Orange County ambulance driver cited for 21 traffic violations

[INIT915 1,119]

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110321/NEWS/103210341

CHESTER — A Kiryas Joel ambulance corps member faces charges of reckless driving for allegedly running a patrol officer and other motorists off the road in a frantic dash to get to a traffic accident on Route 17.

Officers arrested Menachem Kramer and cited him for 21 violations of vehicle and traffic laws in the Feb. 18 incident. He is scheduled to appear in village court April 7.

According to a police report, Kramer's gray 1999 Chevrolet Tahoe sped head-on toward a Village of Chester patrol officer on Brookside Avenue, forcing the officer to quickly maneuver his vehicle out of the way.

[JohnnyOV 2]

...finally

[grumpyff 1,159]

Like everything else ....it will be dismissed once a few phone calls are made to the police station, the mayor, or the judge.

[OnTheWheel 43]

Like everything else ....it will be dismissed once a few phone calls are made to the police station, the mayor, or the judge.

SO true!

[x129K 1,393]

SAD but true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[firemt88 0]

this behavior is inexcuseble and someone is going to get hurt

[FDNYDCHI 38]

or they can prove a point and make him an example, but like other posters have stated it will be "taken care of".

[Alpinerunner 61]

I guess they have some serious political connections in this village to get rid of all of those charges. It sounds like he was driving very recklessly.

The article title states he was an ambulance driver, but the body of the article says he was driving a '99 Tahoe. Anyone know which it was?

[helicopper 1,050]

I guess they have some serious political connections in this village to get rid of all of those charges. It sounds like he was driving very recklessly.

The article title states he was an ambulance driver, but the body of the article says he was driving a '99 Tahoe. Anyone know which it was?

The suspect was apparently in his personally owned EASV operating lights and siren responding to a property damage auto accident on Route 17. It was initially reported, apparently, as an accident with injuries hence the response.

As for the disposition of the case, there are misdemeanors involved plus infractions totally 21 charges. Even an un-connected person would likely see that reduced so I'm sure it will be but even with connections it's going to be hard to make 21 go away. Something will probably stick.

[SOUSGT 357]

The suspect was apparently in his personally owned EASV operating lights and siren responding to a property damage auto accident on Route 17. It was initially reported, apparently, as an accident with injuries hence the response.

As for the disposition of the case, there are misdemeanors involved plus infractions totally 21 charges. Even an un-connected person would likely see that reduced so I'm sure it will be but even with connections it's going to be hard to make 21 go away. Something will probably stick.

This is not a case of a vehicle going over the limit. The operator’s actions were so dangerous that he was charged with multiple violations including misdemeanor reckless driving by two police agencies. This was according to the news reports. He operator may be permitted to plead to a few charges in satisfaction to the rest but I seriously doubt that it will go away.

When I was a rookie, my FTO gave me some advice about emergency operation of a vehicle. Be careful, if you get into an accident wile responding or cause another accident, you can’t help the person you are going to aid. Even worse, if you get hurt who is going to rescue the rescuer?

[JetPhoto 626]

but even with connections it's going to be hard to make 21 go away. Something will probably stick.

...Running a stop sign...

I wish it was a trooper that nailed him so he would have less of a chance of getting the charges dropped

[FDNY 10-75 640]

Coming back from the City one night, their ambulance passed us upwards of 90 mph (cold) and went across all three lanes without signaling. The Fort Lee cop that was a lane over and behind us promptly caught up with them and stopped them. I was almost surprised, but figured they must do it often (from what I had heard).

[TRUCK6018 50]

...Running a stop sign...

I wish it was a trooper that nailed him so he would have less of a chance of getting the charges dropped

According to the article NYSP issued six tickets including driving recklessly. At least we know that these charges can't be plea bargained (assuming they makes it to the court).

[Alpinerunner 61]

This was probably the offending vehicle, haha

http://www.exit109.com/~mikezac/departments/kiryasjoel/car1kiryasjoel_side.jpg

Edited March 22, 2011 by Alpinerunner

[afd65 4]

The only response I can say to all of this is that it is not the first time that this issue has come up. As it was said that 6 tickets were issued by NYSP and the rest from the village of chester police.

[x1243 141]

Just my Opinion but,

Could have hurt tons of innocent people as well as give Emergency Services a bad name.

Edited March 23, 2011 by x1243

[hfd745 8]

Time to make an example out of someone, and this jerk should be the one. Real smart to put more lives in danger.

[ffp20 14]

maybe the guy can go to a "state police special assistant" for help with his tickets.

http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Can-New-York-afford-this-1047104.php

[ffp20 14]

heres more:

http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Rabbi-wearing-a-badge-not-a-police-officer-1044407.php

[Mike L 1]

As someone pointed out earlier, these must be EASV's. Registered ems agencies are authorized to put easv's on the road as long as they comply with the regulations.

According to the NYS Department of Health,

Procedure for obtaining EASV authorization cards:

Only agencies certified as ambulance services by the Department of Health may apply for authorization of personally owned EASVs.

1. Prior to issuance of authorization as an EASV the Chief Executive, or their designee, shall complete a copy of the Affirmation of Compliance (DOH - 1881) that indicates each vehicle is in compliance with 10 NYCRR part 800 and have it notarized.

2. Any time a vehicle is added to the list of authorized vehicles an Affirmation of Compliance must be completed and notarized for the added vehicle. In the event a vehicle is removed, the department must be notified in writing.

3. The completed Affirmation of Compliance shall be sent to the DOH regional office for the service's operating area. The regional office will issue the appropriate window decal(s) and NYS Certification "logo" stickers for the vehicle(s).

4. A copy of the completed and executed Affirmation of Compliance shall be sent, along with a cover memo on agency letterhead, to the Bureau of EMS's Central Office. The Central Office will issue the numbered Emergency Vehicle Authorization Cards (DOH - 4136) to the service.

As an ems volly in Rockland County, we frequently see pov's, and even ambulances usually belonging to one agency in particular, being operated code 3 and, more often than not, in an unsafe manner. In my experience, it is rare to see a pov bearing; the agency name on the vehicle, the NYS DOH inspection sticker or the NYS DOH certification sticker. This is not to say that all these vehicles are known to belong to the one agency outlined in this article but seems that the requirements are pretty straight-forward.

Vehicles need to have the necessary decals and stickers and the operator needs to possess the orange DOH-4136 card, which is supposed to expire on the same date the operator's emt or aemt certification expires. Most of the vehicles encountered, in my experience, resemble the one in the picture that AlpineRunner posted, note the absence of the DOH inspection sticker that is supposed to be mounted on the passenger-side on the windshield in the lower corner.

I'm all for doing the most that we can to help those patients that call on us in their time of need but we must do so with due regard and in compliance with the regulations set forth for our profession.

[aviator70 16]

They break the law all the time! I see them hauling butt lights and siren up and down the thruway and 17 everyday, most likely on transports, and I still have no idea who and what gives them the right to self-dispatch to calls out of their jurisdiction, sometimes WAY out of their jurisdiction. And yes, they have a State Police Liason, which is crazy within itself, and yes, they will walk pretty much unscathed, as usual.

[201/65 94]

The photo provided by Alpinerunner is the POV operated by the Chief of the Kiryas Joel FD, picture is about 3 years old. I'm not saying it wasn't this vehicle, however the previous post speculating on the non-existence of DOH stickers are not required on a vehicle operated by a fire chief. Kiryas Joel FD & Kiryas Joel EMS aside from being in the same village and dispatch agency are completely separate agencies and operate very different. I know many FD members around Kiryas Joel, and they have no complaints about dangerous operation at or enroute to fire scenes, and notify the county on every call so that anyone outside the village who called the KJ 7-digit, still gets the proper FD dispatched.

[aviator70 16]

The photo provided by Alpinerunner is the POV operated by the Chief of the Kiryas Joel FD, picture is about 3 years old. I'm not saying it wasn't this vehicle, however the previous post speculating on the non-existence of DOH stickers are not required on a vehicle operated by a fire chief. Kiryas Joel FD & Kiryas Joel EMS aside from being in the same village and dispatch agency are completely separate agencies and operate very different. I know many FD members around Kiryas Joel, and they have no complaints about dangerous operation at or enroute to fire scenes, and notify the county on every call so that anyone outside the village who called the KJ 7-digit, still gets the proper FD dispatched.

I live in the area also, and I have heard MANY complaints. I guess it depends on who you talk to and where you live. I can tell you that in fact they do self-dispatch, when they are sitting in Kiryas Joel and listening to a police scanner and hear a call 20 miles away, and then they call dispatch to say they are enroute without being asked to respond, that is self-dispatching. And I also know of several localities that are not happy when they ride up onto their scene uninvited or requested.

[paro22 1]

As someone pointed out earlier, these must be EASV's.

At first, I was surprised by the outcome (21 violations?)...it seemed excessive. I generally feel that when a member is caught recklessly driving in their POV, the PD should use discretion & bring the issue up to the member’s Chief first – before jumping to tickets & violations. Call it ‘professional courtesy’, if you will. I have found Chiefs to be pretty reliable at dealing with these situations ‘in-house’ – be it with a warning, suspension, or revocation of their Blue Light Card.

If a Chief is caught driving recklessly, I understand that it’s a different story. They represent their Department very visibly on every call. Using L&S is a privilege – one that requires using much greater responsibility and judgment.

I guess for Departments where non-Chiefs use L&S (i.e. as EASV's) – this stringency should then apply to ANY member using L&S (as opposed to just a blue/green “courtesy light”)...if they don’t operate “with due regard”, they SHOULD face harsher consequences…

With L&S, the risk is just so much greater – of negative attention, public humiliation, or (god forbid) accidents or injuries.

[x129K 1,393]

At first, I was surprised by the outcome (21 violations?)...it seemed excessive. I generally feel that when a member is caught recklessly driving in their POV, the PD should use discretion & bring the issue up to the member’s Chief first – before jumping to tickets & violations. Call it ‘professional courtesy’, if you will. I have found Chiefs to be pretty reliable at dealing with these situations ‘in-house’ – be it with a warning, suspension, or revocation of their Blue Light Card.

If a Chief is caught driving recklessly, I understand that it’s a different story. They represent their Department very visibly on every call. Using L&S is a privilege – one that requires using much greater responsibility and judgment.

I guess for Departments where non-Chiefs use L&S (i.e. as EASV's) – this stringency should then apply to ANY member using L&S (as opposed to just a blue/green “courtesy light”)...if they don’t operate “with due regard”, they SHOULD face harsher consequences…

With L&S, the risk is just so much greater – of negative attention, public humiliation, or (god forbid) accidents or injuries.

A little bit over the speed limit...too many blue lights..."rolling stops" at stop signs...yes, I agree.

BUT RECKLESS driving - NO way - anyone who puts the public at risk desrves no courtesy.

[JM15 386]

At first, I was surprised by the outcome (21 violations?)...it seemed excessive. I generally feel that when a member is caught recklessly driving in their POV, the PD should use discretion & bring the issue up to the member’s Chief first – before jumping to tickets & violations. Call it ‘professional courtesy’, if you will. I have found Chiefs to be pretty reliable at dealing with these situations ‘in-house’ – be it with a warning, suspension, or revocation of their Blue Light Card.

From my understanding this has been an ongoing problem with this agency... One or two bad apples or incidents I could see the LEO talking to the Chief but this type of behavior seems to be commonplace. An example should be made.

[helicopper 1,050]

At first, I was surprised by the outcome (21 violations?)...it seemed excessive. I generally feel that when a member is caught recklessly driving in their POV, the PD should use discretion & bring the issue up to the member's Chief first – before jumping to tickets & violations. Call it 'professional courtesy', if you will. I have found Chiefs to be pretty reliable at dealing with these situations 'in-house' – be it with a warning, suspension, or revocation of their Blue Light Card.

If a Chief is caught driving recklessly, I understand that it's a different story. They represent their Department very visibly on every call. Using L&S is a privilege – one that requires using much greater responsibility and judgment.

I guess for Departments where non-Chiefs use L&S (i.e. as EASV's) – this stringency should then apply to ANY member using L&S (as opposed to just a blue/green "courtesy light")...if they don't operate "with due regard", they SHOULD face harsher consequences…

With L&S, the risk is just so much greater – of negative attention, public humiliation, or (god forbid) accidents or injuries.

With all due respect, I think you have a grave misunderstanding about the role of an agency officer and the responsibilities of an agency member. It also seems that you view "professional courtesy" as an entitlement. Let me address your comments one at a time...

First off how do you know the police agencies and/or officers involved in this situation haven't gone to the offending agency in the past? Perhaps this is a pattern of behavior that needs to be resolved officially in the courts.

The defendant in this case committed 21 violations (or perhaps more) and received 21 summonses. The number of violations is what should be viewed as excessive, not the number of charges filed against him. These summonses were issued in lieu of a custodial arrest so the officers did exercise discretion.

Agency administrators, be they Chief, Captain, Commissioner, or whatever, are not parents and their members are not children (at least chronologically). There is definitely a time and a place for bringing a wayward child home to mommy or daddy but this is the case of an adult being held responsible for his actions. There's simply no reason for law enforcement to take an offender to his employer to resolve criminal acts (and reckless driving is a crime). That's like saying the State Police should take their findings in the fatal I-95 bus crash to the bus company for resolution. Where's the logic in that?

I understand where you're coming from about dealing with an agency directly and sometimes that is the right thing to do. I once stopped a vehicle operating at an excessive speed with a blue light and learned that there was no fire, the driver was late for work. He got his speeding ticket and his chief (three towns over) got a phone call about the blue light. Had the guy been running people off the road the chief would have read about the arrest in the newspaper.

It doesn't matter if it is a chief or member or civilian driving recklessly. They should be and are held responsible for their own actions. This case is noteworthy because it occurred while the offender was exercising the privilege of using red lights and siren. As the driver of any vehicle you're held responsible for the operation of that vehicle.

It isn't the lights and siren that make the risk greater; it is the driver's tendency to go faster and take more chances while using them. Psychologically it may be a false sense of security or it may be just plain adrenaline. And, highlighting points from other threads, there is a lack of supervision in many volunteer agencies that exacerbates this problem.

Finally, to receive professional courtesy one must be professional and courteous. This driver was neither. To expect preferential treatment or even infer that it is deserved in a case like this is why we hear stories of people getting tickets despite their membership in a fire or EMS agency. People get courtesy when they deserve it, not when they demand it.

[BUFF12 1]

With all due respect, I think you have a grave misunderstanding about the role of an agency officer and the responsibilities of an agency member. It also seems that you view "professional courtesy" as an entitlement. Let me address your comments one at a time...

First off how do you know the police agencies and/or officers involved in this situation haven't gone to the offending agency in the past? Perhaps this is a pattern of behavior that needs to be resolved officially in the courts.

The defendant in this case committed 21 violations (or perhaps more) and received 21 summonses. The number of violations is what should be viewed as excessive, not the number of charges filed against him. These summonses were issued in lieu of a custodial arrest so the officers did exercise discretion.

Agency administrators, be they Chief, Captain, Commissioner, or whatever, are not parents and their members are not children (at least chronologically). There is definitely a time and a place for bringing a wayward child home to mommy or daddy but this is the case of an adult being held responsible for his actions. There's simply no reason for law enforcement to take an offender to his employer to resolve criminal acts (and reckless driving is a crime). That's like saying the State Police should take their findings in the fatal I-95 bus crash to the bus company for resolution. Where's the logic in that?

I understand where you're coming from about dealing with an agency directly and sometimes that is the right thing to do. I once stopped a vehicle operating at an excessive speed with a blue light and learned that there was no fire, the driver was late for work. He got his speeding ticket and his chief (three towns over) got a phone call about the blue light. Had the guy been running people off the road the chief would have read about the arrest in the newspaper.

It doesn't matter if it is a chief or member or civilian driving recklessly. They should be and are held responsible for their own actions. This case is noteworthy because it occurred while the offender was exercising the privilege of using red lights and siren. As the driver of any vehicle you're held responsible for the operation of that vehicle.

It isn't the lights and siren that make the risk greater; it is the driver's tendency to go faster and take more chances while using them. Psychologically it may be a false sense of security or it may be just plain adrenaline. And, highlighting points from other threads, there is a lack of supervision in many volunteer agencies that exacerbates this problem.

Finally, to receive professional courtesy one must be professional and courteous. This driver was neither. To expect preferential treatment or even infer that it is deserved in a case like this is why we hear stories of people getting tickets despite their membership in a fire or EMS agency. People get courtesy when they deserve it, not when they demand it.

I hear what you're saying, you're right "it doesn’t give you the excuse to drive like a maniac", but I think "21" tickets is an overkill.

[x129K 1,393]

I hear what you're saying, you're right "it doesn’t give you the excuse to drive like a maniac", but I think "21" tickets is an overkill.

Overkill of what?

He almost "overkILLED" a police officer!

He was reckless and endangered the general public!

As Chris stated, and it really opened my eyes...he COMMITTED no less than 21 OFFENSES.....

Edited March 23, 2011 by Bullseye

[INIT915 1,119]

With all due respect, I think you have a grave misunderstanding about the role of an agency officer and the responsibilities of an agency member. It also seems that you view "professional courtesy" as an entitlement. Let me address your comments one at a time...

First off how do you know the police agencies and/or officers involved in this situation haven't gone to the offending agency in the past? Perhaps this is a pattern of behavior that needs to be resolved officially in the courts.

The defendant in this case committed 21 violations (or perhaps more) and received 21 summonses. The number of violations is what should be viewed as excessive, not the number of charges filed against him. These summonses were issued in lieu of a custodial arrest so the officers did exercise discretion.

Agency administrators, be they Chief, Captain, Commissioner, or whatever, are not parents and their members are not children (at least chronologically). There is definitely a time and a place for bringing a wayward child home to mommy or daddy but this is the case of an adult being held responsible for his actions. There's simply no reason for law enforcement to take an offender to his employer to resolve criminal acts (and reckless driving is a crime). That's like saying the State Police should take their findings in the fatal I-95 bus crash to the bus company for resolution. Where's the logic in that?

I understand where you're coming from about dealing with an agency directly and sometimes that is the right thing to do. I once stopped a vehicle operating at an excessive speed with a blue light and learned that there was no fire, the driver was late for work. He got his speeding ticket and his chief (three towns over) got a phone call about the blue light. Had the guy been running people off the road the chief would have read about the arrest in the newspaper.

It doesn't matter if it is a chief or member or civilian driving recklessly. They should be and are held responsible for their own actions. This case is noteworthy because it occurred while the offender was exercising the privilege of using red lights and siren. As the driver of any vehicle you're held responsible for the operation of that vehicle.

It isn't the lights and siren that make the risk greater; it is the driver's tendency to go faster and take more chances while using them. Psychologically it may be a false sense of security or it may be just plain adrenaline. And, highlighting points from other threads, there is a lack of supervision in many volunteer agencies that exacerbates this problem.

Finally, to receive professional courtesy one must be professional and courteous. This driver was neither. To expect preferential treatment or even infer that it is deserved in a case like this is why we hear stories of people getting tickets despite their membership in a fire or EMS agency. People get courtesy when they deserve it, not when they demand it.

As usual, thank you for being the voice of reason and logic.