crcocr1

It was deemed a homicide by the medical examiner only at this time. The ME definition of a homicide is different from a criminal indictment of homicide.
It will be up to the District Attorney as to whether he will present a charge of homicide or a lesser charge to a Grand Jury who will ultimately decide what level of charge to indict the officer if they so choose. The DA may elect not to pursue any charges after reviewing all the details but that is unlikely due to the sensitivity and publicity surrounding the case

I think what is evident based on all our posts is that EMS to Hospital communications/reports largely are regional in nature. The basics are left to the handout and supplemented by the clinical rotations in hospitals. Perhaps the DOH would benefit for having a set list of expectations while undergoing the 10 hours or so of clinical rotation time for EMTs. EMTs then could be aware what the hospitals that they likely work in or near expect in a hospital report, including the bare minimum basics taught through a handout given in an EMT class.
Insofar as "initals", the benefit for many commercial and even municipal providers seems to be that if hospital registration has that information up front, the EMS provider can obtain a facesheet and get paid for their services easier than relying on patient given information, which we should know may or may not be entirely accurate. It has its benefits and drawbacks, serves very little clinical purpose (outside of perhaps age and sex of patient), but may provide a friendlier atmosphere between EMS and hospital (if the hospital wants the information in a radio report).

during my original cert class we breezed over the topic with a few slides on a power point. It wasn't until I started working for pay in EMS that I actually learned how to write one. In the FDNY EMS academy you have a lecture to familiarize you with the paper acr (when I went through at least, all boroughs are using tablets now except for the Bx) and after each scenario you would have to write up a pcr, which would then be reviewed and critiqued. I had to do a paper pcr for a RMA the other day with my FD, and it was a little confusing because I hadn't filled out one of our paper pcrs in years.

The Judge does not need to know anything about emergency services. He/She needs to decipher (and rule on) what the terms of the contract intended.

I agree and several years ago, in my department, I signed a paper "under duress". And I also agree where someone mentioned, these policies have actually created hostile enviorments. People are afraid to talk to each other today.

On the EMS side....
While working for Abbey Richmond in White Plains on a Sunday morning back in the early 1980's. I was assigned as the paramedic on the transport ambulance and was told to return to the office. My EMT and I were told to go do a 2 man ambulette from Longview Nursing Home in W.P. to Grace Church on Main St in W.P.
We were told that there were no ambulette drivers working and the transport had to be done. When we arrived ( in an ambulette ) we found a 106 y.o. female named Clara Beech. She was allowed to leave the nursing home only once a year on her birthday, and for medical services. Clara was as alert as a 40 y.o. and could see as good as anyone thru her coke bottle thick glasses. She was packaged and wheeled out to the ambulette. As we got outside she broke out in a song of praise for the beautiful day the Lord gave her on her birthday. Now off to Grace Church we went. When we arrived you would had thought the Pope was coming to the church. The church was mobbed. We wheeled her into church all the way to the front where she was the center of attention, which she ate up.
We left her there and returned 2 hours later to take her back to the nursing home. To see the joy on this woman's face more then made up for the fact that an A.L.S. bus was taken out of service for an ambulette call.
Well if you think it ends here it only half over.
Fast forward 1 year. I was again working Abbey W.P. this time on Amb-1. When I reported for work I checked the transport booking slips for the day. Right on top was the slip for Clara to go to church for her 107th birthday. Again it would take the transport A.L.S. ambulance out of service. I told the Transport medic that I'd do the ambullete call and he cover the city. He thought I was nuts but he agreed.
When we walked into her room at the nursing home ( which was only about a 10 bed nursing home) she looked up saw me and greeted me by my first name. She then said "so you came back to take me to church on my 107th birthday". I could believe she remembered me.
Off to church we went again and there was another mob at the church for Clara's birthday.
When we picked her up for the return she asked if we could drive around a bit. We drove around W.P. for about 30 minutes as she gave us a guided tour of how W.P. use to be around the turn of the century. That's the 1800's into the 1900"s. She grew up in W.P.
I don't know what ever happened to Clara, but I think about those two birthday ambulette trips to church often.

For the NYPD we have POPPA (Police Officers Providing Peer Assistance) that is staffed by NYPD members and will help all ranks with personal and professional problems. It is separate from the job, but has its support, and the support of the City Council. Of course its use is not mandated (it is confidential, supposedly), but the job does have its Pysch Services, and if you get sent there by the job, it is not voluntary. They often do alcohol counseling, domestic violence classes, etc. POPPA usually visit every command (every tour) at least once a year, and every so often they will make appearances at the range to let the members know it is still available. In addition, EVERY member's locker has a sticker about 5"x8" with a list of different groups that can provide support for numerous problems that members may face. We just got a few new posters in my command on this topic. I will try to get a photo tonight when I go in.

The interesting part of this scenario is the EMT, if part of a municipal fire agency, could be held liable under a federal 1983 for any harm due to the EMT's actions for acting under color of law to deprive an individual of a civil right (assuming if fits within the "shock the conscience" exception or the many carved exceptions to allow for a 1983 suit). Even if not part of a muncipal agency, the issue of medical neglect/malpractice would otherwise rear its ugly head even with protections under the Article 800 of the Public Health Law (allowing immunity for EMTs and Paramedics so long as not grossly negligent). Of course, the liability would be fact dependent and more details would be needed for an attorney, judge, jury, etc. This comment dovetails any employment law violation by his/her partner who may be affected by the discrimination.

Some of the "Best" firefighters I know were and still are "Buffs"! Id take them any day over the s*** that's coming on the Job! It's as if your not allowed to have an interest in your Profession, God forbid you do that!

Where's the disorderly conduct on the part of the videographer? Assuming there is no further evidence that we haven't seen, I don't see any evidence the videographer caused a public disturbance or inconvenience, nor did he disobey a lawful order by law enforcement. (The order that he could not video was not lawful as the law allows people to video and photograph in public areas.) Thus, no charge would lie under PL 240.20, a mere violation. Further since there was no physical inteference with firefighting operations, there likely would be no charge for Obstruction of Government Activity or Obstruction of Firefighting Operations under Article 195 of the Penal Law, a misdemeanor. If the videographer had a dashboard light and is not authorized to have it, then there might be a charge for that offense. Assuming Florida has a similar statutory scheme and absent any evidence that the videographer was impersonating a public servant (i.e. pointed to the dashboard light and said I'm a firefighter), I don't see anything that would subject him to any criminal charges.
Further there is no violation of HIPAA or privacy as the videographer does not have any PHI of the patient.
Ironically, the captain was causing a public disturbance that caused a crowd to gather and could be crimiinally liable for disorderly conduct, harassment, and possibly attempted assault for the pushing but to what end? I think the captain should remain professional at all times even if he doesn't like someone with a video camera over his shoulder or use a truck to block the area from sight if it could be safely done.
I'm curious what else could be done to keep both FD and the videographer happy with minimal effort. Its a world we live in and will continue to live in barring the enactment of new laws that comport with federal and state constitutions.

Nothing to see here!

Where's the disorderly conduct on the part of the videographer? Assuming there is no further evidence that we haven't seen, I don't see any evidence the videographer caused a public disturbance or inconvenience, nor did he disobey a lawful order by law enforcement. (The order that he could not video was not lawful as the law allows people to video and photograph in public areas.) Thus, no charge would lie under PL 240.20, a mere violation. Further since there was no physical inteference with firefighting operations, there likely would be no charge for Obstruction of Government Activity or Obstruction of Firefighting Operations under Article 195 of the Penal Law, a misdemeanor. If the videographer had a dashboard light and is not authorized to have it, then there might be a charge for that offense. Assuming Florida has a similar statutory scheme and absent any evidence that the videographer was impersonating a public servant (i.e. pointed to the dashboard light and said I'm a firefighter), I don't see anything that would subject him to any criminal charges.
Further there is no violation of HIPAA or privacy as the videographer does not have any PHI of the patient.
Ironically, the captain was causing a public disturbance that caused a crowd to gather and could be crimiinally liable for disorderly conduct, harassment, and possibly attempted assault for the pushing but to what end? I think the captain should remain professional at all times even if he doesn't like someone with a video camera over his shoulder or use a truck to block the area from sight if it could be safely done.
I'm curious what else could be done to keep both FD and the videographer happy with minimal effort. Its a world we live in and will continue to live in barring the enactment of new laws that comport with federal and state constitutions.

Where's the disorderly conduct on the part of the videographer? Assuming there is no further evidence that we haven't seen, I don't see any evidence the videographer caused a public disturbance or inconvenience, nor did he disobey a lawful order by law enforcement. (The order that he could not video was not lawful as the law allows people to video and photograph in public areas.) Thus, no charge would lie under PL 240.20, a mere violation. Further since there was no physical inteference with firefighting operations, there likely would be no charge for Obstruction of Government Activity or Obstruction of Firefighting Operations under Article 195 of the Penal Law, a misdemeanor. If the videographer had a dashboard light and is not authorized to have it, then there might be a charge for that offense. Assuming Florida has a similar statutory scheme and absent any evidence that the videographer was impersonating a public servant (i.e. pointed to the dashboard light and said I'm a firefighter), I don't see anything that would subject him to any criminal charges.
Further there is no violation of HIPAA or privacy as the videographer does not have any PHI of the patient.
Ironically, the captain was causing a public disturbance that caused a crowd to gather and could be crimiinally liable for disorderly conduct, harassment, and possibly attempted assault for the pushing but to what end? I think the captain should remain professional at all times even if he doesn't like someone with a video camera over his shoulder or use a truck to block the area from sight if it could be safely done.
I'm curious what else could be done to keep both FD and the videographer happy with minimal effort. Its a world we live in and will continue to live in barring the enactment of new laws that comport with federal and state constitutions.

Where's the disorderly conduct on the part of the videographer? Assuming there is no further evidence that we haven't seen, I don't see any evidence the videographer caused a public disturbance or inconvenience, nor did he disobey a lawful order by law enforcement. (The order that he could not video was not lawful as the law allows people to video and photograph in public areas.) Thus, no charge would lie under PL 240.20, a mere violation. Further since there was no physical inteference with firefighting operations, there likely would be no charge for Obstruction of Government Activity or Obstruction of Firefighting Operations under Article 195 of the Penal Law, a misdemeanor. If the videographer had a dashboard light and is not authorized to have it, then there might be a charge for that offense. Assuming Florida has a similar statutory scheme and absent any evidence that the videographer was impersonating a public servant (i.e. pointed to the dashboard light and said I'm a firefighter), I don't see anything that would subject him to any criminal charges.
Further there is no violation of HIPAA or privacy as the videographer does not have any PHI of the patient.
Ironically, the captain was causing a public disturbance that caused a crowd to gather and could be crimiinally liable for disorderly conduct, harassment, and possibly attempted assault for the pushing but to what end? I think the captain should remain professional at all times even if he doesn't like someone with a video camera over his shoulder or use a truck to block the area from sight if it could be safely done.
I'm curious what else could be done to keep both FD and the videographer happy with minimal effort. Its a world we live in and will continue to live in barring the enactment of new laws that comport with federal and state constitutions.

Based on all that has been discussed, I would have to agree with those individuals who said to arrest based on the Aggravated Unlicensed Operation, search the person's grabbable area (which is different from many states where you can search the car even if you ask the person to step out of vehicle), and later conduct an inventory search of the vehicle. I think many departments have the policy of vouchering ammo from the gun itself and see no legal impediment to doing so for safety reasons.
In NYC, with DATs, the person would be cuffed, searched for any contraband on his/her person, and then brought to precinct for issuance of a DAT.
Insofar as the "if an officer is informed of a concealed carry permit, whether it be verbally or visualizing a license, does this give him/her the right to search and seizure or the need to physically exam the weapon or weapons on said license," I think it gives the officer the right to exam the weapon to see if the person is properly licensed. Outside of the inventory search, I don't see a need to examine the magazine unless it is an arrest for CPW as it would be a search covered under the fourth amendment.
The decline to prosecute on this case could be due to any number of reasons, including lack of prosecutorial merit, if the Columbia County District Attorney thinks prosecuting under the SAFE ACT would be unduly harsh and improper.

You and your "attorney slash LE Commissioner Father in law" got all that out of that article posted above? Given the scant details, it's impossible to know what happened at that car stop. What if the search was by consent? If it was, there's no Forth Amendment violation. I have no idea if it was by consent or not, but since the article doesn't give us the details, it's impossible to form an educated opinion. We need more details to decide.

First of all, it depends on how the statute on DUI or DWI/DWAI is construed in those states. In New York, Driving while Ability Impaired by Drugs (VTL1192.4) only requires the defendant to be impaired by ANY extent by a drug and be driving at time of stop/arrest. Law enforcement often utilizes a urine or blood test to prove that a drug was in one's body at the time someone was driving. In some areas, a blood or urine test may not be needed if the person exhibits signs of intoxication by drug, the drug if found in the person's vehicle, and an expert witness can testify as to the effects manifesting itself in the person's body. This methodology may be utilized if a defendant refuses the urine/blood test and a search warrant is not obtained to seize the blood.
From an earlier post: "Though I wonder what the impact of legalization is on drug testing for employment, particularly considering the discrepancy between federal and state law regarding marijuana. Can an employer fire you for failing a drug test if the drug is legalized in that state because the drug is federally illegal?Though I wonder what the impact of legalization is on drug testing for employment, particularly considering the discrepancy between federal and state law regarding marijuana. Can an employer fire you for failing a drug test if the drug is legalized in that state because the drug is federally illegal?"
The mere fact that something is legal to use does not necessarily mean that an employer cannot ban it as a condition of employment, by law or by contract. By federal regulation, transit workers for instance cannot have more than 0.02 Blood Alcohol Content in their system and be working. Further, a private company can mandate no drug use as a condition of employment. If the potential applicant feels that this is an unfair obligation, the applicant can withdraw their application or, if they feel that they are being the victim of some discrimination, file a lawsuit (cause of action) in the appropriate court. Of course, the nature of the discrimination would have to be compellling to win such a suit/action (i.e. reasonable religious reasons, etc.).
Nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice. For legal advice, please see your local bar association.