For anyone who has either been pregnant, or been next to someone who has been pregnant for the full gestation period, there is no doubt that it’s a condition requiring a very high degree of understanding. No one can argue with hormones. But even more, it’s an event that remains miraculous each and every time, even though it’s happened as many times as there are people on the face of the earth. You’ve got to admit, that’s pretty special.
Yet not everyone seems to have a soft spot for pregnancy. First, we have Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Galluccio (of the Brighton barracks, in case you were wondering). According to the Boston Globe, Michael doesn’t have much of a soft spot.
Jennifer Davis was stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic on Nov. 18, her contractions just 3 minutes apart. Her husband, John, was trying to appear calm for his wife’s sake, driving in the breakdown lane of Route 2. They pulled up behind a state trooper to ask whether they could continue using the lane to reach the next exit, near Alewife Station.
Not only did the trooper say no, he gave them a $100 citation for driving in the breakdown lane, made them wait for their citation while he finished writing someone else’s ticket, and even seemed to ask for proof of pregnancy, Jennifer Davis said.
Well, that wasn’t very nice. True, the Davis’ use of the shoulder to circumvent bumper to bumper traffic was the potential first step toward anarchy, there being important laws prohibiting driving in the “breakdown lane” for the protection of society. On the other hand, police frequently exercise a bit of discretion when circumstances, like pregnant women in labor, suggest it’s appropriate. Had Jennifer been a pregnant police officer, perhaps she would have obtained more help from Trooper Galluccio.
But the story of Jennifer and Michael the Trooper doesn’t end with a $100 citation. Oh no. It seems that this tale has caused deep-seated antagonism toward those pregnant women with a sense of entitlement to bubble to the surface. And surprisingly, not from the angry mobs of barren hermaphrodites, but from the legal academy. Go figure.
David Bernstein at Volokh Conspiracy took this tale of inchoate anarcho-syndicalism and ran with it:
What a cruel, heartless cop, right? That’s the way the story is written.
But wait. If you read the story carefully, when the cop pulled the husband over, he was attending to a car in the breakdown lane, where the husband was driving illegally (albeit allegedly with the permission of cops he encountered previously). In other words, the husband was endangering the cop’s life. And the couple turned down the officer’s offer of an ambulance. Why? Well, when you get to the last paragraph, you find out that the baby wasn’t born until five hours later. If it’s a true emergency, call 911 and meet the ambulance at the next exit!
As I’ve pointed out before, the fact that a woman is in labor is no excuse for unsafe driving.
That’s just heartless. Worse still, it’s factually wrong. Nowhere does the story suggest that a cop’s life was endangered. Not even close. Not even from as biased a starting point as David’s post suggests. The attempt to justify this animus toward pregnant women, that she didn’t in fact deliver for another five hours, is shocking. Does David think that pregnant women know how long labor is going to take. As a professor, an academic, a scholar, this is just incredibly foolish stuff.
What drives this sort of hostility toward pregnant women? That’s for a well-paid therapist to discover after many years of appointments, but it’s wrong to suggest that Trooper Michael Galluccio, in his zeal to protect the breakdown lane from heinous pregnant women, is the last man standing between order and pregnant chaos.
Had the Trooper and the lawprof taken a deep breadth, thought about their mothers under the same conditions, and considered that the excessive desire for order and compliance has to occasionally give way, perhaps the miracle of child birth would be cause for joy rather than a $100 citation.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scott Greenfield–You really did it this time. I think I’m in love. I’ll be divorcing my husband this afternoon and driving to NYC post haste. 😉
Aw, shucks. Twern’t nothing any other father wouldn’t do.
It’s none of our business if David has a grown-up female at home, but this makes you wonder doesn’t it? And whether she has any idea. I wouldn’t instigate anything. Nope.
Driving 80mph on a 40 mph road during a Nor’easter to deliver my son with the window down gulping in rain and freezing cold air, if a policeman stopped me…(well, I wouldn’t have stopped until I got to the hospital or stopped, gotten out of my car and into his and told him to turn on the lights and get going) I would have probably ended up hiring you to defend me on attempted murder charges if I met up with this particular officer at that particular moment 🙂
The reality is, he probably thought she was faking labor to circumvent traffic…especially after the offer of an ambulance was turned down.
He made a very bad call but seems to have been within his rights to do so.
Still having been a pregnant women (passenger) speeding down a road I understand the flip side of that coin.
interesting how we all have our own definition of what justifies ignoring public safety laws. in labor, late for class, tickets to the football game, kid in the hospital, have to pee. i’m betting none of these are codified exceptions to that pesky drive on the road rule. if it’s an emergency, get an ambulance. if not, play by the rules. the thought of a panicky pair of pending parents whizzing by me while i’m sitting in traffic is really scary to me. the cop was right. pregnant women are sympathetic but not above the law.
There is a fundamental distinction between life and death issues, such as the birth of a child, and being late for class or having to pee. There is also a distinction between a cop refusing to allow you to violate an extremely minor rule, and ticketing you for it. Without the ability to comprehend these distinctions, it’s understandable why your primary concern is that you would be miffed at seeing someone driving past you while you’re sitting in traffic, as well as where the focal point of your concern resides.
I’m having a hard time deciding who’s worse: the brute cop or the Volokh professor who justifes this bahavior? I’m leaning toward the latter, b/c he ain’t under any stressful conditions, and he nevertheless shows unbelievable callousness and insensitivity.
my mistake for the misunderstanding. i wouldn’t be “miffed,” i would be “frightened for my safety.”
as to your “fundamental distinction,” like i said before, we all draw our own lines. that’s why we have laws; so there will be order.
if it was a life or death situation, take the ambulance. that’s what they’re for. clearly the couple in question didn’t think it was a life or death situation, they just wanted special treatment.
Frightened is certainly different than miffed, but there’s no basis to assert that you would be frightened. You assume they would be speeding along. What if they were only traveling at 20 mph? Your assumption that it couldn’t be life or death because they didn’t take the ambulance is similarly baseless, since waiting for an ambulance to arrive in bumper to bumper traffic could have taken hours.
Again, these are baseless assumptions you make because you elevate the need for order over reason. You are entitled to feel that obeying the law, no matter how trivial the law or how significant the reason not to obey may be, is paramount. Fortunately, few people are that rigid and unsympathetic. Most people recognize that the inherent flexibility of the law, particularly a law such as this which is invariably applied with discretion, is what makes a rational society work.
Was the cop correct to pull them over? Yes, they were in the breakdown lane.
Was the cop correct to keep them when they relayed the facts, given that childbirth can go very bad very quickly? NO. He should have assisted them with an escort. Instead he disregarded her safety, with rudeness, and if not blatant malice, then gross negligence.
I wonder what other unheard of incidents this cop has done in his career.
David Bernstein and “charles” above are frigging morons. They are worse than morons, they are fit only to work at the DMV or as Wal-Mart greeters.
The “rules is rules” crowd are the kind of people who truly don’t have a right to human existence. I’m not saying that we should kill them, but they truly haven’t stepped forward and grasped what evolution has given us — the ability to reason.
The breakdown lane is there for emergencies. In most emergencies, yes, you call an ambulance. If your wife is in labor, you do what you have to do (within reason) to get her and your child to the hospital.
Naturally, there are reasonable limits — you don’t crash into other cars to push them off the road, but you might drive on the shoulder to get off at the next exit so that you don’t wind up having your kid on the side of the road with some nazi pig who doesn’t have the brains to pick his own ass winding up delivering the kid.
Fuck Bernstein, the pig, and “charles”.
you’re right. i don’t know how they would drive, which is exactly why they’re not allowed to; because there’s no knowing whether they’re capable and willing to do it safely. if you think ambulances sit in traffic on their way to a call, i think we’ve found why you don’t understand traffic laws. to clue you in, they don’t sit in traffic. they can drive safely on a hard shoulder because they have attention-getting equipment and skilled, composed drivers.
traffic safety laws are not trivial. they save lives every minute. you’re entitled to think i’m callous for not giving pregnant women “above the law” status. thankfully, legislatures aren’t so blinded by sympathy.
i’ve just changed my mind. i take it all back. laws aren’t that important. i mean, they’re good suggestions, but i’m going to ignore them whenever i think it’s reasonable to do so. i encourage everyone to do the same. i’m sure we won’t ever disagree about what is reasonable. we’ve done such a good job of agreeing about it on this issue!
back to reality, we all break laws that we don’t see as important at the moment. some people litter. some people pirate music. personally, sometimes i speed when i have a fun road to myself. but if i get a ticket, i’m not going to bitch about it and claim that the law shouldn’t apply to me because i wasn’t endangering anyone at the time. i’ll just pay the fine and move on with my life.
they should have paid the ticket, taken the ambulance and loved their kid.
Ticket, schmicket. When you’re on the way to the hospital (from the greek for “empty your wallet”) for the birth of a kid, another hundred bucks for the trip doesn’t matter. But ten minutes delay could have been a real big deal.
Good, service-oriented cops give folks a bye on piddly stuff all the time; that’s just good judgment. We’re not talking about them driving drunk while exposing themselves backwards in the diamond lane; we’re talking about a guy trying to get his wife to the hospital so the baby can be delivered.
The right thing to do was, “Which hospital? Got it. Follow me, sir; I’ve got these flashy lights on top of the car and I’m betting folks will get out of our way.”
The cop. Bernstein is, generally, a sensible guy, who usually thinks things through much more clearly; he had a bad day.
Point well-taken. My apology for calling him ‘brute’. Cops are allowed to have bad days; professors, however, cannot be forgiven for the fascist opinions they spew out on VC and other conservative websites.
Charles, consider this: It’s not ignore laws or adhere to them absolutely under all circumstances. They are there to be obeyed for everyone’s protection. But there are times when discretion and flexibility are necessary, when unusual circumstances occur. It’s not black and white at all times.
If the jurisdiction recognizes a necessity defense, using the breakdown lane to get to the hospital to give birth strikes me as a nearly textbook example: The basic idea is that the decision to break the law was a choice of lesser evils, so the legislature would have created an exception to the law in that situation if it had the time to legislate in such detail. In my view, the defense should apply in such a case: In effect, legislatures actually *are* blided by such “sympathy,” at least in jurisdictions that recognize the defense.
I think you nailed it. The necessary defense is not just good, practical legislation; it is a perfect policy decision here.
As for the officer v. professor arguement, the officer certainly has to be the greater villian. While they are both subject to bad days, a professor’s job is to teach and progress thought while an officer’s job is to “protect and serve.”
(I use quotes not because I am quoting someone, rather because I mean it ironically.)
It is true that driving in the emergency lane (as it is called in MI) poses a danger to other drivers. Which is why–as someone else pointed out–it was appropriate for the police officer to pull the car over. But the officer’s lapse in judgment occured when he failed to cease protecting and start serving. A police escort would have been a more appropriate response than a citation.
The reality is, police oficers no longer view their position as a duty to protect and serve, rather the shield is too often viewed as a duty to protect and investigate.
Constables on patrol receive extensive training. They attend all sorts of classes. Perhaps one more should be added.
What a fascinating difference in perspective. I hadn’t thought about this in terms of a defense, since the payment of the $100 ticket was far less than the cost of defending against it. But the defense itself, as you well point out, is the best way to explain why this situation was not a choice between order and anarchy, and how the law is meant to accomodate unusual circumstances where a choice must be made between the lesser of evils.
Well done, Orin. You must be a pretty good professor.
And if the reporting is accurate – that a couple other officers gave the soon to be Dad permission to drive in the emergency lane – then two-thirds of the officers in the equation took a more reasonable approach. That’s not too bad of a percentage is it? At least it’s better than the other way around.
See, there some reasonable cops out there.
When it involves pregnant women, this is typically the sort of thing where cops really love to help. Hey, most are fathers, love their kids and empathize with the situation. And cops (like the rest of us) love to be a part of something positive and helpful, as opposed to all the really crappy aspects of the job.
It’s rare enough that the law *isn’t* an ass that I figured it was worth pointing out! 😉
That’s why it is called the emergency lane.
That lane is for everyone who has an emergency. As a father of 2 it is impossible to predict the exact time of birth that is why the hospitals say to be there 24 hours before you think it is time.What if the she went into immediate labor and the child died ?
This cop should not be on the force.
“to serve and protect”..he did neither.
He is on he own ego trip. The husband should have had a gun and shot the cop and went straight to the hospital.
Well, except for that last line, I’m with you. I think it’s perhaps not impossible that there might have been some negative repercussions.
To all you so called lawyers who argue that the husband violated traffic law and that takes precedence…
How come when O.J. Simpson just walked out of his murder trial ? He had numerous traffic violations which included driving in the emergency lane, failure to stop, and evading arrest, speeding, and reckless endangerment !
The could have put O.J. in jail for 5 years on those things alone..
Why I ask ? Stupid persecutors. They had no imagination and no brains.
Just like the education system: “Those that can not do..teach”. I prefer defense side. Much smarter and more resourceful.
I also think that the system is inherently unfair and the cost of all defense attorneys should be paid for by the people prosecuting. How can anyone fight the govt. and have the same financial resources as the district attorney ? The district attorney should also pay the defense bills if they lose the case.
Sound reasonable and no more bullshit cases against the public.
I know I’m extreme…sort of..
Just making a second amendment speech.
LOL
You need a method of protecting yourself and family against tyranny.
On behalf of Second Amendment activists, everywhere: is there any chance we can recruit you for the Brady Center?
I love a good fight.
Read my case on this website regarding the Burress incident.
This country is so screwed up. Your 10 year old daughter can have an abortion without your consent but you need a 6 month period and a 1000 dollars to own a handgun….which the constitution says you have the right to own. Why is there a over the top waiting period and a outrageous fee to have your right given back to you ?
I’m confused.
And stay out of the emergency lane unless you do not need it !!! That where cops call their wives on the cell phone.
Sam do not back down with the ‘brute’ statement, ever! Bernstein is exactly what you called him. Imagine he could have killed a new life because he thinks a motor vehicle violation take precedence. WTF kind of person is that. He probably has many more such incidences undocumented in his so called career serving the people.
He should be fired and sent home without any benefits. He could have killed someone. But don’t say this to abortion rights people, the unborn are totally expendable. He must be a liberal by the way he handled things.
I cannot understand the feedback going around regarding this story! It is amazing how much the truth can be skewed. The husband driving refused medical attention for his wife. If he had declared that it had indeed been an emergency, there is no doubt that the police officer would have gotten them the services needed to reach the hospital quicker, i.e., an ambulance. The guy was an ass to the State Trooper, disregarded the law, and 100 dollar citation should be the least of the worries….
Fortunately, not all police take this sort of hamfisted approach towards civilians driving in the emergency lane. 32 years ago, my dad was speeding along a road in Richmond, VA, when a cop pulled him over. Dad jumped out and yelled that he was on his way to the hospital because his wife was having a baby. The cop promptly called for backup and give Dad a police escort to the hospital. When Dad ran into the hospital alone, the police asked “hey, where’s your wife?” Dad’s response: “Inside, having the baby!” No ticket was issued.
Rarely are we so honored as to learn “the truth” from a wannabelawyer. It’s unfortunate that the news report failed to tell us “the truth” as you have, since there is nothing to suggest that the husband refused medical attention, nor any basis to believe that waiting for an ambulance would have gotten them to a hospital quicker. Of course, if you weren’t there, and don’t actually possess “the truth” that the rest of us have been heretofore denied, then perhaps you may want to be a lawyer, but aren’t really cut out for it.
Woah, thanks for the warm welcome. As for the truth, I happen to live in the state where this occurred and have heard stories from the police on the job in that area. As for a wanna be lawyer, I am a 2L, and I did not realize that my difference in perspective would be taken so personally. Are all lawyers supposed to be jerks?
I’m not your mommy. Don’t expect to post something foolish and be told how pretty you are. This is a blawg for lawyers, not for children, and you 2L are not ready, and, based on your reaction, may never be. You see, all lawyers are jerks when confronted with infantile ignorance.
1. If you can’t take prickly, well, of all the blogs on all the internet, you kinda walked into the wrong one.
2. Now, lemme get this straight: trooper stops a guy driving his wife, who is in labor, to the hospital, and gets his Eliot Ness underoos all in a twist ’cause the guy was rude to him? Sheesh.
I don’t know what it is about law students, but their sense of entitlement is amazing. Who disabuses them of the notion that any thought that pops into their heads are worthwhile?
Thanks for pointing out the hostility to pregnant women – and, I may add, women in general that exists in law enforcement and sometimes law.
A fifteen minute delay for a woman in labor could mean the difference between life and death for the mother and the child.
Why did they refuse the ambulance – well, probably because traffic wasn’t moving at all, the they wanted to get to the hospital.
I imagine the ambulance was offered more as a threat than a gesture of help and concern. Law-abiding people generally care about life, and thus don’t want to tie up an ambulance (and perhaps deprive someone in need) unnecessarily. I’ve experienced this as I have a neurological illness that people sometimes mistake for drunkenness or being high. I live in Texas, where in many cities you can be arrested for “public intoxication.”
There’s been more than a few times when I’ve tried to explain my illness to some power-tripping cop who enjoys intimidating women. The response is always to offer me an ambulance. Now, as a person who sometimes needs emergency services, I don’t want to request it if I don’t absolutely need it. But the message of the cop in such situations is more “we’ll call an ambulance and test your blood and urine and maybe pump your stomach and see what’s really going on” It’s a threat. Indeed, in my city of Galveston, TX this kind of thing happens on a regular basis.
[Edit: Comment edited to remove link and for brevity.]