Fire Law Podcast – Episode 3: California Police Fire Wars
On February 4, 2014, Chula Vista firefighter Jacob Gregoire was arrested by a California Highway Patrol officer at the scene of a roll over on Interstate 805. Curt Varone and FF Gregoire’s attorney, Dan Gilleon, discuss the arrest and the civil suit they have brought against the officer and CHP.
NOTE: Please allow time for the audio to load. It may take up to 5 minutes depending on connection speed. It may also be downloaded at iTunes.
As we pointed out in previous posts about police officers arresting firefighters at incident scenes, most states have laws that make it a criminal offense for anyone to interfere with firefighters in the performance of their duties.
California Penal Code 148.2 states as follows:
Every person who willfully commits any of the following acts at the burning of a building or at any other time and place where any fireman or firemen or emergency rescue personnel are discharging or attempting to discharge an official duty, is guilty of a misdemeanor:
- Resists or interferes with the lawful efforts of any fireman or firemen or emergency rescue personnel in the discharge or attempt to discharge an official duty.
- Disobeys the lawful orders of any fireman or public officer.
- Engages in any disorderly conduct which delays or prevents a fire from being timely extinguished.
- Forbids or prevents others from assisting in extinguishing a fire or exhorts another person, as to whom he has no legal right or obligation to protect or control, from assisting in extinguishing a fire.
California Penal Code 148.2 does not make an exception for members of the California Highway Patrol. “Every person”…. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!!!! Including members of the California Highway Patrol.
I have over ten years of experience in the emergency medical field and in law enforcement (separately). I have seen many ego issues from both corners, law enforcement and fire fighters alike. Thankfully, this is found more in playful banter back and forth, rather than in incidents like this. While I agree that this may not have been the most appropriate way to handle the situation, I do see a few holes in this particular firefighter’s case:
1) The scene was behind a K rail
2) The K rail ended near the scene
3) The ambulance was stopped just in front of where the K rail ended in the median, therefore was more protected by the K rail than the fire truck.
4) If the scene and ambulance were protected by the K rail, why was it necessary for the fire truck to block the fast lane of the freeway? It seems to be more of a traffic hazard than a help at that location. Why not park just ahead where the ambulance was located, out of the lane, after any needed equipment was unloaded. If you watch the video in full screen, it shows engine 54 blocking the #1 and #2 lane while another vehicle and the ambulance were in the median just beyond the end of the K rail. If the fire engine was truly protecting the ambulance, it would have been closer to it.
5) While the fire captain may have declared himself the incident commander, the California Vehicle Code dictates that the CHP is the incident commander at emergency incidents on the freeway.
6) The fireman in question was not primarily responsible for the patient care or primarily responsible for the scene in a medical capacity. The ambulance crew was responsible for that.
7) From the video, there was an ample number of personnel there to assist with medical care. He could have taken the time to move the truck without sacrificing patient care or safety. If patient care was such big issue, why was there a second fireman holding a flashlight and watching the officer place the other firefighter in handcuffs.
From what I see in this situation, the arrest may have been ego on the officer’s part and poor way to handle the situation, but the refusal to move the truck seems more ego than safety based and the lawsuit seems a poor response and mostly retaliatory based. Admittedly, much of this is speculation since I was not there and largely based on the video footage and the lawyer’s comments. But then again, the media’s coverage has been based on the same information. I would love to see the unedited video, but I have only been able to locate the news reel that was played on air.
Dear Devil
I think you are missing some key details. In the fire service – you do not ask a driver to move a vehicle, you ask his officer. That is fire service chain of command and culture that law enforcement ought to understand. The positioning of the apparatus is the officer’s responsibility and it would be insubordination for the driver to take it upon himself to move the vehicle without his officer’s approval.
You heard the attorney’s explanation of what happened as well as I did. The crews at the scene were exposed to the danger of vehicles going by. The engine was in a blocking position to protect personnel. That is what we teach firefighters and fire officers to do: protect themselves and their patients. Once the patients had been packaged they would have left.
But let’s assume you are correct – that there was a legitimate debate about whether the truck was or was not needed to block the lanes to protect the EMS crew and the firefighters assisting with the patient packaging. That is not the issue.
The issue is how do we handle it when emergency responders from different agencies disagree. Do cops automatically have the right to arrest anyone who does something at an incident scene that they – in their infinite wisdom – don’t think is necessary? You say you have an EMS background. If you believed a patient needed to be intubated immediately – but a police officer on the scene wanted your vehicle moved “immediately” and threatened to arrest you if you did not transport from the scene or at least move your ambulance off the highway… what are you supposed to do?
The issue is a bigger one because we are all (police, fire and EMS) required by federal law to use ICS – and a basic premise of ICS is that no responding agency’s objectives will be ignored. The police have a legitimate concern about traffic – and the risk of secondary accidents. Fire cannot ignore that. Fire has legitimate concerns about scene safety. Police cannot ignore that. Disputes over detailed factual allegations like what you posted should be worked out through critiques and after-action reports – not through arrests and criminal charges.
BUT – if the cops can arrest the firefighters for not following their orders… (and for the record I don’t think they should) then the cops should be arrested for interfering with firefighters under Cal Penal Code 148.2. It’s not a pretty solution… but maybe it will encourage cooler heads to prevail.
First, thank you for responding to me. I do appreciate it. Having an intelligent debate and respectful responses in blogs is rare.
My observations that I responded with are for this incident only.
Don’t get me wrong, if I was that officer, from what I saw, I would not have made the same decision. But, as an officer, we do have similar priorities. We look at scene safety first. In this instance, the k rail protected the scene more than the engine and the engine’s positioning would more likely cause additional crashes and expose the first responders (fire included) to that additional crash risk. It would have been safer in the median. This is not normally the case, but in this particular case, it appears it was. Second, we look at medical needs of the victims. Again, in this case, the fireman was not intubating the patient, holding c-spine or performing similar actions, and was not primary in giving medical care.
You are absolutely right that the officer should have contacted the fire department’s commander on scene to move the truck. Unfortunately, some officers don’t think about that because we normally do not have a supervisor on scene. It is the officer’s responsibility to handle the scene unless a supervisor decides to respond or give direction through dispatch. This is rare in CHP’s case. Personally, l do look for a captain or chief on scene if I need equipment moved or need an update of what’s going on, on their end.
Also, even if I am the ic, I don’t demand that an engine be moved, I ask that it be moved as soon as practical, and lay out my reasoning if necessary. I will also listen if they have reasons to not do it. Maybe this officer tried this, maybe not.
In any case, the firefighter’s detention caused way more issues than it solved, caused a huge rift between our professions, and could have been handled much more efficiently in an after action review with all the agencies involved. Keeping egos in check on both sides and working together, not against each other, goes a long way in having a successful outcome to any scene.
As far as the 148.2 PC goes, the officer detained the firefighter for 148a PC, obstructing or delaying an officer, the equivalent to 148.2, but for delaying the officer. I personally think the DA made the right call and didn’t file either charge (as they could have on both sides). Even if one side or the other thought charges should have been filed, unless an immediate risk was posed, a complaint to the DAs office would have been more appropriate. Then an independent, third party could have evaluated the situation and made the decision whether to file charges with the court. In 99.999%, I think even this option is extreme.
Long story short, the officer may have won the battle on scene, but the CHP undoubtedly lost the war in the court of public opinion.
My final note before I shut my pie hole, whether you wear red, blue, or tan to work, be safe, watch out for each other, and try to remember we are all working forward the same goal in the end.
Thanks.
148a PC is not the primary focus and is secondary to 142.8 PC. The reason is if the CHP Officer had a concern about safety, his first objective would be to use his patrol car and/or road flares etc. to make a traffic hazard less likely to happen. I.E. To act upon his concern that the truck was a safety hazard.
How did arresting the fireman make the scene safer for anyone? What did the CHP Officer do realitive to public safety on the Highway. That would his job.First and foremost. It is what his training culminates in. Public Safety.