Engineer improperly arrested in TX?

[Anonymous]

Whoa there Dan!!

There are more than adequate facts here to realize the sheriff's department in this case is in the wrong. They just haven't realized it yet, and unfortunately they are about to receive instruction concerning that point. The fact that the incident happened and that they foolishly arrested the engineer and held him is more than enough grounds for a lawsuit by the engineer and probably the railroad as well against Montgomery County.

First off, if civil legal action is to be taken it must be brought by the injured party, in this case being the Locomotive Engineer and/or the railroad. The FRA, BLE and UTU have no legal standing to bring such a proceeding. In the case of the criminal charge against the engineer, his defense counsel should seek an immediate dismissal as the local criminal court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter as the Texas Criminal Code is preempted in this case by Federal Statute as Ed correctly points out.

Second, the Timber Rock RR is part of WATCO, and they are plenty big enough to afford their own lawyers. I'm sure they are very much involved in defending their man. In addition, I'd be very surprised if one didn't see amicus briefs from FRA/DOT, AAR, ASLRRA, BLET and UTU when and if this hits the appellate level, but that is only a "me too" sort of involvement and won't truly involve those agencies or organizations as parties to the litigation. Also, remember that there is already significant precedent in this area which is one reason Congress has enacted a statute to govern these situations and not left the law to interpretation. Like I said before, I wouldn't want to be defending these deputies. Hope Montgomery County has a large tax base...

LC

[Anonymous]

hitler is alive and well,and living in montgomery county.

[Junctionfan]

Has that sheriff's department been investigated by other jurisdictions before particularly at the federal level before?

[wabash1]

why would you give them a drivers lic im not driving a car or a truck and you dont drive a train either. so giving a drivers lic is not in your best intrest. and there is a few cases that guys showed their drivers lic and it went back on their record. in the last accident i was in i was not asked for any info off either lic

[daveklepper]

One should always try to be as cooperative as possible with law enforcement.

What the engineer should have done (and admittadly hindsight is a lot easier, especially with tense tough situation), when asked to produce his drivers liscense is simply say:

I'm sorry officer, I cannot, I am driving a train, not an automobile or bus or truck. I have an engineers card instead. Here it is and I'llk be happy to give you any other information about myself that isn't on the engineers card.

Without actually saying so, he should give the impression that he doesn't have a drivers liscense on his person at the time.

Any of you who are engineers might be encouraged to take this tack in a similar situation, but of course check with your own lawyers for professional advice on this matter. And I think it is important that you do so. It can happen to anyone.

[edblysard]

No,
But it did strike me as odd the reporter was given the engineers name and info, but all that was mentioned about the auto driver was the station wagon was of an unidentified make and year.
Of course, that info is a matter of public record, as is the accident report, and the names of the arresting officer, so if the reporter really wanted it....

Ed[;)]

[tree68]

Any word on the relationship of the driver of the station wagon to any members of the sheriff's office?

[Junctionfan]

Well I took a look at the large Highway Traffic Act and found nothing to interesting other then this.


Public vehicles required to stop

174. (1) The driver of a public vehicle upon approaching on a highway a railway crossing that is not protected by gates or railway crossing signal lights, unless otherwise directed by a flagman, shall,

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (1) is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2002, chapter 18, Schedule P, section 31 by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following:

Public vehicles required to stop at railway crossings

(1) The driver of a public vehicle, upon approaching on a highway a railway crossing that is not protected by gates or railway crossing signal lights or marked by a stop sign, unless otherwise directed by a flagman, shall,

See: 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, ss. 31, 46 (1).

(a) stop the vehicle not less than 5 metres from the nearest rail of the railway;

(b) look in both directions along the railway track;

(c) open a door of the vehicle and listen to determine if any train is approaching;

(d) when it is safe to do so, cross the railway track in a gear that will not need to be changed while crossing the track; and

(e) not change gears while crossing the railway track. 1997, c. 12, s. 13.

I also searched the bill to see if it mentioned anything about the police officer being able to check the engineer's card even and found absolutely nothing. My impression is that say if CN smashed into a car here.

1/ Niagara Regional Police arrives, shuts down the road effected; secures sceen and makes sure there is no outside interfearance (citizens interested in the accident).

2/ Only emergency services such as paramedics and fire department may enter the area to either to treat the injured or the fire department would likely put sand down as such an accident would cause the car to spill oil or gas.

3/ CN Police would arrive and also control the sceen. They might be the only ones that could arrest right way (the engineer)......maybe, if they had a reason too but.....

4/ Transport Canada as well as the Labour Board would arrive and investigate. They would have the ultimate powers.

Unless the engineer violated the Criminal Code of Canada, Niagara Regional Police would not have juristictional power to arrest the engineer. The only person arrested would have been the car for violating the Highway Traffic Act. The person would most likely be givin a breathalizer test because who in their right mind does things like that sober?

[dharmon]

Since I wasn't there......

It seems to me that a bit of stubborness on behalf of both parties is probably wht led to the incident getting this far. The local cops not being fully aware of the driver's licence vs engineer card issue, probably were looking for him to provide somesort of ID, which to most folks is a driver's licence. When he refused, (and as the story mentions he offered the engineer's card afterwards) he was arrested, probably after a few words like "no I'm not", and "I don't have to..." which don't help. (forgive the grammer cuz us folks from Texas cain't read an right so well.....probably should give none of us badges, guns or the keys to multi-million dollar aircraft..huh...)

I'm not taking the cops side here, nor the engineers, but the full story isn't here....Comparing piano teacher to this is the wrong analogy. It more like someone who is tone deaf telling you are playing wrong.

Local cops are always going to have friction with any state or federal officer that comes in to play. It's just the way it is in the sandbox.

And by the way, I have had my dealings with that particular agency....and I of all people should be the last to defend them...but blasting the local cops, lacking the full story is wrong.

And I do think legal action should be taken, but by the UTU, BLE or FRA, since I doubt that that railroad has the resources to take it to litigation. Not for puntive reasons but for precedent.

Dan

[edblysard]

Not to put too fine a point on it, Andrew, but...

This is Texas, and in most places south of the Mason Dixon line, the County Sheriff pretty much does as he pleases, including hiring whom ever he pleases...the politics of it would require a posting several pages long.

It boils down to most of the rural county Sheriff's being the only law there is in some places...they are elected officials, and being a lawyer, or even a high school grad isn’t a requirement.
Being a good politician is!
They can interpret the laws in several ways...stuff like this goes on all the time.

Although I don’t know if Canada has a version of the Miranda warning, you might do a little research to find out why it exists...

And you might do a little research on the KKK and its involvement in Southern law enforcement, and check out why they call it Choir Practice...

I have lived down here pretty much all my life, and I worked in Montgomery County for 8 years before I went railroading, and 9 years after I left, I still try to not drive through it after dark...

You would be amazed at what can happen….

Ed

[Junctionfan]

Not trying to start a flame-war so please don't interpret my question as this but didn't they go to a police academy that would supposed to teach them those kind of laws too.

I can't be certain but I believe that the police academy in Alymer, Ontario which is where most police officers seem to go to train including the Ontario Provincial Police recruits, train in all kinds of laws including uncommon types of scenarios such as what happened. Of course in cases like that, I believe that an officer would dispatch for his supervisor who would likely check with Transport Canada for advice before charging or not charging the engineer and even then, I don't think they would get involved in that way because it wasn't a violation of the Highway and Traffic Act; a provincial law that dictates only road traffic. Only the driver of the stationwagon would have been effected.

If anybody is interested, I'll look it up and see what it says about train collisions.

[jeaton]

I was thinking-a lamenated card quoting the law- but then reading skills would be required.

Jay

[edblysard]

For those interested..
Look up
Acts 1981, 67th Legislature, page 551, chapter 232, effective Aug. 31, 1981
And;
Amended Acts, 1997, 72nd Legislature, Chapter 340, Section 1, Effective Jan. 1st, 1997

The Federal law states quite clearly that a train crew member is NOT required to present his or her state drivers license in the event of a train/train and train/automobile accident or collision.
All that is required and all that may be presented under this law are the federal issued engineers certificate, (engineers license) and if a conductor is asked, his federal issued conductors certificate.

It specifically states law enforcement agents may not ask for a driver’s license,
and states you, the train crew member, do not have to present one if asked.

Ed

[gabe]

LC is on the right track.

Gabe

[selector]

Well, I have a more middling view of all of this. Few people are really stupid (although I have been on the receiving end of that label once or twice). On the other hand, I have have been misquoted by the press, and know others whose careers were jeopardized by ham-fisted, biased, axe-grinding reporters and/or editors.

There are three sides to every story; what he said, what he said, and what she (the reporter) said. Somewhere in there, hopefully, is what really happened.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

In some rare cases (at least we believe they are rare), some individuals are granted the colors of authority-badge, uniform, weapon, fast car- even when they don't possess the education and judgement skills that should be a prerequisite for the job.

Thus, incidents such as described above.

Jay

Well said.

[eolafan]

THIS example is exactly why I personally have no use for HILLBILLY GOOD 'OL BOYS like these Sherriff's deputies in this story! YEEEHAAAAA!

[jeaton]

In some rare cases (at least we believe they are rare), some individuals are granted the colors of authority-badge, uniform, weapon, fast car- even when they don't possess the education and judgement skills that should be a prerequisite for the job.

Thus, incidents such as described above.

Jay

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

He said she said.. ugh.
I vote for the engineer. He was not driving a motor vehicle therefore no drivers license was needed. He is supposed to carry a card when driving a train and if he had that no problem.

I agree with you HighIron. This is just speculation, but I wonder whether the deputy took offence at the refusal to be shown the engineer's driver's license and perhaps it's the perceived challenge to his authority (without thinking or checking the actual law) that lies at the root of all this.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Maybe some big-shot civil-rights lawyer as well as some news media should go down and make their lives miserable. It's pretty rediculous that law enforcement can play by the very rules they are supposed to enforce; it just makes them look like hypocrits.

Thank you for that perspective.......if we didn't have others to point out our shortcomings and offer advice this country would be done for......

I didn't change the way I play the piano until my music teacher criticized me on my technique. Now I am playing much better and more accurate so I thank her for that.

It's not like I don't criticize Canada; boy am I doing alot of that lately..........

[ValleyX]

You've got to think that he probably did show them his engineer's license and they didn' t think that was good enough, so they're probably lying through their teeth. But I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

He said she said.. ugh.
I vote for the engineer. He was not driving a motor vehicle therefore no drivers license was needed. He is supposed to carry a card when driving a train and if he had that no problem.

[Anonymous]

Based upon the reported conduct of these deputies despite the contrary advice of the Trooper I'd say that they have some very real issues under 42 U.S.C. 1983. I wouldn't want to be defending them, in any case. I'm sure there are plenty of plaintiff's lawyers in Texas too...

LC

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Maybe some big-shot civil-rights lawyer as well as some news media should go down and make their lives miserable. It's pretty rediculous that law enforcement can play by the very rules they are supposed to enforce; it just makes them look like hypocrits.

Thank you for that perspective.......if we didn't have others to point out our shortcomings and offer advice this country would be done for......

[Junctionfan]

Maybe some big-shot civil-rights lawyer as well as some news media should go down and make their lives miserable. It's pretty rediculous that law enforcement can play by the very rules they are supposed to enforce; it just makes them look like hypocrits.

[edblysard]

As someone who worked in Conroe, and worked closely with both the Conroe PD, and the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department, along with the Texas Department of Public Safety, I can promise you, the Montgomery County Sheriff's Dept runs on the good ole boy system.
If your not one of them, your the enemy....including other law enforcement agencies.

I would doubt very seriously Stokes will every get an apology, although the Sheriff's Dept. might drop the charge.
And bet on Stokes getting followed home, and every where else, if he lives in Montgomery County.

My former employer, The Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas, has quite a large "file" on the good ole boys...as does the Texas Rangers(an arm of the DPS)...they dont play fair, and dont plan on changing anytime soon....

Ed

[BaltACD]

Not to say the Police would shade the truth to cover their a... and thier incompetence inspite of being warned..

[Anonymous]

Locomotive engineer wrongfully arrested
(The following story by Nancy Flake appeared on The Conroe Courier website on June 9.)

CONROE, Texas -- A Conroe man who works as a locomotive engineer is claiming he was wrongfully arrested by the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department for not presenting his driver's license after a car ran into his train early Monday morning.

Gregory Stokes, 28, was arrested for failure to identify himself and for interfering with an investigation after the incident, when the train he was operating for the Timber Rock Railroad out of Silsbee was hit by a car as the train sat in a crossing at FM 149 and Shannon Crossing in west Montgomery County, according to Lt. Dan Norris with the sheriff's department.

Some time around 2 a.m., the 3,000-foot freight train, carrying 9,000 tons of loaded rock, according to Stokes, approached the crossing as it was headed toward Conroe. "We came up on the crossing and the gates were not down," Stokes said. "The lights were flashing and the bells were operating."

As required by federal law, Stokes stopped the train and its two conductors got out to alert any automobile traffic. With all four engines past the crossing and two freight cars sitting in it, the conductors waved the train through after seeing no approaching traffic. Just as the train was again on its way, it was hit by a 1990 station wagon of unknown model, according to Officer Michael Bellard of the Montgomery Police Department. "We started again and I was waved through when he hit the train," Stokes said.

Fortunately, the driver of the car was not injured and refused medical care, according to Bellard, who was working the scene along with sheriff's deputies. "It was his fault," Bellard said of the driver. "The lights were flashing."

When sheriff's deputies arrived on the scene, Stokes provided them with all his information, but would not present his driver's license.

"All I had to do is present my engineer certification card," he said. "I wasn't driving a motor vehicle. The conductor's in charge of the train and he wasn't asked to show his driver's license."

Stokes, who moved here recently from Utah with his family and said he has worked with railroads off and on for 10 years, said he explained to deputies why, according to federal law, train conductors and engineers are not required to show driver's licenses when an accident occurs. "The driver's license number gets put on the accident report," he said. "My personal insurance reflects that I have had a major accident and my rates go up."

Stokes claims that when he refused to give his driver's license, the deputy handcuffed him and arrested him. A Texas Department of Public Safety trooper who was also called out to the scene told deputies to take the handcuffs off Stokes and advised them that he was not required by law to produce his driver's license, he said. "I heard the trooper say to them, 'If you do this, you're opening up a can of worms,'" he said.

Sgt. Jovon Reed of the DPS Conroe West office, confirmed that a trooper was on the scene and that a train engineer or conductor is only required by federal law to present his engineer's card. "Per any peace officer's training, the peace officer should know that is the identification he or she should be requesting," Reed said. "He did advise the sheriff's department of that fact."

Two conductors also identified Stokes, as did a representative of the railroad, who arrived on scene. Because Stokes could not move the train after his arrest, he said, another crew had to be brought in, which delayed the train another two hours.

Stokes was then taken to the Montgomery County Jail and booked on a charge of failure to identify, a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $2,000, up to 180 days in jail, or both. He was also charged with interfering with public duties, also a Class B misdemeanor. Bond was set at $1,500, which Timber Rock Railroad paid, but Stokes sat in the jail for hours until he was processed and booked, he said.

Norris said Stokes refused to produce his engineer card until after his arrest. "Once he was placed in custody, that's when he wanted to produce his engineer card," he said.

According to Norris, the deputy asked Stokes several times for his identification. "The deputy told him he was violating law and interfering with the investigation," he said. "Even though the other railroad personnel encouraged him to comply, only when he was told he was under arrest did he want to produce his card."

And, Norris noted, the deputy's reported states, "The DPS officer believed the deputy acted appropriately."

"My understanding is that under federal law he's only required to show his engineer card," Norris said. "He only provided it after he was arrested. Once we tell them they're under arrest, we are not under any obligation to release that person because he wants to comply."

Reed said he did not know if Stokes presented his engineer card "after the fact." However, when told the deputy's report stated the DPS trooper believed the deputy acted appropriately, Reed said, "My trooper did not acknowledge the sheriff's office as following proper procedure in accordance with the law.

"I don't know why that is in the report."

Officials with Watco Transportation in Pittsburg, Kan., the owner of Timber Rock Railroad, said they are looking into the incident. "We always want to cooperate with law enforcement," said Carlton Kennard, assistant general counsel. "As I understand the facts, we believe our engineer acted appropriately. A lot of times, local law enforcement doesn't understand these guys operate under federal law. I know he did not want to produce his driver's license. What happens when an officer fills out a motor vehicle report, if it's not read closely, it may end up showing as an accident under their driver's license number.

"It's a very hard thing to change."

Stokes, the father of two young children and one due in less than a month, wants an apology from the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, and wants the arrest expunged from his record. He may also pursue legal action, he said.

"As an engineer," he said, "we've always been ingrained not to show our driver's license because it can come back to haunt us."


Friday, June 10, 2005

From BLET Site