thanks to his extremely rare, isolated incident 20 years ago they banned "assault weapons" in California. Peyer was an extreme anomaly, as was Purdy.

I totally agree that anyone getting pulled over has the right, to a great degree, to determine their own personal safety as to where to stop, but they should at least slow down and activate flashers to indicate they are willing to comply. I even told my wife to use discretion.

Hey, some cops tend to be a grumpy, prima donna bunch anyway and are prone to hissyfits when they don't get their way. Believe me, as a supervisor I've heard more complaints from citizens than I can remember. Yes, if you think a cop has mistreated you, talk to a supervisor. It has been my experience that supervisors take genuine, founded complaints very seriously. Remember, once you put it in my lap, I own it. If I screw up or ignore a founded complaint, then I have to tapdance in front of my boss. Chain of command thing.

If you want to complain, go in prepared. Have notes or an outline with the facts. Coming in and sputtering about how a cop was rude or mean to you without specifics is not as strong as having notes with quotes, witness statements, a copy of the citation (if applicable), etc. Don't just show up demanding a pound of flesh...prepare yourself. A good supervisor will listen, guide and assist you. Trust me, we know who the jerks are in our unit and he/she has probably had prior complaints about similar misconduct. We won't take that officer out to the garage and beat him/her in your presence, but when I say, "I will look into it and take appropriate action based on further investigation" it does not mean he/she and I will be laughing about your complaint over coffee and doughnuts.

[locosway]

Ok, so I'll say I was wrong on the code 3 thing.

However, I won't agree that a cruiser is any more equiped for high speed travel than a sports car. In fact, the sports car would likely have a suspension more in tune for high speed travel. I know cruisers get the heavy duty suspension or service suspension, but that does nothing for high speeds.

Also, do officers train for high speeds? I know the CHP does, but I don't think normal departments do. The physics of driving over 100 or 120 mph change the vehicles handling drastically.

If you've ever driving 150 mph you know that cars come up very very quickly.

[Rivers]

IMHO, that was kind of an unfair example. That was an extremely rare incident. Using extremely rare, isolated incidents to justify a particular action is a tactic that the anti-gunners use. Remember Patrick Purdy? Thanks to his extremely rare, isolated incident 20 years ago they banned "assault weapons" in California. Peyer was an extreme anomaly, as was Purdy.

I totally agree that anyone getting pulled over has the right, to a great degree, to determine their own personal safety as to where to stop, but they should at least slow down and activate flashers to indicate they are willing to comply. I even told my wife to use discretion.

Hey, some cops tend to be a grumpy, prima donna bunch anyway and are prone to hissyfits when they don't get their way. Believe me, as a supervisor I've heard more complaints from citizens than I can remember. Yes, if you think a cop has mistreated you, talk to a supervisor. It has been my experience that supervisors take genuine, founded complaints very seriously. Remember, once you put it in my lap, I own it. If I screw up or ignore a founded complaint, then I have to tapdance in front of my boss. Chain of command thing.

If you want to complain, go in prepared. Have notes or an outline with the facts. Coming in and sputtering about how a cop was rude or mean to you without specifics is not as strong as having notes with quotes, witness statements, a copy of the citation (if applicable), etc. Don't just show up demanding a pound of flesh...prepare yourself. A good supervisor will listen, guide and assist you. Trust me, we know who the jerks are in our unit and he/she has probably had prior complaints about similar misconduct. We won't take that officer out to the garage and beat him/her in your presence, but when I say, "I will look into it and take appropriate action based on further investigation" it does not mean he/she and I will be laughing about your complaint over coffee and doughnuts.

We're really on the same page here. I agree that Peyer is an extreme example. However, up to that time, there was the requirement that the motorist pull over immediately. That was a bad law that needed changing. Peyer's abuse forced lawmakers to modify that stance to improve safety for the motorist and the LEO. The motorist was still required to proceed as if "in custody" of the LEO.

IMHO, I think there are only a few LEOs who are overly rigid in permitting the motorist to safely proceed to the nearest safe location for the traffic stop. But when that happens, the LEO and his supervisors deserve to hear about it. Staying safe is not a challenge to the LEO's authority, it is just what it is, helping both parties to live to see another day. The ticket will still get written and everyone goes home alive and healthy.

[TerryC]

If a LEO lights you up, pull over immediately. He/she will tell you via the loud speaker if they want you to go somewhere else. It's the LEO responsibility to insure the public's and your safety. If they error, the city is responsible if you followed the LEO's direction.