By Carlos Miller
As the pressure mounts to fire the Oklahoma State Trooper who pulled an ambulance over, then placed a paramedic in a chokehold, the trooper’s attorney said the paramedic had it coming to him.
In a press conference today, attorney Gary James said Trooper Daniel Martin had a legal right to pull the ambulance over because it failed to yield to him as he was speeding by with sirens wailing and emergency lights flashing.
Nevermind the fact that Martin was only using his lights and sirens to pick up his wife for what appears to be nothing but a joyride.
Martin’s attorney also claims that EMT Maurice White escalated the situation by challenging the trooper’s authority, even though the trooper was committing a felony by interfering with the transport of an emergency patient.
And even though the video vividly proves that Martin was the only person escalating the situation.
Meanwhile, a petition to fire Martin created by a Miami librarian and introduced on Photography is Not a Crime has already surpassed 2,000 signatures, even though it’s been less than 48 hours since it was first posted.
The librarian, Theo Karantsalis, also interviewed retired South Florida police officer Glenn Rice in the above video. Rice was the first person to sign the petition. I was the second.
Martin is currently on paid administrative leave pending an internal investigation, which is probably why he feels he needs a lawyer because prosecutors have already determined they are not going to file charges against him.
Check out the original video shot by a family member of the patient.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Related posts:
- Oklahoma Trooper case gets national exposure in mainstream media
- Oklahoma trooper once again accused of using excessive force
- Oklahoma EMT sues lying cop
- Oklahoma cop proves to be a liar after dash cam is released (sign petition to get him fired)
- Oklahoma cops refuse to release dashcam video of chokehold incident
Support Photography is Not a Crime by buying your electronics through this ad.
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
just another stupid redneck pig who thinks he is above the law…
Keep slinging. The dust-up will settle and the various charges COULD be assigned. Piglet McPhukwit may find his responsibility in this sordid shite.
This raises the question of what constitutes failure- to-yield, when obviously the Driver did yield once recognizing both the speeding patrol car and a safe point to pull over. Has this been addressed anywhere in Carlos’ other posts on this incident? Anyone know what constitutes failure-to-yield in OK?
I still think the trooper is exhibiting road rage, if mild, in the video.
Ariel,
This is what I found.
http://www.kanialaw.com/case-types/criminal-defense/oklahoma-crimes/traffic-offenses/failure-to-yield-to-emergency-vehicle.htm
Thanks, Carlos,
Unfortunately, the nimrods that legislated this left out “Safely” in the definition of pulling over. I imagine reasonable and prudent might apply here.
However in part A, it uses the phrase “immediate approach” regarding an emergency vehicle with lights & audible signal; 50 ft, 100 ft, 500ft, 5 secs, 10 secs, etc., what is immediate?
Once the driver recognizes the approach? In AZ this is always an issue because of AC, stereo, and bright sunlight.
Ariel,
The question I have is can a cop turn on his emergency lights and sirens whenever he feels like it and call it an “emergency”?
It is obvious there never was an emergency in this incident, so that should make the whole “failure to yield” law irrelevant in this case.
Carlos #6,
I’m aware of what you’ve written, but I have a feeling OHS will maintain that Trooper Martin was on an emergency call. If that falls through, the next spin will be that the Driver could not have known that Martin was not on a lawful call and still should have yielded more quickly to the siren and audible signal. Personally, I yield when I ascertain that I can do it safely. Period.
I see the Driver doing just that.
Trust me…I know from experience…Oklahoma cops sit at home and rub themselves imagining they are as tough as their Texas counterparts.
I am not surprised by this. That is why I let the air out of patrol tires anytime possible. I know it costs the taxpayers 25 cents to refill the tire but that is why I do not file.
Ariel and Carlos – I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I think a good lawyer might be able to spin part B in the ambulance’s favor in this case. It says “nor shall this section operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.” By my take, it doesn’t say “the” authorized emergency vehicle, it says “an” authorized emergency vehicle. I would consider an ambulance (with or without lights and sirens running) “an authorized emergency vehicle”, wouldn’t you?
Kylie,
I do consider that part B may be applicable, but I’m not a lawyer either. If “safely” or “reasonable and prudent” were in part A, they’d have no argument against the Driver. “R and P” may be implied though, and as I’ve written before, I don’t see a failure-to-yield, I see a driver pulling over when he can safely do it. As I wrote above, clarifying “immediate approach” in part A would explain much.
Ariel – agreed, agreed, and agreed.
There are a lot of laws (this one included) in this country, at every level of government, that could use some not-so-common-sense clarifications.
Hasn’t anybody official noticed yet WHY the ambulance didn’t pull over right away?
There was a parked car on the side of the road. The ambulance had to get past that first then pull over. He couldn’t brake hard before the car due to the patient in the back.
This is dead obvious from the dashcam.
First, you need to correct some misstatements. The trooper was not going to get his wife. He was on a call on a reported stolen car, and when he arrived at the scene, he was told he wasn’t needed. That’s in local reporting. He saw the ambulance go by and left to chase it down.
All said, he has apparently misrepresented what happened, the two videos support the paramedic’s story and contradict his, and he should be penalized appropriately.
Carlos:
You mention about turning on lights. Well I live across the state from you in Naples. A while ago before Don Hunter left, he made it public he was cracking down on cops who fire up their lights while driving through an intersection and then turning them off. I even saw him personally pull one over for doing it. It was short lived, I see them do it her from time to time.
My recommendation is: If you see a cop do that, call it in on the local non emergency number and report it to the dispatcher. It might work here, but I doubt anything would be done in Miami. I mean, it’s a big city, most of the cops there are corrupt.
Never file a report. They’ll ask you for your drivers license and stuff. Thats none of their business. The proper way to handle these reports is to have a supervisor call you back and you make the report to him.
I’ve been considering raising hell here reporting ever infraction I see, just to be a pain in the ass. This Oklahoma thing I think has pushed me over the edge and I’ll start doing it.
Paul, why are you concerned about a cop putting on his lights to go through an intersection, did you ever think maybe he needs to get somewhere?
I have no problem with cops turning their lights on at an intersection. They may in fact have an emergency to attend to.
The problem I have is when they traverse the intersection, they turn them off and keep on going. How is crossing an intersection without having to wait an emergency? If it’s emergecny, leave the lights on. Don’t just shut them off afterwards.
That is what I’ve witnessed here in South Florida, specifically, Lee, Collier and Dade counties. It’s probably happening all over the state and the rest of the country.
Carlos,
The trooper claims that the dashboard cam upholds his actions.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526495,00.html
Paul, have you ever thought that they could be going somewhere that doesn’t necessarily require lights and sirens but still requires a fast response. Maybe a domestic violence call, a burglar alarm, a car accident, a fight, or 100’s of other things police respond to.
Jones,
The things you listed, are emergencies (with exception of a burglar alarm). D.V. (the definition of which is looser then a Savannah girl during the Florida-Georgia games) need to be responded to ASAP.
Car accidents need to be look at and reports made as quickly as possible so traffic can get flowing again. Someone could be hurt, etc etc.
I’m not saying a majority of the time lights arwe abused, just some of the time.
Paul,
I’ve personally seen and verified that a LEO used his lights to avoid waiting at a stop light, nothing more than that.
A few years back my city put out a policy statement through the local paper that this will not be tolerated because of the increased chance of intersection accidents.
Yes, jones, many of us realize that police do not always use their lights and also maintain a reasonable speed while responding to a call. Do you realize that some police use their lights when they’re too impatient to wait at a long stoplight when they want to buy a pack of cigs?
OK statute 21650.3: §21-650.3. Delaying, obstructing or interfering with emergency medical technician or other emergency medical care provider – Punishment.
Every person who willfully delays, obstructs or in any way interferes with an emergency medical technician or other emergency medical care provider in the performance of or attempt to perform emergency medical care and treatment or in going to or returning from the scene of a medical emergency, upon conviction, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Added by Laws 1990, c. 320, § 1, emerg. eff. May 30, 1990
In essence, the Trooper could not arrest the EMT at the stop, and once the EMT has said “patient” the Trooper was violating the law. I’m finding LEOs falling on both sides of this issue, but FDs and Ambulance Services are on the side of the EMT with qualifications. FD Association (sic) in OK points out that they normally run without siren/lights with heart patients to reduce anxiety, and that the EMT is responsible for the Unit.
The LEOs against the Trooper point out his rage, that the Ambulance did not fail-to-yield but did so in a reasonable way, that the gesture is something the Trooper has no right to react to and detain for, and that “patient” ends the stop immediately. There is no consensus within LE on this one.
(this is a comment which I have added to most of the posts on this incident, if you wish to comment go to the post regarding this story going national)
I QUOTE ONE OF YOU IDIOTS: “Hasn’t anybody official noticed yet WHY the ambulance didn’t pull over right away?
There was a parked car on the side of the road. The ambulance had to get past that first then pull over. He couldn’t brake hard before the car due to the patient in the back.”
THIS IS A BOLD FACED LIE!. IN FACT, the WHITE OLDSMOBILE that was actually IN FRONT OF THE AMBULANCE SOMEHOW HEARD THE TROOPER’s SIREN, and PULLED OVER!!! YOU CAN SEE ALL THE WAY DOWN THE ROAD, and it’s CLEAR! THE ambulance driver SIMPLY WAS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL. The trooper was FORCED TO PULL INTO oncoming traffic to get by!!! THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE RISK. YOU DAMN CONSPIRACY THEORISTS are all just criminals, who sit at home and bitch at everyone because your life sucks, and you’re broke!!! GET A LIFE PEOPLE!! The EMT got what YOU OR I WOULD HAVE…..HE SHOULD have stayed in the back!!!
Mike #23,
It is also a questionable risk for the ambulance to pull over onto a soft shoulder. I have also noted elsewhere that people respond to approaching emergency vehicles at different rates. Each driver has to assess when it is safe to pull over based on what he is driving and road conditions.
If you would read my post directly above yours you would realize this is not as cut-and-dried as you seem to think and that a number of LEOs actually disagree with you. Do some googling on the subject for godsakes and go to some of the police blogs where this is being discussed. The better reasoned, less knee-jerk comments are not for the Trooper, and vary from neutral to against.
In my post above yours you might also read the applicable statute regarding the mistake the Trooper made. The EMT is in charge of the Unit, and has good reason to address the Trooper given the law on the matter.
Oh, by the way, I’m not a criminal and likely as or more law-abiding than you. My income is likely higher than yours also, not that that’s pertinent but it seems to be a big deal to you regarding people’s right to speak.
Mike:
Odd how you ifnore the fact that the ambulance /did/ pull over. The cop was upset that they didn’t pull over fast enough to suit him.
You also ignore the fact that the EMT in charge of the unit tried repeatedly to move the incident to the hospital, because they were carrying a patient. The cop was (IMO) too pissed off to care that he was interfering with the medical transportation of the patient – was she a “ciminal”, too?
Speaking of “criminals”, when did being critcal of the police become a crime in your world? Is it a crime to speak disparaginly of a cop with a grudge who, while off-duty, left a bar he went into for the purpose of raising hell with the bouncer he hated, and went back to his car for his pistol. Once armed, he went back into the bar, and shot the bouncer dead, then had the gall to try to claim “self-defense” for shooting the unamed man. (Fortunately, that criminal-in-uniform was convicted for that crime.)
But the way you go on ignoring the facts here suggests to me that you’d defend that cop, too. And no, I didn’t make it up – it really happened.
You appear to be ignoring the fact that in hindering the transportation of a patient, this cop could be in violation of the law, himself.
Nemo,
Police run alcoholism and alcohol abuse at twice the rate of the general population, along with the associated crime of DV, as well likely physical assault and DUI. A cop in a bar is a bomb waiting to go off. A cop leaving a bar is a DUI in progress.
Ariel:
As I recall the story, that case wasn’t alcohol-related. He really was a criminal in uniform. I like to think assholes like that are the rarity, not the rule. Asshole in question believed he was above the law, and played Judge Dredd, IIRC.
The sad thing is that there were apologists, like one we might know, who tried to justify badger-boi acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Scary.
Polie are human, too – power corrups, unless responsibility prevents. “For your convenience” really means “for OUR convenience”, and all too many civil servants mistake themselves for “civil masters”. Ain’t nothing new, but unless the populace resists, they tend to become entrenched. As I understand it, liscense plates were once a voluntary option, sold as a theft-prevention aid, and now they are mandatory. Likewise, ‘they’ promised that seat-belt laws would only be “The cherry on top” for traffic violations, as it were. Now, you have things like “Click it or ticket”.
The first rule of Ferengi Acquisition is “Once you have their money, never give it back.” Substitute ‘money’ for ‘Rights’, and Police for Ferengi…
The EMT is suing the trooper-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534312,00.html
“Paramedic Maurice White is seeking punitive and compensatory damages against Trooper Daniel Martin in a case that rose to national prominence this summer after a cell phone video of the conflict appeared on YouTube — showing Martin at one point grabbing White by the neck.”
Thanks for the update, Jon. Looks like Mr. White is turning up the heat:
http://newsok.com/medical-technician-files-lawsuit-against-trooper/article/3386953
Works for me, considering that the troopie’s lawyer blamed the troopie’s escalation on White.
–
Police misconduct: it’s not a black/white issue, it’s not a dem/rep issue. It’s a citizen issue. United we stand, divided we fall.