Suv passes schoolbus on double yellow-trying to cite busdriver on here-say

[AmyMarie]

Hope everyone is having a good weekend.

Here is the situation. Schoolbus driving down a one-way highway (one lane eastbound and one lane westbound) in a no passing zone. An suv comes behind, starts tailgating and then continues to pass the bus on the left. The busdriver looks in the left-view mirror and just that quickly the suv is off the road in a ditch and sever a telephone pole. Bus is not involved and incident is considered a one vehicle accident. Later to find out the suv driver was fine but the car, of course, totalled. The driver of the suv said in his statement that the bus ran him off the road by 'swerving' and another truck driver coming the other way who was ready to hit the suv head-on said that the bus was in the "middle" of the road (which is impossible if the truck almost hit the suv, for it would have hit the bus first). The bus driver also gave a voluntary witness statement and denied all accusations.

School buses in the state of PA have audio and video survelliance in the buses (but this is controlled by the school district). The video tape shows the suv passing the bus and according to the timer, it took 3-4 seconds from the time the suv starts passing to the time for the suv to crash. There is no swerving action observed by the bus and is, in fact, straight as an arrow. The police department have seen the video and have not contacted the bus driver to let them know wether they are not part of the investigation anymore or wether they will be cited.

My question is, there is physical proof in the video that the bus driver had nothing to do with the accident. Then you have one witness who's story makes no sense and then the driver of the suv who caused his own destiny who is trying to validate his illegal action of passing a school bus. Is there a statutue of limitations as to how long during an investigation the police have to cite the driver? This accident took place exactly 10 days ago. In this situation, doesn't physical proof (via audio/video) supersede what is said by a witness?

I guess what I am getting at is the police only have what the suv driver is saying (who of course is looking for some validation) and one witness compared to video proof of the bus driver not doing any of the acts suggested.

Thanks for your help and I will be awaiting any/all replies

[GIOSTORMUSNRET]

Well the video would exonerate the bus driver, so they are no longer part of the investigation. If the video is as you say, the jeep driver would be at fault and be cited for passing in a no passing zone.

[Nightshift va]

I guess what you are saying is the Police are going after the bus driver? Well most cops that know what they are doing don't get warrants on anyone until they investigate the crime. And the statute of limitations in most states for something like this is a Year and ten on felonies. So I don't see a rush to charge anyone yet but it's not my case. I sure as heck wouldn't just charge a bus driver because some moron recked his car and claimed it was their fault. I'd do the crash report and leave charges "pending". Again don't know the particulars though.

[AmyMarie]

I also forgot to mention that apparently there were no actions taken by the police to see if the driver of the SUV was under the influence. No breathalizer, blood drawn, legal or illegal drugs in his system, etc. Right there shows the lack of investigative actions at the time of the accident by the police. I would have thought that this would be mandatory, especially when involving a schoolbus!

But, just in case, this give the bus driver even more leverage as to this investigation being so-called 'bogus' from the beginning.

Also, the driver of the SUV was cited on the scene and basically admitted to passing the bus. When I mentioned in my original post about statute of limitations to citing the driver I meant if they wanted to cite the busdriver for any reason. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Redders]

You answered your own questions. The video/audio from the bus was viewed as part of the investigation.

[mdrdep]

And what part in all of this do you play?

[wickrb33]

I think she is the bus driver(maybe just related)...........am I right?

[mp1161]

I also forgot to mention that apparently there were no actions taken by the police to see if the driver of the SUV was under the influence. No breathalizer, blood drawn, legal or illegal drugs in his system, etc. Right there shows the lack of investigative actions at the time of the accident by the police. I would have thought that this would be mandatory, especially when involving a schoolbus!

How exactly is this lack of investigative actions? Traffic infractions (tailgating, improper passing that has been said previously) doesn't mean the driver's drunk, nor should it be any indication to think so, at least it better not be worded in the report that way prior to interviewing the driver. If I were handling this I would be able to tell if the driver is impaired or not through an interview. An interview would give me indicators of any slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, oder of an alcoholic beverage, etc. If these were detected, then I would further the investigation accordingly, however we (police) don't just give people field sobriety tests on individuals just because they are involved in an accident. There has to be some sort of reasonable suspicion of possible impairment behind it.

[JW356]

mp1161 nailed it. I know almost every DUI suspect I arrest are over the legal limit even before they perform tests. It's not rocket science. I don't have to take a blood draw on drivers in an accident unless it's fatal or potentially fatal.

You said in your original post, "Bus is not involved and incident is considered a one vehicle accident." Then in a later post you said, "I would have thought that this would be mandatory, especially when involving a schoolbus!"

You told us originally that the bus wasn't involved. If I was doing the crash investigation the bus driver would have been listed as a witness and nothing more. It would have been a one vehicle crash, just as it sounds like the crash was originally handled. Now you're upset because they didn't field screen the driver of a vehicle involved in a single vehicle crash of which you weren't involved? Not surpising considering everyone under the sun thinks they can do an officer's job better then the officer can.

The bus driver was not involved in the accident and was shown by video to have done nothing wrong? Then the bus driver should mind there own business when it comes to the crash investigation.

[AmyMarie]

I want to thank you all for your insight and professional opinions on this situation. The only reason I mentioned something about "I would have thought that this would be mandatory, especially when involving a schoolbus!" is because you have to be a total idiot or a wack-job to try to pass a schoolbus on a double-yellow and actually think you are going to be successful at it "OR" not get caught. A measurement was taken on the width of the schoolbus on that particular highway and showed a total of only 6 inches between the bus and the yellow divider line.

In my opinion, the driver that tried to pass the bus got what he deserved.

[PhilipCal]

Minor point AmyMarie, but your profile indicates that you're employed in the LE industry, then says Security. Unless you're sworn and have arrest powers, you're NOT a LE Officer. nor are you employed in law enforcement. Now to your question, Based on your post, the SUV driver is at fault. It's quite common for drivers in that situation to attempt to mitigate their own driving error, and/or shift responsibility to the other driver. Sounds to me like the Police are doing their job. Perhaps not as rapidly as you'd like, but doing it none the less .

[AmyMarie]

Minor point AmyMarie, but your profile indicates that you're employed in the LE industry, then says Security. Unless you're sworn and have arrest powers, you're NOT a LE Officer. nor are you employed in law enforcement. Now to your question, Based on your post, the SUV driver is at fault. It's quite common for drivers in that situation to attempt to mitigate their own driving error, and/or shift responsibility to the other driver. Sounds to me like the Police are doing their job. Perhaps not as rapidly as you'd like, but doing it none the less .

As far as exactly what I do in regards to my career in law enforcement is irrelevant. I had no idea that in this forum I had to explain exactly what my profession is within law enforcement. The day I see a special thread on here saying that it is "REQUIRED" that all members explain in detail their profession within law enforcement will be the day I shall participate. The information I gave through the registration process for the forum is sufficient.

Again, thank you all for the information.

[PhilipCal]

As far as exactly what I do in regards to my career in law enforcement is irrelevant. I had no idea that in this forum I had to explain exactly what my profession is within law enforcement. The day I see a special thread on here saying that it is "REQUIRED" that all members explain in detail their profession within law enforcement will be the day I shall participate. The information I gave through the registration process for the forum is sufficient.

Again, thank you all for the information.

Yeah, but you're still NOT employed in the LE industry, and thus NOT a cop. Security doesn't quite cut it. Bet you're not a brain surgeon either. Put it out there publicly as you did, it's subject to challenge. That's what I did. Just for the record what IS your profession?

[PABear31]

Where did you come up with the title of this thread? What did the police officer say or do to indicate that he was going to cite the school bus driver? Even if he did file a citation on the word of either the driver of the SUV or the pick-up, or both, it wouldn't be hearsay but upon eyewitness accounts. Just because the police officer listened to and recored the statements of the SUV and pick-up truch drivers doesn't mean that he totally believed them. I was required to put operators and witness statements in the report the way they were given to me.

The police officer responded to the scene of a one vehicle crash and conducted an investigation. During that investigation he concluded that the crash was caused by the driver of the SUV attempting to pass a school bus in a no passing zone on a narrow two-lane two-way roadway. The driver of the SUV was cited for the violation. The officer further concluded through observation that there were no indicators of imparment of the driver of the SUV that would give him probable cause to arrest the SUV driver for DUI. (The only crashes in PA that mandate any drug or alcohol tests are fatal crashes involving a commercal vehicle and only for the commercial vehicle driver.)

The way I read your post investigation was concluded before the police officer viewed the video. The only reason for doing so is to see if the quality of the video is sufficient to show the court the crash and if it is worth the effort involved to subpoena the video if the driver of the SUV requests a trial. If there were doubts about the various accounts of the crash the police officer would have wanted to see the video before citing the SUV's operator. Given your senario I wouldn't expect the bus driver to hear from the police officer about this crash unless the SUV operator takes a trial and then it would only be as a witness. At that time the SUV driver may then raise his claims that the bus swerved and ran him off the road and the video may refute that.

[ryker]

Does the video clearly amd accutalty show the yellow and/or fog lines?

Then you have to show intent for the serious charges as a gust of wind can push the bus a wee bit over the line.

Review video closely.

The independent witness whom has nothing to
Gain or loose holds more weight, IMO.