PAX Centurion - September / October 2013

Page 46 • PAX CENTURION • September/October 2013 617-989-BPPA (2772) distributed in a haphazard fashion by already overworked lieutenants, between calls on busy shifts. How effective is that? In the past , Boston EMS pursued chances to get in on specialty training opportunities further cementing EMS as the best prepared, best trained EMS service in the world. In an recent unprecedented ‘hands-across-the-water’ episode, The Boston Fire Department, about to begin a training segment on technical rescue in building collapses, invited Boston EMS to participate in it. Building collapse is an often ignored field of rescue science, and in an old city like Boston, it needed re-visiting. They reasoned EMS would be right in the thick of it with them, accepting injured parties from a collapse incident, and possibly injured firefighters as well. Sadly, the Public Health Com- mission declined to allow EMS to participate in it, saying they did not want to fund it. They had other priorities. Gotta feed the chickens, right? Ironic it was that weeks later, on September 22nd, 2013, there was a partial building collapse after a downpour on Dudley St. in Roxbury. In the past , employment at Boston EMS was the goal for many interested in the EMS service. People were quite literally lined up out the door to apply, take tests and get on the job. Hiring at Boston EMS was highly competitive, and it was easy to retain high quality, highly motivated EMTs and paramedics. Now, newer employees are looking around with new eyes. They see a department with an uncer- tain future, underfunded, overworked, and short staffed. They see a department that has all but done away with any hope of promotion, even for 20-plus year highly qualified members to already vacant positions. They see a workforce - their peers - mired in cynicism, frustration, and disappointment. They see a disdainful health commis- sion administration that will not negotiate a contract with them, and has little interest in them, or the one program they administrate that directly helps ALL Boston residents. Many are leaving. Where is the incentive to stay?Would you stay? I feel like the ghost of Christmas past going through all of this, but you don’t have to take my word for it. If you are concerned about these issues, and their impact on Boston EMS, I urge you to seek out your own answers. Feel free to call the EMS office. Oh, wait. No one answers the phone there anymore, it’s a machine. Someone might get back to you. Maybe. If that frustrates you, you can go down there and knock on the door. There’s no one to answer it. But you can knock. If you choose, you can peer through the window there by the vacant reception area. There’s a long row of empty desks to look at. From Layoffs on page 44 The hidden cost of layoffs A ctive Duty Paramedic Juli Nich- ols (Paramedic 143) passed away after a five year long battle with cancer on July 12, 2013. Juli excelled in her field, and treated all of her patients with a high level of professionalism and compassion which made her an outstanding example of what a member of Boston EMS should be. Juli will be missed by a multitude of co-workers, and friends made over her rich life, and 30 year career at Boston EMS. A ctive Duty EMT Marcus Jerome (EMT-1077) was badly injured in a tragic accident on September 21, 2013. Despite receiving outstanding immediate pre-hospital care, EMT Jerome succumbed to his injuries. Un- speakable tragedies like this are always hard; this one even more so as Marcus was so young, and so new to the job. His co- workers spoke of a high degree of dedication, and sadly commented on a high level of potential, now unrealized. InMemoriam at Boston EMS moved to dismiss, arguing the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because “it is not well settled [the plaintiff] had a constitu- tional right to record the officers.” Id. The District Court denied the defendant’s motion, holding that the “First Amendment right publicly to record the activities of police officers on public business is estab- lished.” Id. The defendants appealed. Though subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, the court held that an individual’s filming of the police engaged in official business is protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 84. It fur- thermore held that the plaintiff’s actions here, which included audio and visual recording, “fell well within the bounds of the Constitu- tion’s protections.” Id. In addition, the court held that the plaintiff’s complaint (without deciding the ultimate merits of it) made out a proper allegation for a FourthAmendment violation, as the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him under G.L. c. 272, § 99. Id. at 88. Interpreting the Mas- sachusetts Wiretap statute, the court held the plaintiff’s recording was not “secret” within the meaning of the statute. 5 Id. Implications In light of Jackson and Hyde, the actions of a bystander in openly recording a police officer would not make out a criminal complaint for aWiretap violation under G.L. 272 § 99. On the other hand, secretly recording an interaction with the police during a traffic stop, for example, would be aWiretap violation. 6 While the law only requires actual knowledge as opposed to consent in order to be law- fully recorded, it offers more protection to law enforcement in that it prohibits all secret recordings, even those done in a crowded public place. Another important consideration is that, subject to reasonable re- strictions, a bystander who openly records a police officer in a public setting is not only (generally) safe fromWiretap prosecution, but is also engaged in a constitutionally protected activity. 7 Electronic wiretapping of police under Massachusetts wiretapping statute From Wiretapping on page 32