Originally Posted by diethelm
Davidson does not address the issue of a public agency actively forbidding an asset being deployed which can clearly be shown to provide relief and does not interfere with the agency carrying out its duties.
Further, a well trained aircrew with an asset more properly equipped than that of the Agency seems to me to be a tough case of gross negligence.
The problem is that we actually need to debate this stuff and try to make excuses for the incident commander. By doing so we simply give the next person an excuse for a bad decision.
But that is not the manner in which the law is usually applied. Gross negligence refers to an actul act, not a failure to act or omission. As I explained in a previus post, law enforcement has no mandated legal duty to protect the indvidual (Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197).
Botton line is things worked out for the best & the kids are safe & well. And yes, I bet the CHP continued to hammer people for speeding on the I-5. I think what bends me out of shape is that CHP didnt at least mount up, fly to the area (weather permitting), survey the scene & make a determination if the search was within their capability. The fact they didnt even try irks me.