Local PD and the HOV Lane

[cardinal03]

Today, 101S, HOV rules in effect (8:15AM).

Local PD Crown Vic (ie not CHP), HOV lane. No lights, no hurry, just cruising along.

Two questions:

1) Does a PD canine count as a "person" in the HOV lane? This was a canine unit, I thought it was a reasonable possibility.

2) Regardless of the above, do all LEOs have an exemption from the HOV rules even if not responding to any sort of emergency (ie just the ordinary carrying out of their obligations (which, btw, seems perfectly reasonable/legitimate))?

Not mad by the way, the cagers were very well behaved as I followed my local LEO, no lane divers at all today. Second best commuting experience behind splitting with a local CHP officer. That was like following Moses through the parting Red Sea.

 

[orbframe]

Today, 101S, HOV rules in effect (8:15AM).

Local PD Crown Vic (ie not CHP), HOV lane. No lights, no hurry, just cruising along.

Two questions:

1) Does a PD canine count as a "person" in the HOV lane? This was a canine unit, I thought it was a reasonable possibility.

2) Regardless of the above, do all LEOs have an exemption from the HOV rules even if not responding to any sort of emergency (ie just the ordinary carrying out of their obligations (which, btw, seems perfectly reasonable/legitimate))?

Not mad by the way, the cagers were very well behaved as I followed my local LEO, no lane divers at all today. Second best commuting experience behind splitting with a local CHP officer. That was like following Moses through the parting Red Sea.

1) no
2) not unless responding to an emergency ... technically

of course i have occupied hov lanes responding w/o it being an emergency, but sometimes we bend the rules.... you may not agree when we're bending the rules to go to lunch, but when we're bending the rules to get to your "semi-hot" call quicker you might be happy... can't say which one this guy was doing

 

[Tim-That CX Guy]

1) no
2) not unless responding to an emergency ... technically

of course i have occupied hov lanes responding w/o it being an emergency, but sometimes we bend the rules.... you may not agree when we're bending the rules to go to lunch, but when we're bending the rules to get to your "semi-hot" call quicker you might be happy... can't say which one this guy was doing

If it helps to you catch non-stickered soloists in the HOV lanes during commute hours, be my guest. :thumbup

 

[Diezel]

If it helps to you catch non-stickered soloists in the HOV lanes during commute hours, be my guest. :thumbup

+1 while it is not legal for them to do so. If it aides in them catching other folks fucking up my commute. I'm all for it. :thumbup

 

[OldFatGuy]

+1 while it is not legal for them to do so. If it aides in them catching other folks fucking up my commute. I'm all for it. :thumbup

+2

He wasn't cruising in the HOV lane. He was patrolling it.

 

[Cincinnatus]

+2

He wasn't cruising in the HOV lane. He was patrolling it.

Fine distinction you found there... :teeth

 

[Bowman]

It is legal for a police officer to be in the HOV lane while on duty. I have people call me on infractions like this all day long. I used to ride a bicycle while on patrol and you should have heard the comments about riding my bike on the sidewalk, against traffic, crossing on a red hand...etc. etc. etc.

Just to put it in perspective, you can't carry a loaded pistol on your hip with high capacity magazines or carry a loaded AR in your car...but the police can. Just as long as the officer is on duty and can articulate the need to do whatever he/she is doing, it is allowed.

 

[NorCalBusa]

Do tell. I'd like to see the law(s) that provide for that, due respect.

Just as long as the officer is on duty and can articulate the need to do whatever he/she is doing, it is allowed.

 

[orbframe]

It is legal for a police officer to be in the HOV lane while on duty. I have people call me on infractions like this all day long. I used to ride a bicycle while on patrol and you should have heard the comments about riding my bike on the sidewalk, against traffic, crossing on a red hand...etc. etc. etc.

Just to put it in perspective, you can't carry a loaded pistol on your hip with high capacity magazines or carry a loaded AR in your car...but the police can. Just as long as the officer is on duty and can articulate the need to do whatever he/she is doing, it is allowed.

wrong. the vehicle code is very specific. all police vehicles, and all emergency vehicles for that matter, must abide by the vehicle code unless responding to an emergency/code type situation.

the allowance for carrying weapons is codified by the penal code fyi... not just because "we're the police".

edit: yes we do things like this all the time... but in reference to the OP's question technically we are not allowed... hence why I answered it the way I did above.

 

[Bowman]

Sorry about my vague and unclear post. I generally don't cite CVC section to the public as I find they either don't know the section or don't care. Sometimes I use the "because we're the police" because it saves me time. Lazy?...maybe, but after the millionth time explaining it, I find that my explanation usually falls on deaf ears.

I am fully aware of Section 21055 CVC, 21200(b)(1) CVC, and 21807 CVC. I also know that there is a difference between the exemption that the CVC allows us and the exemption that 12027(a)(1)(A) PC allows us. I know that the above laws can also be governed by Municipal Code, EVOC, and DGOs (policy). I was merely trying to highlight the fact that exemptions exist.

My last sentence should have been more emphasized. Articulation is key. I'm sorry if I made it sound like I haphazardly run red lights at 100 mph while driving on the sidewalk to make closing time at Duncan's, meanwhile, giving the bird to other drivers because they aren't allowed to break the law and are slowing me down. I promise that I don't do that.....maybe for Crispy Creme. In all seriousness, I don't break infractions for giggles. Let's take driving the wrong way down a one way street. I do this almost everyday. Every time I do it, it is because I am following somebody who I have already developed the probable cause to take on. In an area that is plagued with narcotics sales, use, and related violent crime, it is common for drug dealers to walk (on the sidewalk) against the flow of traffic because they believe that I won't have the ability to follow. After seeing a person loitering in an area where drugs are known to be bought/sold for a significant amount of time, combined with multiple hand to hands, lack of conversation, gaze aversion with apparent attempts to avoid being seen by me, I will want to talk to that person. Even if I want to do a "consensual encounter", I will drive the wrong way up a one way street to talk with somebody. I do this because in my training and experience 11352s will run against the flow of traffic, make the corner, stash/hand-off the gun and dope by the time I make 3 corners.

Can I legally break the law in the above listed scenario? How about when the 52 sees me driving the wrong way and starts to walk away from me? Am I in pursuit? How about when he changes to headlong flight? This is what I meant by articulation. Articulating the need to break the law is done by outlining the fact that the officer was in pursuit, responding to an emergency or rescue situation.

I would agree that my last post's tone was a little, "because I can." This comes from years of conditioning that the general public will not agree with an officer no matter what the circumstances (at least where I work). I guess LEOs responses on this site are under the microscope. Good stuff, keep me honest.

Be Safe

 

[Tharkûn]

21055 covers that

or is being used in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law

 

[Bowman]

I am fully aware of Section 21055 CVC, 21200(b)(1) CVC, and 21807 CVC.

Articulating the need to break the law is done by outlining the fact that the officer was in pursuit, responding to an emergency or rescue situation.

Hehe, Thanks. I was just providing an example of pursuit for people who aren't LEO. Since I got my hand slapped for the "because I can" answer, I decided to take the time to illustrate a "pursuit" and associate it with the "articulation" of the same scenario. I also wanted the general public to know a "pursuit" doesn't have to be a Hollywood Code 3 with guns blazing. Simply following a person is pursuing.

 

[orbframe]

Hehe, Thanks. I was just providing an example of pursuit for people who aren't LEO. Since I got my hand slapped for the "because I can" answer, I decided to take the time to illustrate a "pursuit" and associate it with the "articulation" of the same scenario. I also wanted the general public to know a "pursuit" doesn't have to be a Hollywood Code 3 with guns blazing. Simply following a person is pursuing.

The question was if we could cruise in the hov lane. Not going after an offender, not busting illegal u turns and blowing lights to go places. Just cruisng. And the answer, per the vehicle code, is no.

I have 10 sworn years. I'm no square and I've done my fair share of code 2.5, justified or not. But code 2.5 is still illegal per the vehicle code and /or policy. But it has to be done.

Edit; and just to be sure... I love you everything being said I'll bust ass down the freeway for a donut too ... food with holes it good

 

[orbframe]

M4m

 

[Bowman]

The question was if we could cruise in the hov lane. Not going after an offender, not busting illegal u turns and blowing lights to go places. Just cruisng. And the answer, per the vehicle code, is no.

I have 10 sworn years. I'm no square and I've done my fair share of code 2.5, justified or not. But code 2.5 is still illegal per the vehicle code and /or policy. But it has to be done.

Edit; and just to be sure... I love you everything being said I'll bust ass down the freeway for a donut too ... food with holes it good

HAHAHA! You are absolutely correct on all accounts. The answer to the original question is indeed, no. Also, code 2.5 is against our policy as well which is too bad. I can't tell you how many times that you KNOW a situation will deteriorate if you don't show up, like an hour ago. Anyways, sorry to derail a HOV cruising thread into an articulation thread. I was just pointing out that the "cruising cop" was trying to catch up to the vehicle that was 14 miles ahead of him :laughing Okay...that was a long shot but I had to try.

 

[Ducky_Fresh]

The HOV lane should be eliminated. It's useless.

 

[NorCalBusa]

The HOV lane should be eliminated. It's useless.

^ the most telling observation of all.

 

[orbframe]

The HOV lane should be eliminated. It's useless.

motorcycle only lane ftw

 

[JPM]

Do tell. I'd like to see the law(s) that provide for that, due respect.

Show me that law that allows police to close streets or sidewalks as evidence scenes (Not disaster areas)? What law allows roads to be closed for the governor, president, or vice president going by? There ain't none. Get over it.

 

[orbframe]

Show me that law that allows police to close streets or sidewalks as evidence scenes (Not disaster areas)? What law allows roads to be closed for the governor, president, or vice president going by? There ain't none. Get over it.

actually laws of search and seizure and evidence preservation give us that authority, if I had my policies and procedures handy I could probably cite the sections... but seriously these things are fully codified.

but I know for fact that VC 21101(e) covers the second part... so there "ain't none" isn't quite true...

i started actually reading the policies once I got sued for the 4th time...

edit: haven't lost a lawsuit yet! though I still hate being sued