ApparatusCriminal LawMunicipal LiabilityOccupational Safety & HealthYou Can't Make This Stuff Up
Curt Varone
Curt Varone has over 50 years of fire service experience and 40 as a practicing attorney licensed in both Rhode Island and Maine. His background includes 29 years as a career firefighter in Providence (retiring as a Deputy Assistant Chief), as well as volunteer and paid on call experience. Besides his law degree, he has a MS in Forensic Psychology. He is the author of two books: Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services, (2006, 2nd ed. 2011, 3rd ed. 2014, 4th ed. 2022) and Fire Officer's Legal Handbook (2007), and is a contributing editor for Firehouse Magazine writing the Fire Law column.
Related Articles
Milwaukee Firefighters to be Terminated for Vandalism
January 14, 2014
NJ Fire Chief and Firefighter Charged As Fire Company Closed
October 1, 2020
5 Comments
Check Also
Close
-
FDNY Pays $1 million on Gender Discrimination ClaimJune 14, 2013
Seems like a series of personal issues carried over to work and this happened.
Still, what his Co. Officer? didn't s/he notice any change in his behavior during the shift?
If he left the scene of the accident and then wasn't seen for several hours, how can they prove he was in toxicated at the time of th accident? How can they prove that during those several hours he was gone, that he didn't go drinking?
Mike
Good point on the criminal side for the drunk driving offense. But should beating a drunk driving charge have been his biggest worry? The fact he left work – went AWOL – under the circumstances would justify termination. They can also use the criminal info in his termination proceeding.
He also faces a perhaps more important criminal charge – one that cannot be explained away easily when he starts his quest for employment: leaving the scene of an accident.
Oh I'm not debating that he is guilty of AWOL and leaving the scene of an accident. I just don't see how they could charge him with DUI when he was absent from the scene for several hours.
Mike
I am agreeing with you. It would make the criminal case very hard to prove without an admission or confession. The fact raise an inference – there's some pretty strong circumstantial evidence – but it would be hard/impossible to prove he was drunk (or stoned) beyond a reasonable doubt… without more.
I just think he compounded a bad choice with an exceptionally bad choice…