Lights & Sirens when speeding?

[vmcdonnell]

I rarely rear my head here because, well, I'm a LEO spouse, not a LEO. I am, however, a legislative researcher and sadly work with more codes (of a boring sort too) than the average LEO on a daily basis and certainly more than a former security guard. My understanding of not only the black and white letter of the law, but the intimate workings of legislative history and intent is not normally a topic of discussion, but it seems that someone who can settle an argument between the wannabe code jockey and then men in blue is needed now.

In this case, Databyter, you're wrong. If it weren't a holiday weekend I'd gladly pull up Chapter 1017, Statutes of 1977 for you to take a gander at so you can see how our dear legislators decided these exemptions should be put in place. "All the following" does not mean that each condition must be met, it means "any" despite the somewhat vague word choice. "Each of the following" would be the text if all the conditions must be met.

[Databyter]

Originally Posted by Databyter
Police often show this bias in regards to gun laws, and are often shown to be wrong in a court of law, even though their training, background, and experiences all indicated to them that they were 100% correct.

So finally the truth comes out. It's all about "bias".... and the "feeling" that somehow the police are responsible for the silly weapons laws.

Another good example of you taking a simple statement and telling me I am saying something I did not say.

I do not Feel LE is any more baised than anybody else.

I certainly do not feel they are responsible for the silly gun laws.

What I do feel is what I said. And I used it as an example in defense of the fact that LE, when they are wrong, as they sometimes are, they have a good reason to be. SOP and Dogma.

They aren't trying to be wrong. They are executing their training as they see it. In most cases they are serving the public good and know what they are doing.

As we have seen in many instances there are many areas of the law where LE did not receive accurate training and were educated by actions. And in each of these cases they were sure they were right and they were acting in what they thought was the public interest. This is a gun forum. I used gun laws as an example. That was my point.

The grey priveledge areas that are pushed under the rug turn into SOP turn into dogma turn into people trying to make what's in their head match what they see in the code even though it does not exist.

The reality is you can do whatever you want in this area provided you aren't running over pedestrians, and you're never going to get called on it. But the law is clear. There are not special interpretations that apply only to LE. And occasionally even LE are prosecuted under the laws that they do not apparently "get" when they step too far over the line.

[Databyter]

Let me come over to your side for a moment.

If I interpret the law as you say and I am a LEO that means I can chose A or B conditions and not both (even though thats not what the law says). Then the following scenario would be completely legal.

LEO Officers Joe and Pete are driving back to the station after a long shift.

Joe: "Hey Pete my kids got a piano recital and I'm not gonna make it unless you start doing at least 20 over."

Pete: "No problem Joe, all I have to do is switch on the forwards and the VC says we can speed even without meeting the requirement of it being in relation to an emergency call."

Joe: "Thanks Pete"

King County Sheriff’s Sgt. John Urquhart:

State law governs emergency vehicle operations (fire, police and ambulances), specifically RCW 46.61.035. The statute allows those vehicles to do certain things other cars cannot, including “Exceeding the maximum speed limits so long as it does not endanger life or property”.

The law goes on to state this exemption is only valid when the vehicle is “making use of emergency signals…”.

Bottom line: Police cars that are exceeding the speed limit, must have at least emergency lights operating.

And yes, we all know what those temporary exceptions are.

p.s. Do any of you guys outrank the Sheriff in the quote?

p.p.s. With all due respect to the LEO's wife I studied this part of the code at an accredited Academy.
They are wrong, I am correct. What they get away with at work is irrelevant to my point. The law is clear.

Last time I sat in a room with 30 people telling me I was wrong and it couldn't be done I sued the County and won.
The Judge told Me I was correct and the County Attorney was wrong.
I don't get intimidated with numbers. Only good points and logic and I don't see any.

[kermit315]

Let me come over to your side for a moment.

If I interpret the law as you say and I am a LEO that means I can chose A or B conditions and not both (even though thats not what the law says). Then the following scenario would be completely legal.

LEO Officers Joe and Pete are driving back to the station after a long shift.

Joe: "Hey Pete my kids got a piano recital and I'm not gonna make it unless you start doing at least 20 over."

Pete: "No problem Joe, all I have to do is switch on the forwards and the VC says we can speed even without meeting the requirement of it being in relation to an emergency call."

Joe: "Thanks Pete"



And yes, we all know what those temporary exceptions are.

p.s. Do any of you guys outrank the Sheriff in the quote?

First things first. Its already been pointed out by many in this thread that you are reading it wrong. Agency policy would cook the officers in your example.

Next, why are you posting Washington State code and info from a Washington State Sheriff in a thread regarding California regulations?

[Databyter]

First things first. Its already been pointed out by many in this thread that you are reading it wrong. Agency policy would cook the officers in your example.

Next, why are you posting Washington State code and info from a Washington State Sheriff in a thread regarding California regulations?

Oops my bad. I was thinking of Northern Cal. Didn't realize it was Wash.

I actually found lots of LE quotes from Cal that say what I am saying, but chose the King County Sheriff due to his Status.

And the point of logic in my example is that California does not rely on local agency policy to dictate who is exempt from California State Law regarding the normal rules of the road.

Both conditions must be met.

A: A Legitimate Reason and a Legitimate agency.

B: Safety equipment i.e. Lights.

If both conditions do not need to be met then that means either A or B. That is what YOU GUYS are saying.

So, condition A does not need to be met if condition B is. That is the scenario above. Which is quite ridiculous. It is the premise that your invented interpretation allows.

So you're now saying that only the other way applies? I'm on the edge of my seat now to hear how the law indicates that.

I recommend you not test your theory in court.

Occams razor - The law says who and why and when and how.

The english language and common sense says it means what it says.

I'm quite aware of the danger of agreeing with me.

There are two defenses for the LE abuse of this law.

#1 is that they are not going to bust a buddy and a buddy is not going to bust them. (which is fine. I have no problem with Cops speeding).

#2 is the "I honestly did not know that" defense which would be moot if you agreed with me here.

[SVT-40]

p.s. Do any of you guys outrank the Sheriff in the quote?

Actually every single LEO here in California outranks this Sheriff. Because he has ZERO jurisdiction here in California. He may be The man in charge there in Washington, but here he's just another out of state LEO. So yes all the active guys here out rank this Sheriff.

p.p.s. With all due respect to the LEO's wife I studied this part of the code at an accredited Academy.

Maybe that would matter IF the academy you attended was a California Post certified Police academy.......

However since it was not, well it does not matter one bit. Even if it did you would still be wrong.

[cruising7388]

Actually every single LEO here in California outranks this Sheriff. Because he has ZERO jurisdiction here in California. He may be The man in charge there in Washington, but here he's just another out of state LEO. So yes all the active guys here out rank this Sheriff.

If an out-of-state LEO he is engaged in a pursuit that crosses into California, doesn't California honor his LEO status?

[SVT-40]

RCW 46.61.035.

How much of an expert can you be related to the California Vehicle Code (CVC)? You did not notice the difference in the way the codes are titled and the way the codes are enumerated in your quote are completely different from the way they are in the CVC?

Every rookie cop would easily recognize the differences.

You are definitely not the authority on the California Vehicle Code which you think you are. Because if you had the slightest bit of training you would have immediately noticed that the code you cited could not be from the CVC.

[SVT-40]

If an out-of-state LEO he is engaged in a pursuit that crosses into California, doesn't California honor his LEO status?

Only as an LEO. Not his rank.

Kind of like a Mexican general visiting here on a US military base. He is still a general, but no soldier is obligated to obey his orders.

[Databyter]

Maybe that would matter IF the academy you attended was a California Post certified Police academy.......

However since it was not, well it does not matter one bit. Even if it did you would still be wrong.

Law means the same no matter what university, college, or academy you studied it at.

[Databyter]

How much of an expert can you be related to the California Vehicle Code (CVC)? You did not notice the difference in the way the codes are titled and the way the codes are enumerated in your quote are completely different from the way they are in the CVC?

Every rookie cop would easily recognize the differences.

You are definitely not the authority on the California Vehicle Code which you think you are. Because if you had the slightest bit of training you would have immediately noticed that the code you cited could not be from the CVC.

I'm sorry if you couldn't understand my example above. I tried to make it easier to understand than the law itself which we already know you cannot.

Maybe some convictions and precedents that agree with me will convince you.

Although at this point I think nothing would convince you.

"The effect of Vehicle Code sections 21055 and 21056 is: where the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is engaged in a specified emergency function he may violate certain rules of the road, such as speed and right of way laws, if he activates his red light and where necessary his siren in order to alert other users of the road to the situation. In such circumstances the driver may not be held to be negligent solely upon the violation of specified rules of the road, but ay be held to be negligent if he fails to exercise due regard for the safety of others under the circumstances. Where the driver of an emergency vehicle fails to activate his red light, and where necessary his siren, he is not exempt from the rules of the road even though he may be engaged in a proper emergency function, and negligence may be based upon the violation of the rules of the road." (City of Sacramento v. Superior Court (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 395, 402-403 [182 Cal.Rptr. 443], internal citations omitted.)

"If the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is responding to an emergency call and gives the prescribed warnings by red light and siren, a charge of negligence against him may not be predicated on his violation of the designated Vehicle Code sections; but if he does not give the warnings, the contrary is true; and in the event the charged negligence is premised on conduct without the scope of the exemption a common-law standard of care is applicable." (Grant v. Petronella (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 281, 286 [123 Cal.Rptr. 399], internal citations omitted.)

"Where the driver of an emergency vehicle responding to an emergency call does not give the warnings prescribed by section 21055, the legislative warning policy expressed in that section dictates the conclusion [that] the common-law standard of care governing his conduct does not include a consideration of the emergency circumstances attendant upon his response to an emergency call." (Grant, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 289, footnote omitted.)

The exemption created by section 21055 is an affirmative defense, and the defendant must prove compliance with the conditions. (Washington v. City and County of San Francisco (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 235, 242 [266 P.2d 828].)

If your bad I'll include the closing arguments and then you won't have any wiggle room at all.

[Andy Taylor]

(b) If the driver of the vehicle sounds a siren as may be reasonably necessary and the vehicle displays a lighted red lamp visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrians.


Not a LEO, not a lawyer. The way I would read the above is: If the lights/siren aren't needed to move safely, at whatever speed or doing what ever maneuver, the LEO/fireman/ambulance driver etc are not under any obligation to use them.

[Databyter]

(b) If the driver of the vehicle sounds a siren as may be reasonably necessary and the vehicle displays a lighted red lamp visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrians.


Not a LEO, not a lawyer. The way I would read the above is: If the lights/siren aren't needed to move safely, at whatever speed or doing what ever maneuver, the LEO/fireman/ambulance driver etc are not under any obligation to use them.

The bolded section "as reasonably necessary" refers to the siren. There is no point in having the siren running if you aren't going through a blind intersection and there are no other cars around. However if you are responding and active on an incident you must have your forward lights displayed regardless of traffic or conditions. There are exceptions like silent approach, pacing, or surveilance, but they do not include the 10 miles of traffic to the scene (silent approach), the lack of a car to pace (Pacing), or surveilance (which isn't usualy done from a marked speeding police car).

Incidently one of the reasons for this law and condition is obviously safety.

But the other reason which was discussed on it's inception was the ability to determine when police were speeding and not on an incident.

It was a way to self regulate within agencies and for different agencies to keep an eye on each other.

That is why you see cops in the middle of nowhere with nobody in sight put on their overheads as they silently speed. They are letting the world know they are on a call.

It is the law.

[Samuelx]

databyter please take your ball and go home already....

::CLICK::

[BigDogatPlay]

In this case, Databyter, you're wrong. If it weren't a holiday weekend I'd gladly pull up Chapter 1017, Statutes of 1977 for you to take a gander at so you can see how our dear legislators decided these exemptions should be put in place. "All the following" does not mean that each condition must be met, it means "any" despite the somewhat vague word choice. "Each of the following" would be the text if all the conditions must be met.

@Databyter.... please note this is exactly what I've explained twice, but expressed differently. Also please note that two of your citations pre-date the Statutes of 1977. Only your first could, presumably be on point. In researching that case a bit I find a problem for you in the summary....

We hold that the officer defendants are immune from liability for negligence and we issue a peremptory writ of mandate on their behalf. We reject each of the contentions of the defendant city and deny its petition for a peremptory writ of mandate.

The opinion held that the officers did not have a duty to warn, hence they were within VC 21055. End result, the officers were immune and that their employer, the City of Sacramento, had to indemnify them. The court tossed the case back to the trial court.... would you happen to know how that worked out? Because that is the real meat.