OHP Not Sure About Lights

[TeeDub]

The more I read this, the more it says "As he traveled in the opposite direction on the same highway, a mother, with her baby in the back seat, turned left off the highway, directly into the path of the trooper. "

Regardless of whether his lights were on, why would it be his fault if she didn't yield?

[custosnox]

The more I read this, the more it says "As he traveled in the opposite direction on the same highway, a mother, with her baby in the back seat, turned left off the highway, directly into the path of the trooper. "

Regardless of whether his lights were on, why would it be his fault if she didn't yield?

If he was traveling at an excessive speed, then she could have easily misjudged the time it would take him to overtake him.  After all, when you turn onto a street, do you wait until no cars are coming at all, or do you judge the distance they are away and guestimate how long it will reach you and decide to wait or go?  But this is just a possibility that could have been at play (and comes to mind because of the times I've almost been hit by misjudging how much some idiot is speeding).

[Red Arrow]

I'll have to wait 'til I get home to read the link, Fox is blocked here.  However, misjudging crossing in front of people while making a left turn happens frequently enough that I would not instantly assume the trooper was going too fast.

It is also probable that mothers with babies in the car have joined the ranks of "cannot be at fault".  It's kind of like having the right of way if you post a "baby on board" tag in your car rear window.   A friend and I came across a driver that thought that the "Baby on Board" sign gave him the right to pull into the disappearing lane (the one that goes away on the other side of an intersection) at an intersection and try to beat the rest of traffic across the intersection.  When my friend and I (following each other) got through the intersection before he did, the jerk rode my friend's bumper to the next light. Then got out of his car, stormed up to my friend and proceeded to lecture my friend about safe driving and asked if my friend did not see the "Baby on Board" sign.  Whew!

[patric]

I'll have to wait 'til I get home to read the link, Fox is blocked here.  However, misjudging crossing in front of people while making a left turn happens frequently enough that I would not instantly assume the trooper was going too fast.

Perhaps what is most damning here is not so much that the trooper causing a fatality wreck, but the OHP as a whole got caught lying about it.

The OHP finally decides to comment (only after being caught in a lie):
http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=42702


 On an early dark November morning in 2007,  a young mother was driving down county Highway 9.  At the same time, an OHP trooper was called to an accident down the road.
   As he traveled in the opposite direction on the same highway, a mother, with her baby in the back seat, turned left off the highway, directly into the path of the trooper.  The collision report shows no signs of braking. Her car was thrown more than 200 feet.  The baby and trooper survived, but 24-year-old Tiffany Brown died that morning.
 
  Within hours of the accident, before any formal investigation, a spokesperson for OHP told the media that trooper Justin Williams had his emergency lights and sirens activated, and that Tiffany was to blame for turning in front of the trooper despite those signals. 
 
  Tisha Brillo was horrified to learn of her sister's death and shocked to hear that OHP was laying the blame on her sister, accusing her of ignoring an emergency vehicle with lights and sirens.
  Tisha Brillo didn't believe her sister would make that mistake. She believed that if the trooper did have his emergency lights and sirens on, Tiffany would have been able to see him coming down a half mile stretch of flat highway, and she wouldn't have made the left turn.
 
  Tisha said, "I wanted to know the truth."
 
 Tisha hired attorney Steven Horton, and filed a civil lawsuit.  She and her attorney got their hands on the investigative report, a  report OHP would not release to the pubilc, or even Tiffany's family.   
 
 Tisha's attorney, Steve Horton, read the report, and did his own investigating.  He called OHP's investigation "inaccurate and irresponsible."
 
  When Horton interviewed OHP's lead investigator on the case, Captain Ronnie Hampton, the captain said OHP did not tell the truth from day one.

Deposition documents show Horton asked Captain Hampton, "When you were at the scene, tell me what evidence you had that Trooper Williams had his lights and sirens on?" Hampton responded, "None."  That was a fact OHP never corrected in public after telling everyone Tiffany had ignored those emergency lights and sirens the morning of the accident.
 
 During the same deposition, Horton asked the captain,  "Do you believe that it is irresponsible for the spokesperson of the highway patrol to mislead the media regarding a fatal accident?" Captain Hampton answered, "Yes."
 
  When Horton was asked if he believed there was any intention on OHP's part to distort those facts, Horton responded, "Well, I don't think that someone accidentally said that the trooper had his lights and sirens activated. I think someone had to intentially tell someone, which, in turn was relayed to the media.  I don't think that was inadvertant. It was reported as a fact and it wasn't."
 
  Tiffany's sister Tisha said, "It was a highway patrolman that gave false information that made my sister look bad and their trooper look good and I don't think that's fair."

Horton also deposed the eyewitness who was driving behind Tiffany Brown at the time of the accident. Horton found out OHP did not record the only eyewitness interview.  Horton found that to be a serious problem when the eyewitness said she never said the things OHP reported she said.
 
  During the deposition, Horton spoke to the eyewitness. "[OHP investigators] say you saw [the trooper] coming from the other direction."  She responded, "No, I did not see him." She went on to say "I never saw [the trooper] until the collision."
 
  During the deposition, Horton said, "[the eyewitness]was very adamant [the trooper] did not have his lights and sirens on."
 
  Horton also took issue with the fact that OHP never interviewed Trooper Justin Williams as part of its investigation.  Williams was allowed to decline an interview with investigators.
 
  Throughout the OHP investigation, Tiffany's sister says OHP stuck with the same story, and then something changed.
 
   Tisha said, "When we were in mediation, the one thing [the trooper] continued to stick with the whole time was that he was on his way to an accident.  He had just gotten a call, he was on his way to an accident.  Then when the captain gave his deposition, suddenly [OHP is] calling my attorney wanting to settle things.  That's because someone finally told the truth." 

  During Captain Ronnie Hampton's deposition with the family's attorney, the captain told Horton, OHP was wrong when it reported Trooper Williams was responding to an accident the morning he collided with Tiffany Brown's car.
 
  The captain said the accident Trooper Williams was allegedly responding to had already been cleared and Trooper Williams was notified before he ever started driving down the highway that morning, well before he crashed into Tiffany Brown's car.

   Captain Hampton said Trooper Williams told him in an unofficial, off-hand conversation "he had been called, told that the road was clear, that the cars had been moved off the road..."
 
   Tisha was shocked. She said, "[Trooper Williams'] car was still cold. He got the call before he even left the driveway. He knew that the roadway was clear.  He knew that the victims had been transported. There was no need in him going and there was definitely no need in him speeding.  Yet he did it anyway and he chose to do it without his lights on. That, to me, just says, you think you're above the law. You think you can do what you want.  Obviously he can because he still has had no repercussions.  He's not been reprimanded in any way, shape or form."

OHP did settle with Tiffany's family, but the amount, regulated state law, was no more than $175,000. It was an offer Tisha said she had to accept, because her sister left behind two children who need support and any court battle would only further drain that maximum settlement amount. 
 
  Tisha said, "I don't think it's fair.  That's what I think.  I think it is a double standard when it comes to [OHP]. If the roles had been reversed that day and that had been my sister, and the trooper had died, she would be in prison.  I don't think that just because you're a highway patrolman that that makes you above the law."
 
  Tisha believes as long as OHP investigates its own, the public, and possibly other families, may always have to fight for the truth.
 
  Tisha said, "I think [OHP] did not tell the truth to cover up for their highway patrolman. I have no doubt that this has happened before and I have no doubt that this has happened again."


http://www.fox23.com/content/fox23investigates/story/Investigating-OHP/EUJIqhHnUkSvNxSlINlSjw.cspx

[patric]

Almost a carbon copy of this wreck, where the officer was speeding but not on a call, and a vehicle ahead misjudged the distance between them and the speeding car.  Two teens died in this one, and the cop was charged with manslaughter.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DREC97JZSdo&videos=53bJgXD-ARY[/youtube]

[BLKHWK]

 The main reason that the police park at an angle behind a stopped car is not for benefit of getting a better camera angle. It is a safety issue. 1) If the car is hit from behind there is less of a chance it will slide into the other car, and 2) In the event of an armed confrontation, it will give some cover due to the fact that the engine will stop pretty much any incoming fire.

[Conan71]

The main reason that the police park at an angle behind a stopped car is not for benefit of getting a better camera angle. It is a safety issue. 1) If the car is hit from behind there is less of a chance it will slide into the other car, and 2) In the event of an armed confrontation, it will give some cover due to the fact that the engine will stop pretty much any incoming fire.

I had assumed the reason was to deflect a colliding car in a side-swipe back off into the roadway instead of into the car which had been stopped in front of the troopers car.  FWIW, I think OHP is the only agency I've noticed doing this.  I don't think I saw this in Missouri last week and can't think of any other state patrols where I've noticed it.  Not so say they don't, just that I have not noticed elsewhere.

[Red Arrow]

I had assumed the reason was to deflect a colliding car in a side-swipe back off into the roadway instead of into the car which had been stopped in front of the troopers car.  FWIW, I think OHP is the only agency I've noticed doing this.  I don't think I saw this in Missouri last week and can't think of any other state patrols where I've noticed it.  Not so say they don't, just that I have not noticed elsewhere.

I'd rather sacrifice a "cop car" than a trooper.

[Conan71]

I'd rather sacrifice a "cop car" than a trooper.

Oh, absolutely.  I certainly wasn't trying to imply that they way they park them on the shoulder is wrong.  Makes good sense, get a glancing blow and it would shoot a car back to the left before it could hit the trooper or the person's vehicle he/she has stopped. 

[Radio]

 Next time you see a trooper have someone pulled over, check out the way they are parked behind them.  They park at an angle so their in car camera system can record anything that happens.  

The angle that the LEO is parked at has NOTHING to do with the view of the camera,
and EVERYTHING to do with officer safety.

The camera should be pointed directly forward, which will give a great view both during a stop, and during a response, chase, or the traffic up to a stop. 

Of course - now that it is used by more and more agencies, they are reconsidering if just using a 3 foot offset is more appropiate.

[patric]

How the state of Illinois recently handled such a crash:

Trooper in fatal crash loses paycheck

The Illinois State Police suspended Trooper Matt Mitchell's pay Tuesday, more than two years after he lost control of his squad car and caused an accident that killed two teenage sisters.

Lt. Scott Compton said Mitchell was served with papers Tuesday that removed him from the state's payroll. Mitchell made $67,023 per year, according to the last available pay records.

Compton said the state police agency has also taken steps to remove Mitchell as a trooper. The agency filed a complaint Tuesday with the Illinois State Police Merit Board, which handles discipline of state troopers.
Compton said it took so long for the action because the agency had to wait until the criminal proceeding was adjudicated.

Prosecutors said Mitchell had been talking on a cell phone and e-mailing on the patrol car's computer as he drove 126 mph on Interstate 64 near Scott Air Force Base,
answering a call to a traffic crash that had already been cleared by other agencies.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100422_11_A13_TheIll968126

[Smokinokie]

I no longer trust the OHP any farther than I could throw one of them. While I would like to try throwing one, I doubt they will give me the chance.
 It's time the OHP was either disbanded or replaced. The only purpose they serve these days is to abuse their authority and generate income for the state.

No, I have not been pulled over by OHP in the past 10 years. Yes, I have to deal with them occasionally in work related matters.