How did Woodstock PD car crash happen?

I picked up the crash report this afternoon on last Wednesday's crash involving a Woodstock police car and two other vehicles. The report was written by Deputy #2002, whose name does not appear on the report. More and more departments are going to "Officer #xxxx", with an occasional illegible signature scrawled on the report, but the MCSD report is fully electronic with no handwriting.

The officer driving the Woodstock squad car was Ofc. Mitchell Falat, not previously identified in the MCSD press release, which is now posted on the sheriff's department website, or in the newspaper article.

Ofc. Falat told the investigating deputy that, while making other maneuvers in the intersection before proceeding westbound through the intersection with his emergency equipment operating, he "was informed that the fleeing subject with a warrant for their (sic) arrest changed direction, and began fleeing north." Was he assigned on that call, or was he monitoring another officer's activity? Was the subject who was wanted positively identified by the other officer? Was the other officer "called off" the pursuit, because he could not positively identify the wanted person as being in the car? Did all of that happen before the time of the crash?

Ofc. Falat stated that he stopped on westbound Lake Avenue, waved traffic out of his way, checked both ways and observed that all vehicles (on Route 47) had stopped, and started across the southbound lane, whereupon "instantly" he was struck by a southbound vehicle. That impact caused him to hit an eastbound vehicle stopped in the left-turn lane on Lake Avenue.

Numerous witnesses are listed in the crash report and confirmed that the emergency equipment was operating on the police car and that Ofc.Falat had entered the intersection slowly.

The driver of the southbound vehicle, Tara Madigan, told the investigating deputy that there were vehicles stopped in the southbound left-turn lane. Those would have interfered with the line-of-sight for both Ofc. Falat and her.

Ofc. Falat did make several changes in his direction of travel just prior to the crash. He arrived at the intersection on Lake Avenue from the northwest, as if he had driven from the vicinity of the police station or farther northwest. (Lake Avenue runs diagonally northwest-to-southeast.) He was using the emergency lights and siren on his squad car and, due to heavy traffic at the intersection of Lake Avenue and Route 47, he went around traffic in the eastbound left-turn lane on Lake Avenue by using the oncoming lane of traffic, and then he turned south on Route 47. He then made a U-turn, apparently intending to return to the northwest on Lake Avenue. Due to heavy traffic, he first made a right turn onto eastbound Lake Avenue and then made another U-turn. Because of heavy traffic on Lake Avenue, he used the oncoming (eastbound) lane to get to the intersection.

He says he stopped before entering the intersection, and witnesses agree. Witnesses reported hearing the siren and seeing the emergency lights on. Then he slowly entered the intersection and, as the investigating deputy recorded, "...observing that all vehicles had stopped, unit two (patrol car) continued through the intersection..."

Only all vehicles hadn't stopped. There was a southbound vehicle on Route 47 that he apparently didn't see before he pulled into its path.

I am reminded of a crash I investigated 30+ years ago, after which a driver said, "The other car came out of nowhere." (This is where you laugh.) Cars obviously don't come out of "nowhere."

Do I feel the deputy was wrong to issue a ticket to Ms. Madigan? Yes. It seems to me that she didn't have any real warning that Ofc. Falat was about to pull in front of her vehicle. Since he was crossing a lane of traffic with a green light, it was his responsibility to stay out of her way, not the other way around.

As I quoted the other day, the law allows authorized emergency vehicles to proceed past a red traffic light, but the driver is required to slow down "...as may be required and necessary for safe operation." Ofc. Falat did slow down, but then he apparently drove into the path of the southbound vehicle.

Which driver should have been place as Unit One? Unit One is the driver who is at fault (or more at fault)? In this case, based on the investigating deputy's report, Ofc. Falat should have been entered as Unit One. The City of Woodstock should cause Ms. Madigan's ticket to be dismissed and should pay for the damages to her car, the WFRD bill for her passengers and her, and the medical care expenses incurred at the hospital.

Falat Deal - there's more

This morning's Northwest Herald reports another part of the "deal" between the Woodstock Police Chief and Ofc. Mitch Falat, who was suspended for 30 (non-continuous!) days without pay on Wednesday, August 19.

An additional provision of the Agreed Disciplinary Order, not disclosed publicly at the Special Meeting of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, is that Ofc. Falat is to have no intentional contact with City Councilman (and Chief of the Woodstock Fire Rescue District) Ralph Webster.

The newspaper reports that the "Woodstock family" had taken their "concerns" to Councilman Webster.

Why does a family find it necessary to take "concerns" to a City Councilman? One must assume that they had reported their "concerns" to the chief of the Woodstock Police Department. Did they feel that nothing was happening? Or that anything that was happening, was not happening quickly enough?

Falat was disciplined for violating a February 19 order from the chief to have no contact with the Woodstock woman. Therefore, the complaint must have been registered with the police department prior to February. How long before February was their complaint filed?

If he did continue to have contact with the woman, in violation of the February 19 order, what subsequent complaints or reports did the family make to the police department, and why did it take until August 19 for the disciplinary hearing before the Board?

I had a conversation with this family on July 2, and that followed their meeting with the City Manager. Putting pieces of the puzzle together, then it seems to me that the family went to Councilman Webster in June. February-to-June is a long time for lack of decisive action by command personnel at the police department.

And from July 2 - August 19 is a long time to take action to discipline extraordinary behavior or actions against a town resident.

What else is in the Agreed Disciplinary Order? Is there more that has not been revealed? Why was there even any "negotiation" to it? The chief has the authority to initiate discipline. He could have placed the officer on immediate paid leave and requested a Board meeting, which would have been held no sooner than two days later.

Instead, this family had to endure months continued unwanted and improper attention from the officer. Apparently, discipline resulted only after the family appealed to a City Councilman and the City Manager became involved.

By these delays, the City has very likely allowed itself to be exposed to financial liability. The first responsibility is to its own residents, not to its employees. It did not meet its first responsibility in this case.

30-day suspension - not continuous!

Yesterday I wrote about the 30-day unpaid suspension imposed on Ofc. Mitch Falat of the Woodstock Police Department for violation of a department order by Chief Robert Lowen to stay away from a certain Woodstock woman.

Today I learned that Ofc. Falat is on duty, as he was during the period of investigation that preceded yesterday's Special Meeting of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.
Upon telephoning Chief Lowen of the Woodstock Police Department, I learned that his unpaid suspension is not 30 continuous days.

No wonder that yesterday's Board meeting was cut and dried. All the Board did was accept the negotiated deal between Ofc. Falat, his attorney and the Police Department. There was no discussion. No witnesses were called. The woman involved and her husband were not called to testify, so that the Board could hear all the details that led up to the "deal." The meeting was over in minutes, without reading or verbal discussion of the deal between the police department and Ofc. Falat.

The Board did not reveal the terms of the Agreed Disciplinary Order during the very brief meeting. They had been given copies of the disciplinary order by the chief and, once in session, they accepted it as offered.

Where is the representation of the victim in this whole matter? Is the City really looking out for the resident?

I didn't ask the chief why the 30 days were not continuous. But something about that arrangement really stinks. If an officer is told by the chief to stay away from a married woman in his community and he doesn't, the discipline needed to be swift and certain. And enough of a kick in the butt that he got the message.

The Board of Fire and Police Commissioners is supposed to serve as a Board of the City of Woodstock that is independent of the Police Department. That's why, I guess, they now, finally, meet at City Hall and not at the police department. But maybe it's time now for a complete turn-over in the Board, which is appointed by the Mayor, with the consent of the Council.

The Mayor, City Manager and members of the City Council ought to be hopping mad at this most recent deal and the way it was handled. Transparency in government has gone out the window. The proper action at the Special Meeting would have been for the charges to be submitted to the Board and the disciplinary agreement read aloud and submitted to the Board, after which they could have voted on it.

There will be more to this story.

Woodstock officer suspended for 30 days

The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners met this afternoon at 5:00PM at City Hall to accept a deal worked out between Woodstock Police Chief Robert Lowen and Officer Mitchell J. Falat that imposes a 30-day unpaid suspension on Officer Falat.

Neither Ofc. Falat nor his attorney appeared today.

The Agreed Disciplinary Order, already signed by Ofc. Falat, was presented to the Board, and it voted to accept it without discussion and without the need to go into executive session. The chief's charge against Ofc. Falat was violation of a no-contact order issued to Ofc. Falat on February 19. Ofc. Falat was to have no contact with a married, female resident in Woodstock.

In response to questions after the meeting whether the Board was aware of a Temporary Order of Protection obtained by Ofc. Falat on June 9 against that female, in which he identified the dating relationship as "boyfriend/girlfriend", and whether the police department had investigated the truthfulness of the statements made in the request for the OP, City Attorney Rich Flood responded that the OP had been investigated.