A website has posted an extraordinary video (below) showing not only the abusive treatment of a citizen by border and local police, but highly compelling evidence of a false police report by a driver to cover up his own illegal turn that caused an accident in New York City. The driver, Ted, had installed a Timetec Roadhawk Dashcam out of fear of unlawful traffic stops. It was a fortuitous decision because it would capture what he says was a false charge and abusive treatment by law enforcement officers — following by a false police report. By the way, the postings report this as a Border Police vehicle but it appears a van from the Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The video clearly shows Ted driving with a green light through the intersection. It also later shows (from the opposite direction) a sign clearly prohibiting a left turn from opposing traffic. A federal van makes an illegal turn against the light and slams into Ted’s car. What follows is unbelievable. The video shows not only Ted crossing with a green light but the irate behavior of the federal officer who runs to his car and starts screaming “Didn’t you see the light? Did you not see the light?” Ted appears a bit dazed. The local police then arrive and reportedly take the side of the federal officer and accuse Ted of running a red light. All of the passengers in the van — presumably all federal officers — confirmed that false account. An allegedly uniform collection of false accounts from law enforcement officers.
Ted went home and discovered that his dash cam clearly captured the true story, though there is a difference of opinion over what it shows. The police report (shown on Dashspin) following the accident clearly appears to blame him with the accident: “van was westbound on Rockaway making a left turn southbound onto Farmers Blvd states thought all Eastbound traffic stopped for vehicle’s turret lights and red light at intersection.” (emphasis added) First of all, this account ignores the sign prohibiting a left turn, though as discussed below there is an alternative account. Second, the officer appears to take the federal officers’ accounts as gospel and implicates the private citizen.
The videotape shows the importance of such devices in combating police abuse. We have been following the continuing abuse of citizens who are detained or arrested for filming police in public. (For prior columns, click here and here). Despite consistent rulings upholding the right of citizens to film police in public, these abuses continue. The video contradiction of the police account is all too familiar on this blog. Of course, in Dallas, Dallas Police Chief David Brown revealed a new policy that would require officers involved in a shooting to wait 72 hours before making a statement. The policy came after a scandal where a surveillance video showed one of Brown’s officers shooting a mentally ill suspect for no apparent reason. The video contradicted the officer’s testimony and undermined the charge against the victim. Brown’s solution was not greater disciplining and monitoring of officers but to impose a delay to allow officers to craft their statements.
Update: our own Darren Smith, who has experience in this area, has offered an alternative view that the van was in fact using a siren and the officer’s reference about the light could have been to the van emergency strobe light. As a federal van, it could have been turning left in an emergency run. The local officer obviously did not see the accident in making the report. Here is what Darren added to the debate:
The van is a federal law enforcement vehicle as authorized by federal regulations. Federal regulations pre-empt state laws with regard to this. The statute authorizing emergency vehicles in NY is applicable only to state, county, or local law enforcement vehicles. It does not have jurisdiction over federal vehicles.
While others have pointed out that blue lights are not considered in NY to be authorized emergency vehicle lighting, the van was utilizing a siren. Additionally, though it might seem petty, the following does comply with NY law on the van. The blue and green lights in the actual statute apply to volunteer EMS personnel and yes those are considered non-emergency vehicles.
The law providess that Red and White lights are indicative of an authorized emergency vehilce. Here is another video capture of the van just prior to the stop. Note the arrow shows a flashing white “sweep light” that is used to provide additional visibility at 45 degree angles to the lightbar.
I found another image of the crashed van, it has been hooked up by a tow vehicle to pull it back to its wheels. Note the arrow on this image. This points to a mounted red grill light that has been disloged and is still operating. The angle of the van just prior to the crash in the video obscures this light due to the angle of the van. Here is the image
Darren makes some very interesting points in the comments. I still have my reservations about the accusation of the federal officers, but here is the video for you to judge for yourself.
Darren
when the van driver comes over to the car he says “didn’t you see the light”, twice. the driver of the car assumes he’s referring to the traffic signal light, but he could be referring to the strobe light bar.
or i suppose he could be james brown asking if john belushi sees the “light” to get the band together.
Chuck:
It has been my experience that federal law enforcement agencies do not equip their emergency vehicles with traffic signal pre-emption devices. One reason is there is different signalling protocols for these systems in various localities federal agencies travelling interstate could not always have a compatibe device.
Couple things in response.
The van is a federal law enforcement vehicle as authorized by federal regulations. Federal regulations pre-empt state laws with regard to this. The statute authorizing emergency vehicles in NY is applicable only to state, county, or local law enforcement vehicles. It does not have jurisdiction over federal vehicles.
While others have pointed out that blue lights are not considered in NY to be authorized emergency vehicle lighting, the van was utilizing a siren. Additionally, though it might seem petty, the following does comply with NY law on the van. The blue and green lights in the actual statute apply to volunteer EMS personnel and yes those are considered non-emergency vehicles.
The proscribes that Red and White lights are indicative of an authorized emergency vehilce. Here is another video capture of the van just prior to the stop. Note the arrow shows a flashing white “sweep light” that is used to provide additional visibility at 45 degree angles to the lightbar.
I found another image of the crashed van, it has been hooked up by a tow vehicle to pull it back to its wheels. Note the arrow on this image. This points to a mounted red grill light that has been disloged and is still operating. The angle of the van just prior to the crash in the video obscures this light due to the angle of the van. Here is the image:
Some have noted that the police report states the CBP van driver lied about the facts and stated the traffic light for the videographer’s car was red. What the officer said according to the collision report is that the CBP van driver “…thought all E/B [east bound] traffic stopped for vehicles turret lights and red light at intersection…”
It is not considered lying if the person states they “thought” something occurred and are mistaken. In fact it is a true statement when describing what the person is thinking.
I agree in part with what Waldo is writing about if the red light was for the intersection or referring to the equipment on the van. The wording of the report is ambiguous and poorly written for that reason.
One of the reasons that might be what the investigating officer was thinking is that it is important in collision reports to state elements of violation or authorization of the traffic law. If the element of, in this case, the authorization required a red light be present in the emergency vehicle to permit the disregard of the no left turn sign the officer should indicate that to meet the statutory authority.
In either case it is ambiguous in the report, though I will defer to Waldo’s assessment as equally as likely referring to the traffic signal
As to whether who is responsible I agree both drivers were in violation of the traffic law: The videographer by statute per se and the CBP van driver through failing to use due care and caution as he was in violation of training and care by what common safety precautions for emergency vehicle operators.
Most emergency vehicles these days have a coded strobe on top, which is picked up by sensors on traffic lights. Everyone has probably seen them, but didn’t know what they are. The coded light signal works in a similar way to a TV remote. The traffic light picks up the signal and turns red in all directions. Obviously, the van did not have this equipment. It is hard to tell in the video whether that light has a sensor or not.
I also think people blaming the car driver for not slowing down or stopping because traffic in the next lane over did, are Monday morning quarterbacking the accident. Traffic doesn’t visibly slow down or stop in the lanes over until one or at most two seconds before the collision. I don’t think it’s negligence to not slow down before the intersection because of that. The bigger issues to me are whether he should have heard a siren and whether he might be speeding. I’m unclear on both of those. I put much more blame on the van’s driver for this accident. Even with lights and siren on, he has to make sure there’s no oncoming traffic before proceeding through the intersection. He should be more on the alert and driving slower because he is the one going against the traffic control signal. If he had been going slower and watching for oncoming traffic, he should have seen the car and been able to brake in time to avoid the collision.
There were at least five other drivers going the same way as the car driver who DID slow and stop on the green light! There was only one fool who was clueless that there might be a problem up ahead. He could NOT know what the crossing vehicle was, but he COULD SEE that something was causing a LOT of drivers in his side of the street to STOP. My view is that the car driver needs to get a ticket for failing to yield.
michaelb, “blue lights are not considered emergency vehicles in New York. http://dmv.ny.gov/about-dmv/ch…”
It’s hard to tell, but I think the van has both blue and red lights flashing. I can’t tell whether the siren is going before the accident, but that just may be because of the music.
Darren, I appreciate your analysis, but must respectfully disagree with how you read the police report. You state “The report further reads the driver of the van had turret lights (another term for vehicle emergency lights) and red light (on vehicle).” The report actually states that the van’s driver “thought all E/B [eastbound] traffic stopped for veh. [vehicle] 1’s turret lights and red light at intersection when . . . .” The “red light” seems to me to clearly refer to the traffic signal and not a red light on the van. Turret lights include both all the lights on the van. It doesn’t make any sense to write that traffic stopped for all the lights on the van and the red light on the van. Earlier in the report when referring to the van’s lights being on, the investigating officer just uses “turret lights.” By referring to the “red light at the intersection” I think this is clearly talking about the traffic light. Which, as the video shows, is false.
Good point Michaelb
In NY only emergency vehicles equipped with red lights require other drivers to stop or yield. Blue lights give no special privilege to bypass traffic laws. Now we can say conclusively that the van’s driver is at fault for this collision.
http://dmv.ny.gov/about-dmv/chapter-5-intersections-and-turns
Bennett on 1, April 18, 2014 at 4:28 pm said: “The sign for the van seems to be “no U turn” to me. It is not clear to me that a left turn is not legal. But I never saw any flashing lights from the van.”
The sign indicates that both left turns and U-turns are prohibited: there’s a U-turn arrow and a arrow pointing left (it’s hard to see) out of the U. The flashing lights are there too (but hard to see).
“Thank god (or allah, or spaghetti monster) for video to expose the lies of our public servants.”
~
Guess I have to revise my statement. After multiple viewings it is possible to see the van’s flashing lights as early as 0:03 into the video. Of course, the danger of crossing multiple lanes is exactly what happened, not everyone can see all other vehicles clearly.
“…and red light at intersection…” is clearly incorrect in the report and needs to be amended. Otherwise, this should be considered a no fault collision.
I love to see the hate all cops folks here. Did it NEVER occur to those folks WHY ALL the other cars to his left were slowing down and STOPPING? THOSE cars also had a green light, yet THEY were stopping. The driver in the car is the one who is clearly at fault since the van had its emergency lights on which is what the officer was saying. He did NOT say did you not see the RED light. He was referring to the emergency light which WAS ON AND FLASHING. The VAN had the legal RIGHT OF WAY! Jeez people. I think that driver needs some driver ed or to turn down his music and PAY ATTENTION to what other drivers are doing.
The officers did not file a false police report nor commit perjury. I furthermore do not see evidence of abuse of office based upon the video and the snipped of the accident report as viewed in the link to the webpage provided. There are a few issues that are not being realized here:
The van was responding code 3 (emergency lights and siren) to an incident. This is evidenced by looking at the slow motion portion of the video and by pausing. Overhead emergency lights:
The siren can be heard continuing to wail (with occasional horn bursts) following the collision.
These are the events as what happened pursuant to the video and the snippet of the collision report narrative:
After the collsion the videographer contacts 911. During the conversation an unknown person asks the driver if he is OK. A second person, identified as the driver, states either “You didn’t see the light” or “You didn’t see the lights” Turning up the video to a loudest volume I possibly could it seems more likely the other person said “lights” and it is indeterminate to me if “lights” or “light” was said in the second question. If Lights was what the van driver was saying he is referring to his emergency lights as per police standards. If it is “Light” it referrs to the traffic signal. I tend to think it is more likely “lights” was what was said.
The collision report was most likely written by a NYC area local law enforcement officer as evidenced by the appearance of checkboxes for Bronx, etc. This would not be a standard form for a federal law enforcement agency. Standard procedure is for an outside agency to investigate the collision as federal agencies generally not equipped or trained to handle these type of investigation.
The collision report snippet, available HERE,states the van driver had believed all vehicles were stopped for intersection and proceeded through. The speed of the van is consistent with a vehicle that just began its turn and was not racing through the intersection.
The report further reads the driver of the van had turret lights (another term for vehicle emergency lights) and red light (on vehicle) Red in NY state is an emergency vehicle emergency light. The driver of the videographer vehicle stated he had a green light and the van turned in front of him.
NY state traffic code reads in section 1104
[Applicable to videographer.]
[Applicable to van driver]
ANALYSIS
Traffic safety and prudence, along with precidences involving collisions, are that upon the approach of an intersection having one or more vehicles stopped during a a green light require a driver approaching to slow to see if the other vehicles are stopped for an unknown reason. This is often, the case where a pedestrian or vehicle is immediately in front of the other vehicles. The approaching driver must slow to a very slow speed or stop until the reason for the stopping of the other vehilces has been determined.
Drivers of emergency vehicles in the same situation as the above paragraph, who are in opposition to the other vehicles are expected to determine if in the vacant lane to determine when turning left if any vehicles are about to approach the intersection. This is accomplished by slow entry into the turn. A mitigating factor for the driver of the emergency vehicle is that the black vehicle was tall yet this does not relieve the driver of the emergency vehicle from using care and caution in ascertaining if it is safe to drive through the intersection.
New York traffic law gives by statute priority in purposes of right away issues to emergency vehicles per se. Drivers of other, non-emergency vehicles are required to required to yield right on approach of an emergency vehilce at an intersection unless further directed by a law enforcement officer, of whom was not present apparently. The officer investigating this incident has cause to issue a citation to the videographer based upon the facts presented. The trier of fact can consider mitigating factors such, such as visibility issues and that the videographer had his stereo up too loud to hear the siren until after the collision. It is unknown to me if NY state has case law on this.
Had the van not been an emergency vehicle having used emergency lights and siren, the van driver would have committed a failure to yield. Additionally, the law allows an authorized emergency vehilce using emergency lights to break speed limits, disregard road signage, and disregard lane restrictions (signage) or directions. (one ways)
The driver of the van has a responsibility to use, under NY traffic law, due care and caution. The entry of the van into the intersection given the circumstances was unsafe.
CONCLUSIONS:
While the videographer would have been not at fault for the collision if the other vehicle was not an emergency vehicle as described above, however statutory provisions regarding yielding to approaching emergency vehicles grant those vehicles priority and right of way in the intersection. Based upon this overriding statutory factors, the driver violated sub section (a).
The van driver should have used due care and caution in such a situation as based opon the knowlege of the situation and underlying training for emergency vehilces and in my opinion, though not statutorily defined per se, the van driver is guilty of violating section (b).
I do not see evidence of official conduct or filing a false report. The report indicates it was a local officer who filed this and not the driver. There was not any form of unprofessional conduct other than the tone and loudnes of the van’s driver’s statement about seeing the light(s). It is unknown if any other unprofessional statements were made off camera. Drivers have a difference of cause as to what happened. Both accounts from their point of view are reasonable.
The previos is based upon my training and experience as a traffic collision investigator.
blue lights are not considered emergency vehicles in New York. http://dmv.ny.gov/about-dmv/ch…
” The vehicles displaying blue, green, or amber lights are not authorized emergency vehicles. Their drivers must obey all traffic laws. While you are not required to yield the right-of-way, you should yield as a courtesy if you can do so safely.”
Waldo, the reporting officer does not mention the no left turn sign
“Ted went home and discovered that his dash cam clearly captured the true story. The police report (shown on Dashspin) following the accident clearly charges him with the accident: “van was westbound on Rockaway making a left turn southbound onto Farmers Blvd states thought all Eastbound traffic stopped for vehicle’s turret lights and red light at intersection.” First of all, this account ignores the sign prohibiting a left turn. Second, the officer simply takes the federal officers’ accounts as gospel and implicates the private citizen.”
Professor Turley is mistaken here. The accident report does not appear to charge Ted with the accident. Rather it states both drivers’ version of what happened, which is entirely appropriate in a disputed accident. The quote from the report is the van driver’s version. The report also contains Ted’s version of the accident. I see nothing to indicate any wrongdoing of the police officer who responded to the accident and wrote the report.
The sign for the van seems to be “no U turn” to me. It is not clear to me that a left turn is not legal. But I never saw any flashing lights from the van. The cars in the left two lanes seemed to stop well back from the intersection which might mean that the van had “stick its nose out” into their lanes. But that left the right two lanes that the van was supposed to not interfere with.
Is it me or does it seem that many police officers seem to have a penchant to say anything to cover their backsides?
Doh! Not another dashcam. When will these guys learn?
Awesome …… Driver at fault should be personally liable
Geek
Dash Cam 101 Correction:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a proposed rule requiring all new light vehicles — including cars, SUVs, trucks and vans — to have “rear-view visibility systems,” in effect, requiring backup cameras.
=========================================================
Aren’t those cameras so that drivers can see where they are backing up in real time? Does the rule include recording capability?
I’m not sure the back up camera would really do much good. They will help people who are already careful, but those who back up like a bat out of hell won’t pay any more attention to the camera than they do to the rear view mirror.
Thank goodness for some truth ……..