Lights & Sirens when speeding?

[epilepticninja]

Wow, I am so damn glad that the majority of the world didn't have access to the internet when I was in law enforcement. I probably would have cut my fingers off and jabbed my eyes out so I didn't have to look at and respond to the drivel of those that never had the honor to pin on a badge.

[Databyter]

@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....



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.

Regardless of the outcome of the case for those officers, the court clarified those sections that were quoted and they are now precedent. T

The precedents I quoted are cases where the law was either clarified or affirmed in some way by the court.

That is why they and the other cases I mentioned are given to modern juries as case law to consider in any instance where VC 21055 comes up today.

And I mean today, so regardless of the dates of the precedents I quoted, most of which seemed fairly recent from a legal standpoint, the courts of today consider those precedents to all be valid and current instructions to clarify VC 21055 in real cases today.

I will check out the 77 statutes though. I notice they do not show up in the pertinant case law search engines for this VC though. Nor do they show up in Jury instructions for this part of the VC. in real cases, nor have I heard any mention of it in those cases as of yet.

EDIT: I can't find any such Chapter 1017 that has anything to do with what we are talking about. So yea, please pull it up or tell me what planet's code it is referring to.

[Databyter]

Wow, I am so damn glad that the majority of the world didn't have access to the internet when I was in law enforcement. I probably would have cut my fingers off and jabbed my eyes out so I didn't have to look at and respond to the drivel of those that never had the honor to pin on a badge.

I had the honor to pin on a badge. Just not your badge.

I risked my life to save others and I did save lives.

And your personal attack on me is a poor excuse for a valid counter-point.

[kermit315]

I had the honor to pin on a badge. Just not your badge.

And your personal attack on me is a poor excuse for a valid counter-point.

What badge would that be?

Also, you wont accept counter points that are completely valid and independent of each other, so why is it exactly that you are still here?

[Databyter]

What badge would that be?

Also, you wont accept counter points that are completely valid and independent of each other, so why is it exactly that you are still here?

I was referring to my Fire Dept. Badge but I have worn others as well that I'm sure you have an equal amount of disrespect for.

And I will accept any comment, I am still waiting for somebody to prove that I am wrong. The law as stated agrees with me. The case law confirms it. And there are Statements by State agencies and other LEO's that confirm it.

And this Chapter 1017 that seems to be your ace in the hole. Well, I can't find it. Maybe you could help with that. The only chapter 1017's I could find have to do with plea agreements and other non related parts of law.

And as I stated about 50 posts ago. The reason I am here is because my honor and person are being attacked, as well as my correct statement.

Be right and be polite and there will be no need for me to defend myself.

[epilepticninja]

I had the honor to pin on a badge. Just not your badge.

And your personal attack on me is a poor excuse for a valid counter-point

I wasn't speaking directly to you in my post. I was speaking to every individual that comes into this forum with no LE background at all, and starts swinging the judgement hammer and speaking to what they know not.

[kermit315]

I was referring to my Fire Dept. Badge but I have worn others as well that I'm sure you have an equal amount of disrespect for.

And I will accept any comment, I am still waiting for somebody to prove that I am wrong. The law as stated agrees with me. The case law confirms it. And there are Statements by State agencies and other LEO's that confirm it.

And this Chapter 1017 that seems to be your ace in the hole. Well, I can't find it. Maybe you could help with that. The only chapter 1017's I could find have to do with plea agreements and other non related parts of law.

And as I stated about 50 posts ago. The reason I am here is because my honor and person are being attacked. Be right and be polite and there will be no need for me to defend myself.

Its been proven time and time again that you are wrong. You refuse to accept it. How many people need to tell you you are wrong before you accept it? Find one person in this thread that agrees with your interpretation, just one.

As has been said, you are trying to read into the statute something that isnt there, then apply that to your argument. It wont work.

[Databyter]

Its been proven time and time again that you are wrong. You refuse to accept it. How many people need to tell you you are wrong before you accept it? Find one person in this thread that agrees with your interpretation, just one.

As has been said, you are trying to read into the statute something that isnt there, then apply that to your argument. It wont work.

Just telling me I am wrong with no proof just makes me want to see that proof.

None has been provided. I am pro- LE and have no axe to grind with anyone.

But I know what the law says, I know how to read it, and I know that there is a difference between your SOP and what is written in black and white. SOP and department Dogma is not law. It is just your job. I've got no problem with it, but there is no magic pill that makes you guys right just because you never get busted for doing what you do.

[kermit315]

Just telling me I am wrong with no proof just makes me want to see that proof.

None has been provided. I am pro- LE and have no axe to grind with anyone.

But I know what the law says, I know how to read it, and I know that there is a difference between your SOP and what is written in black and white. SOP and department Dogma is not law. It is just your job. I've got no problem with it, but there is no magic pill that makes you guys right just because you never get busted for doing what you do.

You obviously dont understand how sentence structure or how the use of words/lack of words plays into statutes. If you did, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

In the interest of full disclosure, exactly what training have you received regarding law enforcement? Not your wife, or your dad, you.

[Databyter]

You obviously dont understand how sentence structure or how the use of words/lack of words plays into statutes. If you did, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

In the interest of full disclosure, exactly what training have you received regarding law enforcement? Not your wife, or your dad, you.

So you're back to that "chose either A or B condition" that makes no sense and is clearly not what the code says?

If it is what you say and you can chose either A or B and not both. That means that California legislators took the time to write a law that says you can speed any time you want as long as you turn on your lights. (which is dumb and is obviously not the intent of the law)

OR

You can speed and you don't need lights provided you are on a call (which is what you are saying)

What the law actually says is ALL of the conditions meaning A and B

You can speed provided you are in action and use safety equip i.e. lights.

And regarding your question I am not a law enforcement officer. That has already been established. But I the code does not apply specifically to LE Just to Emergency Vehicles and I spent many years responding as a Firefighter in emergency vehicles and risking my life and saving lives and driving in all sorts of conditions on city streets.

In the interest of disclosure what experiences do you and SVT-40 have. And is your point that LE is more Important than Firefighting and rescue?

Your profile says you are Navy and live in Florida. What California badge did you have?

[Retired Dave]

I'm retired now, so I haven't reviewed a collision report in years, and my memory might be incorrect.

But from the police academy, through in-service training, including the Emergency Vehicle Operations Course sponsored by POST, and basic accident investigation school, every instructor I've ever had, and every internal General Order I've ever read, all said the same thing about 21055 VC: To be exempt, an emergency vehicle must meet BOTH subsections (a) and (b).

The (a) subsection describes what emergency conditions allow you to be exempt.
The (b) subsection describes the minimum amount of equipment you must use, which is a single red lamp to the front, and siren as needed.

You're not legally exempt unless you have at least a red lamp to the front. A collision investigation involving an emergency vehicle operating under 21055 VC is expected to address both subsections.

[Databyter]

I'm retired now, so I haven't reviewed a collision report in years, and my memory might be incorrect.

But from the police academy, through in-service training, including the Emergency Vehicle Operations Course sponsored by POST, and basic accident investigation school, every instructor I've ever had, and every internal General Order I've ever read, all said the same thing about 21055 VC: To be exempt, an emergency vehicle must meet BOTH subsections (a) and (b).

The (a) subsection describes what emergency conditions allow you to be exempt.
The (b) subsection describes the minimum amount of equipment you must use, which is a single red lamp to the front, and siren as needed.

You're not legally exempt unless you have at least a red lamp to the front. A collision investigation involving an emergency vehicle operating under 21055 VC is expected to address both subsections.

Thanks Dave for taking the time to post this.

As you have no doubt read my training and experiences all have told me the same exact thing. I appreciate some LEO input.

[kermit315]

Exemption of Authorized Emergency Vehicles

21055. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is exempt from Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 21350), Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21650), Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 21800), Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21950), Chapter 6 (commencing with 22100), Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348), Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 22450), Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500), and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650) of this division, and Article 3 (commencing with Section 38305) and Article 4 (commencing with Section 38312) of Chapter 5 of Division 16.5, under all of the following conditions:

(a) If the vehicle is being driven in response to an emergency call or while engaged in rescue operations or is being used in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or is responding to, but not returning from, a fire alarm, except that fire department vehicles are exempt whether directly responding to an emergency call or operated from one place to another as rendered desirable or necessary by reason of an emergency call and operated to the scene of the emergency or operated from one fire station to another or to some other location by reason of the emergency call.

(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.

A siren shall not be sounded by an authorized emergency vehicle except when required under this section.

As used, "under all of the following conditions" is the equivalent of each condition being an exemption. Otherwise, it would have been written as "if all conditions are met". Its that simple.

As far as my experience, I am direct support for the SO down here, and just completed 770 hours of academy, with 150 of that being legal....not including all the legal mixed in the other blocks. That sure seems to me to be more than you firefighting experience when it comes to LE.

I am also Active Duty Navy, but that isnt applicable to this discussion. I cant and wont speak for SVT-40.

[Databyter]

As used, "under all of the following conditions" is the equivalent of each condition being an exemption. Otherwise, it would have been written as "if all conditions are met". Its that simple.

As far as my experience, I am direct support for the SO down here, and just completed 770 hours of academy, with 150 of that being legal....not including all the legal mixed in the other blocks. That sure seems to me to be more than you firefighting experience when it comes to LE.

I am also Active Duty Navy, but that isnt applicable to this discussion. I cant and wont speak for SVT-40.

It would have said "under one of the following conditions" if you were correct.

As it is it says "ALL of the following conditions" That does not mean some it means all and the courts have spoken on this to others who have tried to interpret it incorrectly.

Do me a solid and ask your instructor. Hopefully he knows the law.

But you needn't go that far. Logic and common sense should be enough for the average person to realize that if it was interpreted the other way it would be wide open to abuse and would make no sense.

There are now several LEO's in this thread and the other thread who have agreed with me and only you and SVT-40 are still pushing the misinterpretation.

Since I actually used this exemption for many years and you're still in school, in a different State, maybe you should be the one to have second thoughts.

And perhaps you should not impune my experience when it clearly is greater than your own, cadet.

[kermit315]

It would have said "under one of the following conditions" if you were correct.

As it is it says "ALL of the following conditions" That does not mean some it means all and the courts have spoken on this to others who have tried to interpret it incorrectly.

Do me a solid and ask your instructor. Hopefully he knows the law.

But you needn't go that far. Logic and common sense should be enough for the average person to realize that if it was interpreted the other way it would be wide open to abuse and would make no sense.

There are now several LEO's in this thread and the other thread who have agreed with me and only you and SVT-40 are still pushing the misinterpretation.

Since I actually used this exemption for many years and you're still in school, in a different State, maybe you should be the one to have second thoughts.

And perhaps you should not impune my experience when it clearly is greater than your own, cadet.

Nope, I understand basic english. Also, I am not a cadet, but there you go pretending you know anything about LE. Your massive firefighter experience does nothing for your credibility regarding LE.

Also, unless you have completely lost your mind, every person in this thread that is an LEO has disagreed with you, minus one retired person that admitted that he may or may not be right.

So, now you say court cases back you up: cite them.