Legislation would give immunity to firefighters

The Assembly Public Safety Committee today is considering one of the most noxious, special-interest pieces of legislation we've seen in a while — one that will endanger public safety, tread on the California constitution and reinforce the perception that some government workers are part of a special, coddled group that's exempt from the normal legal and ethical standards that are applied to other Californians.

Simply put, the bill would protect firefighters and paramedics from criminal liability even if they act in grossly negligent ways on the job and even if they operate in bad faith. The bill is an example of lowest-common-denominator union protectionism, as its obvious goal is to protect the worst-behaving employees.

Why are firefighters trying to protect grossly negligent behavior?

Introduced by Mark DeSaulnier, D-Martinez, Assembly Bill 2819 states: “No firefighter, EMT-1, EMT-II or EMT-P employed by the state or a local agency shall be subject to criminal prosecution for any legal act performed in the course and scope of his or her employment to carry out his or her professional responsibilities.” A firefighter or paramedic could only be prosecuted for work-related actions if the employee was working outside his professional capacity or if the action was done “with demonstrable general criminal intent.” That's a nearly impossible standard for a D.A.

The bill would also “create a presumption that an act to which the bill applies was performed in good faith and without gross negligence.” In other words, no matter what the firefighter does on the job, the law presumes that he or she acted in good faith and was not negligent. This amounts to a carte blanche to firefighters and paramedics to behave in virtually any way on the job — short of purposefully committing a crime. This adds special criminal statute protection to public safety employees, who already have strong protections from civil liability. And the legislation limits the requirement for a firefighter or paramedic to testify before a grand jury.

The legislation was offered in response to a deadly traffic accident, in which a prosecutor pursued criminal charges against the firefighter who was driving a firetruck involved in the crash.

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, the Orange Republican known for his strong support of public safety officials, was rightly outraged by this legislation. “It's unbelievable,” he told us. “What were the facts of the case? You know D.A.s don't want to prosecute firefighters.” There has always been a very bright line, Mr. Spitzer added. If a paramedic goes to the scene and he does his best, and the person dies, then the paramedic is protected from liability. But if this law passes a paramedic would be protected even if he showed up at the accident scene, saw a guy convulsing, and decided to go and get dinner rather than treat him.

Public Safety Committee Chairman Jose Solorio, D-Santa Ana, told us he will give this bill a fair hearing, but has serious “concerns about giving blanket immunity. We need to make sure all our public servants always avoid gross negligence.” He also pointed to the committee analysis, which raises constitutional problems, specifically with regard to separation-of-powers issues. According to the analysis, “The bill states the district attorney may not prosecute a firefighter or EMT, as specified … . The Legislature may not prohibit the district attorney from prosecuting a person under existing criminal statutes. Is this provision a violation of the California Constitution?”

The result of reducing accountability will be more gross negligence, which is why the public should fear for its safety if this bill passes. Mr. Solorio is right when he said that California should move in the other direction. Firefighters and paramedics are in trusted positions, he said, and should “operate under higher standards.”