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.

Intersection crashes with emergency vehicles

Generally speaking, it's a good idea to avoid a crash with an emergency vehicle that is using its emergency lights and siren (or, in Illinois, lights or siren). It spoils your day. It spoils the officer's day. He doesn't get to the call to which he was hurrying. And you get the ticket.

Several years ago I spoke with a driver who had been hit by a police car that he said ran a red light. When I inquired whether the officer had gotten a ticket, he asked, "Can police officers get tickets?" He fought the allegation that he had been at fault. He later told me that it had taken three years, but the City of Woodstock finally paid him for the damage to his vehicle.

I recall a story of a rookie police officer elsewhere who got into an accident on the way to a call. It was his fault, so he wrote himself a ticket! And, much more recently, a Wisconsin police chief passed a stopped school bus, and he wrote himself a ticket - and paid the fine!

I'm awaiting the crash reports for last Wednesday's crash in Woodstock at Route 47 and Lake Avenue, where there is an IDOT traffic signal. One of the drivers must have had a red light, yet apparently no one was ticketed for running a red light. One civilian driver was ticketed for failing to yield to an emergency vehicle. At this point I'll assumed that Ms. Tara Madigan, of Woodstock, who was driving southbound on Route 47, had a green light. The speed limit is 35MPH, but daytime traffic usually does not allow a driver to move at that speed.

A Woodstock police officer was westbound on Lake Avenue and, according to witnesses (not identified by the newspaper), there was a "stopped 2000 Chevrolet Trailblazer that was facing east on Lake Avenue"). So, was the light red for Lake Avenue traffic in both directions? Was it red for the police officer?

The light could have been green for westbound traffic, if the signal was allowing westbound left-turning and through traffic to proceed was green, while through eastbound Lake Avenue traffic waited on its red. But then it would have been red for Route 47 traffic. And Ms. Madigan would have gotten a ticket for running a red light.

But she didn't get a ticket for running a red light, which causes me to think that she had a green, and the Woodstock officer had a red.

What does Illinois state law say about police running red lights?

"The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may ... 2. Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be required and necessary for safe operation." 625 ILCS 5/11-205(c)2

So, a police officer can "proceed" past a red light, but he must do so safely. If he doesn't do so safely, then a crash is likely. Did last Wednesday's crash happen because the officer pulled out into the intersection unsafely and into the path of the other car?

If so, the investigating deputy from the McHenry County Sheriff's Department made an error in issuing a ticket to Ms. Madigan, and she should fight it. No deal. No plea bargain. She should get a good, strong attorney to fight this ticket for her. And sue, if necessary, collect all the damages to repair her vehicle, to pay for the paramedics and the hospital and doctors' bills, and enough extra to reimburse her for her legal expense in fighting the ticket.

Now, if the police chief can quickly ascertain that the police officer did proceed through a red light and drive in front of Ms. Madigan, then the City should quickly step up and have the ticket dismissed AND arrange payment of all her damages. If the City is at fault, it makes no sense to fight a claim and only increase its eventual pay-out.

I wonder what the crash report will have to say about which driver had a red light or if the report will be silent about that. The driver of the eastbound Trailblazer knows, as will any impartial witness(es). If anyone witnessed this accident, contact the drivers and inform the Woodstock P.D. that you witnessed the accident. Ask that a supplemental report be written, and submit your own handwritten or typed statement of what you saw for attachment to that report.

You might also follow up and confirm that your own statement did get attached to the report. One of my own statements did not. I have always felt that Woodstock's prosecuting attorney would have won his case, had he known what was in my report. The officer's report indicated that my report was attached, and his supervising sergeant signed off on the report. However, the Woodstock PD Records Department didn't have the report, and so the prosecuting city attorney never got it. Where did it get lost between the sergeant's desk and the Records Department?

Woodstock Police car - was it hit or did it hit?

In Wednesday's crash at Route 47 and Lake Avenue between a Woodstock police car and two other vehicles, the crash was described in a newspaper article in the print edition this way. "The squad car was headed westbound on Lake Avenue while responding to a call for service when it was struck by a 2003 Ford Windstar that was southbound on Route 47." That explanation came from a press release from the McHenry County Sheriff's Department.

Above are photos of the police car, which is typically assigned to Beat 22 (note the number on the fender) and is believed to have been driven by an officer assigned to Beat 22, although his name is not mentioned in the newspaper article and has not yet been released by the Woodstock Police Department.

You decide for yourself. Does it look to you like it "was struck by" another vehicle, or does it appear that it struck another vehicle. Note the extensive front-end damage to the squad car.

Beat 22 is the northwest quadrant of the City, but the squad car was being driven west on Lake Ave. That would be inbound from Beat 24 and well outside Beat 22. Had the officer been assigned to a call in Beat 24, which would explain his being outside his beat?

What was the "call for service" to which the officer was headed with emergency lights and siren in use?

When a City police car is involved in an intersection crash, the citizens are entitled to an explanation, and it should be forthcoming quickly from the police chief. Two days later, there still is no word.

Is there a Department policy for automatic alcohol- and drug-screening following an on-duty accident? It should be a routine step and spelled out in the HR employee manual and the agreement with the union. The assumption, of course, is that an officer on duty has not used drugs or drunk alcohol within a specific period of time before going on duty. But is there a policy?