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

[fievel]

No, Ironken, I wasn't referring to you. It was a cheap shot on my part to use
the expression about "mommy's leg". I'm sorry. [#oops]

I realise it is stressful at any incident, but even if an officer is out of line
or jurisdiction,there isn't much point in alienating them by calling them
foamers or Barney Fife.
Perhaps railroad management should begin a campaign to coordinate
with local police departments concerning such issues as who is in
charge on RR property.

[gabe]

QUOTE: [
Gabe-

You are mis-stating what I said.

FRA has exclusive jurisdiction over railroad safety. Criminal jurisdiction is concurrent. Accordingly, your hypothetical engineer could well be prosecuted. That is completely distinguishable from investigations concerning railroad safety including the original purpose of this discussion concerning what rights the local police have concerning identification.

Despite railroad police being employed by the railroad, they are sworn law enforcement officers. They are therefore sworn to uphold the law regardless of whom is signing their check.

LC

LC,

That is why I am kind of confused here. If local authorities have concurrent jurisdiction, then they certainly can take any reasonable actions to investigate a possible crime.

I completely understand and agree with your statement concerning federal preeminence regarding rail safety. But, the officer who wants the engineer to take a breathalyzer could care less about rail safety—he is concerned about the State “crime” of negligent or reckless homicide.

Stated syllogistically:

If a State has jurisdiction to charge an engineer for intentionally running someone over, the State would also have jurisdiction to charge an engineer for negligently running someone over.

If the State court has jurisdiction, they have the right to investigate crime and obtain a Breathalyzer before evidence is compromised. They also would have a right to obtain the engineer's address so as to be able to investigate for a possible crime.

Gabe

P.S. For the record and for all the engineers out there, I am fully aware of the absurdity of 99% of the Breathalyzer claims and am quite willing to concede that most of the requests are bogus. However, it is quite another thing to say the State may not investigate crime in circumstances that are not so bogus.

It seems to me it the engineer stubbles out of the cab, slurs his words, and smells of alcohol, the State should have the right to investigate a possible crime.

[dekemd]

I don't see how an engineer giving his name and address could put points on his driver's license. Points only go on your license when you are charged and CONVICTED of a driving offense. At least that is how the law is my state. If I arrested someone for DUI, but they are aquitted at trial, no points, no insurance increase. The judicial system CANNOT put points on your license unless you are convicted of something.

As for boarding an engine. I would not without permission, unless I had probable cause that one of the traincrew had committed a crime and they refused to come down and talk to me. Ironken's story about the cop pushing buttons can be summed up in one sentence: That cop is an IDOIT!

I probably would not ask the crew to take a breathalyzer unless I could smell alcohol on their breath. If they refused, I would probably try to contact the RR police and advised them of what I had, and see how they wanted to proceed.

Like Erik, I've seen emergency vehicles stuck at crossings. A call to the railroad will letting them know of the emergency will usually get the train moving. I once drove to the headend and told the crew personally that there was a bad accident that the ambulances and fire department were trying to get to. He said they couldn't move. I asked him is they could break the train at that crossing which was about 3/4 of the way toward the rear. The conductor said they could, so he got in the car, and I gave him one heck of a ride, with blue light and sirens, back to the crossing. Once the ambulances had come back through with the victims, the train was put back together, and I drove the conductor back to the headend. He said the return trip was not as fun though. If it had not been an emergency, they could have blocked the crossing all day and I wouldn't have cared.

It all goes back to attitude. A cop with a good attitude and a train crew with a good attitude, can work things out so everyone is happy. A cop with a bad attitude and a traincrew with a bad attitude can make a situation very ugly.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

As the other railroaders have said, only limited information need be given to local authorities. Railroads are Federal jurisdiction and only company officials or FRA or State DOT Rail officials can demand more than the very basics.

As MC points out, in extreme circumstances the cops involved might even be on the hook for false arrest or false imprisonment...

LC

LC,

I am not challenging you on this one, but this does come as a bit of a surprise to me. I know a State reg or action cannot interfere with federal regs or decisions; but, I didn't know Feds had exclusive jurisdiction over rail property (as a State prosecutor, I convicted IDIOTS who vandalized rail cars every other day—the judge always said I had a particular zeal for that crime).

If an engineer gets in a fight with his trainmaster and deliberately runs him over (I know that is a difficult to imagine hypo, but it is too early for me to think of a better one), surely the State court would have jurisdiction, no?

I would also think the cops would need a verifiable address to reach someone who is a witness to an accident (or the crime of running a grade crossing). Criminals aren't the only ones who can be arrested; witnesses can too if their presence at trail is in question.

Anyway, I am just curious if you have any more information on your statement. I have always found dual-sovereignty interesting.

Gabe

Gabe-

See my response above. The case law is quite clear on the pre-emption in railroad safety matters by FRA under various acts including the Railroad Safety Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. As to criminal prosecution I'd guess there would be concurrent jurisdiction in most places I have prosecuted crimes against and occurring on railroad property before as well. However, grade crossing and trespasser incidents where the train crew is concerned is a very jealously protected zone.

LC

LC,

This is incredibly interesting to me. I think I might even do a law journal article on it. So, if an engineer intentionally hits someone with his train the FRA has exclusive jurisdiction? I can't wait to get some free time to research this.

Also, the poster who pointed out that the railroad police get their checks from the railroad had a good point, doesn't that seem a little scarry that the people investigating an accident in which the railroad might be liable is working for the railroad?

Once again, I completely am not challenging your position on this, I am just really curious about it.

Gabe

Gabe-

You are mis-stating what I said.

FRA has exclusive jurisdiction over railroad safety. Criminal jurisdiction is concurrent. Accordingly, your hypothetical engineer could well be prosecuted. That is completely distinguishable from investigations concerning railroad safety including the original purpose of this discussion concerning what rights the local police have concerning identification.

Despite railroad police being employed by the railroad, they are sworn law enforcement officers. They are therefore sworn to uphold the law regardless of whom is signing their check.

LC

[Anonymous]

I don't stick my tongue out at the cops while clinging to mommy's leg. Local cops are simply not qualified to do many of the things that they think they are. Railroad is one of these examples. Their job is to get medical attention for those whom need it, keep order, and protect the scene until the people who do know what needs to be done arrive. Besides, let them cuff me and haul me off. I will be on continuos time and will make more than the cop that hauled me off anyway. These guys tried to haul an engr off once for blocking a crossing. The train is the condr's responsibility........ooops. Fievel; were you aiming the mommy's leg thing at me?

[fievel]

I watched the local news video of the engineer in handcuffs. He didn't appear to
be angry. However, I feel that nobody should be above the law,including RR
employees. Law and ORDER must be maintained in our society. Yes,some cops
are rude. But some RR employees can be rude,too. Accident investigations
shouldn't be hindered. Things run much more smoothly when you cooperate
with the police,instead of attempting to agitate them, and then "hiding" behind
a federal law. Kind of reminds me of a spoiled child sticking out his tongue,
while cling to his mommy's leg. Sad.[V]

[Anonymous]

I personally had a run in with some stupid cop when I put a car on the ground. He was listening to our road channel and heard me report the mishap to the D.S. (picking up enrout from a small yard). A foamer cop! huh! I guess that Cletus promptly hopped in his little car and scurried to the scene of the accident. He asked me what was going on and I replied "what the f---- does it look like?" He asked if there was any hazmat involved and I answered NO. I then proceeded to tell him to leave the property and go to the yard office. He was on private property! He stood there for awhile and I went back to the head end.
I guarentee that no stupid cop will draw any bodily emissions or fluids from me without the presence of a company official, obtain the event recorder, or board my train (unless firearms are drawn). They have no right, no reason. I don't give a rip if it is CSI Miami. Answer...NO!
Annother occasion. Went to pick up a train on a foreign line. It was tied down, and the whistle on a trailing unit was stuck on....how, I don't know. It was like that when we arrived. Soon the cops showed up. This stupid *** climbs up on the engine. I didn't say he could come up. The hogger was trying to get to the horn cutout (90MAC) kind of a climb. This dummie cop starts pushing in buttons in the cab......Whoa! I told him that he wasn't qualified to touch anything on that loco and that we were handling it. I also told him that it is a (I think) 10,000 dollar fine and FRA violation for a non qualified individual to operate the controls of an engine, not to mention screwing with the controls while an employee is "in-between".
Bottom line, I don't run around trying to arrest people and cops should leave the RRing to the professionals. Cops get irate usually when asked questions about what they're doing. They don't need to question us. Leave that to the pros. There have been a few cool ones that have helped. One was willing to help me change a knuckle (I didn't need it, but, the thought was nice). Annother gave me a ride back to head end. That was cool. They respected my job and let me do it. As long as they know where their authority ends, I'm cool.

[Anonymous]

Some not real valid points in these posts:
1) "Engineers do not give their driver's license to the officer account the engineer's have seen points given them by the judicial system, had their auto insurance cancelled or rates increased and no, you do not NEED to be a licensed driver to operate a locomotive."

This was already addressed, and it's partially correct: You don't need to provide a driver's license to an officer if you aren't operating a motor vehicle at the time of an accident. You DO have to provide enough information to identify yourself, especially if a fatality is involved. A rail company ID is probably sufficient.

2) "I have never had the local police officer ask for a breathalayzer. I guess I would have to decline to participate until he could provide a very good reason why he suspected I might be under the influence."

In this particular case, I would explain that it is routine for participants in accidents to be tested for alcohol use. The victim in this case was probably tested for alcohol use at the hospital. An accident investigation, from a cop's point of view, is to find a cause for the accident and try to fix blame. Chances are excellent in this particular case that the engineer would have blown an alcohol free Drager. That would have ruled out impairment on his part and cleared him of wrongdoing.

3) I saw an engineer taken from a locomotive in hand cuffs and at gun point for blocking a crossing while doing an air test at the south end of Rice Yard in Denver once. Now that was an education. What if the engineer had slipped while trying to dismount the engine with his hands cuffed behind his back, fell on the officer and the gun went off?

That would have been pretty ugly. It also would have been pretty ugly if the train blocked an ambulance trying to reach a call. (It's happened to me personally twice.) Or a fire truck trying to get to a fire. Or a police car trying to reach the scene of an accident. That's why a lot of states have laws setting time limits on how long a train can block a crossing. And yes, a cop CAN make an arrest on a violation of law that he observes.

4) "Bottom line is the train crew probably knows more about grade crossing accidents than the local officer does. Perhaps law enforcement should listen to them."
We do. We also listen to truck drivers who know more about driving trucks than we do, and still manage to crash. We listen to boat operators who know a lot about handling boats, but not neccesarily much about avoiding railroad bridges. We listen to pilots who, if still living, know a lot about flying but not much about reading a fuel gauge before they go down into a neighborhood. And we also listen to victims. Lots of them. It's part of trying to figure out what caused an accident and who is to blame.

A couple of extra points here. First, a license or certification to operate a motor vehicle (or a locomotive, or a plane, or a ship) is a privelege, not a right. There's a difference. A privelege can be withdrawn much more easily than a right. We have all heard about airline pilots climbing up into perfectly good airplanes perfectly impaired. They seem surprised and disappointed when their driver's licenses get suspended. Why? Because their behavior on the job is just as likely to spill over into their behavior off the job.

Second, on rare occasions, the locomotive engineer actually IS at fault because he IS impaired. Anyone remember Ricky Gates? If not, dig back into these threads- he's been brave enough, and honest enough, to talk at length about the role drugs played in his accident.

Locomotive engineers are human. They make human mistakes. They have human failings. When they do their jobs, they are expected to do them well and safely. It's up to law enforcement- local, county, state, and the Feds- to pick up the pieces after an accident, and either clear or cite individuals at fault.

The railroad will probably be sued in this case....they always are. Tell me, do you really think the engineer's conduct in this particular case is going to aid or hinder the defense the railroad has to put up? Think about it for a second- the jury is going to be made up of locals who probably don't know squat about trains. How do you think THEY will respond to an engineer who arrogantly tells them that HE doesn't have to answer questions "because he's protected by the railroad, and he's been advised he doesn't have to answer a police officer's questions."

Folks, ya gotta think through cause and effect. I do every day. I get paid to pick up stupidly criminal people and put them in jail. (The smart or wealthy criminals, unfortunately, spend less time in jail than it takes for me to fini***he paperwork.) I also get paid to protect innocent people... like railroad engineers. If that means I have to have the engineer blow into a Drager machine to bolster his defense, I'm going to do it. And if he is indeed drunk or otherwise impaired, I'm going to arrest him for it. The people in my county expect and pay me for that kind of protection... as does industry (like the railroad).

Erik

[arbfbe]

Engineers do not give their driver's license to the officer account the engineer's have seen points given them by the judicial system, had their auto insurance cancelled or rates increased and no, you do not NEED to be a licensed driver to operate a locomotive and attached train. Who is at fault at grade crossing accidents most times, anyway? Probably not the train crew........

Engineers do not give their home addresses and home phone numbers to the nice officer because those accident records are available to family members of the inujured or dead parties and there are incidents of harrassment and assault to involved train crew members. Let them go to the railroad office and talk to the railroad lawyers.

I have never had the local police officer ask for a breathalayzer. I guess I would have to decline to participate until he could provide a very good reason why he suspected I might be under the influence.

I do not see how the officer can come aboard the locomotive unless he would suspect there was a chance of injury to someone in the cab. There are no tapes for him to evaluate up there. His attempt to download any data in the event recorder would likely destroy that information.

I saw an engineer taken from a locomotive in hand cuffs and at gun point for blocking a crossing while doing an air test at the south end of Rice Yard in Denver once. Now that was an education. What if the engineer had slipped while trying to dismount the engine with his hands cuffed behind his back, fell on the officer and the gun went off?

Bottom line is the train crew probably knows more about grade crossing accidents than the local officer does. Perhaps law enforcement should listen to them.

[dekemd]

equinox,

You're not the paranoid type are you?[:)] Yes, there are some cops who have harassed people for taking pictures or just sitting somewhere minding their own business, but that is mostly blown out of proportion. Several people on this forum have been question by police, RR or otherwise, when they weren't doing anything. However, in any given day how many times do you think a cop has seen someone sitting in a park and just driven on by? I would guess many thousands of times a day. You also don't see the other side of the coin. Busy-Body civilian sees someone standing near the train tracks for over an hour. BB calls the police and reports a suspicious individual near the tracks and wants an officer to check him out. Ten minutes later, the cop still hasn't shown up, so BB calls back. Another 15 minutes goes by, BB calls again. Then BB calls the Sheriff or Police Chief or Mayor's office and complains that the police are not doing their job. Sheriff/Chief/Mayor orders officer to go investigate guy next to track.

On another note, just because an officer comes up to you and asks you what you're doing, does not mean he's harassing you. He just wants to make sure you're not up to no good. What happens, when the police don't check out somebody and they commit some crime? The first thing said is "the guy was sitting there for over an hour, why didn't the cops check him out?" Heads you lose, tails you lose.

MC hit it on the head about checking the egos at the door. There are some officers out there who think everyone has to do what they tell them. These officers get mad when people refuse or question them. Officers with the "I'm the law" attitude give us all a bad name. An "I'm the law" cop having to deal with an "you have no authority on the RR" engineer leads to a bad situation even though the engineer is right. Fortunately, most of the "I'm the law" cops, don't last very long. They either see the error of their ways, or get fired. There are some exceptions, but generally they figure out that being nice to people makes their job a whole lot easier.

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by richardy

At most grade crossings (rails that were in place before the roadway came across), doesn't the property belong to the railroad with an easement granted by the railroad for the roadway to cross?

Richard

Richard:

Depends on the state and the crossing. In NE you are probably correct. In CA you are better than 50% not correct. In Iowa, you do a group hug, hold a town meeting and elevate the level of confusion with no solution[|(]. Color of title can be a really wierd thing at crossings, especially when you get into deed restrictions, grants, covenants, easements, licenses, decrees, ordinances, charters and that kind of fun stuff (mudchicken mind-candy). Best to look at any crossing and be sure of the facts first.

Mudchicken[D)][D)][D)]

[mudchicken]

Intentionally steer a train at someone? [(-D][(-D][(-D].....unless the train moved from a stationary position, that's a stretch.......Most railroad policemen came from the other side of the fence and work with OLI coordinated and policeman's association meetings/ events to improve interagency cooperation. That being said, you still encounter the "holier-than-thou's" far to often that are sadly lacking in the training department and show up full of pre-conceived false knowledge. I can see where both sides would do well to leave the egoes checked at the house (Law Officials Code of Ethics in play here).

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

As the other railroaders have said, only limited information need be given to local authorities. Railroads are Federal jurisdiction and only company officials or FRA or State DOT Rail officials can demand more than the very basics.

As MC points out, in extreme circumstances the cops involved might even be on the hook for false arrest or false imprisonment...

LC

LC,

I am not challenging you on this one, but this does come as a bit of a surprise to me. I know a State reg or action cannot interfere with federal regs or decisions; but, I didn't know Feds had exclusive jurisdiction over rail property (as a State prosecutor, I convicted IDIOTS who vandalized rail cars every other day—the judge always said I had a particular zeal for that crime).

If an engineer gets in a fight with his trainmaster and deliberately runs him over (I know that is a difficult to imagine hypo, but it is too early for me to think of a better one), surely the State court would have jurisdiction, no?

I would also think the cops would need a verifiable address to reach someone who is a witness to an accident (or the crime of running a grade crossing). Criminals aren't the only ones who can be arrested; witnesses can too if their presence at trail is in question.

Anyway, I am just curious if you have any more information on your statement. I have always found dual-sovereignty interesting.

Gabe

Gabe-

See my response above. The case law is quite clear on the pre-emption in railroad safety matters by FRA under various acts including the Railroad Safety Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. As to criminal prosecution I'd guess there would be concurrent jurisdiction in most places I have prosecuted crimes against and occurring on railroad property before as well. However, grade crossing and trespasser incidents where the train crew is concerned is a very jealously protected zone.

LC

LC,

This is incredibly interesting to me. I think I might even do a law journal article on it. So, if an engineer intentionally hits someone with his train the FRA has exclusive jurisdiction? I can't wait to get some free time to research this.

Also, the poster who pointed out that the railroad police get their checks from the railroad had a good point, doesn't that seem a little scarry that the people investigating an accident in which the railroad might be liable is working for the railroad?

Once again, I completely am not challenging your position on this, I am just really curious about it.

Gabe

[dekemd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vandenbm

Maybe there needs to be better education or information exchange between the FRA and police agencies to improve the handling of grade crossing investigations, especially in the time right after the accident when the federal officials aren't there yet.

That is a good idea. The FRA and the railroads need to come up with some kind of brochure or form that spells out who has jurisdiction for railroad related events. It also needs to give instructions as to what they want local officers to do and to not do when responding to accidents, etc. involving trains.

Erik has a point about the breathalyzer. It would be much better for the first officer on the scene to administer one. A one hour wait can drastically change blood/alchohol results. Asking for names and addresses is pretty common in accident investigation. I don't see the harm in traincrew giving that information to officers. As a Sheriff's Deputy, I don't investigate traffic accidents. I do respond to them, I just don't do the accident reports. That is the Highway Patrol's job. However, if I am first on the scene, I will get everyones ID or name and address, and identify drivers, passengers, witnesses, etc. When the HP gets there, I point out who is who and give him the info I've collected. This saves him time and allows him to complete his investigation quicker. I would probably do the same for an accident involving a train. When the RR police or FRA investigators showed up, I would turn over the info to them and let them do their job.

[Anonymous]

This has been informative to say the least. I would have never guessed how little power local police have in such an event. (or at least it would seem that way). However, I can also see where if I were a local police officer and the train crew was refusing my questions that I would normally ask at an accident scene would get suspicious and perhaps upset.
Maybe there needs to be better education or information exchange between the FRA and police agencies to improve the handling of grade crossing investigations, especially in the time right after the accident when the federal officials aren't there yet.

[richardy]

At most grade crossings (rails that were in place before the roadway came across), doesn't the property belong to the railroad with an easement granted by the railroad for the roadway to cross?

Richard

[Anonymous]

[:(!][:(!][:(!] Sounds just like the lady cop that wanted to arrest me after the cement truck hit and derailed my train. She was adamant that I was going to the local hospital to give blood and urine samples. Once the federal investigators arrived she had to learn a whole new song and dance. [:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

This is bothersome indeed, but it is very possible that the local cop that made the arrest was not familiar with federal railroad regulations that allowed railroad crews the right to limit the amount of personal information they disclose to local authorities. IN most jurisdictions, persons are required to give all basic personal information to the authorities in the event of a police investigation, so the cop probably assumed that this situation was no different, especially since it is not every day they deal with railroad grade crossing incidents in a small town.

If it was in fact an unjustified arrest, I am sure that the engineer will be cleared in short order.

[Anonymous]

Local cops and deputies take an awful bum rap here.
I wouldn't dream of climbing up into a locomotive cab and taking an event recorder out. I don't even know where it is. I do know that there's no way my local investigators will be able to read the tape. We send that stuff off to the Alabama Bureau of Investigation, or the NTSB.

Alabama State troopers are trained in accident investigations and generally work with the railroads in investigations. Given that NTSB investigators or railroad police are usually several hours from the scene of a grade crossing accident, they usually end up doing Drager tests for review by investigators. Because alcohol does metabolise out of the human body fairly quickly, waiting around for someone to arrive in a few hours is a disservice not only to the engineer, but to the railroad and the investigators.

I have never run into a railroad cop or federal investigator who wasn't grateful about local cops doing basic investigation. Of course, we are trained to respect evidence sites- which would include the inside of the locomotive cab- and we try not to tromp through them. The local cops are the ones who are usually first on scene.

Think for a moment, though, about a local cop's juristiction. In my case, it's a rural county in Alabama. If I was faced by a Norfolk Southern cop ordering me off "his" property, I'd have a problem with that. The main reason is who signs his paycheck. He's not an officer who does law enforcement county wide; he is a company employee. It would not be an unusual thing to have that company employee "lose" or mishandle evidence, especially if it was evidence concerning the company .... and a defense attorney would have a field day.

I don't have a problem relinquishing a scene to a Federal agency; they have investigative resources far greater than mine. I don't have a problem relinquishing a scene to a DOT trained state trooper. When I come onto an accident scene, be it a two car fender bender, a rail-car collision, or the Queen Mary running down a sailboat, I am required- by law- to identify all participants. As stated before, that usually means no more than name and date of birth.

You guys need to think through actions before you stand on your "rights"- most of the questions cops ask you are going to clear you of any wrongdoing.

Erik

[Anonymous]

Rodney-

Another misconception of local police, that they can "figure out" how to read tapes or card type event recorders. Cops tend to think that their labs can do most anything for them. They only figure out too late that they are over their heads with railroads. Special equipment is required to read the data and special training is needed to understand it. Not rocket science, but unless you have the training and know somerthing about running trains, the tapes mean nothing...

LC

[Rodney Beck]

Hi everyone my name is Rodney and I work for the BNSF as a conductor now I am a student engineer. In our rule book the only thing that we have to give the police is our name. I have learned fromthe above I was in a grade crossing accdent last August that killed a person. The police tried to make the engineer and I have a breathalizer test and we refused then we were threatened with arrest for not compling with law enforcement, then the trainmaster arrived on the sceen and told the police that they have no juristation over the crew, then the FRA showed up and mister city and county cop left madder than a cat falling in a swimming pool. It is a power play that the police try and yes the local police wanted to get on the locomotive to get the event recorder and was asked by the FRA if they knew how to read the data they said they could figure it out the FRA investigator told them to get off the railroad. Rodney

[BaltACD]

There is nothing quite as obnoxious as a minimally trained Local Cop, who thinks his minimal training has turned him into the personification of Chief Justice Rhenquist with a badge and gun.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

As the other railroaders have said, only limited information need be given to local authorities. Railroads are Federal jurisdiction and only company officials or FRA or State DOT Rail officials can demand more than the very basics.

As MC points out, in extreme circumstances the cops involved might even be on the hook for false arrest or false imprisonment...

LC

LC,

I am not challenging you on this one, but this does come as a bit of a surprise to me. I know a State reg or action cannot interfere with federal regs or decisions; but, I didn't know Feds had exclusive jurisdiction over rail property (as a State prosecutor, I convicted IDIOTS who vandalized rail cars every other day—the judge always said I had a particular zeal for that crime).

If an engineer gets in a fight with his trainmaster and deliberately runs him over (I know that is a difficult to imagine hypo, but it is too early for me to think of a better one), surely the State court would have jurisdiction, no?

I would also think the cops would need a verifiable address to reach someone who is a witness to an accident (or the crime of running a grade crossing). Criminals aren't the only ones who can be arrested; witnesses can too if their presence at trail is in question.

Anyway, I am just curious if you have any more information on your statement. I have always found dual-sovereignty interesting.

Gabe

Gabe-

See my response above. The case law is quite clear on the pre-emption in railroad safety matters by FRA under various acts including the Railroad Safety Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. As to criminal prosecution I'd guess there would be concurrent jurisdiction in most places I have prosecuted crimes against and occurring on railroad property before as well. However, grade crossing and trespasser incidents where the train crew is concerned is a very jealously protected zone.

LC

[Anonymous]

MASTER TRAINER
SOMTHING SOUNDS FISHY!!!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered

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-

I'd love to be the attorney representing the engineer after an officer tried to make him take a Drager Alcotest. That is a clear cut civil rights violation. Federal Regulations clearly set forth how drug and alcohol testing is to be handled post accident for railroad crew members. FRA even provides the test kits which railroads must obtain from the FRA mandated lab. If the state were to take any action based upon a test or refusal there would be grounds for a significant lawsuit. I wouldn't want to be the officer in that case.

Keep in mind that I am someone who has been a police officer, prosecutor and locomotive engineer and has defended police officers in civil rights suits.

Also, officers need to keep in mind that the giving of information to police in these cases has resulted in engineers having driver's license and insurance issues more than once. So what would otherwise be a simple name and DOB request can create BIG problems. Unfortunately, there are plenty of engineers out there who have had run ins with the cops in their lives and don't have the patience or temperament to explain this to the police. Mix that with an officer who doesn't like to be told "no" and you have a potential for problems, like the one in this case.

The FRA has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over railroad safety. This has been long established in Statutes and Regulations and the courts. That means that even though the tracks run through a police officer's jurisdiction, what happens on those tracks including ALL railroad operations are beyond his jurisdiction and are the jurisdiction of railroad police and the FRA.

LC

[Anonymous]

=)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by richardy

Thanks LC, I knew it had nothing to do with the state drivers license. I thought I had read several years ago that engineers must have a Federal license but it must have been the certification.

Who issues the certification?

Richard

Richard-

The railroad issues certifications to its engineers under 49 CFR 240 et seq.

LC

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Gabe: Have seen two separate incidents where "holier than thou" local constabulary has been forcibly removed from railroad property by railroad police (CA & CO)...Railway police are licensed federal level marshals with badges and guns. In both cases the railroad police were vindicated in their actions and there is at least one local CA cop out of a job. Usually the agencies work together, but relationships get strained and truth can be stranger than fiction. (Grandstanding Politicians barking orders at underlings at grade crossing incidents come to mind)

I have no doubt of the accuracy of your anecdotal evidence. However, I would be willing to bet that those were incidences when the local law conflicted with some form of federal ordinance. This is not uncommon. It is, however, uncommon for a state not to have any authority in its jurisdiction where there is no such conflict.

Gabe

[mudchicken]

Gabe: Have seen two separate incidents where "holier than thou" local constabulary has been forcibly removed from railroad property by railroad police (CA & CO)...Railway police are licensed federal level marshals with badges and guns. In both cases the railroad police were vindicated in their actions and there is at least one local CA cop out of a job. Usually the agencies work together, but relationships get strained and truth can be stranger than fiction. (Grandstanding Politicians barking orders at underlings at grade crossing incidents come to mind)

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

As the other railroaders have said, only limited information need be given to local authorities. Railroads are Federal jurisdiction and only company officials or FRA or State DOT Rail officials can demand more than the very basics.

As MC points out, in extreme circumstances the cops involved might even be on the hook for false arrest or false imprisonment...

LC

LC,

I am not challenging you on this one, but this does come as a bit of a surprise to me. I know a State reg or action cannot interfere with federal regs or decisions; but, I didn't know Feds had exclusive jurisdiction over rail property (as a State prosecutor, I convicted IDIOTS who vandalized rail cars every other day—the judge always said I had a particular zeal for that crime).

If an engineer gets in a fight with his trainmaster and deliberately runs him over (I know that is a difficult to imagine hypo, but it is too early for me to think of a better one), surely the State court would have jurisdiction, no?

I would also think the cops would need a verifiable address to reach someone who is a witness to an accident (or the crime of running a grade crossing). Criminals aren't the only ones who can be arrested; witnesses can too if their presence at trail is in question.

Anyway, I am just curious if you have any more information on your statement. I have always found dual-sovereignty interesting.

Gabe