But Calls for All Police Involved in Such Incidents to Be Tested for Drugs, Alcohol
By Hank Russell
The Office of Special Investigation (OSI) with Attorney General Letitia James’ office recently issued a report on a pedestrian who was struck and killed by an unmarked Nassau County police car. After a thorough investigation, the OSI found that the officer could not be held criminally responsible.
On November 19, 2022, Nassau County police officers were driving 62 miles per hour in a 40-miles-per-hour zone in an unmarked vehicle down Front Street in Uniondale while responding to an unrelated arrest. Miguel Romero, who was not at a crosswalk, attempted to cross Front Street and was struck by the unmarked NCPD vehicle. The officer immediately stopped the car to assist Romero and call for an ambulance. Romero was rushed to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
Members of the OSI reviewed body-worn camera footage and security footage from a nearby business, conducted interviews with involved officers, and conducted a comprehensive legal analysis. The office determined that “a prosecutor would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the officer committed a crime, and therefore criminal charges could not be pursued in this matter.”
Under New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, police officers are permitted to exceed the maximum speed limit and are not required to use sirens and lights when engaged in an emergency situation. In this case, the officer driving the car was responding to an arrest and had reason under the law to be speeding when the collision occurred. Further, although the officer was driving more than 20 miles per hour above the posted speed limit, the OSI did not determine this as “dangerous speeding” under precedent. There was also no evidence that the officer was impaired by drugs or alcohol and no evidence that he was otherwise distracted at the time of the crash.
In order to prove criminally negligent homicide, according to OSI, it would require “proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a person failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would occur; that the failure to perceive the risk was a gross deviation from a reasonable person’s standard of care; and that the person engaged in blameworthy conduct.” But, given the circumstances and the evidence, a prosecutor would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the officer had engaged in “risk-creating behavior” or “seriously blameworthy carelessness.”
When investigating vehicular crashes, the OSI said, a Portable Breath Test (PBT) must be administered to see if the driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In this case, NCPD did not administer a PBT to the officer who was driving the car until two hours after the incident. While there is no evidence that the officer driving the car was impaired by drugs or alcohol, OSI recommends that the NCPD administer PBTs to officers involved in motor vehicle crashes as close to the time of the collision as practicable to ensure the most accurate results.
Long Island Life & Politics reached out to the NCPD for comment, but did not hear back as of press time.