INIT915

You can add both Cortlandt and Mohegan to your list in terms of contracted staffing.

First, let me say, I am not commenting on this specific case, rather in generalities which have a connection to this case. Medical Examiner determinations are very different from legal/police definitions. Medical Examiners generally have five classifications (there is a sixth in New York City). Natural Suicide Homicide Accident Undetermined (Rarely used when none of four above can truly be determined, despite all best efforts) (NYC Only: Complication of Therapeutic or Diagnostic Procedures) Homicide from a Medical Examiners perspective means ‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’ It merely means the death was caused by another person. Not all deaths caused by another person meet the legal/penal law definition of homicide. Here is the perfect example. A guy breaks into your house and you shoot him dead. The Medical Examiner classification for that is homicide, as it was caused by another person (you). However, from a legal perspective, you had the law on you side and you committed no legal violation whatsoever. The two areas are often conflated, but they are essentially only tangentially related. Another interesting exception exists with DWI fatalities. But that's another story.

Thanks for the clarification and info. Hopefully everything turns out well for him.

Good points, but I don't know that it's that vague about the amber lights. Your trucks are not "specially equipped or designed for the towing or pushing of vehicles." It just happens to be something they can physically do, in addition to their intended purpose. And highway maintenance is defined, as permits are needed, so I doubt you file for a permit every time you respond to an MVA. That's all an aside though, I generally agree these laws are not realistic. Not only would you have to sell that your engine was designed for pushing and towing vehicles, those lights "shall be displayed on a hazard vehicle when such vehicle is engaged in a hazardous operation." Which means "the operation, or parking, of a vehicle on or immediately adjacent to a public highway while such vehicle is actually engaged in an operation which would restrict, impede or interfere with the normal flow of traffic," which creates all kinds of new problems. This would suggest you must be able to disable the amber flashing lights except when meeting one of those conditions. So, whenever not on or adjacent to a public highway as those terms are defined and actually engaged, you must have a way to turn them off. Absurd, right? I agree. But as you said, a "creative lawyer..." My point, if I have one, is that a "creative lawyer" couldn't make either of these claims fly. Either the blue forward facing lights, nor the amber on your trucks. They are both well accepted practice nationally, and best-practice in many areas. So to argue that something that is generally considered "best practice" almost everywhere else, was somehow the proximate cause of a civil tort in New York, is, well, just a tad far fetched for my taste.

While generally that's correct, there's a number of aspects of tort law that you'd be missing out on here, especially since there is a trove of studies, documentation, and anecdotal evidence that blue lights help with visibility. You be hard pressed to make a state of claim based solely on the fact that the blue lights violate the VTL. By that logic, blue lights must be inherently dangerous when used in such a fashion, making every volunteer's POV a "ticking time bomb on the public roadway", even when the lights are used lawfully. To take that argument a step further, how many fire departments have amber lights, even if only rearward facing? Read the VTL closely, those amber lights on emergency vehicles are illegal in New York. So, if an engine/rescue/truck gets rear ended while having amber flashing lights, is that a home run for a civil claim. Of course not. But if your worried about it and your in a command position, how can you allow your department to continue to display those amber lights and "flout the law." I say that sarcastically, because I live in the real world.

We are still using them. I'm not sure why you haven't seen any of them.

Seems like a lot of conflicting information here.

But does the COD have CS protection or not?

Great point. You're going to see more cases of average bystanders taking more risk to help their fellow man than the average trained rescuer.

So, the COD is protected or no? Seems like these two statements cannot both be true?

An attorney has appeared in a matter when they have made timely notification to law enforcement that they represent a defendant in a matter. If a defendant asks to contact an attorney for the first time, they should be granted a reasonable opportunity to do so if it does not or will not delay the administration of the chemical test.

Where the police are aware that an attorney has appeared in a case before the chemical breath test begins, they must make reasonable efforts to inform the motorist of counsel’s appearance if such notification will not substantially interfere with the timely administration of the test. It does not appear that is the case here, but that is only a guess based on the few specifics outlined in the article.

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/news/all_news/finger_lakes/705871/state-trooper-dies-following-training-exercise-at-letchworth-state-park/ http://news.wbfo.org/post/state-trooper-dies-after-falling-letchworth-gorge http://www.wellsvilledaily.com/article/20131120/NEWS/131129952/10170/NEWS

This pilot program is being tested in other areas outside of NYC as well.

They seem to have to power to set all kinds of benchmarks for graduation, so it would seem to fit that they could require this if they saw fit.

Thanks for the clarification. Your original insinuation was alarming troubling to say the least. And most probably baseless, as 99.99999% of the State Police are uninvolved with the Medevac aspect and honestly, couldn't care less about it if they continued to provide the service or not.

This is a few years overdue.

Well, given your example, it's not necessarily illegal, per se. Thanks for the clarification.

That's the age we live in. It's only going to get worse with technology, not better.

Could you elaborate on the legality question?

Well said.

I don't know where your getting your information, but it makes no sense whatsoever.

Wanted for a burglary he had committed.

Date: 10/28/13 Time: 5:59 p.m. Incident Type: TCPD Patrol requesting back-up forthwith, reports shots fired, requesting EMS Location: 1353 Kings Highway, Town of Chester (Near the Barnsider Restauant) District: Town of Chester Units: Chester Town PD, Chester Village PD, NYSP, OCSO, Blooming Grove PD, Chester EMS, Warwick PD Description: Shots fired, requesting EMS Update: 18:06 Possibly self-inflicted GSW by suspect 18:07 Requesting Town of Chester PD Chief be notified and respond 18:08 Cancel ALS, subject DOA 18:27 Chester FD w/ Rescue for lighting, to the scene