foreign [Music] welcome to audit the audits where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong police interactions this episode covers speeding laws distracted driving and officer-involved accidents and is brought To Us by Cleveland area body cameras Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit they deserve on May 22nd 2021 officer Daniel waters of the Brunswick Police Department was driving behind Navy veteran Alexander kopiak on State Route 303 in Brunswick Ohio when Mr kopiak stopped to avoid hitting a family of geese crossing the road officer Waters failed to stop his vehicle in time and rear-ended Mr kopia's vehicle I was slowing down there's a bunch of things in the road I didn't want him to get yeah I just saw you oh man all right looks like I hit your tire yeah we're good things man it's like hit your tire with my bumper thanks all right all right let's pull off and uh pull into the parking lot yeah let's check everything out I think so all right you are okay though yeah yeah all right good damn man these things on here are awesome I think it was a combination let me call my sergeant real quick yeah yeah hey it's 23. um is uh Sergeant cowville I know they're doing roll call right now looks like it's just that and yeah officer Waters and Mr kopiak inspect the damage to their vehicles and find that the accident caused more damage to the police cruiser than Mr kopiak's vehicle regardless of the damage sustained by the vehicles in most situations the second driver in a rear end collision will be found to be at fault for the accident according to section 4511.34 of the Ohio Revised Code quote the operator of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic a pawn and the condition of the highway similarly section 4511.21 of the Ohio Revised Code and Brunswick city ordinance 434.03a both state that quote no person shall operate a motor vehicle at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper having due regard to the traffic surface and width of the street or Highway and any other conditions and no person shall drive any motor vehicle in and upon any Street or Highway at a greater speed than will permit the person to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead generally if a rear end collision results from the second driver violating either of these statutes or engaging in other negligent Behavior such as distracted driving the second driver will be found at fault for the accident however the first driver may be at fault for a rear end collision if they engage in negligent or reckless driving behaviors such as suddenly stopping or reversing driving with non-functional brake lights or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol there may also be situations where both parties are found to be at fault for an accident under Ohio's contributory fault law which is codified in section 2315.33 of the Ohio Revised Code a percentage of fault will be assigned to each driver and a driver can only recover monetary damages in a lawsuit if they were less than 50 percent responsible for the accident when a driver is partially at fault for an accident the amount of compensation they can receive will be reduced in proportion to their own faults in this rear end collision it is clear that officer Waters was at least mostly at fault for the accident although Mr did stop quickly officer Waters would likely have had plenty of time to stop his vehicle if he was paying more attention to the road or driving at a slower speed therefore even if Mr kopiak was partially responsible for the accident a court would likely conclude he was far less than 50 percent responsible and would be able to collect damages in a lawsuit hey Sergeant Cal uh just say uh involved in a small fender bender on uh 303 we're pulled off into the clinic well it definitely looks like it's depressed a bit because the tire is normally vertical but as far as like nothing structural let me get some the only thing that I can see just by looking at it is like the frame here that it's holding that kind of cracked okay so it'd need a new one but I think the back door is okay I wouldn't know for sure I'm not I'm not a mechanic either so I can't say for sure yo did this thing do more damage to your car than you did than mine that's what it looks like these things are designed to be crumpled yeah so in the front it makes sense well I don't know what to do now well I'm already here so so he was stopped in traffic because there was some geese I was checking something on my MBT which I know we're not supposed to and uh looked up he was BR he was breaking I hit my brakes and rear-ended them he's not injured um the damage looks to be to the mounting bracket on his Tire but the door seems like it's uh okay we're not sure I took some pictures and then up here uh move the push bar and Dent of the hood officer Waters admits that he hit Mr kopia's vehicle because he was using his MDT while driving an MDT or mobile data terminal is a cruiser-mounted portable tablet or laptop style computer used by law enforcement officers to securely communicate with dispatch and access records systems or other available information section 4511.204 of the Ohio Revised Code States the quote no person shall drive a motor vehicle on any Street Highway or property open to the public for vehicular traffic while using a handheld electronic Wireless Communications device to write send or read a text-based communication the statute goes on to Define electronic Wireless Communications devices as including Wireless telephones text messaging devices personal digital assistants computers including laptop computers and computer tablets and quote any other substantially similar wireless device that is designed or used to communicate text while the case law interpreting the statute is incredibly limited it's seems that an MDT would fall under the definition of an electronic wireless communication device although it should be noted that the statute explicitly states that it does not apply to quote a person operating a commercial truck while using a mobile data terminal that transmits and receives data nonetheless the statute does not create an exception for police officers using an MDT and if officer Waters was using his MDT to write send or read a text-based communication a court could determine that he violated this Statute in addition to prohibiting the use of Wireless Communications devices Ohio law also allows for a harsher penalty when certain traffic offenses are committed because the driver was distracted according to section 4511.991 of the Ohio Revised Code being distracted while operating a vehicle means using a handheld electronic Wireless Communications device with certain exceptions or quote engaging in any activity that is not necessary to the operation of a vehicle and impairs or reasonably would be expected to impair the ability of the operator to drive the vehicle safely if an individual violates certain traffic laws while distracted and the distracting activity is a quote contributing factor to the commission of the violation the driver may be subject to an additional fine of not more than one hundred dollars here although officer Waters was not using a handheld electronic device it is possible that a court could conclude that using his MDT constituted distracted driving under the second part of this statute oh this is in full yep you're okay yes sir can you get your seatbelt on yes Paul where was that somewhere here right in front of Arby's driver's license yeah dispatch uh I just called in to you I didn't call it as a code too because I wasn't sure how to call it out officer Waters informed Sergeant cow that he did not call the accident into dispatch because he was not sure of the procedure for doing so in this situation while officer-involved traffic accidents are rare they are still more common than most citizens might believe according to the U.S Centers for Disease Control and prevention motor vehicle-related incidents are one of the leading causes of line of duty law enforcement officer deaths between 2011 and 2020 454 officers died in motor vehicle-related accidents including crashes and being hit by a vehicle while on foot which constituted one-third of all line of duty deaths of the 1 387 officer line of duty deaths during this period 286 officers were killed in vehicle crashes and 114 were killed after being struck by a vehicle the CDC identifies certain behavior-related hazards that put officers at risk of a crash on the job including not wearing a seatbelt speeding particularly through intersections being distracted while using a mobile data terminal or other in-care electronics like officer Waters was here and experiencing tunnel vision from increased stress according to a Columbus Ohio news station's 2021 analysis of data from the Ohio Department of Public Safety more than 16 000 emergency response Vehicles had been involved in crashes in the five previous years in Ohio alone and 70 percent of those cases involved police cars despite the prevalence of officer-involved crashes Ohio's broad Municipal immunity laws often leave the civilian drivers involved in these accidents without compensation under section 2744.02 of the Ohio Revised Code quote political subdivisions are liable for injury death or loss to person or property caused by the negligent operation of any motor vehicle by their employees when the employees are engaged within the scope of their employment and Authority however the statute also creates so-called full defenses to liability but Grant immunity to the city in various situations including when quote a member of a municipal Corporation police apartment or any other police agency was operating a motor vehicle while responding to an emergency call in the operation of the vehicle did not constitute willful or wanton misconduct section 2744.01 of the Ohio Revised Code defines an emergency call as quote a call to duty including but not limited to Communications from citizens police dispatches and personal observations by peace officers of inherently dangerous situations that demand an immediate response on the part of a peace officer because of the wide range of situations that would fit this definition of an emergency call the Columbus New State found that in reviewing 108 claims filed with City attorney Zach Klein's office since 2018 the city claimed immunity and denied payment in 60 percent of the cases in this situation because officer Waters did not appear to be responding to an emergency call a court would likely conclude that the city would be liable for any injuries Mr kopiak sustained and any damage to his vehicle you got your driver's license partner one of those insurance info insurance information driver's license I got are you the registered owner yes okay you're here foreign [Music] thanks for being on the scene so quick I appreciate it yeah well I would have been here quicker but a bit roll call right at six o'clock yeah but uh there's nothing else you need man you're all set are you a Navy guy yes sir appreciate your service thank you as well thank you bro here's your punishment you get to go do the oh1 wow probably deserve more than that but you probably thinking so after the accident Sergeant Cal filed a police report regarding the accident noting that officer Waters rear-ended Mr kopiak because he was distracted by quote other activity with an electronic device officer Waters was also cited for a violation of Brunswick city ordinance 434.03a and on June 8 2021 he pled guilty and paid a 190 dollar fine on February 7 2022 another accident report shows that officer Waters was involved in another rear-end Collision when driving a police vehicle on the same road he was once again cited under ordinance 434.03a and on February 23 2022 he again pled guilty and paid another 190 dollar fine overall officer Waters gets a b because although he caused an accident by driving recklessly he immediately owned up to his mistake reported the situation to his sergeant and maintained a professional and apologetic demeanor throughout the encounter I commend officer Waters for having the Integrity to report the accident and admit default and not attempting to place the blame on Mr kopiak in any way how However the fact that officer Waters was involved in another rear end collision in a police cruiser less than a year later is concerning and I would encourage him to drive more responsibly before he injures someone else or himself in yet another accident Sergeant Cal gets an A-Plus for responding personally to the call completing an objective accident report on the incident and allowing officer Waters to be cited for his negligent driving instead of showing him any sort of favoritism although it is unclear whether Sergeant Cal issued the citation himself he did not take any steps to protect officer Waters from the consequences of his actions or cover up the situation while this type of Integrity should be expected of public officials they unfortunately do not always behave with this level of honesty and I encourage all law enforcement officers to learn from Sergeant Cowell's example Mr kopiak also gets an A-Plus for maintaining a respectful and understanding demeanor throughout the interaction complying with both officers requests and keeping a cool head in an abnormal police encounter where the officer was the one who made the mistake car accidents are always stressful but when a police officer is involved and at fault they become even more challenging to navigate I commend Mr kopiak for being able to control his emotions and behave respectfully in this unusual situation and for understanding that police officers just like the rest of us are only human let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music] foreign [Music]