Lights & Sirens when speeding?

[Databyter]

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.

I did cite them, and if you did not see the people that said the same thing I did in this and the other thread I can't help you. They did not say "Databyter is right" But they did say what the law was, and we are in agreement.

Sorry I called you cadet, I thought you were already in the academy. Don't worry I am sure they will let you in after you get all those requisite courses done. Then you'll be a cadet, or whatever term is the equivelent in Florida where the laws are different.

[kermit315]

I did cite them, and if you did not see the people that said the same thing I did in this and the other thread I can't help you. They did not say "Databyter is right" But they did say what the law was, and we are in agreement.

Sorry I called you cadet, I thought you were already in the academy. Don't worry I am sure they will let you in after you get all those requisite courses done. Then you'll be a cadet, or whatever term is the equivelent in Florida where the laws are different.

show me who agreed with you besides Dave.

Also, I am through the academy....we dont do the cadet thing in the academy down here. I am getting on as a reserve deputy to keep my standards active while I am on active duty in the Navy still. Cadets are non sworn, and only one agency that I am aware of down here uses them. It requires zero LE experience.

[Databyter]

show me who agreed with you besides Dave.

Also, I am through the academy....we dont do the cadet thing in the academy down here. I am getting on as a reserve deputy to keep my standards active while I am on active duty in the Navy still. Cadets are non sworn, and only one agency that I am aware of down here uses them. It requires zero LE experience.

Well, I sincerely wish you luck in your career choice and be safe out there. But a fresh minted reserve deputy in Crocodile Junction Florida does not make you an expert on the California Vehicle Code.

I've got no axe to grind with you and you seem like a nice guy. I usually find myself liking people that devote their lives to serve the public and if we weren't arguing on this thread I'm sure that would be the case.

But in case you didn't notice you lost a while back, so I'm going to go watch a movie and eat dinner.

[kermit315]

Well, I sincerely wish you luck in your career choice and be safe out there. But a fresh minted reserve deputy in Crocodile Junction Florida does not make you an expert on the California Vehicle Code.

I've got no axe to grind with you and you seem like a nice guy. I usually find myself liking people that devote their lives to serve the public and if we weren't arguing on this thread I'm sure that would be the case.

But in case you didn't notice you lost a while back, so I'm going to go watch a movie and eat dinner.

Actually, I am pretty sure you lost.......cite your court cases and cite those that support your position in this thread. Its pretty easy.

And also, no axe to grind here either, but its blatantly obvious.

[Retired Dave]

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.

I'm the retired police sergeant that agreed with Databyter. I phrased my earlier response in an effort to be polite. Now I'm going to be more direct: I know he's right right, and I'm sure you're wrong.

Several posters on this thread seem to be active-duty law enforcement in California. If any of those officers believe subsections (a) and (b) of CVC 21055 are STAND-ALONE subsections, I suggest that they get clarification from their agency's traffic sergeant, command staff, and department head. I seriously doubt that anybody in your command staff will say you are covered by the 21055 VC exemption by complying with only subsection (a) or (b).

There is a difference between "practices" and "policies" or law. Of course patrol officers sometimes drive fast, without lights/sirens, or without headlights, when they are catching up to violators or approaching crime scenes. That is usually part of their training. But they are NOT exempt from the vehicle code when they do so. That should also be part of their training.

For subsection (a) to be a stand-alone section, you need to believe you are exempted by 21055 VC simply by responding to an emergency call, with no requirement to use your emergency lights (and siren as needed). That simply is not true. If you speed through a red traffic light at an intersection in response to an emergency call, without at least a red lamp to the front, and get in a collision, you will almost certainly be found at-fault. You certainly won't be exempt from the rules of the road.

For subsection (b) to be a stand-alone section, you need to believe you are exempted by 21055 VC simply by using your emergency lights, with no requirement about being on an emergency call. That also is not true. If you want to meet a friend across town for a cup of coffee, and speed through a red traffic light at an intersection to get there, with your emergency lights activated, and get into a collision, you are certainly not covered under 21055 VC and will be found at fault.

Again, if any active-duty California peace officers reading this thread disagree with me, I strongly suggest you get clarification from your command staff.

[kermit315]

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.

Like I said, its plain english. There is no 'and' between (a) and (b), and there is no phrasing in the initial paragraph saying that (a) and (b) are codependent. Absent that, you are wrong. As written, (a) and (b) are independent of each other. Agency policy may add restrictions, but thats a different argument. Agency policy and command staff may say that you have to run lights/siren if using an exemption in (a), but the statute does not say that. It really doenst matter how you try to warp it, at the end of the day, that is what is written.

ETA: notice the periods at the end of (a) and (b). that signifies that those are two independent thoughts, not joined by anything.

[Retired Dave]

Like I said, its plain english. There is no 'and' between (a) and (b), and there is no phrasing in the initial paragraph saying that (a) and (b) are codependent. Absent that, you are wrong. As written, (a) and (b) are independent of each other. Agency policy may add restrictions, but thats a different argument. Agency policy and command staff may say that you have to run lights/siren if using an exemption in (a), but the statute does not say that. It really doenst matter how you try to warp it, at the end of the day, that is what is written.

ETA: notice the periods at the end of (a) and (b). that signifies that those are two independent thoughts, not joined by anything.

You're basing your opinion on the punctuation of a VC section which you probably have only recently read.

I'm basing my opinion on over 27-years as a California peace officer, most if it as a sergeant, and the training and experience that goes with it. The bulk of that Vehicle Code training was conducted by POST experts (usually CHP) who trained us strictly per state law (Vehicle Code and case law). EVERY expert told us that 21055 VC exempted emergency vehicle operators only if the requirements of both subsections were met. I wasn't referring to local agency regulations when I discussed the state vehicle code exemption. All of the experienced police officers I've ever met agree on the meaning of 21055 VC. It forms the basis for all emergency vehicle operations in the entire state.

The California Codes are written by lawyers and politicians. Not every section is written in a manner that is easy to understand. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you can correctly interpret a California law by simply reading a code section. It's particularly naive to claim that the punctuation itself is the correct way to interpret a California law.

[kermit315]

You're basing your opinion on the punctuation of a VC section which you probably have only recently read.

I'm basing my opinion on over 27-years as a California peace officer, most if it as a sergeant, and the training and experience that goes with it. The bulk of that Vehicle Code training was conducted by POST experts (usually CHP) who trained us strictly per state law (Vehicle Code and case law). EVERY expert told us that 21055 VC exempted emergency vehicle operators only if the requirements of both subsections were met. I wasn't referring to local agency regulations when I discussed the state vehicle code exemption. All of the experienced police officers I've ever met agree on the meaning of 21055 VC. It forms the basis for all emergency vehicle operations in the entire state.

The California Codes are written by lawyers and politicians. Not every section is written in a manner that is easy to understand. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you can correctly interpret a California law by simply reading a code section. It's particularly naive to claim that the punctuation itself is the correct way to interpret a California law.

No, I am basing my opinion on the lack of operative words that would make that section read the way you are interpreting it. You want me to take your word for it, but there are other LEO's in this same thread (the majority of them) that agree with me.......so which is it. I went back and looked at this whole thread again, even looked at the caselaw that was posted, and it still proves my point. The law says what it says. Like I said, plain english (plainer than some other statutes even).

[Databyter]

I already gave the 4 precedent cases a few pages ago, along with the case name, date dockets w/e and it was not good enough.

So here is a recent case, that did NOT make precedent (because it was already using those that I mentioned and was interpreting the law as written).

Monroy v. City of Los Angeles, (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ---, 2008 WL 2514315, Cal.App. 2 Dist., June 25, 2008

Decision
The appellate court began with a discussion of CVC Sections 21055 and 21056. The court explained that “in order for emergency responders to be exempt from the rules of the road, including the speed limit, they must be responding to an emergency call, they must sound a siren as may be reasonably necessary, and their vehicle must display a lighted red lamp visible from the front as a warning.”

http://www.kmtg.com/data/rc_legal_al...IDD=1181937883

Condition A is the emergency call condition B is lights. The court says they must meet both conditions.

That is what the code means by ALL.

You must meet all of the following conditions.

A) this is condition 1. (emergency call)

B) this is condition 2. (safety equipment)

There is nothing anywhere that agrees with your interpretation of only needing to meet one or the other and everyone knows it which is why you are left holding the bag in this thread.

Incidently the LAPD Pursuit Policy and Codes also agree with this and they are posted online if your interested. But since you are a Florida reserve officer it might be better to just focus on your own rules.

As I myself and others have pointed out there is a difference between the law as stated and SOP in a unit and there are also exceptions that have been discussed. Just make sure you are on the right side of the law when the SHTF.

Common sense dictates that sometimes the law has to be skirted in some situations. But you're on your own and it better make sense to someone besides yourself i.e. your dept. or the judge.

[yzErnie]

Wow, this sure has turned into a cow pie slinging contest.

[Bobby Ricigliano]

Whoaaaa this is still going on? My God what a waste of time.

[biochembruin]

...Incidently the LAPD Pursuit Policy and Codes also agree with this and they are posted online if your interested....

You can't use LAPD pursuit policy to demonstrate the legal requirements for an emergency response. Being involved in a pursuit is a different set of circumstances than responding code three to a call, despite the outward appearance to a layperson that they are the same because they both have flashing lights and loud sirens. Additionally, LAPD policy is more restrictive than state law. It goes beyond the minimum legal requirements, and thus is not representative of what state law says is minimally necessary.

[Ron-Solo]

[Databyter]

You can't use LAPD pursuit policy to demonstrate the legal requirements for an emergency response. Being involved in a pursuit is a different set of circumstances than responding code three to a call, despite the outward appearance to a layperson that they are the same because they both have flashing lights and loud sirens. Additionally, LAPD policy is more restrictive than state law. It goes beyond the minimum legal requirements, and thus is not representative of what state law says is minimally necessary.

I agree. I only mentioned it because Kermit did not seem to be accepting any other legal data points, and constantly has stated that only LE sources are valid.

I did not take the time to quote any of those sections and just referred him to them for the reasons you stated.

I agree that this thread has outlived it's usefulness many pages ago. I only stuck in there because I was under attack and being Irish I can't resist defending my honor.

[5shot]

Whoaaaa this is still going on? My God what a waste of time.