Officer Visibility - Officers must avoid the common tendency to focus intently on their specific duties while on the roadway. Yes, there is work to be done but the biggest risk on the roadway are the hundreds or thousands of vehicles that will pass them by while they are on foot on the road. Officers should never assume that drivers see them and there must be a conscious effort to "be seen" at all times. The wearing of ANSI Level II or III vests must be mandatory on any roadway where traffic management is being conducted.

Location- While we do not dictate where a traffic incident occurs, we can dictate where we position our vehicle or set up flares and cones. The more distance we give citizens to be aware of our actions and to make adjustments in their driving, the safer we will be.

Policy -Department policy should mandate the wearing of high visibility vests and consequences should occur when this is not done. The policy should be detailed and explain exactly when the officer must wear the vest. While the Federal Highway Administration mandated the wearing in federally funded highways only, they did not limit it because other roadways were somehow less dangerous. They were cognizant not to issue an unfunded mandate but common sense should dictate that high visibility vests should be worn on all roadways when conducting traffic incident management duties. Some examples of these duties include directing traffic, investigating collisions, handling lane closures, clearing roadway debris, disasters, etc.

Training - Along with a sound policy, training must be given to ensure that officers are clear about what is required of them. Most high visibility vests have specific instructions on how to properly wear them and there are established guidelines on the proper placement and usage of traffic cones. We can no longer assume that just because our officers wear a uniform, they have the knowledge necessary to conduct traffic management on the roadway.

Supervision - Supervisors must make it a point to respond to traffic incident management scenes on a regular basis for the sole reason to monitor the safety of the officers. An independent eye away from the work at hand can go a long way to ensuring each officer is performing their duties safely.

Color - If you go to the United Kingdom and see an officer walking a beat, you likely will not see the typical blue uniform so prevalent in America. You will see them with high visibility garments and while that is not something I could recommend at all times, we should be cognizant with what we wear on duty. Studies have suggested that a motorist traveling 60 mph needs at least 260 feet to recognize a pedestrian and stop in time.

Unfortunately, what a driver needs and what they actually observe are two different things. A pedestrian wearing the color blue was not noticed until 55 feet. White was the best choice of color with it being noticed at 120 feet but reflective clothing is noticed at 500 feet. This just emphasizes the extreme importance of cones, flares and reflective clothing being used in traffic related incidents.

Cones - Cones shall be orange in color and at least 18 inches in height for daytime and low-speed roadways. For night operations or high-speed highways, cones should be at least 28 inches in height. For low-speed roadways, the initial warning to drivers should take place at least 100 feet from the first emergency vehicle. Distances should then increase to approximately 6 to 8 times the speed limit on higher speed streets. If the speed limit is 65 mph, the initial warning to drivers should occur between 390 feet and 520 feet.

Emergency Equipment - We must be aware that the lights we use at traffic scenes do not ensure that drivers will stay away from us and often the lights we use can make areas more dangerous. More lights do not always equal additional safety. Data does suggest that blue lights are more effective at night while red had a benefit during day time operations. A recent comment on PoliceOne said what many of us have thought:

"There's a lot of 2,000 lbs. "bullets" blasting by us everyday. In my career, I've observed most of these bullets are near-misses at accident scene. I've driven upon accident scenes off-duty in my POV and had no idea where to go or what was the safe way out of the area. I've always contributed it to "light washout". At my accident scenes I've told officers, fire and EMS that if their vehicles don't need to be on the street, find a parking lot or get off the road and turn off their lights."

Conclusion

At the end of the day, working on and around roadways is a dangerous business. Despite a strong emphasis on safety, more than 100 workers from a variety of professions are killed each year standing on roads. The variables are simply too many to stop every one of them but we owe it to our officers to address this issue and do it in an aggressive manner. We know without a doubt that policy and training works and far too many of our nations' finest encounter roadway management incidents without the appropriate guidelines and training. When our feet exit the friendly confines of our vehicle, the danger lurking is extreme and we must act accordingly.

Struck-by incidents are the second leading cause of accidental deaths to law enforcement (behind vehicle collisions) and there is no doubt that this issue is real for the profession and it is one that we should be vigilant about. In the last decade we have lost an average of one officer each month to struck-by incidents and in the first six months of this year that trend has continued with six officer deaths. Three of those officers worked for the California Highway Patrol with Officer Philip Ortiz and Officer Brett Oswald succumbing to injuries they received after being struck by cars just five days apart in June 2010.

The impact that struck-by incidents have can be summed up by what Shelley Fulmer shared at a recent news conference. Shelley was the wife of Aiken County Sheriff's Office Sergeant Jason Sheppard, who was killed on December 7, 2006 while he was directing traffic at the scene of a fire.
 

"It completely changed my life. I was 26 years old and a widow. I mean you can't begin to describe that."

Shelley is absolutely right. These deaths are tragic and it is difficult to describe the pain to the families, communities, and fellow officers when they occur. Let's do everything we can to prevent these tragic deaths in the future. That way, we never have to describe them again.

.....[t]he public's interest in maintaining Petitioner's record of murder is exceptionally compelling, and the Court will not grant annulment or expungement of the conviction  Consequently, upon balancing the benefits Petitioner alleges she would gain from expungement against the public's interest in maintaining Petitioner's criminal record, the Court concludes that the public's interests prevail.

Because of the State's strong interest in regulating the driving of motor vehicles and the clear evidence of the havoc rendered by drunk drivers, the State has legitimate police power to amend or enact laws designed to penalize and deter persons from driving after consuming alcohol or drugs.  State v. Chamberlain  280 Kan. 241, 120 P.3d 319 Syl. 12 (Kan.,2005)
 
The legislature has continually modified the DUI laws to punish more severely violators.  The fact the legislature now requires a person's lifetime record of DUI convictions in determining punishment is perhaps telling of how the legislature wishes to treat repeat offenders. 
 
As noted in Sandstrom the district court stated:

"Although there exists no Kansas case law on point, courts, when deciding whether to grant such a petition, typically employ a balancing test, weighing the benefit the petitioner would gain from expungement against the public's interests in maintaining the petitioner's criminal record. See State of Minnesota v. Ambaye, 616 N.W.2d 256 (2000); see also **437 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Butler, 448 Pa.Super. 582, 672 A.2d 806 (1996).

Therefore-every request for a DUI expungement should be reviewed carefully and the criminal history of the defendant should be brought to the Court's attention.   In this way the Court can determine the likelihood of the petitioner to be a "repeat" offender and weigh the benefits with the public's safety interests. 

State v. Barriger 239 P.3d 1290 (10/01/10)
Trooper found defendant urinating on the roadway outside his pickup truck. The truck was partially blocking the roadway. The two-laned roadway had no paved shoulders was poorly lit and the truck had stopped near an intersection and a curve.  The Trooper took the defendant's keys and license.  The Trooper moved the vehicle off the roadway and transported the defendant 1 mile down the road to a parking lot to conduct SFSTs.  The defendant was impaired, arrested and blew a 0.15 BAC.  The defense claimed taking the defendant away from the scene to do SFSTs converted his detention into an arrest and he had no probable cause in which to do that.  The court stated:  an officer should be allowed to act reasonably to protect the safety of both the officer and the suspect while still following all other rules applied to an investigatory detention.  When required for the safety of the officer or suspect, a suspect may be moved a short distance during an investigatory detention if that is consistent with the purposes of the investigation, does not unduly prolong the duration of the detention and does not otherwise turn the situation into the equivalent of a formal arrest. In this case the officer's request to move to a nearby parking lot was reasonable, did not prolong the traffic stop than was reasonably necessary, did not use handcuffs, draw a weapon, or force compliance in any physical way nor did he search the defendant's truck nor ask permission to do so.  The court cited to USSC cases Florida v. Royer 460 U.S. 491(1983) and some federal circuit cases:  U.S. v. Pino 855 F.2d 357(6th Cir. 1988) U.S. v. White 584 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2009) 

Diversions

Minors and contractual obligations