Newswire: ...engineer arrested. Something weird here or not?

[jeremygharrison]

Reading this thread, I thought the cartoon at http://www.geocities.com/ferroaficionadosar/comic2.htm highly appropriate!

 

 

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, this is an old thread, and I have since retired from the law enforcement business. This allows me to indulge in pastimes like watching trains.  Since then, I have been adopted by a couple of locomotive engineers as their pet foamer.  We have talked at great length about accidents at grade crossings, and it's through these conversations that I have come across the usual conflict of cops and what people expect of them.

First, local cops are the most likely to be the first responders to an accident.  Their job is to figure out if anyone is injured, or killed, and render aid to them.  That not only includes the car crushed like a beer can, but the crew of the train as well.  So yes, you can reasonably expect a cop to climb up into your locomotive to see if you are OK.

It's also not unusual for agencies like the NTSB, railroad cops, state police, and other investigative agencies to take their sweet time getting to an accident scene.  Police officers, be they Elliot Ness or Barney Fife, have a responsibility to protect a scene of an accident, or a crime.  That could very well mean that as a cop, I could very well invite a crew out of their locomotive to sit in the back seat of my car.  The reason for it is simple; first, it's a lot more comfortable to sit in an air conditioned or heated car than stand out in the middle of a corn field, and secondly, it's protecting evidence from tampering.  I know there's a train recorder on board, just like I know that many aircraft have recorders on them.  It's up to me to make sure no one messes with them.  Including me.

If I happen to notice that a participant in an accident appears to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, I will probably take note of it.  And, there is a very good chance that a responding agency- to include an employer, like a railroad- will want their employees drug tested or alcohol tested as soon as possible.  That often means a trip to the local police station.  It's evidence, and 99 percent of the time it is directly responsible for clearing innocent people.  Like engineers, and conductors.

Let's assume the local District Attorney is aggressive and decides to file charges. They aren't going to charge the entire railroad.  They are going to go after the guy operating the vehicle.  The engineer isn't going to a special Federal court; he's going to go to a District court.  Think about it for a moment, folks.  You have just run over a local.  You are in a courtroom with a local judge.  You might be as innocent of the angels, and you might be fully safe in exercising your rights.  But the prevalent attitude of a local jury towards the large corporation who just ran over Suzy the Idiot Cheerleader is not going to be improved when the local cop advises them (and he will) that the operator of the locomotive in question was uncooperative with law enforcement. Your attorney (which you will probably have to hire yourself, because large corporations don't generally fund criminal attorneys for employees) will immediately jump up and question the officer about whether he had the right to demand identification or not.  It won't matter; the damage is done.  You are the bad guy. 

You are better off when you aggressively participate in your own defense, and that starts off right at the accident scene.  I would estimate that engineer neglect and malfeascance is rarer than hen's teeth, and I'd also suspect that most trainmen have absolutely nothing to hide.  But providing evidence in your own defense is critical to that.  It will make the job of the railroad, the cops, and the prosecutors a lot easier to do, and potentially save an innocent railroad employee from career ending results. 

And give cops a break, too.  Enough of us have been through Lifesaver courses so that we know you can't stop a train on a dime.  We know people are stupid; that's why police and deputies have job security.  But cops are human, and when someone acts like they have something to hide, chances are that they do.  It's the nature of police work.

I'm still a foamer, and I understand the trauma of grade crossing accidents on both sides perhaps better than you think.  It's the police officer's job to protect people and property- and that includes the engineer in shock because he just wiped out the minivan with churchgoers who couldn't wait five minutes for the train to go by.

Enough said.  

Erik 

 

The only problem I have with this is where you are talking about us (railroaders) hiring our own lawyers to to the large corportion.  Where in fact if the railroad is not at fault, the railroad will provide a lawyer.  Probably one of the best around.  Now if for some reason the person was killed on the crossing due to the fact that the engineer was asleep and did not whistle or something like that the railroad will not get a lawyer for you at all. But the little black box on the motor will tell all about the accident.  So the railroad will know right after the accident.  More than likely the Trainmaster will show up with his laptop, and download that black box. 

[Anonymous]

Are engineers not required to carry their license to operate a locomotive?

Richard

 

Absolutly Not.  All they are required to carry is there FRA Certified Enginers Certificate.  DL has nothing to do with operating a train.  That is almost like doing the exact opposite.  You getting pulled over and the cop askes you for your DL, and you give him your engineers card due to not having a DL.  If does not work in conjunction.

[nbrodar]

Erik,

I understand you point of view, regarding rendering aid and preserving the scene. 

But Title 49 CFR, Part 219.201(b) clearly states outside of reasonable cause based on a specific individual's appearance or behavior, train crews may not be tested in connection with a grade crossing accident.  That is Federal Law.  Further more, any FRA drug testing but be collected using an FRA test kit, processed by an FRA sanctioned lab, and a clear chain of custody must be maintained. 

If you have clear evidence of impairment, by all means test. Should you demand a test in the absence of clear evidence of impairment, you are in violation of Federal Law, and have just exposed your department to a lawsuit.

Regarding the train crew leaving the cab...
The Engineer must not leave the engine or control compartment unless potential danger exists, he is relieved, or is threatened with arrest by local authorities.  The engineer is responsible for controlling the movement of the train and can only be removed when relieved by another qualified Engineer.

Again, railroad operations are governed by 49 CFR.  Should a local DA get zealous and file charges, the highly skilled and highly paid union and company attorneys will soon have the DA before a Federal judge explaining his actions. 

Nick

[Anonymous]

Yeah, this is an old thread, and I have since retired from the law enforcement business. This allows me to indulge in pastimes like watching trains.  Since then, I have been adopted by a couple of locomotive engineers as their pet foamer.  We have talked at great length about accidents at grade crossings, and it's through these conversations that I have come across the usual conflict of cops and what people expect of them.

First, local cops are the most likely to be the first responders to an accident.  Their job is to figure out if anyone is injured, or killed, and render aid to them.  That not only includes the car crushed like a beer can, but the crew of the train as well.  So yes, you can reasonably expect a cop to climb up into your locomotive to see if you are OK.

It's also not unusual for agencies like the NTSB, railroad cops, state police, and other investigative agencies to take their sweet time getting to an accident scene.  Police officers, be they Elliot Ness or Barney Fife, have a responsibility to protect a scene of an accident, or a crime.  That could very well mean that as a cop, I could very well invite a crew out of their locomotive to sit in the back seat of my car.  The reason for it is simple; first, it's a lot more comfortable to sit in an air conditioned or heated car than stand out in the middle of a corn field, and secondly, it's protecting evidence from tampering.  I know there's a train recorder on board, just like I know that many aircraft have recorders on them.  It's up to me to make sure no one messes with them.  Including me.

If I happen to notice that a participant in an accident appears to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, I will probably take note of it.  And, there is a very good chance that a responding agency- to include an employer, like a railroad- will want their employees drug tested or alcohol tested as soon as possible.  That often means a trip to the local police station.  It's evidence, and 99 percent of the time it is directly responsible for clearing innocent people.  Like engineers, and conductors.

Let's assume the local District Attorney is aggressive and decides to file charges. They aren't going to charge the entire railroad.  They are going to go after the guy operating the vehicle.  The engineer isn't going to a special Federal court; he's going to go to a District court.  Think about it for a moment, folks.  You have just run over a local.  You are in a courtroom with a local judge.  You might be as innocent of the angels, and you might be fully safe in exercising your rights.  But the prevalent attitude of a local jury towards the large corporation who just ran over Suzy the Idiot Cheerleader is not going to be improved when the local cop advises them (and he will) that the operator of the locomotive in question was uncooperative with law enforcement. Your attorney (which you will probably have to hire yourself, because large corporations don't generally fund criminal attorneys for employees) will immediately jump up and question the officer about whether he had the right to demand identification or not.  It won't matter; the damage is done.  You are the bad guy. 

You are better off when you aggressively participate in your own defense, and that starts off right at the accident scene.  I would estimate that engineer neglect and malfeascance is rarer than hen's teeth, and I'd also suspect that most trainmen have absolutely nothing to hide.  But providing evidence in your own defense is critical to that.  It will make the job of the railroad, the cops, and the prosecutors a lot easier to do, and potentially save an innocent railroad employee from career ending results. 

And give cops a break, too.  Enough of us have been through Lifesaver courses so that we know you can't stop a train on a dime.  We know people are stupid; that's why police and deputies have job security.  But cops are human, and when someone acts like they have something to hide, chances are that they do.  It's the nature of police work.

I'm still a foamer, and I understand the trauma of grade crossing accidents on both sides perhaps better than you think.  It's the police officer's job to protect people and property- and that includes the engineer in shock because he just wiped out the minivan with churchgoers who couldn't wait five minutes for the train to go by.

Enough said.  

Erik 

[ValleyX]

Talk about a blast from the past, not that old but in forum time it's real old, I am surprised that someone dredged this up.  My opinion remains the same, too, Ed, I'm with you and Erik would have a argument on his hands with me.

[Anonymous]

There is no requirement to provide a driver's license to a police officer or a sheriff's deputy if you aren't operating a motor vehicle at the time you are questioned. I don't know what information rail road company ID's provide, but I assume they have the basics- name, and date of birth. That's enough to verify identity. It's also enough, most of the time, to insure there are no warrants outstanding against the individual questioned. (Locomotive engineers are not any different from other human beings... sometimes even they have something to hide.)

In the accident investigations I have participated in, I have seen people provide false identitites- usually because they are hiding something, like a suspended license or an outstanding warrant.
Criminals do this on a routine basis.

Frankly, in train vs. automobile accidents, I know enough to draw much the same conclusion this Sheriff did. Yet, to protect everyone in this case, it's important to have full and complete information on all participants. I would not be surprised if the engineer was not requested to take a Drager breathalyser test to determine if he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. (It's standard procedure.) He could refuse to take the test, of course; but his driving priveleges (as in automobile driving) would be suspended in this state (Alabama).

I empathize with locomotive engineers in most cases. I also empathize with truck drivers involved in fatalities where the fault is clearly the other participant in the accident. As a cop, it's not going to stop me from asking questions about causes of the accident. It's not going to stop me from attempting to rule out all contributory factors to an accident. One of those contributory factors would be the state of mind (impaired or not?) of the participants.

Investigators ask insensitive questions. Cops act insensitively at times. The reason is usually because the quicker information is obtained, the faster a case can be cleared.

I believe the engineer had nothing to hide in this case. As Ed said, we weren't there. It IS unusual behavior to refuse to even give your name to a police officer when you have been in an accident.

Erik

 Erik,

Don't they teach you that as a cop your ability to investigate such an accident is superceded by agencies like the FRA and USDOT and NTSB?  Outside of basic "who's dead and where can we find the relatives?" questions, it seems you are operating well beyond your authority, much as you would in investigating a mishap on a construction site...I'm sure OSHA would inform you of the investigative hierarchy.

 You mention something about outstanding warrants....and that is why some railroaders...myself included...would be less than cooperative with you.   Your immediate job, as you see it is to investigate this incident between automobile and train.

 You are coming into my work place, albeit out of doors, and acting as though I have, or may have, done something wrong.  There is a whole cadre of railroad officials, all much more polished and experienced in making railroad accusations than you ever will be, who will take care of that job, let me assure you.  My problem with all law enforcement is that, no matter what the issue at hand may be, you are always looking for something else;  the unpaid parking ticket, the contempt of a local (kangaroo) court (failure to appear)....whatever it may be, which may be your job, but is not the job at hand. 

Add to that the innumerable times we hear of and see the case of two people with the same name, stolen identity, unscrupulous relatives....I can see a formula for having a very bad day because some cop decides to hold me because I have a deadbeat step-brother (with the same 1st and last name).

I just don't want to deal with you, sir, and the railroad is prepared to do so.

So if I hit a trespasser, you and I will be having a bit of a problem if you respond.

That's just the way it is, no hard feelings.

 

[Anonymous]

Here's what's wrong:

It's a classic case of "Cops Gone Wild".  These guys storm in and think they have some sort of jurisdiction and they know (or should well know) they are on private property.  It would be no different if they came into a factory or office building.  And they should know the license, while convenient for identification purposes, is not a government issued ID card.  We don't have that yet.

This am I passed a train that had just hit a trespassing vacant private auto left on the tracks.  I heard the conductor relay the info to the engineer that the local Barney Fyfe wanted the engineer's driver's license, to which he is not, and should know he is not entitled.  That's only his (the cop's) if there has been a highway driving infraction.

They tell us to comply with their lawful requests, but they just don't know where their power ends.  (They don't know there is a legal limit to their police power and I think they don't like that.)

 They can't believe someone would dare say no, you may not have such and such.

[nbrodar]

Wow...talk about an old thread.

With regard to drug & alcohol testing...
Section 205 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 prohibits states from adopting laws with respect to railroad safety if the FRA has adopted standards governing the subject matter.

Title 49 CFR, Part 219.201(b) states...
In the absence of reasonable cause to believe a specific individual is impaired based on his appearance or behavior trains crews should not be tested in connection with collisions of a train and an automotive vehicle at a rail/highway grade crossing.  The statue goes on to list other factors that can trigger testing, but they are all out the purvey of local LEOs

Company policy states...
Employees involved in a grade crossing or other railroad accident have no obligation to submit to a breath or other toxicological test requested by a state or local law enforcement authority unless the authority has specific cause to believe the individual they wish to test has committed a criminal law violation, which may include being impaired by alcohol or drugs.

If an employee is requested to submit to testing after a grade crossing accident, he should show this instruction to the LEO, and may state that he is not volunteering to be tested.  The employee may also request a specific statement of the legal requirement under which the officer asserts the authority to test, including a correct citation to it.  Highway laws requiring testing are NOT applicable.  If the officer insists that the employee be tested, the employee may cooperate, but be sure to obtain the name and identification number of all officers involved in requiring the test to be preformed.

With regard to providing information. Again from the Company policy manual...

Whenever a grade crossing accident is investigated by a law enforcement officer, when requested the engineer should give his name and position.  In addition provide the office, the speed of the train whether crossing protection was functioning, the whistle sounded properly, the headlight displayed and the crew's on duty time. If requested, it is proper to provide the train's origin and destination, total number of cars, and any HAZMATs present.

Any other specific information about the incident should not be given.  The engineer should advise the officer that he will have to consult with either his personal or Company counsel about such matters.

An engineer's authority to operate a locomotive is controlled by the FRA under 49 CFR Part 209. His motor vehicle driver's license number is not required on the accident report.

So, it boils down to this... 

The only personal information you have to provide to a local LEO is your name, and job title.  If they request to see your licence, you are to show them your FRA card and under no circumstances provide your driver's licence.  Once this basic information is provided, all inquires are to directed to the Company officer on scene.

Nick

[jp2153]

I have recently been promoted to Conductor. I remember receiving a briefing that we are to co-operate with the First Responders.

If we had a HAZMAT issue, I am to show the First Responders the list of contents and location of the HAZMAT within my train. I am not to give up my train list to anyone but an official.

If we had a vehicle collision, I am to show my Company Issued badge, and any other pertinent information, but never to give my drivers liscense, insurance information, terminal location, trainmaster name and phone number.

If I was a member of this crew I would find me a lawyer and counter sue the City and the driver for mental pain and suffering.

What happened to the Conductor of this crew??????? 

[Ted Marshall]

And in the end, the state will drop the charges against the engineer and the animosity between local and railroad cops will be buttressed.

[sanvtoman]

 This sounds like BARNEY FIFE!

[NS SD70M-2]

I think it could have been planed out?

[jeffhergert]

From what I understand and have experienced, drug/alcohol testing is not required for grade crossing incidents (unless a crewmember is thought to be impaired) or for incidents that were obviously caused by track/mechanical failure (again unless a crewmember is thought to be impaired).
Any time there is any kind of incident, the railroad will get a company officer on the secene ASAP. There is always at least one on call 7 days a week.
As soon as the company officer shows up and there is any question as to impairment of a crewmember, even if the fault is beyond the crew's control, a whiz quiz will be taken.
I won't argue the legality of refusing a law officer of a drug/alcohol test, but you can't refuse the company officer, unless you're wanting a change in careers.
Jeff

[tree68]

In NY you can be charged with DUI under common law - you flunked a field sobriety test. If that happens, you'll be headed for the ER for a blood test, in cuffs. If you refuse to blow for a test, I believe the year's revocation applies...

[Anonymous]

In today's world, with these conservative Judges, a Nevada case that went to the highest court in the land, stated the cops have a right to know, you better show them who you are, if you don't, you'll be charged with obstruction, a feloney...All because you thought you had some kind of right not to show them ID.

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ValleyX

On a lighter note, in my railroad time, I have only heard of one engineer who took special delight in hitting cars, I never knew this gentleman and have only heard the story but have heard it enough to believe it to be true.

He worked a yard engine in his hometown and there was street running involved. One day, while running down the street, he saw a car he thought he could get and sped up just a bit. Sure enough, he hit the car, only to realize once it was too late that it was his brand new fifties model car. His son-in-law had borrowed it.

As for engineer impairment, in today's world of random drug tests and adherence to the rules, I'm not going to say that you won't find an impaired engineer but I'm going to say that it would be a rare find.

Valley X,

That is a great story.

I also agree with you regarding the liklihood of an engineer being drunk on the job.

Gabe

[ValleyX]

On a lighter note, in my railroad time, I have only heard of one engineer who took special delight in hitting cars, I never knew this gentleman and have only heard the story but have heard it enough to believe it to be true.

He worked a yard engine in his hometown and there was street running involved. One day, while running down the street, he saw a car he thought he could get and sped up just a bit. Sure enough, he hit the car, only to realize once it was too late that it was his brand new fifties model car. His son-in-law had borrowed it.

As for engineer impairment, in today's world of random drug tests and adherence to the rules, I'm not going to say that you won't find an impaired engineer but I'm going to say that it would be a rare find.

[gabe]

Derrick,

I agree that the alcohol would still be detectable three-to-four hours later, but in a substantially diminished degree. In fact, the national standards for the administration of breath-alcohol tests wont even certify a test that is taken three hours after custody.

Given my experience in Indiana, on a good day, the police might be able to get a warrant within an hour and fifteen minutes. Yes, alcohol would still be detectable in such a time period, but unless the engineer was around 0.12-0.15 or higher—i.e. schnockered—they would probably be well under the legal limit by the time he could take the breathalizer. The officer would also probably have to start the requisite 20 minutes of pre-breath test observation after obtaining the warrant too.

You are right about the remedy. You can't force the engineer to take the test—other than to threaten him with charges/arrest him. But, although your charge of resisting arrest is a mere misdemeanor, most jurisdictions consider destruction of evidence to be a felony. I would be willing to bet you could probably tag the engineer with destruction of evidence if he refused.

Gabe

[dekemd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by dekemd

Ed,

Derrick,

That is not necessarily true. There is an exigency exception to the warrant requirement--if the evidence might be destroyed before you can obtain a warrant, you are allowed to search based upon probable cause.

By definition, every second your body is conscious, it is oxidizing alcohol or drugs and thus "destroying" evidence. This might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I would be willing to bet that an officer could "demand" a breathalizer IF HE HAS PROBABLE CAUSE.

Gabe

Gabe,

You could demand a breathalizer under exigency, but you can't make the guy blow into the tube if he doesn't want to. That's why NC has the 1 yr revocation for refusal. If you claimed exigency but he refuses to blow, you could probably charge an engineer with resist, obstruct, delay a public officer. Before I made an arrest, I would call the magistrate and see what he advises. Your only other alternative is a blood test. In NC you must have a court order to forcefully take a blood sample.

While the body is constantly "destroying" evidence, it does take time for the body to completely get rid of drugs and alcohol. I'm sure a drug test is done within a few hours after an incident by the RR or FRA. Ed or some of the others could probably say for sure. If you have to advise your supervisor when taking OTC medicine, I'm sure any amount of alchohol in your system would be prohibited. Someone who had enough in their system that their actions would give an officer probable cause, would probably take several hours for the body to completely process it. It should still be detectable even three or four hours later.

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dekemd

Ed,

That is a bad situation your co-worker is in. That has to be extremely frustrating. In addition to a civil suit, he needs to contact the state insurance commission if there is such a thing in TX. North Carolina's state insurance commission is the group that regulates insurance companies in NC. They keep rates in check and investigate complaints against ins companies. Contacting a state legislator or two might not hurt either.


Gabe,

State or local law enforcement cannot DEMAND an engineer give a breathalyzer because of the way the law is written. In NC, the law states that anyone operating a motor vehicle on public roads or pva's must submit to a breathalyzer upon request of a law enforcement officer. Refusal results in a one year revocation of your driver's license. It says nothing about trains. The only way you can be forced to submit to a breathalyzer, blood test, or other drug test, is by a court order. The officer would have to go before a district court judge and get a search warrant.

The downside of an engineer refusing is that in a civil trial it could be used against him. An unscrupulous lawyer would argue that if the engineer didn't have anything to hide, he would have taken the breathalyzer. It might sound like a bogus argument, but some juries will believe anything. The question the lawyer will ask: If you have nothing to hide, then why refuse.

Derrick

Derrick,

That is not necessarily true. There is an exigency exception to the warrant requirement--if the evidence might be destroyed before you can obtain a warrant, you are allowed to search based upon probable cause.

By definition, every second your body is conscious, it is oxidizing alcohol or drugs and thus "destroying" evidence. This might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I would be willing to bet that an officer could "demand" a breathalizer IF HE HAS PROBABLE CAUSE.

Gabe

[spbed]

Sounds like the police in that township need some people skills training. [;)]



quote]Originally posted by vandenbm

From the trains.com newswire on Friday:

---Just before 10 a.m., Perry Richardson, 46, tried to drive across the tracks near his home when his van was struck by a CSX freight train traveling from Richmond, Va., to Cincinnati, Ohio. He was taken to a local hospital, but his condition was not immediately available. Sheriff Mark Smith says he believes Richardson simply made a bad judgment call - thinking he could beat the train.

But Smith also said the train's engineer, Michael Steven Spade, 53, of Sand Fork in Gilmer County, was arrested for refusing to give basic information such as his name and address. Spade was arraigned and released on bond. No hearing date has been set. CSX spokeswoman Jane Covington said the engineer should have cooperated, but she pointed out that it was a very stressful situation for him. Ghent is 73 miles southeast of Charleston, W.Va.---

Something seems weird here to me??? Your thoughts?

[dekemd]

Ed,

That is a bad situation your co-worker is in. That has to be extremely frustrating. In addition to a civil suit, he needs to contact the state insurance commission if there is such a thing in TX. North Carolina's state insurance commission is the group that regulates insurance companies in NC. They keep rates in check and investigate complaints against ins companies. Contacting a state legislator or two might not hurt either.


Gabe,

State or local law enforcement cannot DEMAND an engineer give a breathalyzer because of the way the law is written. In NC, the law states that anyone operating a motor vehicle on public roads or pva's must submit to a breathalyzer upon request of a law enforcement officer. Refusal results in a one year revocation of your driver's license. It says nothing about trains. The only way you can be forced to submit to a breathalyzer, blood test, or other drug test, is by a court order. The officer would have to go before a district court judge and get a search warrant.

The downside of an engineer refusing is that in a civil trial it could be used against him. An unscrupulous lawyer would argue that if the engineer didn't have anything to hide, he would have taken the breathalyzer. It might sound like a bogus argument, but some juries will believe anything. The question the lawyer will ask: If you have nothing to hide, then why refuse.

Derrick

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ValleyX

I guarantee you I'm not blowing into your Drager machine, unless it's at the point of a gun and even at that, you'd best not shoot me because what would be the justification? As for hitting cars purposefully? Ah? Gabe, I'm surprised at you, how am I going to hit a car purposefully? If they pull out in front of me and I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing, which is operating within my posted speed limits, handling the train within all railroad rules and guidelines, sounding the bell and the whistle properly from the whistle post until I occupy the crossing, what have I done to deserve this treatment? You can have my name and the railroad's address.

As for Rice Yard in Denver, it reads to me as if that crew was a victim of poor instructions, another yardmaster who gives out orders without thinking of the implications. I don't like being treated as if I somehow enjoy blocking crossings, and if someone writes back to tell me how the crew should have cut those crossings, I'll have to think that a naive, unknowledgeable response.

ValleyX,

I never asserted it was a likely scenario. Suppose for instance a car load of anarchists stopped on the tracks in front of a stopped train and started yelling obscenities at the crew, the crew upset with the anarchists deliberately started their train, rammed the car, and one of the anarchists seatbelts got stuck and was killed.

I understand that is a completely unlikely scenario. But, my point is, I think most everyone would agree that the engineer could be charged criminally under State law in that circumstance. If the engineer can be charged under that circumstance, I fail to see why the engineer couldn't be charged for criminally negligent manslaughter for operating while intoxicated? That is not an unlikely scenario.

Of course I understand no one is going to intentionally run someone over with their train, I only use that example to illustrate my confusion as to why State law enforcement could not demand the engineer give a breathalyzer if they had probable cause to believe the engineer was drinking?

Gabe

[edblysard]

Pretty much the same set up here...
From what my former boss(OAG, State of Texas) has stated, the only time you have to produce a state issued drivers license is when you are operating a motor vehicle on a public road...on private property, you can drive what ever you want where ever you want on your land.
His opinion is that the US Constitution does not make any provision towards requiring any citizen to carry any type of identification, but only requires them to identify themselves when asked...its up to the officers to confirm the ID given.
In other words, you don't have to prove you'r who you say you are, its up to the cops to prove you'r who they think you are!

The engineer here tried what you suggested, and the insurance company did remove the offending data, but they also refuse to insure him...and when he tries to purchase it from other companies, he gets refused...

He(his attorney) is in the process of fileing a formal complaint with the state board of insurance regulators...he gets a standard form letter refusing to insure him when he applies, but when he calls the companies, they just note that this "accident" is showing on his record.

He tells them no, explains the circumstances, sends them copies of the court order...they say thanks, we will review this, and then he gets another form letter saying, thanks, but no thanks...

This is really driving him nuts, he is to the point that he is considering starting a civil suit against the kids family and insurance company for the damage to him, but I doubt it will go anywhere.

Ed

[dekemd]

Ed,

I figured they called the whizz wagon as you put it. That's why I would not ask them to take a breathalyzer unless it was pretty obvious they had been drinking. For the record, you cannot force someone to take a breathalyzer. You had better not even point a gun at someone for refusing to either. That will get you out of law enforcement pretty quick.

As for your engineer friend who lost his insurance, well, I'm not one to recommend lawsuits, but I think a lawsuit would be justified in this case. If he has a court order stating the info is to be removed, and the ins company refuses, then he has a pretty good case. If I was him, I would sue and try to get the case heard by the judge who issue the court order. Then the ins company would have to explain to that judge why they ignored his ruling. Most judges get pretty upset when someone ignores their rulings.

In NC, the law says that if you are operating a motor vehicle on a public road or public vehicular area, you must produce a valid driver's license at the request of an law enforcement officer. It says nothing about locomotive. I think a company ID, and the address of where you report for work would be sufficient for a report if the local cops insisted on filing one. Being a Sheriff's Deputy, I don't do accident reports, but I'll try to ask a Highway Patrolmen the next time I have a chance and see what their procedures are for a train/vehicle collision.

[ValleyX]

I guarantee you I'm not blowing into your Drager machine, unless it's at the point of a gun and even at that, you'd best not shoot me because what would be the justification? As for hitting cars purposefully? Ah? Gabe, I'm surprised at you, how am I going to hit a car purposefully? If they pull out in front of me and I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing, which is operating within my posted speed limits, handling the train within all railroad rules and guidelines, sounding the bell and the whistle properly from the whistle post until I occupy the crossing, what have I done to deserve this treatment? You can have my name and the railroad's address.

As for Rice Yard in Denver, it reads to me as if that crew was a victim of poor instructions, another yardmaster who gives out orders without thinking of the implications. I don't like being treated as if I somehow enjoy blocking crossings, and if someone writes back to tell me how the crew should have cut those crossings, I'll have to think that a naive, unknowledgeable response.

[ChuckCobleigh]

Interesting provision in California's Vehicle Code:

12953. In any circumstances involving accidents or violations in
which the engineer or any other crewmember of any train is detained
by state or local police, the engineer or any other crew member shall
not be required to furnish a motor vehicle operator's license, nor
shall any citation involving the operation of a train be issued
against the motor vehicle operator's license of the engineer or any
other crew member of the train.

Seems like this was probably a problem with some of our local officers, which was taken care of by the legislature. Maybe more states should follow suit. Or maybe they have?

[edblysard]

dekemd, Gabe...
and all the cops here...
One of the first things the RR cops, FRA and the trainmaster will do in any grade crossing accident is call for the wizz wagon...dual purpose is to either prove the crew was under the influence, there by dumping liability for everything on the crew, and or to cover the crews butt when the victim or survivors claim the crew or engineer is drunk and they were not.

They check for everything,including OTC drugs...if your taking a OTC antihistimine like Sudafed or Clairatin(sp), anything, you have to advise the superintendent or your direct supervisor of it before you go on duty.

And you better have a letter in your personel file with a copy of a doctors script if you take any prescription drug, even something like Lipitor.

No, you dont have to have a state drivers license to operate a locomotive, just your federal cert...but, on rare occasions, where a engineer did give the cops his license, the accident info went on his driving record, and his automobile insurance was canceled....

Thats most of the rub with giving it up, insurance companies share claim info, and once its there, your stuck with it, even a court order to remove the report is usually ignored..

One of our engineers was in a grade crossing accident, noi fatalities or injuries, but the kids car was totaled...the DPS Trooper who responded demanded the engineers TDL, he refused, but after cuffing him and putting him in the patrol unit, our engineer gave in, provided the Trooper with it...later, the kids parents filed a claim against the engineers auto insurance for the car, they got his TDL#, address, the works from their copy of the Troopers accident report.
His insurance company cancled his policy, and he cant buy insurance anywhere from anyone, not even high risk, just drive back and forth to work stuff.
His wife has to bring him to work, and pick him up.

He has a court order to remove the report from his driving record, (we dont have a point system in Texas) but it is useless, no insurance company really delets this stuff, and there is no way you can prove they dont, and by the time you get the court order, its too late anyway, they swap info to quick for it to matter.

Absurd, huh...he can operate a locomotive with thousands of tons of cars and engine, but cant drive his VW to work!

Ed