New Jersey Firefighters Apologize to Trooper

[HFD201 0]

ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP, N.J.-- Charges were dropped Jan. 31 against two firefighters after both apologized to State Trooper Kevin Fritz for questioning his authority at an accident scene last November.

According to the Daily Record, Municipal Court Judge Andrew Wubbenhorst granted the dismissal requested by prosecutor Chris DiLorenzo, who said the firefighters had admitted their mistake and promised not to let it happen again.

When 53-year-old Rockaway Township Deputy Chief Robert Jenkins refused to relocate the truck, Nov. 26, he was arrested and charged with disobeying a state trooper and disorderly conduct. The truck's driver, Firefighter David Bell, also was charged with disobeying a state trooper.

Two fire trucks were sent with an ambulance that was called to the accident scene. As the department arrived, the right-hand lane was blocked off to protect the emergency workers.

Trooper Fritz, however, ordered the truck to be moved. Rockaway's Fire Chief Joe Mason described what would follow as "a screaming match." Since that time, the case has been through several hearings, culminating with the apology.

"We're satisfied with the outcome," Mason said. "It worked out amicably between us and the police. We're going to work together from this point on to resolve any of the issues we may have."

He said there will be continual meetings between the department and the state police and that through an ongoing highway taskforce, many of the issues will be addressed.

www.firehouse.com

[helicopper 1,050]

"We're satisfied with the outcome," Mason said. "It worked out amicably between us and the police. We're going to work together from this point on to resolve any of the issues we may have."

Novel concept - perhaps they should have tried working together from the start!

[Guest]

Does anyone know if the truck was being used as a protection for the scene or was it an extea piece that was not really needed?

[Guest]

Does anyone know if the truck was being used as a protection for the scene or was it an extea piece that was not really needed?

←

No fire aparatus was needed, the Troopers only called for an ambulance. Do a search for the orginal articles to get the specifics.

X2 on Chris's post.

[robert benz 344]

No fire aparatus was needed, the Troopers only called for an ambulance. Do a search for the orginal articles to get the specifics.

X2 on Chris's post.

←

I have a couple of questions, is the ambulance part of the fd? what are the dispatch procedures for ems / fd response to highways?

my point being that just because pd only requested ems, if fd is automatic on the response, fd has a duty to protect those working the scene. Otherwise how did they even know there was a call, did the self dispatch?

in my fd dept we have had several incidents with troopers on I-95.

[helicopper 1,050]

I have a couple of questions, is the ambulance part of the fd? what are the dispatch procedures for ems / fd response to highways? 

my point being that just because pd only requested ems, if fd is automatic on the response, fd has a duty to protect those working the scene.  Otherwise how did they even know there was a call, did the self dispatch?

in my fd dept we have had several incidents with troopers on I-95.

←

In a nutshell, there was an MVA off the road (by about 30 feet) and EMS was requested by the Trooper for a victim complaining of back pain (no extrication required - victim out of the vehicle). The FD responded with EMS (apparently automatic response) and the apparatus blocked the right lane. According to the article there were no response vehicles in the right lane and the SP vehicle and ambulance were well off the roadway. Trooper requested FD move the apparatus, FD refused, egos and attitudes inflamed, shouting match, Fire Chief charged with disobeying Trooper. At issue - was blocking lane necessary given the circumstances? Fire Chief sentenced to apology and commitment to prevent this from recurring. Criminal charge dismissed.

So, here we are! If you search a little you'll find the whole thread and accompanying articles but that's the snap shot/readers digest version.

The issue was never the dispatch policy or response - it was all about interagency communications and cooperation at the scene of a minor incident. (Just imagine if it was a big one?!?!?!)

[AFS1970 504]

Now that this is all over, I am glad to see that they will be cooperating in the future. I agree that cooperation before should have never let this happen.

One issue we have had locally, is this. On the Highways that run through Stamford (I95 & Merritt Pkwy) the State Police calls for EMS for accidents with injuries. I have never taken a call in dispatch where they have called for the fire department, regardless of need. I have always assumed this is an internal protocol issue. The CSP however, does not call Stamford Dispatch Direct, they call the regional medical control dispatchers (C-Med) who then look up the location and see who to call for EMS. C-Med calls us.

They always say that the state requested an ambulance. They do not have any information about needs for fire. This lead to some confusion, and sometimes to EMS arriving and requesting FD for varrious scenes, like extrication, spill control, extra manpower due to more than one victim, ect. So to fix this, the policy in Stamford's dispatch center is if it comes in as an MVA on the highway it gets a full response or an Engine, Rescue & Ambulance. In addition to this, if it is on a city line and there is either a question of jurisdiction or access problems, we will call the next town for a dual response, which I suppose probably doubles the number of units going.

It is the responsibility of the first arriving officer to cancel unneeded equipment as soon as it is practical. Which is usually done more to keep from committing unneeded units to the traffic jam that results form the accident than to keep units from blocking traffic themselves.

I think education for all agencies by all other agencies would be a great thing, so that everybody would understand each other's needs and reasons for those needs. That way we would all know what each other were planning on doind and why. Then there would be no surprises, and I bet less conflicts.

[Guest]

Touchy situation. I think the cheif should make the call on these. I can understand the conflict trooper wants traffic flowing / cheif looking out for his guys. We have seen alot of videos where drivers get caught up with the lights and the next thing you know bang. Accident calls around here are handle with always shutting down one lane even if it is off to the shoulder. Never had a problem with troopers or local police. Sometimes I think they want us to take controll of the seen so they can do there paper work without worrying about getting rear ended. Every state is different and I hope they work it out. Me personally I don't think its that bad of an idea to bottle traffic up for awhile to slow them down going by the accident seen at least those people are making it home just aliitle late thats all.

Just my 2 cents

[Guest]

Just another multiagency pissing match. I have never encountered such a problem when doing jobs on 95. No matter what the job is, we get 2 engines, Rescue and Chief Car. If all aren't needed, we return them. And NEVER has a Trooper directed us to move apparatus. Having apparatus on a highway w/ EMS affords all parties involved added protection from the hazards of dumb drivers.

I'm glad that the firefighters' charges were dropped, but the fact that the trooper took it that far is ludicrous. It is not the job of the trooper to decide what fire apparatus statys and goes. That falls under SOP's of the EMS/Fire agancy responding.