WI Sheriff Deputy Fired after Vehicle crash

[Medicman695]

La Crosse County deputy fired after probe into crash - JSOnline


I'm thinking this may end up in the ring at some point but I'll start it here and see how long it lasts...


IMO the deputy deserved to be fired but, doesn't deserve the criminal charges. Obviously without knowing all the facts I could be wrong but with the information we got thats where I see it.

 

[Jasen Hatfield]

There isnt enough infomation here to formulate an opinion. What time did the crash occur? What were the traffic conditions? What type on intersection is it? What was the visibility like at the time of the crash? And was this an "officer in-trouble" call? And probably a hundred other mitigating factors to consider. Do I think driving 106 mph to an officer needing assistance is excessive, depending on the variables, no. I know that at those speeds a siren is pretty much useless and going thru an intersection, depending on its type and visibilty factors and traffic conditions, at 90 mph, could not be that unreasonable. This story is slanted towards the deputy doing wrong without anyone knowing all the facts and it is inappropriate to decide whether her being fired or charged based on what the media tells us. It sucks for her and the victim's family, nobody wins here.

 

[Medicman695]

Agreed it sucks for everyone involved.


I do think though that regardless of the type of vehicle, department, call, road conditions, etc, etc 90 MPH through a red light is not smart. Here in MN any emergency vehicle that is running L&S's is required to stop at all red lights/stop signs, make sure the coast is clear then proceed. Now does everybody do that? Hell no! I'd say maybe 1% do it 1% of the time. Regardless how you respond, as this story proves, extreme caution at intersections needs to be a priority since thats where most of our response accidents happen.

 

[fire1]

Agreed it sucks for everyone involved.
I do think though that regardless of the type of vehicle, department, call, road conditions, etc, etc 90 MPH through a red light is not smart. Here in MN any emergency vehicle that is running L&S's is required to stop at all red lights/stop signs, make sure the coast is clear then proceed. Now does everybody do that? Hell no! I'd say maybe 1% do it 1% of the time. Regardless how you respond, as this story proves, extreme caution at intersections needs to be a priority since thats where most of our response accidents happen.

This why she was charged, this is a quote from the paper.


State law allows officers responding to emergencies to speed through traffic signals with lights and sirens activated, but only after slowing down. Sheriff's department policy also directs deputies to travel at speeds that allow them to stop or yield to vehicles that have the right of way at red lights.


Slowing up to 90 is not enough for anyone to have the vehicle under control. The state law & dept policy is clear, she violated it & should be charged.


I will agree with your statement. Running L & S does not give you the right to endanger someones life as you respond to a call. What good did this do to help the other officer that needed assistance. All that happened was, she never made it to the call & caused a fatality & tied up more resources. I feel very sorry for the family of the 16 year old that lost her life. The officer will have to live with that the rest of her life.

 

[Medicman695]

.....Slowing up to 90 is not enough for anyone to have the vehicle under control....

Having been in a squad car while it was doing 90 in a 40 MPH zone, I can say it was a butt puckering experience going through stop lights and stop signs without slowing.

 

[mcpd2025]

This why she was charged, this is a quote from the paper.

State law allows officers responding to emergencies to speed through traffic signals with lights and sirens activated, but only after slowing down. Sheriff's department policy also directs deputies to travel at speeds that allow them to stop or yield to vehicles that have the right of way at red lights.


Slowing up to 90 is not enough for anyone to have the vehicle under control. The state law & dept policy is clear, she violated it & should be charged.


I will agree with your statement. Running L & S does not give you the right to endanger someones life as you respond to a call. What good did this do to help the other officer that needed assistance. All that happened was, she never made it to the call & caused a fatality & tied up more resources. I feel very sorry for the family of the 16 year old that lost her life. The officer will have to live with that the rest of her life.

Technically she slowed from 106 to 90.. not sure what the state law is exactly, but if it only requires she slows down, she met that statute. I am sure there is very specific wording in the traffic article about what constitutes an emergency vehicle and under what provisions an operator must act. Violating department policy, in and of itself, is not grounds for criminal or traffic charges to be filed.


That being said, I have been a police officer for over 9 years and I cannot think of any scenario where I would find it acceptable to go through an intersection displaying a red light, stop sign or yield sign at 90 mph. I am speaking from MY experience, and I will not bad mouth this officer for her decision(at least not without ALL the details), but I would never attempt that based upon MY training and experience. In my home state of Maryland, we are allowed to violate any and all traffic law while responding to an emergency or pursuing a violator, however, we are required to operate our motor vehicle with due regard for the safety of ourselves and others. Based upon the limited information I see here, it would be very hard to say I was operating with due regard while traveling at 90 mph through an intersection. If I were found to have driven without due regard, it would open me up to a vehicular manslaughter charge at a minimum.


We need to try our best to drive within our means and make decisions to prevent needing emergency backup. I am not trying to slander either officer in this incident, but for younger officers on this board... police in a smart manner. If you are going to go pick a fight with a bad guy, bring a friend along BEFORE the fight starts. This way it limits the need to request emergency assistance. If you are responding to emergency assistance GET THERE SAFELY. You don't do anyone any good getting into a wreck. You divert resources from the officer needing help. Look at ODMP.org, we are losing most of our officers to automobile collisions. I know that the nature of our job is dangerous and serious or fatal collisions are apt to occur, but we need to be as safe and smart as possible to reduce the amount and severity of these collisions.


Slow down and be safe out there.

 

[WhiteLite03]

blah, replied before reading the whole post above.


+1 to the Due Regard comment.

 

[Medicman695]

Technically she slowed from 106 to 90.. not sure what the state law is exactly, but if it only requires she slows down, she met that statute. I am sure there is very specific wording in the traffic article about what constitutes an emergency vehicle and under what provisions an operator must act. Violating department policy, in and of itself, is not grounds for criminal or traffic charges to be filed.

That being said, I have been a police officer for over 9 years and I cannot think of any scenario where I would find it acceptable to go through an intersection displaying a red light, stop sign or yield sign at 90 mph. I am speaking from MY experience, and I will not bad mouth this officer for her decision(at least not without ALL the details), but I would never attempt that based upon MY training and experience. In my home state of Maryland, we are allowed to violate any and all traffic law while responding to an emergency or pursuing a violator, however, we are required to operate our motor vehicle with due regard for the safety of ourselves and others. Based upon the limited information I see here, it would be very hard to say I was operating with due regard while traveling at 90 mph through an intersection. If I were found to have driven without due regard, it would open me up to a vehicular manslaughter charge at a minimum.


We need to try our best to drive within our means and make decisions to prevent needing emergency backup. I am not trying to slander either officer in this incident, but for younger officers on this board... police in a smart manner. If you are going to go pick a fight with a bad guy, bring a friend along BEFORE the fight starts. This way it limits the need to request emergency assistance. If you are responding to emergency assistance GET THERE SAFELY. You don't do anyone any good getting into a wreck. You divert resources from the officer needing help. Look at ODMP.org, we are losing most of our officers to automobile collisions. I know that the nature of our job is dangerous and serious or fatal collisions are apt to occur, but we need to be as safe and smart as possible to reduce the amount and severity of these collisions.


Slow down and be safe out there.

:goodpost:


So we were always told when it came down to court and getting called in to testify and whatnot, that you always had to ask yourself: if this was someone else in the hot seat would I have agreed and supported their desicion ie done the same thing if in their shoes? If we couldn't answer yes then we shouldnt be doing whatever it was we were doing.

 

[mjmath]

Gotta arrive to do any good.

 

[fire1]

Technically she slowed from 106 to 90.. not sure what the state law is exactly, but if it only requires she slows down, she met that statute. I am sure there is very specific wording in the traffic article about what constitutes an emergency vehicle and under what provisions an operator must act. Violating department policy, in and of itself, is not grounds for criminal or traffic charges to be filed.

That being said, I have been a police officer for over 9 years and I cannot think of any scenario where I would find it acceptable to go through an intersection displaying a red light, stop sign or yield sign at 90 mph. I am speaking from MY experience, and I will not bad mouth this officer for her decision(at least not without ALL the details), but I would never attempt that based upon MY training and experience. In my home state of Maryland, we are allowed to violate any and all traffic law while responding to an emergency or pursuing a violator, however, we are required to operate our motor vehicle with due regard for the safety of ourselves and others. Based upon the limited information I see here, it would be very hard to say I was operating with due regard while traveling at 90 mph through an intersection. If I were found to have driven without due regard, it would open me up to a vehicular manslaughter charge at a minimum.


We need to try our best to drive within our means and make decisions to prevent needing emergency backup. I am not trying to slander either officer in this incident, but for younger officers on this board... police in a smart manner. If you are going to go pick a fight with a bad guy, bring a friend along BEFORE the fight starts. This way it limits the need to request emergency assistance. If you are responding to emergency assistance GET THERE SAFELY. You don't do anyone any good getting into a wreck. You divert resources from the officer needing help. Look at ODMP.org, we are losing most of our officers to automobile collisions. I know that the nature of our job is dangerous and serious or fatal collisions are apt to occur, but we need to be as safe and smart as possible to reduce the amount and severity of these collisions.


Slow down and be safe out there.

I talked to a WI. state trooper. He said she caused a fatality. The WI statute says you must have the vehicle under control at all times & you are to yield at all intersections & proceed with caution. She clearly was in violation of that.

 

[Ipuvaepe]

So... is it safe to assume the signal was not equipped with a preemption device?

 

[fire1]

So... is it safe to assume the signal was not equipped with a preemption device?

I would guess you are right, but at the speed she was traveling at & by the time she got into range of the preemption device would it have worked. I would think she was outrunning it.

 

[Tom]

My feeling is 90 mph through ANY intersection is outrageous! Officers should have to slow down to a very reasonable speed or slow to an almost complete stop. There is no "what if" situation here, the worst possible situation occured when this officer failed to follow protocol and didn't think about her actions. Actions have consequences and she has learned this.


Now I understand the she was responding I assist another officer, but I still she could have dealt with the hasty situation more safely and professionally.

 

[fire1]

My feeling is 90 mph through ANY intersection is outrageous! Officers should have to slow down to a very reasonable speed or slow to an almost complete stop. There is no "what if" situation here, the worst possible situation occured when this officer failed to follow protocol and didn't think about her actions. Actions have consequences and she has learned this.

Now I understand the she was responding I assist another officer, but I still she could have dealt with the hasty situation more safely and professionally.

I will agree with you 100%. I would guess all states say pretty much the same for running L & S as the WI statute says, you must have the vehicle under control at all times & you are to yield at all intersections & proceed with caution. She was responding to assist another officer, by her actions she put his life on the line also by not getting there.

 

[K9Vic]

So... is it safe to assume the signal was not equipped with a preemption device?

In central Wisconsin in La Crosse County where the Sheriff would patrol, highly unlikely there was preemption device


So I did a simple Google search and, no there is no traffic light on Google streets, but the new video shows a traffic light. Google streets is probably outdated.


News report says Holmen, WI at the intersection of Hwy 35 & County road OT


Jan. 2011 - Stratman's attorney comments on the case - WXOW News 19 La Crosse, WI


holmen wi - Google Maps

 

[K9Vic]

Oh, Country Road OT curves back around to Hwy 35 in a second location. talk about confusing. This intersection has a traffic light, but there is no preemption device when you move around the camera.


holmen wi - Google Maps

 

[fire1]

In central Wisconsin in La Crosse County where the Sheriff would patrol, highly unlikely there was preemption device

So I did a simple Google search and, no there is no traffic light on Google streets, but the new video shows a traffic light. Google streets is probably outdated.


News report says Holmen, WI at the intersection of Hwy 35 & County road OT


Jan. 2011 - Stratman's attorney comments on the case - WXOW News 19 La Crosse, WI


holmen wi - Google Maps

Acording to her defence team there was a traffic light. Officer will go to trial for Holmen teen's death - WXOW News 19 La Crosse, WI

 

[HILO]

something like 60 mph and your out driving your siren and lights in regards to cross traffic. They have no time to hear the siren, see the lights, and react when the EV is going that fast. 60 is too fast with headlights on a regular car. 100 plus is way to fast for roads with controlled intersections.

 

[PJD642]

Having put my cruiser into a ditch almost 20 years ago (injuring no one) while going to an "assist officer" call, I have to agree with the above post - YOU NEED TO ARRIVE TO DO ANY GOOD.


That's one of the first stories I tell my rookies when I'm being an FTO. Even on a GREEN light WITH preemption activated, I will slow to no more than 30 when running hot and entering an intersection - there's always some idiot that has to turn right on red and doesn't see or hear my lights & siren....

 

[Medicman695]

I would guess you are right, but at the speed she was traveling at & by the time she got into range of the preemption device would it have worked. I would think she was outrunning it.

Depending on what specific premption device you have some of them work up to 2 miles away if you have a claer shot at the intersection. But either way until the indicator light turns green and you get the green traffic signal, the opticom hasn't worked and the light should be treated as a red.

 

[WhiteLite03]

My fellow Tennesseeans who work in Emergency Services will be familiar with the Vanessa K. Free law here. Similar situation, although it involved two police cruisers, a civilian vehicle, a traffic signal and a fatality. Anyone who drives an emergency vehicle in TN is required to have yearly training that meets the requirements of the law, which deals with intersection safety, due regard, and situational awareness. This is on top of whatever EVOC training is required.

 

[Medicman695]

My fellow Tennesseeans who work in Emergency Services will be familiar with the Vanessa K. Free law here. Similar situation, although it involved two police cruisers, a civilian vehicle, a traffic signal and a fatality. Anyone who drives an emergency vehicle in TN is required to have yearly training that meets the requirements of the law, which deals with intersection safety, due regard, and situational awareness. This is on top of whatever EVOC training is required.

I like it! Only paid Apparatus Operators are required to have EVOC AND a class C DL. Other wise you can go from street to rig with 0 training. However more agnecies are mandating EVOC/CEVO before you can drive so that they get lower insurance rates/premiums.

 

[Fast LT1]

All i have to say is "Damn women drivers"

 

[Medicman695]

I just read in the paper today that the deputy was acquitted of all charges, wonder how this will affect her getting another job

 

[badbrad]

90 mph through red light. acquitted.. get me the name of her defense lawyer !

 

[K9Vic]

90 mph through red light. acquitted.. get me the name of her defense lawyer !

It was Cullen Weston Pines & Bach per the article.

 

[CPDG23]

I would have been fired if I was caught doing 90mph on a straightaway, in perfect conditions, with zero traffic.


That's one thing our cheif doesn't put up with.


Arrive alive.

 

[11b101abn]

Gotta arrive to do any good.

Not just that , but we are held to a standard that places the lives of the citizens above our own.


She failed to maintain that standard and now she has to answer for it. Simple as that. She failed her agency, herself and the citizens of the county.