Texting While Driving and the 4th Amendment

Texting While Driving and the 4th Amendment

Starting Nov. 1, 2015, use of cell phones to send or receive text messages while driving has been outlawed. Municipalities may adopt ordinances criminalizing the action as well, though the municipality’s fine plus court costs cannot exceed $100. Exceptions to the prohibition exist for fire and police employees who are using their phone during an imminent emergency situation.

This alert will cover the elements of the offense as well the potential for liability exposure under the 4th Amendment during a traffic stop to investigate this offense.

Print Friendly and PDF
,

Risks Associated With Municipally Operated Ambulance Services

,
Risks Associated With Municipally Operated Ambulance Services

Oklahoma law authorizes municipalities to either contract out ambulance services or to regulate and control ambulance services pursuant to a duly enacted ordinance or regulation.[i] There are risks associated with operating an ambulance service.  Because of those risks, liability and workers compensation insurance is required by law.  The Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act[ii]  and the Oklahoma Administrative Workers Compensation Act provides certain levels of coverage. If the municipality chooses to contract out the services, then the contractor is required to provide the liability coverage in a sum of not less than the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims limits and workers compensation insurance. 

There are many liability issues when assessing the risks associated with a municipality operating an ambulance service.  Municipalities running an Emergency Management Service (EMS), such as an ambulance service, have a responsibility, or duty, to serve their communities in a timely and competent manner.  This responsibility begins when a call for assistance comes into the dispatch center and generally ends with transfer of care to the receiving facility. The citizens who call EMS for assistance expect that each step in the process will be handled quickly, safely and appropriately.  When calls for assistance are not handled properly, it can lead to liability.  The areas of liability fall into three general categories:  general liability stemming from injuries that occur as a result of the negligence by an EMS employee, automobile accidents, including property damage and bodily injury, and workers compensation for the employees.

Print Friendly and PDF

Religious Expression in the Public Workplace

Religious Expression in the Public Workplace

As workplaces continue to become more diverse, religion in the workplace is becoming a significant issue.  Employees of diverse backgrounds may request accommodations to practice daily religious activities.  Employers may not discriminate based on religion, must reasonably accommodate religious beliefs and practices, and must protect other employees against the unwelcome religious behaviors of their co-workers or managers. 

Print Friendly and PDF

Welding Safety

Welding Safety

Welding hazards pose an unusual combination of safety and health risks. By its nature, welding produces fumes, and noise, gives off radiation, involves electricity or gases, and has the potential for burns, shock, fire, and explosions. 
 
Some hazards are common to both electric arc and oxygen-fuel gas welding. If you work with or near a welding operation, the following general precautions should help you to work more safely. 

Print Friendly and PDF

Safety with Portable Electric-Powered Tools

Safety with Portable Electric-Powered Tools

Failing to properly use and maintain electric-powered tools causes thousands of cuts, punctures, pinches, amputations, and electrocutions each year. Tools can seriously injure or kill the user if not properly maintained and used. Everyone who uses tools must learn to recognize the hazards associated with the different types of tools and the safety precautions necessary to prevent accidents while using them. OSHA has specific rules for using electric-powered tools. Following the guidelines, along with using your own good judgement will help keep you safe. 

Print Friendly and PDF

Fernandez v. California - Consent Required for a Warrantless Search

Fernandez v. California - Consent Required for a Warrantless Search

The Supreme Court has long held that police officers may search a jointly occupied residence if one of the occupants consents.  United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974).  In 2006 the Court recognized a narrow exception to this rule, holding that consent of one occupant is insufficient when another occupant is present and objects to the search.  Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).  On February 25, 2014 the Court clarified Randolph by ruling that the police can search a home without a warrant, even if one co-tenant objects, as long as, the objecting co-tenant is no longer on the scene and another co-tenant gives consent. Fernandez v. California, --- S.Ct. ---. 

Print Friendly and PDF

Employment Status of Probationary Police Trainees

Employment Status of Probationary Police Trainees

On February 25, 2014, the Oklahoma Supreme Court settled the issue of whether a probationary police trainee who is a member of the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System (OPPRS) is (1) an at-will employee, and (2) entitled to a post-termination hearing.  City of Jenks v. Timothy Stone, 2014 OK 11.

The case involved the termination of a probationary police trainee employed by the City of Jenks. The City of Jenks and the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 146 had an agreement outlining the grievance and arbitration rights of full-time, permanent police officers.  Stone requested a review board hearing under 11 O.S. § 50-123 of the OPPRS and the City denied that request claiming Stone was an at-will employee and not entitled to a review board hearing.  Title  11 O.S. § 50-123 provides, in part:

Print Friendly and PDF

Authority to Arrest

Authority to Arrest

This bulletin is intended to make police officers and municipalities aware of the potential civil liability associated with arresting individuals for obstruction of a public official when performing their police duties.

Introduction

Officers routinely encounter individuals who are disrespectful, challenge their authority and criticize their actions.  General criticism of the police, even if expressed in abusive or disrespectful terms, is not obstruction and is generally protected free speech.  The Supreme Court requires substantial justification before police can interfere with the right to free speech or make an unlawful arrest. Making inappropriate arrests of individuals for obstructing a police officer in circumstances where courts will find their actions to be merely an exercise of their First Amendment right to free speech can be counter-productive, both in terms of community relations and potential civil liability.

Print Friendly and PDF