News >> Browse Articles >> Crime News
over 1 year ago
57 articles submitted
Source: Police Magazine
July 06, 2012
ssu459, agreed. I can see this version of 'courtesy transportation' occurring all over the US now and then. This LEO seems to have let his guard down for one reason or another. I have pictured a number of scenarios but they all add up to the same thing.
A rear seat transportation would have taken 'letting one's guard down' out of the equation, thereby sparing a life.
So much more than a mere courtesy.
I shall noit judge,BUT,it would appear as though everything that could have gone wrong,DID.No one knows, like leos, that complacency is an officers worse enemy.Call it what you wish,it has cost many of them their lives.In this case it cost a life as well.
BTW: Watch the video........ There appears to be a cage in the involved police vehicle and the reporter said she (Hicks) was in custody and being transported to the hospital for a crisis intervention indicating the officer was well aware of the propensity for trouble. An in custody transport means that the subject is (or should have been) handcuffed to the rear and placed into the rear seat of the police car. The woman, as reported, was for reasons known only to the officer, allowed in the front seat of the unit. My question then is, was she handcuffed in the rear and proceeded to slip her cuffs to the front, the front or not at all? Regardless, a rear seat transport would have prevented this outcome. The chief stated that no policies were violated, indicating that there is no policy when in fact there should be to avoid this very scenario. Am I being hard? H-E-L-L YES!!!!!! I do not see any valid excuses and to say the officer violated no policies (because there may not be such a policy in place) is a cop out. This 13 year veteran should have known better and acted accordingly. This incident and its outcome should serve as wake-up call.
This is SOOOOOOO much more than a "courtesy transport gone wrong" and I am NOT buying the old timers' (20 years or more behind current time) scenario or pretty much any other possible excuse(s). If anyone anywhere in this current day and age is in the practice of allowing front seat transport, they are an incident away from having a very bad incident take place. I just did a courtesy transport on my last shift......... TRANSPORTED LESS THAN A MILE IN THE BACK SEAT........ NO ONE RIDES IN THE FRONT SEAT UNLESS THEY ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT, APPROVED RIDE-ALONG OR OTHER DIGNITARY AS APPROVED........ NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!!!!!
Bump, darsvmo and glad to see your perspective on a 'courtesy transpo' gone very wrong.
While this sounds and was bad, I'm not ready to pass judgement on the Officer because the article may or may not state all the facts? Also, I personally know several cops who work in locations that are 20 years or more behind current time with no cages in cars and training and leadership like they were in the town of Mayberry.
Hopefully the Sheriff or Chief of this town will review this matter and make appropriate corrections and update their training and way of thinking...
Always, always handcuff a prisoner behind his/her back double locked unless for some reason such as physical impairment, injury, or pregnancy.
Am I getting this right, pls tell me no. A Female age 20 in the Front Seat of the cruiser who is a 525 to boot? If Lou Ferrigno had a history of mental illness, would he be picked up by a sole officer and seated in the front seat of their cruiser?
Good Lord, I sincerely hope ppl entering LE read SKOOL'S breakdown, sounds like a sure-fire way to stay safe and avoid really bad PR that follows tragedies like this
I just hope in the long run, the officer can find peace and help for this situation, very tough lesson learned on Officer Safety
We used to bring our juvenile 5150's to the same facility as the adults, just a different floor. It was a secured facility similar to a jail and we were able to in like fashion, check our weapons into a lock-up prior to entry. A few years back and as part of the cutback in services, this facility suddenly stopped taking juveniles. Since then, we have taken them to Loma Linda University Medical Center where they are first checked in the E/R. This is a very unsecured facility where a large portion of the county brings their sick. They have no separate area for someone that is violent or otherwise may become violent. Juveniles are in fact, placed (or may be placed) into a bed right next to other juveniles, some as young as infants. The first time I took a juvenile to that facility (who told me that she was going to kill herself and how and unrestrained was just agitated enough to throw herself in front of a car, bus or train as stated), the admitting physician asked, "So I don't get it, why is she here?" She asked the juvenile, "You don't really want to hurt yourself, do you?" and proceeded to engage the girl in an argument when the juvenile told the physician that she doesn't give a (expletive) about her life. When I asked the physician if she knew the criteria for 5150, danger to self or others or otherwise gravely disabled, she wanted to argue with me. While to some degree, the facility has gotten a little better, it is still a pain and an approximate 3 hour ordeal to take and admit a juvenile there.
As for your situation, your doctor is NUTS if he/she thinks I am going to check my weapon in my car or with the admitting clerk or anywhere else other than my holster in an otherwise unsecured facility.
Skoolcop, that brings to mind an incident where I brought a person to the local mental institute and she was in handcuffs. When I entered the building and met the Dr. that was going to evaluate her he was appalled that I had her in handcuffs. (trust me, this woman was nuts and very unpredictable) ad he also demanded that it go back to my unit an leave my weapon there our give it to his secretary so she could put it in her desk! Yeah right! Needless to say we compromised and I kept my weapon and she was handcuffed to the chair. Sometimes these headshrinkers were so stupid that I wondered if they should not have been the patients!
wow what a sad story yeah this officer need to be re-trained
In another article that references this case (also posted on PL), the officer is transporting the woman to the hospital for said mental evaluation. If that report is true, the officer is DAMN lucky he wasn't killed. If that report is true, this woman should have been in handcuffs and again, transported to the hospital in the rear seat of the patrol car.......... NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!
It would appear that the woman was being transported in the front seat of the police car. My question is, "WHY?"
EVERY marked patrol car that I know of has a cage separating the front from the rear passenger compartment(s). Had she been transported in the rear seat if the police car, handcuffed or not, there is no way for the fight to occur and no way for the officer to lose his duty weapon in said fight.
This is a very tragic event that I hope leads to the review of and changes to policies by the involved agency.
#1. At no time should you transport ANYONE in the front seat of your patrol car except for LE, ride-along or other dignitary as approved.
#2. For this officer to lose his holstered weapon during a fight inside of his own police car, a check of ALL holsters currently in use by officers at said involved department should be conducted and ALL officers need to be re-trained in weapons retention. If necessary, replace ALL duty holsters with level III duty holsters and train ALL officers with said holsters in weapons retention.
#3. ALL officers in said involved department should be re-trained in the identification of parties who may fit the criteria of a mental evaluation hold as prescribed in the laws of their state. (In California, Welfare Institution Code 5150 allows the officer to place the party into a hospital for up to a 72 hour hold for a mental evaluation by the facility) This woman was obviously suicidal or, A) said fight would not have occurred........ B) said involved officer allowed himself to be fooled....... or, C) said involved officer was intentionally ignoring the obvious and decided to transport the woman off of the bridge to go 10-8 as soon as possible.
GRANTED, the above scenarios are just a series of possible scenarios that could have occurred and resulted in this incident.......... that said, THIS SHOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED............. NEVER!!!!!!!
As for removing the weapon and placing it under the left leg of the officer......... I have NEVER heard of such a thing. It allows for an un-holstered or otherwise unsecured weapon and again, raises the question of why anyone is allowing a front seat transport to somebody who should NEVER be allowed in the front passenger compartment to begin with. Maybe it is taught in some places....... not in California that I am aware of and is just plain bad tactics.
Never. Bump Robocop33.
Save time in your search for a criminal justice degree program.
Use PoliceLink's School Finder to locate schools online and in your area.
Mayor Denies Moment of Silence for Fallen Officer
Officer among 3 men dead in Ohio club shooting
Pregnant wife of Pa. State trooper fatally shot in Montgomery County
Owner of closed Wendy's pays employees for months of work until it reopens again
Santa Rosa man with 19 DUI convictions arrested for driving on suspended license
© 2014 PoliceLink