The news and blogs are simmering with the story of Eric Bryant, the Portland, Oregon attorney who saw a cop park his cruiser illegally, and cited the cop with a citizen complaint.
“[Officer] Stensgaard walked into the restaurant wearing his police uniform, but did not make any arrests or citations. Instead, he turned his attention to the basketball game on television, according to Bryant,” the publication recounts. “When Bryant asked Stensgaard about his vehicle, Stensgaard allegedly acknowledged being in a no-parking zone but asked Bryant, ‘If someone broke into your house, would you rather have the police be able to park in front of your house or have to park three blocks away and walk there?’ ” (source)
I’m never afraid to rail against police abuses or excesses, but I’m with Officer Stensgaard on this one. Stensgaard was in uniform, in a police cruiser. The man is entitled to get something to eat while on his shift. Lets say that an emergency call came in while Stensgaard was eating his lunch. Would Bryant have preferred that Stensgaard walk to his legally parked, but distant, police cruiser?
Cops should have the spotlight shined in their face when they are wrong. Stensgaard wasn’t wrong here — Bryant was.
Revision : Mr. Bryant himself took the time to write to me (see comments below) and cited the Oregon Statutes regarding emergency vehicles.
820.300 (1) (a) allows the driver of an emergency vehicle to “Park or stand in disregard of a statute, regulation or ordinance prohibiting that parking or standing.” However, 820.300 is tempered by ORS 820.320:
820.320 Illegal operation of emergency vehicle or ambulance; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of illegal operation of an emergency vehicle or ambulance if the person is the driver of an emergency vehicle or ambulance and the person violates any of the following:
(a) The driver of an emergency vehicle or ambulance may only exercise privileges granted under ORS 820.300 when responding to an emergency call or when responding to, but not upon returning from, an emergency. The driver of an emergency vehicle may exercise privileges granted under ORS 820.300 when in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law.
(b) The driver of an emergency vehicle or ambulance must use a visual signal with appropriate warning lights when the driver is exercising privileges granted under ORS 820.300.
Accordingly, it looks like I must say that I was wrong and reverse myself. There is a specific statutory scheme in Oregon to handle this kind of thing, Officer Stensgaard clearly violated that statute, and Mr. Bryant called him on it.
Thank you, Mr. Bryant for clarifying this (and doing so with such grace).
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
There’s a lot of assumptions required before one can reach a conclusion that Officer Stensgaard’s conduct was justified. While police sycophants would happily resolve all questions in favor of the cop, others might recognize the issues without jumping to conclusions.
Scott,
The only relevant assumptions I see here are as follows:
1) Was he on duty at the time? If he wasn’t, then he should have to park like the rest of us. But I am presuming that a cop who is in uniform is also on duty.
2) That’s all.
I’m no police sycophant. You know that for sure! I’m not willing to extend this line of thinking very far… but, I’m perfectly willing to live in a society where an on-duty cop can park wherever he pleases (provided that he isn’t endangering anyone else’s safety).
I want my police doing their jobs… not circling the block for 20 minutes looking for a parking space.
On duty? Maybe. Have a period of time for lunch when he isn’t subject to call? Maybe, Had a legal parking spot 10 feet away? Maybe. On patrol duty that day? Maybe. Had his radio with him? Maybe. Had his radio turned on? Maybe. Wearing his “going to court” uniform? Maybe.
I could go on for a while, but I think that makes the point. Are you still ready to close your eyes and leap off the cliff?
I am… I’m still willing to side with the cop on this, even if all of the above are resolved against him. Well, except for the last one.
There were other restaurants in the area that had their own parking lots directly in front- A Subway, a Taco Bell, a Panda Express, another Japanese restaurant, a Mexican restaurant. Everyone can agree that police officers have the right to get food while they are on duty. Everyone should also agree that police officers should not break the law when they have reasonable alternatives available to them.
The law is clear about what constitutes the illegal use of an emergency vehicle. See ORS 820.300 and ORS 820.320. Luckily in Oregon, the citizens have the power to apply the law to the government even when the government won’t apply the law to itself.
I’m no police sycophant, either, and it’s annoying to see cops getting away with stuff that I can’t, but…this is BS. It may be legally correct, Stensgaard may have broken the law, but it’s still BS. Cops have a hard job and have to deal with a lot of crap, much of it from their own department, and this sort of thing helps no one.
I guess what I’m saying is, if you want to be a hero for taking on a cop, pick a cop who’s doing something really wrong. Videotape police brutality, testify against an illegal search that you witness, record a shakedown attempt. This is just a little petty.
On the other hand, if there’s some history here—if Bryant is aware of more serious problems with Stensgaard, and this was just him taking his shot when he saw his chance—then kudos to him.
Oh crap, I had the comment page open on this post since this morning before I added my comment and didn’t see that Bryant is actually reading this. Hi, dude, nothing personal, just playing my role as an opinionated blogger…
I am much too gracious to inquire how it feels at the bottom of the cliff. But you were gracious in acknowledging Eric Bryant’s explanation.
And that, mi amigo, is why we shouldn’t rush to judgment.