SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Los Angeles Daily News reports that the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office declined to press charges against a sheriff’s deputy who fatally struck cyclist Milton Olin Jr. while he was apparently distracted by his mobile digital computer. “Wood entered the bicycle lane as a result of inattention caused by typing into his (Mobile Digital Computer),” according to the declination letter prepared by the Justice System Integrity Division of the District Attorney’s Office and released Wednesday. “He was responding to a deputy who was inquiring whether the fire investigation had been completed. Since Wood was acting within the course and scope of his duties when he began to type his response, under Vehicle Code section 23123.5, he acted lawfully.”
To establish the crime of vehicular manslaughter, prosecutors would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wood was criminally negligent. While Wood was texting shortly before the collision, there was no evidence he was texting or doing anything else that would have distracted him at the time of the collision. Olin’s family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the county, the Sheriff’s Department and the deputy, alleging driver negligence and seeking to obtain more information about the incident. “Just because the law allows someone to do something while driving doesn’t mean they are allowed to do something unsafely while driving,” says Eric Bruins. “Hitting someone from behind is very clear evidence that whatever was going on in that car was not safe and should have been considered negligent.”
Update: A day after prosecutors declined to file charges against a distracted sheriff’s deputy who fatally struck a cyclist in Calabasas in December, an official with the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department said it is launching its own administrative probe into the deputy’s behavior.
(Score: 3, Informative) by WillAdams on Wednesday September 03 2014, @01:22PM
Where's that written down? And if it is, who wrote it? They're liable.
If that's not the written job description, then the deputy is liable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday September 03 2014, @01:48PM
Failing that they can use the "traffic laws do not apply to police" law.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Informative) by drussell on Wednesday September 03 2014, @04:03PM
Failing that they can use the "traffic laws do not apply to police" law.
That's supposed to be only while safe to do so.
That very important part seems to be missing in this case!
Here in Alberta, the Traffix Safety Act is quite specific (this particular quote is for ambulances as I had read it recently in the guide and knew where it was but I believe fire and police have the same wording):
(Score: 4, Informative) by cl0secall on Wednesday September 03 2014, @02:32PM
It's not that it's in his job description. It's that it is a specific exception in the law. See California Vehicle Code 23123.5 [ca.gov], specifically subsection (e).
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:04PM
How can it be ``in the course and scope of his duties'' to answer a non-urgent, non-emergency request by typing while driving?
Does the department specifically not have any guidelines suggesting that one pull over to type? If not, why not?
(Score: 1) by cl0secall on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:38PM
They cover this in the second link. There is a whole spiel about preventing the waste of PD resources or some other similar platitude. The report then proceeds to say that they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The sad thing is this is probably correct and a jury would probably acquit. After all, they acquitted the Fullerton cops. Warms the heart and makes me feel real safe around cops. *puke*
(Score: 5, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:07PM
This is a broad statement that can cover everything from a 2-way radio to a cell phone or wireless email. In every other section it explicitly states the type of communications prohibited. Lets have a look at section a:
Section 'a' explicitly states text-based messaging including email. Sections b-d describe the limitations and fines. Then e tosses in a broad use case for all wireless communications for emergency services.