California Battalion Chief Handcuffed by CHP for Not Moving Fire Truck

[RescueKujo 130]

From Firehouse.com

A Montecito battalion chief was handcuffed by a California Highway Patrol officer after refusing to move a fire truck, which was blocking a highway in order to protect crews responding to a crash on Feb. 15, according to the Santa Barbara News-Press.

After the CHP supervisor arrived on scene, the detained battalion was released and no charges were filed.

Both agencies are currently investigated the incident, the report said.

Personal note: This is making the email rounds from a Firefighter assigned to the Medic Squad on this response. I've attached a photo that was taken at the scene. You can see the Batt Chief sitting on the guard rail. Also, (and I forget what code states this) CHP is the highest authority of any incident on the freeway.

[psyanide 11]

- Although I do not know the details beyond this post - IF the rig was positioned to protect a crew working an accident - good for the B.C. I am all for setting up large red cones to protect me while on an MVA call. As for the handcuffing itself, really? Isn't that a BIT much CHP??

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Link to firehouse.com article

http://www.firehouse.com/topics/top-headlines/calif-battalion-chief-handcuffed-not-moving-fire-truck-crash-scene

More details inside....

[RescueKujo 130]

Link to firehouse.com article

http://www.firehouse.com/topics/top-headlines/calif-battalion-chief-handcuffed-not-moving-fire-truck-crash-scene

More details inside....

Thanks...I forgot that...

[chris 18]

This is uncalled for, not only does it protect the F.D. personnel it also protects P.D. as well, very silly move on the P.D. Even though P.D. is the authority having jurisdiction here, common sense should come into play shouldn't it ?

[abaduck 123]

I'll open my big mouth and stick my oar in... I don't get this on a couple of levels:

1. IF the CHP officer really was the IC, then it becomes a matter of insubordination - failing to follow orders in the chain of command - not a criminal law enforcement matter. So it should be handled as any other disciplinary matter; no justification for arrest and cuffs. Or so it seems to me.

2. It's been claimed that the law states that the CHP officer is the IC on any highway incident. Oh really? Are CHP officers trained and qualified in fire suppression tactics and hazmat operations then, just for starters? I don't see how the law can purport to govern command in that way; you could wind up with a rookie line CHP officer giving orders to a BC with 20 years in! Wouldn't OSHA, for instance, have something to say about placing a quite possibly unqualified individual, or the least experienced individual on scene, in command? I don't see how that can be legal.

I'm not taking potshots or passing judgements, just trying to get my head round how this is supposed to work.

[JJB531 652]

I'll open my big mouth and stick my oar in... I don't get this on a couple of levels:

1. IF the CHP officer really was the IC, then it becomes a matter of insubordination - failing to follow orders in the chain of command - not a criminal law enforcement matter. So it should be handled as any other disciplinary matter; no justification for arrest and cuffs. Or so it seems to me.

2. It's been claimed that the law states that the CHP officer is the IC on any highway incident. Oh really? Are CHP officers trained and qualified in fire suppression tactics and hazmat operations then, just for starters? I don't see how the law can purport to govern command in that way; you could wind up with a rookie line CHP officer giving orders to a BC with 20 years in! Wouldn't OSHA, for instance, have something to say about placing a quite possibly unqualified individual, or the least experienced individual on scene, in command? I don't see how that can be legal.

I'm not taking potshots or passing judgements, just trying to get my head round how this is supposed to work.

1) I don't think the law regarding CHP makes them the Incident Commander... I believe CHP Officers have authority over a Fire Chief regarding traffic control and other issues related to closing lanes on the highway. Since CHP doesn't have authority over direct firematic operations, this really isn't a chain of command scenario, more of a scenario of an individual (unfortunately a Fire Officer) disobeying a lawful order by a uniformed police officer. Should this scenario been handled differently, absolutely. Police Officers (especially Highway Patrol Officers) like to keep the flow of traffic moving and try to keep a lane or lanes of traffic shut down for a minimal period of time and are often subject to stress from the higher-ups to do so.

2) Once again, I don't think that the law states the CHP is necessarily the Incident Commander, therefore they don't need training in fire suppression or hazmat operations. I believe that the CHP is in charge of the overall scene at highway incidents in regards to lane closures and traffic management, not direct fire suppression or firematic operations at an incident.

[NWFDMedic 58]

While obstructing governmental authority is clearly an arrestable offense, wouldn't one think that this can be handled better? I think the officer would have been better served to contact his boss and let them work it out with the BC's boss. The only cost here is a bit of traffic flow.

The Thruway troopers here in NY are also very concerned about closing the road during incidents and keeping traffic moving is a big part of their priority at an incident. It has often caused issues on the scenes of calls but very rarely gets resolved. Most agencies go back to their departments and then complain about the cop, fire chief, or EMS crews that did something stupid in their eyes. We spend a lot of time critiquing our own activities within service, but as far as critiquing incidents with multiple agencies involved, it too often doesn't happen and results in complaining around the crew room table.

[chris 18]

When multiple agencies are involved their should be unified command ( can you use a motorcycle as a command post ? ) or at least a predetermined incident plan, maybe an SOG agreed upon by the two agencies. Something besides handcuffs.

[Tanker 10eng 140]

OK, if the " CHP " is in command of all Highway incidents, then so be it.... FD, EMS, need to meet with the CHPD, after the call with the top brass and iron out just what each divisions needs and wants in place prior to performing on a highway....

The Battalion Chief should have the right to say, in order to have my men operate at this type of scene, we require " X " lanes shut down, so that we are safe. They can go back and forth and come to sone agreeable solution...

There is always another side to each disagreement, and the CHP has to keep traffic moving, as the FD needs to realize what happens when it is not flowing...

My hat is bigger then yours !!

[abaduck 123]

More info here... http://www.independent.com/news/2010/feb/24/chp-officer-cuffs-montecito-fire-battalion-chief/

JJB531, I appear to be correct:

"As explained by Geri Ventura, media spokesperson for Montecito Fire, the CHP has ranking jurisdiction over all freeway incidents, and a responding CHP officer is always the lead incident commander"

Sure you can have unified command, any kind of ICS or NIMS setup you like. But at the end of the day, there is one (1) Incident Commander. And I don't see how you can have a system where the 'lead IC' or whatever you call them can be a very junior, possibly inexperienced, individual - and have legal authority to give orders to much more senior ranking experienced individuals.

IF a junior CHP officer gave a legally-binding order, as 'lead IC', to a senior fire Chief to, for instance, reposition apparatus in a manner that compromised scene safety, AND that led directly to an avoidable incident causing death and serious injury to responders... well, I can see OSHA hanging the officer, the CHP, and the entire system that allowed that order to be given, out to dry. Can someone sanity-check me here...?

[JJB531 652]

Not for nothing, but at both of my jobs there are always situations on a daily basis where Supervisors with less time and experience than other field personnel are the Incident Commander of a scene. We have 20+ year police officers answering to and taking orders from 5 year sergeants and 8 year lieutenants or paramedics with 15 years experience answering to and taking orders from a Paramedic Supervisor with 2 years experience. So I don't see how you find it so unbelieveable that a junior, possibly inexperienced individual could be the IC of an incident, when it's a common daily occurrence?

Secondly I think CHP Officers are more then capable of handling accident scenes without compromising scene safety. They patrol the highways every day, they handle considerable more highway incidents then the FD does, they handle far more accidents on the highway then the FD does, since every accident does not require FD response, and they conduct traffic stops multiple times a day on the highway, so I think that they are more then capable of operating on a highway.

[JJB531 652]

This was all I could find right now regarding the IC of Highway Incidents... this statute deals with hazardous material incidents on the California highways.

CALIFORNIA CODES

VEHICLE CODE

SECTION 2450-2454

2454. (a) The authority for incident command at the scene of an

on-highway hazardous substance incident is vested in the appropriate

law enforcement agency having primary traffic investigative authority

on the highway where the incident occurs. Responsibility for

incident command at the scene of an on-highway hazardous substance

incident shall continue until all emergency operations at the scene

have been completed and order has been restored.

( Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the local governing body of a

city, whether general law or chartered, which has jurisdiction over

the location where an on-highway hazardous substance incident occurs

may assign the authority for incident command at the scene of an

on-highway hazardous substance incident on local streets and roads,

other than freeways, to either the local law enforcement agency or

the local fire protection agency. However, the department is

responsible for incident command at the scene of an on-highway

hazardous substance incident on all highways where the department has

primary traffic investigative authority. Any law enforcement agency

having primary traffic investigative authority may enter into written

agreements with other public agencies to facilitate incident command

at the scene of an on-highway hazardous substance incident on local

streets and roads other than freeways.

© For purposes of this section, "incident command at the scene

of an on-highway hazardous substance incident" means coordination of

operations which occur at the location of a hazardous substance

incident. This coordinating function does not include how the

specialized functions provided by the various other responding

agencies are to be performed. The incident commander at the scene of

an on-highway hazardous substance incident shall consult with other

response agencies at the scene to ensure that all appropriate

resources are properly utilized, and shall perform his or her

coordinating function in a manner designed to minimize the risk of

death or injury to other persons.

[helicopper 1,050]

I'll open my big mouth and stick my oar in... I don't get this on a couple of levels:

1. IF the CHP officer really was the IC, then it becomes a matter of insubordination - failing to follow orders in the chain of command - not a criminal law enforcement matter. So it should be handled as any other disciplinary matter; no justification for arrest and cuffs. Or so it seems to me.

2. It's been claimed that the law states that the CHP officer is the IC on any highway incident. Oh really? Are CHP officers trained and qualified in fire suppression tactics and hazmat operations then, just for starters? I don't see how the law can purport to govern command in that way; you could wind up with a rookie line CHP officer giving orders to a BC with 20 years in! Wouldn't OSHA, for instance, have something to say about placing a quite possibly unqualified individual, or the least experienced individual on scene, in command? I don't see how that can be legal.

I'm not taking potshots or passing judgements, just trying to get my head round how this is supposed to work.

Here's one of the greatest misunderstandings in ICS and a lot of other things for that matter. You don't have to be the expert on the specific hazard to be the IC, you have to be able to manage resources. One of the best IC's in the State of New York (IMHO) is a DEC Forest Ranger and another retired from a Sheriff's Office and worked in Emergency Management. It's about knowing the process and being able to manage it regardless of the scenario you're confronted with. All emergency responders out west get the same ICS training and learn how to manage an initial response. Remember the basic tenet that the first arriving responder is the initial IC, regardless of their agency. We certainly don't practice that around here though.

While obstructing governmental authority is clearly an arrestable offense, wouldn't one think that this can be handled better? I think the officer would have been better served to contact his boss and let them work it out with the BC's boss. The only cost here is a bit of traffic flow.

The Thruway troopers here in NY are also very concerned about closing the road during incidents and keeping traffic moving is a big part of their priority at an incident. It has often caused issues on the scenes of calls but very rarely gets resolved. Most agencies go back to their departments and then complain about the cop, fire chief, or EMS crews that did something stupid in their eyes. We spend a lot of time critiquing our own activities within service, but as far as critiquing incidents with multiple agencies involved, it too often doesn't happen and results in complaining around the crew room table.

This could obviously be handled better but none of us know what preceding the handcuffs arrival on scene. I'd submit that no matter who the IC is they have a responsibility to everyone on the road and restoring traffic should be (is) a concern for them too. Keep in mind that a two minute closure (and I've never seen one last just 2 minutes) translates into a 10 minute delay 5 miles down the road and a 30 minute delay 15 miles down the road. That cascading effect is something we should all strive to avoid.

When multiple agencies are involved their should be unified command ( can you use a motorcycle as a command post ? ) or at least a predetermined incident plan, maybe an SOG agreed upon by the two agencies. Something besides handcuffs.

Agreed, unified command is a good solution. In this particular case, though, there is a statutory assignment of command.

You can use a clipboard as a command post if you have to. Just cause you can't paint "incident commander" on the side of a motorcycle doesn't mean it can't be the ICP.

OK, if the " CHP " is in command of all Highway incidents, then so be it.... FD, EMS, need to meet with the CHPD, after the call with the top brass and iron out just what each divisions needs and wants in place prior to performing on a highway....

The Battalion Chief should have the right to say, in order to have my men operate at this type of scene, we require " X " lanes shut down, so that we are safe. They can go back and forth and come to sone agreeable solution...

There is always another side to each disagreement, and the CHP has to keep traffic moving, as the FD needs to realize what happens when it is not flowing...

My hat is bigger then yours !!

It probably does just boil down to poor communications and you're right on all points.

More info here... http://www.independent.com/news/2010/feb/24/chp-officer-cuffs-montecito-fire-battalion-chief/

JJB531, I appear to be correct:

"As explained by Geri Ventura, media spokesperson for Montecito Fire, the CHP has ranking jurisdiction over all freeway incidents, and a responding CHP officer is always the lead incident commander"

Sure you can have unified command, any kind of ICS or NIMS setup you like. But at the end of the day, there is one (1) Incident Commander. And I don't see how you can have a system where the 'lead IC' or whatever you call them can be a very junior, possibly inexperienced, individual - and have legal authority to give orders to much more senior ranking experienced individuals.

IF a junior CHP officer gave a legally-binding order, as 'lead IC', to a senior fire Chief to, for instance, reposition apparatus in a manner that compromised scene safety, AND that led directly to an avoidable incident causing death and serious injury to responders... well, I can see OSHA hanging the officer, the CHP, and the entire system that allowed that order to be given, out to dry. Can someone sanity-check me here...?

Sorry, but there is a spokesperson for Unified Command if properly set-up and executed, there is no "lead IC". This is probably the greatest obstacle to our becoming truly successful in implementing ICS and unified command as designed. All the commanders in the unified command post have equal authority and responsibility for their piece of the puzzle and resources. If a brand-spanking new Lt. in the FD shows up at a major incident wouldn't he be just as ill-prepared for all the management responsibilities? That's why we transfer command when necessary and we designate appropriate subordinates who are the specific subject matter experts (supervisors for fire group, EMS group, shelter group, etc.).

All this said, there's really no excuse for things to get so bad at a scene that someone winds up in handcuffs. Hopefully all the parties involved make strides to prevent this from happening again.

[RescueKujo 130]

FYI-CHP Officer in this incident was beaten unconscious over the weekend in a bar in Bakersfield...

March 7, 2010 9:53 AM

A California Highway Patrol officer who made local headlines when he arrested a Montecito fireman has been injured in a fight with three men in a bar and says he has no recollection of the incident.

Bakersfield police responded at 2:02 a.m. on Feb. 20 to reports of a man down at RJ's Bar & Grill in the northwest section of town. There, they found off-duty CHP Officer Joseph Rodriquez in need of medical assistance.

Police say differing witness accounts alternately have Officer Rodriguez attempting to break up a fight between two women and then getting jumped and beaten by three men or trying to intercede after a man began pushing a woman and getting beaten by six men, including one who smashed a beer bottle over the officer's head, according to Bakersfield Police Department spokesperson Sgt. Mary DeGeare.

Firefighter Nation Story

[SageVigiles 1,194]

This is why I'm glad we have CT General Statute 7-313e in Connecticut, ranking fire officer is in command of an incident.

[OnTheWheel 43]

I agree with the truck being in the road is safer, agree with the handcuffs going overboard but when people stop listening to the Police it breaks down our system and we'll turn into a 3rd world country in the matter of no time. If an average Joe was walking by and saw this "insubordination" they'd surely get the impression that they wouldn't have to listen to the Police either. It would be so much better if we all got along and got rid of this power trip that so many are on. Lets put more into being safe and going home then whos got the bigger set!

[robert benz 344]

Not for nothing, but at both of my jobs there are always situations on a daily basis where Supervisors with less time and experience than other field personnel are the Incident Commander of a scene. We have 20+ year police officers answering to and taking orders from 5 year sergeants and 8 year lieutenants or paramedics with 15 years experience answering to and taking orders from a Paramedic Supervisor with 2 years experience. So I don't see how you find it so unbelieveable that a junior, possibly inexperienced individual could be the IC of an incident, when it's a common daily occurrence?

Secondly I think CHP Officers are more then capable of handling accident scenes without compromising scene safety. They patrol the highways every day, they handle considerable more highway incidents then the FD does, they handle far more accidents on the highway then the FD does, since every accident does not require FD response, and they conduct traffic stops multiple times a day on the highway, so I think that they are more then capable of operating on a highway.

I would have to think that highway oriented police officers would be more than capable of operations. That said, how many pd officers get struck as to fd members while operating on the highway? More calls equal more exposure to the risks. That being said, we have 2 different jobs while on the highway, yet the same responsibility to make it home alive after the call. I always hear about the traffic delay that the Fd can cause by blocking a lane(s), yet when the pd has to do their job of reconstructing an accident scene, the whole roadway can be shut down for as long as needed. Why? Because it is safer to do so!!

So the bottom line is the safest way to handle the scene, should be the most important decision made by PD/FD/EMS.