Police procedure: Car vs. Pedestrian (fatality)

[christopher jon]

Anybody know what the police procedure is for a car hitting and killing a pedestrian? Driver not at fault. Driver not intoxicated.

Looking for generic US procedures.

Primarily interested in if statements are taken at the scene and if the driver is released of if the driver is taken to the police station.

It's Friday night so I can't research this through official sources until after the weekend and I wanna write right now!

[NikeeGoddess]

some of it depends on whether the pedestrian was in a legal crosswalk vs dashing through traffic aka jaywalking. other factors would be the number of witnesses and the amount of damage to the car (is it drivable?) rural, suburban, or urban streets make a difference too b/c they might need to close off the streets.

my guess is you can just make up the circumstances you need to fit the story and don't worry about getting the procedures too specific.

[sbbn]

I can't speak for other states but I'm a prosecutor in my state and the head of the vehicular homicide/assault specialty unit, for what it's worth.

In the example you provided what would most likely happen is that the police would get a statement from the driver at the scene, get contact information and release them. Statements will ALWAYS be taken, from both the driver, any passengers, and any other witnesses who saw the accident or even those who didn't see it but showed up immediately afterwards to help. It is very unlikely that the driver will be taken to the police station. Particularly in the example you provided, in which the driver is not at fault (and consequentially would not be charged with anything).

In many states even if the driver is at fault but has not been drinking or driving recklessly or left the scene or something like that then the police will get a statement from the driver, issue a citation or summons with a court date, and let the person go.

Originally Posted by NikeeGoddess

some of it depends on whether the pedestrian was in a legal crosswalk vs dashing through traffic aka jaywalking. other factors would be the number of witnesses and the amount of damage to the car (is it drivable?) rural, suburban, or urban streets make a difference too b/c they might need to close off the streets.

I don't mean to sound dense but I'm not really following your answer, specifically what all the things that follow "it depends" actually depend on because the OP's question stated that the driver in his scenario is not at fault. Whether a pedestrian was in a crosswalk (are there illegal crosswalks...?) or jaywalking only factors into whether the driver or pedestrian is at fault and even then neither one of these are determining factors. The number of witnesses is not important; what is important is the credibility of the witnesses. In fact, in my state (at least) there is a specific jury instruction for all trials that says the number of witnesses does not make something more or less true and that the jury must weigh the credibility of each of the witnesses. I'm not sure what the amount of damage to a car (do you mean from the accident) has to do with anything other than to corroborate statements and determine fault....

But in all of the examples the only determination is fault and the OP has already stated that the driver is not at fault in his events.

I am at a complete loss as to what difference it makes to an investigation what type of street the accident occurred on, especially if the driver, as OP stated, is not at fault. Police should ALWAYS (and have always in every vehicular homicide scene I've been to) close down whatever part of the street(s) as necessary to complete an investigation. Even a half-ass police force should be doing that.

The size of the scene determines how much has to be closed down. Sometimes it's one lane, sometimes more. I went to one scene that was spread across a two-lane highway and they shut down both directions for 4-5 hours and people just sat in their cars and waited while they completed the investigations.

Most times when you see accidents where they are not closing down the road or lanes it is because they are relatively small accidents with minor to no injuries. There is a very high number of accidents without death or serious injury as compared to those with death or serious injury. If there is a death there should absolutely be at least some road closures going on.

[christopher jon]

Thanks for the replies.

Everything I needed to know.

[ATB]

What exactly do you mean by "not at fault?"

I'm not positive, but I think that if a driver is driving even a little over the speed limit and a pedestrian jaywalks and gets hit, then the driver is at fault.

In any case, I'm sure the driver would still be questioned by police and the vehicle would most likely be examined.

[christopher jon]

What exactly do you mean by "not at fault?"

Just driving down the road, singing along to Kelly Clarkson, a guy runs out in front of the car, BAM!, hit and killed.

What actually happens afterwards isn't that important since the scene cuts shortly after the accident.

I wanted to fill in the blanks (mental character development) of what the character might have gone through between that scene and the next time we see him in the story. Catching a cab home or spending the night in the slammer with big bubba are very different experiences.

[sbbn]

Originally Posted by ATB

What exactly do you mean by "not at fault?"

I'm not positive, but I think that if a driver is driving even a little over the speed limit and a pedestrian jaywalks and gets hit, then the driver is at fault.

There isn't any sort of default driver is always at fault thing.

Speeding does not automatically equate to fault. If a person is going significantly over the speed limit that may equate to careless or reckless but if a person is within a range that is close to the speed limit then it is unlikely that that is going to factor into fault in who is responsible.

And just to be clear, accident reconstruction is not an exact science. It isn't like reconstruction gives you exact speeds. It's more like "the driver was going the speed limit or close to it" or the "the driver was going between 60-70 miles per hour." So you aren't going to see an accident reconstruction where the expert gets up and says "he was going 49 in a 45 mph zone."

christopher jon provides a good example of where a driver might not be at fault: a person runs out in front of the car and the driver doesn't have time to react and hits the person. It's not a particularly unusual scenario. If the driver had more than enough time to react and should have reacted then the driver may be at fault. It depends and is really a case-by-case determination.

In terms of criminal liability, being at fault doesn't automatically mean someone is cited or arrested or charges with anything. If two people are equally at fault they may both get cited or neither may get cited.

To be honest, way to much is being made of jaywalking. A pedestrian who runs into a crosswalk when he doesn't have right of way can still be at fault for getting hit. There isn't anything magical about crosswalks or jaywalking that creates automatic fault. They are factors that MAY going into determining who is at fault but are not overriding determinants.

Originally Posted by ATB

In any case, I'm sure the driver would still be questioned by police and the vehicle would most likely be examined.

In ANY and ALL circumstance involving a death (as well as pretty much any circumstance in which police respond to a wreck) they will get a statement from the driver, any passengers and any witnesses.

Examining the vehicle is a pretty broad statement and I'm not sure what you mean. For example, if no one is saying there are mechanical problems and there is no reason to suspect then the police are very unlikely to do some sort of mechanical diagnostics on the vehicle.