I will agree with those above who observe that reveling in the termination of anyone isn't something that we should be doing. However, as much as it is never something to celebrate, it appears that the right decision was made.
People do lose their jobs for OVI, insurance issues, and losing their licenses when part of their job involves driving a vehicle. People actually lose their jobs for excessive points on their license (ask any CDL holder or trucker). Comparing the fallout from an OVI for people who do not drive as part of their job vs. those who do (and have a duty to enforce the law) is an apples and oranges comparison.
It also appears from the article though that it was much more than merely a licensure issue/OVI and also involved actions that were questionable given a police officer's duty to uphold the law and be truthful.
It's a sad, unfortunate circumstance that someone has lost employment. However, under the circumstances it appears that the decision was correct.
Not quite sure who that is you seem to be harping about, but I did take the liberty of looking up the section that you referenced.
4513.16 Lights of less intensity.
(A) Any motor vehicle may be operated under the conditions specified in section 4513.03 of the Revised Code when it is equipped with two lighted lights upon the front thereof capable of revealing persons and substantial objects seventy-five feet ahead, in lieu of lights required in section 4513.14 of the Revised Code, provided that such vehicle shall not be operated at a speed in excess of twenty miles per hour.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.
In reality it has nothing to do with probable cause since probable cause is a bare minimum threshold to conduct a stop of a vehicle. However, I will give you that it does have everything to do with whether or not he is convicted of the headlight infraction.
Based on what you have provided, any officer can stop a vehicle based on that statute and still meet that standard based on the suspicion that the vehicles lights run afoul of this regulation. To be successful in pursuing that case, I would agree that the state is going to have to establish that the headlights do not comply with the regualtion. That being said though, it does not change the fact that the stop is good based on the suspicion that whatever lights he had were not sufficient. And since that is the case, what transpires after that stop (e.g like smelling of alcohol, admitting to drinking, etc.) is all fair game and legit for other charges even if it is ultimately proven that he gets off on the initial headlight infraction. Correct?
I'd also note that this exception that you pointed out only appears to be available if the vehicle is going less than 20 mph......doubtful since 25 is the lowest posted speed limit. You did read the whole statute right? (and not just stop at the part about being allowed to have lesser headlights)
And by the way, I just caught the story update. How about you look up this one R.C. 2921.44(E). Is there a duty not to allow an intoxicated person to get behind the wheel of a vehicle? Is there a duty to report such action based upon the observation that the individual is likely intoxicated and operating a vehicle? Is there a duty to tell the truth to another police officer?
Those are the types of questions that this type of case raises, but it sounds like the arbitrator thought so...http://www.vindy.com/news/2013/jan/14/fired-struthers-cop-loses-bid-to-get-job/?newswatch
I have the same suspicion. When is the last time a prosecutor cowered at a request of the defense. Frankly this seems like a calculated move to put him in the best position to escape the consequences of his actions. Like there is any real debate about having probable cause to stop the car.... He was driving without headlights....he admitted to drinking.....he refused to take any field tests then refused to submit to a breath test. Seems like enforcing the law and being subject to it are different concepts.
Interesting comment....about standards that is. In reality the standard is being applied evenly. His job is to enforce the law and he has to drive a car to do that. This is no different than someone who drives as part of their job losing their license and their job as a result of refusing to blow. The administrative license suspension is not criminal... It is what happens for refusing to submit to a test after he was driving without headlights on AND admitting to drinking.
The only thing happening here which is unconscionable is that he is being allowed privileges AFTER REFUSING TO BLOW. For anyone else, privileges are not given. Another example of the prosecutor treating a cop more favorably than they would another member of the public in the same situation.
I guess that I am left wondering why no one has brought up that Jackson's appointment (by Krinos) was conditioned on him passing a civil service exam. If Jackson had passed the exam, this would never have even been an issue. While everyone here seems to be railing about playing politics, it seems like it would be more unfair to the members of the public and citizens who sat for the exam and passed it if the results were simply ignored. How is that possibly fair or even equitable to those people seeking employment through the civil service process, but don't know anyone or have an inside track. The civil service process, albeit imperfect, is supposed to eliminate this type of sniping. Unfortunately, it appears as though holding an employee to this standard is being seen as retribution as opposed to ensuring the all members of the public have a fair crack at civil service positions.
Fired Struthers cop loses bid to get job back
I will agree with those above who observe that reveling in the termination of anyone isn't something that we should be doing. However, as much as it is never something to celebrate, it appears that the right decision was made.
People do lose their jobs for OVI, insurance issues, and losing their licenses when part of their job involves driving a vehicle. People actually lose their jobs for excessive points on their license (ask any CDL holder or trucker). Comparing the fallout from an OVI for people who do not drive as part of their job vs. those who do (and have a duty to enforce the law) is an apples and oranges comparison.
It also appears from the article though that it was much more than merely a licensure issue/OVI and also involved actions that were questionable given a police officer's duty to uphold the law and be truthful.
It's a sad, unfortunate circumstance that someone has lost employment. However, under the circumstances it appears that the decision was correct.
January 15, 2013 at 10:40 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Officer awaits decision
Not quite sure who that is you seem to be harping about, but I did take the liberty of looking up the section that you referenced.
4513.16 Lights of less intensity.
(A) Any motor vehicle may be operated under the conditions specified in section 4513.03 of the Revised Code when it is equipped with two lighted lights upon the front thereof capable of revealing persons and substantial objects seventy-five feet ahead, in lieu of lights required in section 4513.14 of the Revised Code, provided that such vehicle shall not be operated at a speed in excess of twenty miles per hour.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.
In reality it has nothing to do with probable cause since probable cause is a bare minimum threshold to conduct a stop of a vehicle. However, I will give you that it does have everything to do with whether or not he is convicted of the headlight infraction.
Based on what you have provided, any officer can stop a vehicle based on that statute and still meet that standard based on the suspicion that the vehicles lights run afoul of this regulation. To be successful in pursuing that case, I would agree that the state is going to have to establish that the headlights do not comply with the regualtion. That being said though, it does not change the fact that the stop is good based on the suspicion that whatever lights he had were not sufficient. And since that is the case, what transpires after that stop (e.g like smelling of alcohol, admitting to drinking, etc.) is all fair game and legit for other charges even if it is ultimately proven that he gets off on the initial headlight infraction. Correct?
I'd also note that this exception that you pointed out only appears to be available if the vehicle is going less than 20 mph......doubtful since 25 is the lowest posted speed limit. You did read the whole statute right? (and not just stop at the part about being allowed to have lesser headlights)
And by the way, I just caught the story update. How about you look up this one R.C. 2921.44(E). Is there a duty not to allow an intoxicated person to get behind the wheel of a vehicle? Is there a duty to report such action based upon the observation that the individual is likely intoxicated and operating a vehicle? Is there a duty to tell the truth to another police officer?
Those are the types of questions that this type of case raises, but it sounds like the arbitrator thought so...http://www.vindy.com/news/2013/jan/14/fired-struthers-cop-loses-bid-to-get-job/?newswatch
January 14, 2013 at 11:47 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Officer awaits decision
I have the same suspicion. When is the last time a prosecutor cowered at a request of the defense. Frankly this seems like a calculated move to put him in the best position to escape the consequences of his actions. Like there is any real debate about having probable cause to stop the car.... He was driving without headlights....he admitted to drinking.....he refused to take any field tests then refused to submit to a breath test. Seems like enforcing the law and being subject to it are different concepts.
January 12, 2013 at 10:25 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Officer awaits decision
Interesting comment....about standards that is. In reality the standard is being applied evenly. His job is to enforce the law and he has to drive a car to do that. This is no different than someone who drives as part of their job losing their license and their job as a result of refusing to blow. The administrative license suspension is not criminal... It is what happens for refusing to submit to a test after he was driving without headlights on AND admitting to drinking.
The only thing happening here which is unconscionable is that he is being allowed privileges AFTER REFUSING TO BLOW. For anyone else, privileges are not given. Another example of the prosecutor treating a cop more favorably than they would another member of the public in the same situation.
January 12, 2013 at 8:29 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Firing a Campbell water worker wasn’t in city’s best interest
I guess that I am left wondering why no one has brought up that Jackson's appointment (by Krinos) was conditioned on him passing a civil service exam. If Jackson had passed the exam, this would never have even been an issue. While everyone here seems to be railing about playing politics, it seems like it would be more unfair to the members of the public and citizens who sat for the exam and passed it if the results were simply ignored. How is that possibly fair or even equitable to those people seeking employment through the civil service process, but don't know anyone or have an inside track. The civil service process, albeit imperfect, is supposed to eliminate this type of sniping. Unfortunately, it appears as though holding an employee to this standard is being seen as retribution as opposed to ensuring the all members of the public have a fair crack at civil service positions.
August 29, 2011 at 2:50 p.m. permalink suggest removal