hopperja

My opinion:

If the officer is found to be wrong and it is determined he should have known better but didn't or knew better and acted maliciously, then the OP would have grounds for a civil lawsuit and the officer should be disciplined or even fired (particularly if it was malicious).

If the officer is found to be wrong but it was due to a lack of training, the officer should not be disciplined but get appropriate training.

This is IF the officer is found to be wrong. While it sounds like he was, we've only heard one side of the story. In my experience it's difficult to determine the truth with only one side of the story.

CB HI

I think your council meeting idea is a good one. Even get the news media there.

Digital_Cowboy

It has been shown that at least in this case that the "facts" that the police have put out has changed just about every time they've been interviewed. So how are we to trust their accounting of the events leading up to the officer's visit to the OP's house? As the last time I checked the truth does not change or need revising.

The only reason I can think of for the police's version of the events is that they're trying to "spin it" so that they come out looking good.

An example of this is that the OP had suggested an alternate route, but was shot down with the chief of police saying that it was not an option because her daughter would still be "unsupervised."

Tem

BikePortland put a pdf of the original police report on their site: https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...1090213060.pdf

It's pretty obvious that the chief's statements to the tv station and to the newspaper directly contradict what's in the report.

No Whey

For possible forwarding:

https://www.massbike.org/projectsnew/...icer-training/

hopperja

Spinning it is certainly one way to characterize it. So, let's see. The police report, according to Tem in post #429 says one thing, the Chief said another thing. The Chief wasn't there and is relaying information third hand. In court, his word would be hearsay and not admissable. Legally speaking, in a court of law, the Chief's word would be meaningless. So, has the story changed, or did the Chief get it wrong?

CB HI

If the Chief of Police has such severe reading comprehension problems, he needs to be fired.

What would you think of him getting an arrest warrant wrong and putting you in jail because of it.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, or worse because of his getting an arrest/search warrant wrong costing an innocent civilian their life?

Given that he has or should have the first LEO's incident report how difficult is it for him or the mayor to get the facts correct?

sudo bike

While true, I think what it boils down to is according to both the police report (which was linked earlier) and the Chief's statement, at no point was a law broken by the girl. I take two things away from this:

1) If no law was broken by her, but as the officer later said he witnessed many "close calls", almost by definition there must have been drivers breaking the law which he chose not to cite. Close calls don't generally happen when everyone is following the law. Why didn't he cite those drivers making the situation unsafe, rather than going after the (perceived) victim? That alone seems to be poor judgment.

2) If no laws were broken, should the officer's opinion warrant this woman having to deal with CPS? Yes, LEO's make judgment calls, and I think that's a good thing (within reason). But judgment is usually reserved (or should be) for when immediate action must be taken; it's needed because there's no time to consult others. If the officer really felt that it was urgent the girl be removed from the situation (see number 1 for why I think this wasn't the case), then picking her up and bringing her home might be understandable, but not the executive decision of opening a case with CPS. He brought her home, he let the mother know he felt an unsafe situation was occurring, but that no law was being broken, he's done his job. Further action should not be taken unless a law has been broken, IMO. That exceeds the realm judgment should rule over.

Frankly, it sounds as though the officer let his personal opinion breech his professional opinion, two very different things that need to be kept separate. If the officer felt it was unsafe for a black person to ride in a white neighborhood, would we also just chalk that up to a LEO's "judgment call"?

BikeMomTn

Ok I know this is my word against his, and I know that its hard to understand I am not trying to be biased here. The when the officer brought my daughter home what I perceived was him basically saying "obey me or CPS will come after you"

If the officer had come without a preformed "judgement" and was willing to discuss the situation I would been far more receptive to the situation.

And by the way this is being discussed in the Richmond Va on Tuesday I believe. When it publishes I will provide the link.

No Whey

Because the girl was the problem/obstruction being avoided and she was easier to stop and easier to keep off the roadway. Safety issue resolved, and girl safe and a convenient way to go talk to the parent. Easier and more effective than keeping multiple adult drivers operating safely. And since he can't expect to correct law-breaking and poor behavior by motorists, the safety situation will essentially be permanent.


It may be the police have an obligation to contact CPS when when there's evidence a parent isn't responding to a safety issue with their child. There already was a case open, and I think the mother may have mentioned it because she had previously asked CPS if it would be okay for the girl to ride to school and they said yes.
This somewhat deflects the officer's threat, but he didn't know if that was a true statement or just a ploy.

She disagreed with the officer's judgment (and I think she was right), she had CPS approval, she felt the girl was capable of riding safely, and he saw that as dismissal of his professional opinion and he wasn't a hero, he was a hindrance. Ouch.
I wish there was audio, video, or a transcript of this meeting.

As you say, police in safety situation get to use their own judgment, and his opinion and the conventional wisdom of a significant majority of road users is that cycling on roadways, especially by a ten-year-old girl (let's not forget the gender bias here) is dangerous. Nobody in their right mind wants to see a little girl hurt or killed, and he felt it was good choice to remove her from what he saw as a dangerous situation.
And calls to police confirmed this fear for the girl's safety. He's mainstream in this regard, not excessive.

What I think he needs is mostly some education and training about the actual safety facts regarding roadway cycling. The dangers are overstated and routinely believed - a holdover from when people were kids and told to stay off the roads. Guess what, you are allowed to use the roads even if you are a kid. Just be competent.

Police chief: Girl is safe, parent informed, solutions begin worked on(um... when?), we allow cyclists, just not this little girl despite her competency and legality (unstated: because we don't trust motorists and they outnumber the little girl). We are professional and if we did anything out of step, it was to save the welfare and possibly the life of a little girl and that trumps any other issue.

See the state police statement here at the bottom regarding a Massachusetts case of a legal (adult) cyclist removed from the roadway by police:
https://bikelaws.org/Rt2Road.htm#Rowinsky

"What we're saying is, `You have a legal right, but do you have a moral right?'"
"Someone could get extremely hurt,"
I doubt a state police lieutenant is inexperienced or thoughtless. They know motorists have a number of careless and reckless operators among their fellows. And they are pretty much powerless to stop them, unless they enforce traffic laws all the time.

But he is also defending the police enforcing morality and not merely the law.

In this case of a child, they can exert even more authority than with an adult.

They believe they are within their rights to deny someone else's rights for the greater public good of safety.
Are they right? That's up to the courts and possibly other higher powers if you believe in them.

I'm curious that the girl was never noticed last spring.
Nobody called 911? The police were never notified?

It's the start of the school year and more is noticed because of the change and the police are watching more closely for problems as the changing situation warrants paying closer attention to drivers as it gets busier and more confusing in the morning rush-hour and after-school period.

I think the officer brought the girl home to discuss this with the parent, felt she didn't respond (share his beliefs), told her he would have to notify CPS, and she started a campaign to get this public because she felt it was ridiculous and because kids should have a right to ride to school on public roads without their parents being demonized.

Motorists, police departments, kids and other cyclists need to be educated about roadway cycling.
And this I believe is the ultimate goal of the mother of the child. And to get some Safe Routes To School activity going in Elizabethton. Parents and kids are encouraged to participate. Get in touch with the schools.

I hope the police can get past this and start working on solutions to the issue. They do have bigger fish to fry, and may be waiting for this to blow over.

I hope the child can get some education and fun out of this situation and keep riding safely.
She and the other road users probably have to work on their defensive driving skills.

OF COURSE THIS IS ALL CONJECTURE BECAUSE I AM GETTING MY INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNET!

sudo bike

So remove the victim because it's easier? See my example of a perceived threat to a black person riding through a neighborhood of predominantly whites (or vice-versa). If there were danger perceived by the officer, we would likely not find it acceptable to remove the victim in that situation, even though it's more "convenient" than actually dealing with the lawbreakers. We would simply go after the lawbreakers. Sometimes the best and right solution is not the easiest solution.

EDIT: The point is, if someone is doing something within their rights, even though it may be simpler, we generally don't tolerate suppressing their rights for the sake of ease. Look at the case not long ago of the school that sent 3 boys home for wearing American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo (a quick Google will turn up the story if you didn't hear it); while in that case they were obviously stirring the pot, there was quite a bit of outrage over the fact that they were told they could not do something within their rights because of worry that others would commit a crime. That sort of thing just usually isn't tolerated by society.


I think that's what we're discussing; why this situation is silly, and things like this, as a society, are getting out of hand. As I said, generally police judgment should be (and in most cases is) reserved for when immediate action is necessary. This should have been punted up the line where a decision could have been made by the department whether to pursue further action. This may seem useless, but it isn't at all; something as important as opening a case with CPS gets a closer review before being initiated. As it is, it very much looks like the officer let his personal opinion color his professional action; "I don't think a girl that age should be riding unsupervised to school". Well, that's all well and good, but if that was his driving force, and it sounds like it was, that's his personal opinion and it really isn't any of his business. He never said she was a hazard to other people or that other people were held up, just that he felt she shouldn't be riding alone to school. As I said, if this was to be elevated, it should have been punted up the line; field executive decisions, no matter how you cut it, should/are reserved for when immediate action is necessary.

No Whey

Yes, remove the potential victim. This happens when breaking up fights ALL THE TIME.
It's not necessarily my belief, but it is what gets the job done.
And I'm only suggesting what the officer may have been thinking.
If you believe a hazard is imminent, safety will often trump rights.

The officer may have done this -better safe than sorry.
Yes, and keeping people away from a potential hazard such as construction or some other hazard is routine even if a person has a right to travel there.


Yes, and some of society isn't approving and a lot of society is.
We have to wait and see what the results of the situation become.


I think the officer felt immediate action was necessary to prevent an accident.
And he wanted the situation to not be repeated.

Why he didn't relent later is what I cannot grasp.
And the CPS case was *already* open AFAIK.

Of course the officer let his personal opinion get involved.
He wasn't trained to know otherwise than the girl is incapable of riding safely and probably sincerely believed the girl was in danger.
He did not know the details of the girl's capability and the mother's trust in her ability.
When he was informed, he could not be swayed.
His chief feels similarly or at least trusts the opinion of his officer.
And that opinion is shared by the majority of the public.
Riding bike on public ways is considered unsafe, even when that isn't actually the case.
Allowing a 10-year-old girl to do something unsafe makes it worse.

But the police like many other motoring Americans errantly believe cycling on roadways is horribly dangerous and also that it's a real inconvenience to them. They have to slow down and pay more attention and can't zone out as usual.
They need to realize the public ways are for everybody, not merely motor vehicle drivers and that they have a greater responsibility for their operating behavior than many tend to accept.
Thankfully a majority are pretty good, but far too many are lacking in ability to operate safely and courteously.

So, I think the officer went too far, but the situation can be changed.
CYA is going to be the first response. Yes, it's not a happy situation.
Apparently the chief wants to work something out but hasn't yet really tried to contact the mother.

I don't think the chief is making his department look good despite the attempt to defend his officer.
He's got to take some action to retain integrity.

I gotta stop commenting and just wait for a while and see what happens.
I may not agree with the police, but I can understand their viewpoint.
I'm more in agreement with the mother, but I really hope this doesn't turn the kid off of riding for transportation, because the bus ride certainly wasn't any fun either.
And what about the other kids who ride?

Digital_Cowboy

Exactly.

I think that that is what most of us here would like to know. Given that it was the motorists and not the "victim" who were breaking the law and thus creating the unsafe conditions, why not go after those who were actually breaking the law(s)? And given that the "victim" wasn't breaking any laws herself, weren't the actions of the LEO in itself illegal?

Agreed, and as I've asked before hasn't this pretty much been settled in Selz v. Trotwood? In which in that case we had a female officer who thought that it was dangerous for a person to ride a bicycle on a particular road. And that even after having had the law explained to her she had stated in open court on and for the record that she would still stop and cite a cyclist for doing what SHE thought was "unsafe" behavior.

Agreed, and he compounded his error in judgement when he threatened to sic CPS on the mother if she didn't do what he thought that she should do. While I do agree that that was also wrong of him and not within the prevue of his job description. I do not as some have suggested think that he needs to be fired. Suspended, yes; reassignment, again yes; but not firing, UNLESS he shows an inability separate his personal belief/judgement from what the law actually says.

Digital_Cowboy

BMT,

Given some of the comments/support that you have received here I think that it is safe to say that most of us here would probably have responded much the same as you did when confronted by a rude, unprofessional bully of a LEO.

He should not have been surprised that you did not respond in the way that he expected given how he approached the situation. As he was disrespectful towards you and your daughter.

No Whey

I don't think he should be fired or suspended, I think he should be educated and trained.
And he should be warned about inserting his beliefs into the law.

Time for some CAUTION: BIKES IN ROADWAY signage?
Is there a Kickstarter site for activists?

qmsdc15

You are a courageous woman. It looks like your daughter will not be hassled for riding her bike again as long as she follows the rules. I believe your efforts have forced the police department to learn about the rights of cyclist and may benefit other riders, adults as well as children.

I hope you are successful in getting the SRTS program established and in educating police and others on the issue. I know the process has been stressful and time consuming, but in the end some good may come out of it, thanks to your strength and perseverance.

trek2.3bike

IAAL. I've been observing the police "up close and impersonal" for 40 years. My opinion has gone down every year.
Small towns can't hire the best at anything but many set new lows in police hiring and training practices.

An officer need not know ALL laws but he must know EVERY law he proports to enforce. Their training does cover the state's laws.

Every "judgment" an officer makes (often little more than uneducated speculation, as here) must be founded on a correct application of the law.
Legislators make laws, not power loving men with stunted egos (police) or power loving women with giant egos (CPS). Otherwise no one is safe.

I wish I was admitted in Tennessee.

P. S. Nowhere can a person get elected District Attorney without the support of the police. So every discretionary call by a DA will benefit the poilce.

pocky

Well, in my opinion, one of either Police Chief Matt Bailey or Investigator Willard Johnson absolutely *should* be officially disciplined or fired -- not for poor judgement in determining that riding a bike a mile is unsafe (retraining should solve that), but for LYING OUTRIGHT about this whole situation in order to cover their ass! The most egregious offense here is the chief telling the public news media several things that directly contradict each other and the official police report -- which is completely consistent with BikeMomTN's original post. She and Bill Hobbs clearly illustrate these contradictions in post #355, and post 359, and it's clear that one of either the officer or the chief is lying. A scanned copy of the official police report is in plain view for all to see at https://bikeportland.org/2011/09/02/r...ing-case-58504 . I can't imagine anyone or any court of law would argue that police lying and twisting the facts to cover their own ass at the expense of breaking up a family is anything but completely despicable.

hopperja

I'll challenge you to sit and watch an intersection. A four way stop would be a good one. Now, watch how many people don't come to a complete stop, don't stop before the stop line, don't stop before the crosswalk, don't signal a turn, etc (all required under WA state law, and presumably other states as well). Now, pretend you're a police officer. Which violator would you ticket when 9 out of 10 cars are committing a violation? In many busy intersections, there might be 10 to 20 cars, or more, a minute going through. Yet, you seem to think stopping and ticketing all of them is the answer. In fact, it's not possible to stop and ticket every violator.

Yes, the girl should have been able to ride safely there. Yes, all motorists should have obeyed all applicable laws and not made it unsafe for her (if it was unsafe to begin with).

One other thing. The OP should find out if the officer was required by policy/law/city code/etc to notify CPS. If he was required to, that may change things. On the other hand, if it was optional then threatening her may have been poor judgment.

hopperja

Good question. The proper recourse for negligence would be civil court. If he got the facts negligently wrong and I was jailed for it, he would have violated my 4th Amendment rights (it would have been an unreasonable seizure). If I was really upset about it, I would consider suing him/the department/the municipality in civil court.

Remember though, an arrest is very, very different than a welfare check. Violating a person's rights by seizing them due to welfare concerns generally requires a lower standard of proof (ie, evidence for an arrest vs. judgment for a welfare seizure). Evidence is usually black and white (ie, witness statements, fingerprints, etc) whereas judgment is all in the gray area.

clivan78

I have been a police officer for many years and a keen cyclist too. I think from reading here that there may be the possibility that the poice officer deemed it "unsafe" for your 10 year old child to be out alone in public going to or from school. If she has a helmet and a proper fitting and working (brakes) bike, I dont think there woule be a problem with the cycling. You have to understand that the police officer more often than not knows a lot more about your local community than you ever will. He knows of the guy just released from prison, a previous sex offender, he knows to be on the lookout for that blue sedan that has been acting suspiciously in the area, he has a lot to look out for as part of his daily work and if he tells you it is unsafe for a 10 year old to ride alone along your streets, dont think that he is just trying to be a...well you know. Maybe contact him again or his supervisor and ask for clarification as to why it is unsafe, as you are concerned !
Dont take it for granted that your community is safe....my home town had a child sex offender living next door to the local day care, the police were well aware but for local laws we were not able to notify the owner of the day care or any members of the public, just had to watch the children very very closely !!!!

CB HI

How do you get lawful behavior requires a CPS report? By your standards, allowing a child a soft drink may be a CSP reportable offense. Some people out there believe that should be the case, so why not. You are really on the fringe now.

More children are killed in motor vehicles each year than riding a bicycle, so transporting a child in a motor vehicle should be reported to CPS.

Digital_Cowboy

I'm sorry, but the last time that I checked we don't pay our police to take the "easy way out." Nor to substitute their judgement for what the law actually is. Also I'm sure that that was case, i.e. that the situation was "permanently" settled. I'm guessing that he didn't anticipate meeting a mother who's opinion/judgement was just as strong as his.

One question that we have to ask is is that "obligation" a legal one or just an unofficial SOP? Also according to the OP she had made it clear to the LEO in question that she had gone over the route with her daughter to make sure that she was safe even going as far as securing permission from a property owner for her to be able to cut through their yard in order to avoid the blind curve.

I think that just about everyone realizes that in this case that the LEO had overstepped his authority. And now it appears (although not too well) that the police chief and mayor are attempting to spin this so that they come out in the best light possible. And given that they can't even get the facts right by reading the official incident report that they can't even get that right.

If there is a clear case of either child abuse or neglect (which there wasn't in this case) I can see the police making a call to CPS, but CPS should never be used as a club to bully a parent into doing something that an officer wants them to do. And I think/would hope that CPS would agree with that.

That should have been enough for him. He shouldn't have acted as a bully.

I think that most here agree that she was correct to disagree with the officer's judgement. I agree with you it would have been nice if there was video, audio, both or at least a transcript of the conversation between the mother and the LEO.

Yes, they get to use their judgement, but if I am not mistaken they are not allowed to act as bullies nor are they allowed to substitute their judgement for what the law actually says.

I agree, which is why I had also asked that if the OP's daughter had been a boy if it would have been an issue.

And sadly, as has been said we've seen LEO's who have thought that they had the right to substitute their judgement for the law in regards to adults who are behaving in a safe and legal manner. That and how many people think that one "needs" to have a helmet in order to "safely" ride a bike.

Agreed, he and probably the entire police force needs to attend mandatory bicycle education class(es) to learn what is and isn't safe bicycle operation. Hey Steve maybe you can suggest that they look over the training material that you've designed.

Again agreed, I mean how many of us safely ride the "mean" roads on a daily basis?

I would think that only in their mind. What they need to do is to crack down on the scofflaw motorists. And leave the innocent, law abiding cyclists alone.

I think that the police's question can also be turned around and used on them. If a citizen (who pays their salary) is acting in a legal and safe manner and everyone else around is acting in an unsafe and illegal manner do the police have a legal or moral right to "punish" the one who is behaving safely and legally?

True, but uh, isn't that their job? If they know that there is a road where motorists on a regular basis speed and feel entitled to do so. Then as police officers don't they have an obligation to those who do not speed to enforce the law(s) that are already on the books covering the operation of a motor vehicle on the public streets?

I could be mistaken, but that isn't their job, is it?

As that link you included shows sadly, they (the LEO's) do also engage in the same behavior directed towards adult cyclists.

Those are good questions.

If more parents didn't insist on driving their kids the short distance to school or the bus stop things would be safer for everyone.

I think that that pretty much sums it up.

Again, I agree with you.

Along with the education this particular LEO does needs to be handed some kind of punishment, be it in the form of a suspension or formal letter of reprimand as he clearly was using his position of authority to bully a parent into doing things his way.

CB HI

It appears you did not read the police report, BikeMomTn post or billdsd post. Combined, they make the situation pretty clear.


PS - If you really care about the kids safety, get your laws changed to allow posting the address of convicted sex offenders on the internet. Terrible outing sex offenders like that, but even many US cities/states do it.