Fatal Accident Involving LMPD Officer

My thoughts and prayers are with everyone involved. I just hope the media doesn't spin this as usual -it was a tragic accident, but an accident is what it was. I'm sure the officer had no intentions of hurting anyone when he left for work that night.

I am so sorry for everyone involved it was a tragic accicident. I just wish that the media would not place such a particular emphasis on the fact that this unfortunate event involved a police officer, are they not private citizens as well. They are human beings who make mistakes like everyone else,so why all the negativity on how many accidents have involved lmpd. Why can we not hear about all the good that these men and women do everyday.They as well as the members of our community deserve our daily prayers and respect. Thanks and God Bless.

Discrimination in our community is a huge buzz word that is flexed when folks are trying to make an impact. Here again, discrimination is used. Why is it, only police officers that are involved in accidents are sensationalized and identified by their career- and then the news goes on to show the last ten accidents involving police. I've never heard of a news story involving a judge or teacher where the story continues on by saying, "this is the sixth accident by a teacher in the last three years!" or "this accident is the ninth by a convenient store worker in six months!" Our community just needs to get it out; what do we expect of our police? Do we want them to be fairly treated? Do we want them to get involved with car chases after your daughter is raped by the suspect their chasing? They might drive fast. Do you want police to respond quickly when your home is in the process of being burglarized and your huddled in a dark corner of your bathroom with a kitchen knife scared to death? They might drive fast and risk their own life to get to you. What do you propose they do when they have a naked man standing in the middle of the street dodging cars? Let him get hit? Oops, the police are wrong for not saving him. Taser him? Oops the police are wrong for shocking him. What are police suppose to do with hundreds of undisciplined kids betyween the ages of 4 (according to one mom that was interviewed) and 17 that are rioting and causing problems for a skating rink...and then White Castles...and then Lowes...and then Meijers? Community of Louisville, how do you want the police to police? Make it known so they'll stop actively persuing dangerous wanted folks that are stalking your children or casing your home-no then the media would make a huge story about the number of warrants. Do you want them to stop jumping out on street corner drug dealers that sell crack to you brother who keeps stealing things from you when your at work-no then its the police's fault drug related greed and murders are up. Does the community want our police to follow up on people snooping around and acting suspicious-which might inconvenience others during the process? If not, stop calling in prowler runs. Do you want police to respond to your domestic problem when your too immature to talk through your own problems? Then don't attack the officer when he takes your spouse to jail. Do you, or do you not want an officer to go after the reckless driver that cuts you off during the morning rush hour? He might have to speed to catch up to the suspect! Then don't call it in to dispatch on your cell phone. Do you want police to catch the guy that just shot your brother? Then try cooperating and risk becoming a snitch! Else, don't complain when their crystal ball fails to turn up leads because you refuse to take back your neighborhood from a bunch of punk kids. Stop at stop signs, don't run lights, and renew your license like the law requires-you probable won't get stopped then. Don't leave your vehicles unattended or your children out of seatbelts and the officer, who cares because he is also a father or mother, won't stop you. Don't try to shoot or run over someone's husband or wife, daughter or son who is a police officer- they will shoot back and try to stop you because they want to live to coach their son's little league game in the morning. If you have a relative that is mentally unstable, don't wait until the police are called and has to use deadly force before you start claiming how wonderful your relative was-as you stand in front of cameras. Try intervenning when they need your love and attention and are searching for help for their illness. I personally know officers who have run into fires to save people because the fire department had not arrived. It's not in their job description and they're not property equipped. Yet, the father and husband of a five year old risked his life to save someone elses baby, mom, and grandmother. Do you want our police to do this or let them die! Regardless, it's not in a cops nature to let someone go without help that needs it. Helps coming-unless the community tells them not to-then they will anyway .Be nice! They might give you a warning. Well I'm out of ideas. I guess the only real solution is for people in our community to stop acting stupid, obey the law, and run the police department out of town due to lack of work! Naw, that'll never happen. Try imagining the chaos our community would be in if the police department didn't exist. Crime would run amuck, no one would be safe, and lawyers would be begging officers in the courthouse to make more arrests so they can pay their mortgage-true story. Community, make up your mind, else shut up until a better solution is found. Good job LMPD. I sleep sound at night. Thanks!

PS Stop giving so many kudos and credibility to our weak community media outlets. Please pass this on throughout our community so the community can tell the police how they want US to police.

So, the question remains the same. How do you want our police to police? The average citizen who is not exposed to the volumes of crime an officer is involved with must remember two things. First, there are always two sides to a story. The media presents only one. Secondly, a police officers job is almost entirely performed impromptu. There are not set guidelines for every situation like in many other professions. An officer takes with him all past experiences and training that he has been exposed to. On a weekly basis, if not nightly, an officer will be faced with a new scenario that they have never confronted before. Most often they are not afforded the opportunity to stop and check with a supervisor, put someone on hold, or consult with peers. Things happen quickly and unexpectantly. Just to be prepared for the unexpected, officers are often trained to think of possible scenarios that may exist upon arriving at the scene of a run. Obviously they can't predict the future and hope they can address the given situation once they arrive amongst the set of unknown facts. A 911 hang up for instance is simply that. Police respond to all 911 hangups whether it is at a pay phone, business, or residence. What information has an officer been given to prepare to properly address such a run? Is a child playing with the phone or is 9-1-1 all a victim could get out before her throat was cut by an estranged lover? When there is information, most runs include vague details that still require confirmation by the first responding officer. In short, there are not a set of guidelines that each officer can take to a particular run. Officers do have parameters and policy and procedures that are adhered to and the KRS to enforce, but the rest is up to the officers ability to make an accurate and quick decision based upon a set of facts that are presented, in some cases, only seconds before. You can't say for a burglary- do A, for a rape- do B, for a narcotics complaint- do C. There are too many other variables that muddy the waters of the run. To resolve these problems, criminals do have a set of rules that can be follow and guide them through life-they're called laws. Before robbing a bank, don't rob the bank and avoid a car chase, putting others at risk, and a lengthy jail sentence. Before molesting a child, don't molest the child and avoid the jail time, avoid upset relatives, and possible an unwanted jailhouse tatoos on your forehead. A police officer is an impromptu decision maker. So, does that make all officers correct in their decision? Absolutely not. Officers will make mistakes just like bankers mess up an interest rate, a convenient store clerk gives the wrong change, or a teacher misquotes a famous author. THe only problem is, when a police officer makes a mistake, the stakes are often higher and affect lives. How would the average citizen like to have that as a consequence to a decision made at work? Unfortunately these are often a significant percentage of decisions that have to be made. Furthermore, how many occupations out there include the level of violence and looks of, "aren't you going to do something?" that an officers job includes? Officers are ALWAYS expected to do something, even when they are unsure of what to do. Are all cops good cops? No. Are 98 percent of the officers well intended and proud to serve, yes. Unfortunately a law enforcement career is often the most scrutinized next to politicians and perhaps teachers. As the first form of government that a citizen will encounter, cops are the ones that people love to hate. Cops are the ones that tell you your child jumping around your car on I-65 is illegal. An officers tells you when you run a stop sign, even after having a person run a stop sign in front of you and you ask, "where are the cops when you need one?" You've given the officer mixed messages. You as a citizen asked that officer to enforce the law. But do you only want laws that are convenient to you enforced? If there is an issue with a law, you need to call your state representative and make the changes yourself. You fussing at a cop for enforcing a law is the equivelant of you fussing at the grocery bagger for milk being over two dollars a gallon. Stop fussing and start changing. That's not to say there are not bad cops. Because there are, just like there are bad mailmen, bad coaches, and bad warehouse workers. There is a small percentage of bad people in every occupation that exists-even at your work. Think of that person. Cops don't want to work with bad cops. Not only do they give others officers a bad name, but the bad cop also compromises their own sacred integrity and becomes a safety issue in many cases. Get rid of the bad cops...and bankers...and politicians...and garbagemen. I think, our society as a whole, agrees that we don't want to work with untrustworthy or devious individuals anywhere. So why it is, the media loves to talk about a bad cop, thus giving the rest of them a black eye? I think everyone in the community knows. Why don't the news do a bad cop story if they feel it benefits the public, and then in the same broadcast tell a story about a cop saving a life or catchng a serial rapist. In the medias eyes, why are cops statements labeled "alleged" and the interviewed citizens statement a fact, or at least presented as a fact. This is an actual observation that I have made. Why do media personnel that trespass on school grounds do nothing wrong and cops that speed are deemed outrageous? The biases conveniently fit the situation according to who presents it. So what do we do? Heres an idea! The police department, our local politicians, and the media outlets need to meet on a regular basis to discuss how all entities can work together for the betterment of the entire community. Discuss the issues, clear up facts, and try to work together as adults and citizens of Louisville. WE do want our community to grow don't we? We do want racial issues resolved don't we? We do want a reduction in crime don't we? Then work TOGETHER as one and not as sides. Our conflicts of the past must remain as such in order for growth to be possible. Little does anyone want to admit, it's through this discourse that our cities problems seem to self-perpertiate. Like any good marriage counselor will tell you, understanding and communication is the key. The community needs to understand an officers job and not unfairly target them in the media. Our media needs to be more responsible and communicate better with the police department. The police needs to do the same. We're all responsible as a community and should start acting like a community. Stop taking sides. It solves nothing.....

It happened just before midnight and the Officer was supposedly going to work? I wonder if that would give him a motive to drive a little too fast. It's pretty easy to know how fast someone is going when they strike a car like that. Anyone driving safely and under the speed limit has time to stop and avoid a stranded motorist.

Remember that insurance companies and personal injury attorneys don't usually leave any stones unturned when a large amount of money is on the line. Their accident investigators usually have more training and experience than the ones still working for a police department. I would venture to guess that the truth will come out.

Whereas I believe there are accidents, and non intentional events, the Louisville Police Department has a reputation for non compliance of laws by their own.

Have you ever been stopped at a red light and seen a car turn on its' lights to go through and then turn them off? Or going around a car who is turning left because they don't want to wait? How about passing you on the interstate at 90 miles without any light or sirens?

Regardless of who else may do the above, it is truy shameful that I have witnessed the LMPD do these things and not be accountable. So you want to believe that this was only an accident, but truly, how fast was the officer going? Will he be held accountable if speed or other factors were invilved??

Just pay attention the next time you are driving in KY. How many officers can you really count on to be safe?

I don;t thik the person who died diserved it but things happen and nobody can control it.It wasn't the officers fault somebody IT WAS A MISTAKE

ALL THE PLICE ARE DOING ARE PROTECTING US AND THEY DON'T DISERVE TO BE TREATED LIKE THIS.

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

DENNIS V. PANARISI JEFFREY A. MODISETT

Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

PRISCILLA J. FOSSUM

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TODD L. SIPE, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 10A01-9707-CR-236

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEAL FROM THE CLARK CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable Daniel F. Donahue, Judge

Cause No. 10C01-9504-CF-029

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 30, 1998

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

BAKER, Judge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appellant-defendant Todd L. Sipe appeals the post-conviction court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Sipe presents several issues for our review which we consolidate and restate as follows: (1) whether Sipe waived his right to a speedy trial by failing to timely object to the continuance of his plea hearing; and (2) whether the trial court improperly continued his plea hearing.

FACTS

On October 21, 1989, Sipe and his friend, Kevin Hawkins, drove to Lewis Bower's residence in order to steal beer from Bower's shed. After they arrived at Bower's residence, Sipe and Hawkins began prying a lock off of the shed. Upon hearing the commotion, Bower went to the door of his trailer to investigate. Sipe and Hawkins then approached Bower and a struggle ensued. During the altercation, Hawkins stabbed Bower over eighty times, which resulted in Bower's death. Sipe and Hawkins then took the beer from Bower's shed and, shortly thereafter, left town.

In April of 1995, Sipe was charged with Murder,See footnote 1 Burglary,See footnote 2 a Class A Felony, and Felony Murder.See footnote 3 On June 22, 1995, Sipe, who was incarcerated in a California prison, submitted his request for a speedy trial pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) , which was received by the prosecutor on July 19, 1995. Sipe was then returned to Indiana where he entered into a written plea agreement on September 25, 1995. As part of

the agreement, Sipe agreed to plead guilty to burglary and to testify against Hawkins in return for the State's promise to dismiss the murder and felony murder charges.

Sipe's plea hearing was initially set for October 24, 1995. However, at the State's request and without Sipe's objection, the trial court continued the hearing until January 18, 1996. On January 16, 1996, however, Sipe filed a motion for discharge, alleging that he was denied his right to a speedy trial pursuant to the IAD. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Sipe's motion for discharge and reset his plea hearing for May 6, 1996, which was subsequently continued on the court's own motion to May 23, 1996. Thereafter, on May 23, 1996, Sipe plead guilty to burglary pursuant to the plea agreement. The trial court then dismissed the murder and felony murder charges against Sipe.

On November 8, 1996, Sipe filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that the trial court erred by denying his motion for discharge. On April 8, 1997, the post-conviction court denied Sipe's petition. Sipe now appeals.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Waiver Of Speedy Trial

Sipe contends that the post-conviction court erroneously determined that he waived his right to a speedy trial by failing to make a timely objection. A defendant, who files a petition for a speedy trial pursuant to the IAD, is entitled to be brought to trial within 180 days from the time his written notice of final disposition is received by the trial court and the prosecuting attorney. Ind. Code § 35-33-10-4, Article 3. Generally, a defendant who is not brought to trial within 180 days is entitled to be discharged. Allen v. State, 636 N.E.2d 190,

193 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied. However, a defendant who fails to object to a hearing date prior to the expiration of the 180-day period waives his right to a speedy trial. Reid v. State, 670 N.E.2d 949, 952 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied.

Here, the record reveals that the State was required to bring Sipe to trial by January 15, 1996. Nevertheless, Sipe failed to object when the trial court continued his hearing to January 18, 1996. Rather, Sipe remained silent until the expiration of the 180-day period, when he filed his petition for discharge. Because Sipe failed to object within the 180-day period, he has waived his right to a speedy trial.

Nevertheless, Sipe contends that, because he entered into the plea agreement, the trial court was required to toll the 180-day period for thirty days and, as a result, the 180-day period did not expire until February 14, 1996. Therefore, according to Sipe, his motion to discharge constituted a timely objection to the hearing dates set after February 14, 1996. We disagree.

Initially, we note that Sipe has failed to present a cogent argument explaining why the trial court was required to toll the 180-day period for thirty days after he entered into the plea agreement. Additionally, he cites no authority supporting his proposition. Therefore, he has waived this issue on appeal. See Collins v. State, 643 N.E.2d 375, 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (failure to present cogent argument and citation to authority results in waiver of issue on appeal), trans. denied.

Notwithstanding waiver, Sipe's argument still fails. A defendant who enters into a plea agreement subsequent to his demand for a speedy trial, but prior to the expiration of the

180-day period, advances a position inconsistent with his right to a speedy trial and, thus, waives his speedy trial right. See Payne v. State, 658 N.E.2d 635, 640 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied. Although the defendant in Payne made his speedy trial request pursuant to Ind.Crim. Rule 4(B)(1), we are, nevertheless, persuaded by the reasoning in Payne. Similar to the defendant in Payne, Sipe advanced a position inconsistent with his speedy trial right by entering into the plea agreement. Therefore, he has waived his right to a speedy trial. As a result, the trial court properly denied his motion for discharge.See footnote 4

II. Continuances

Finally, Sipe contends that the trial court improperly continued his plea hearing on three separate occasions in violation of the procedural requirements enumerated in the IAD. Specifically, he claims that the trial court improperly continued his hearing to January 18, 1996, without a showing of good cause. Additionally, he claims that the continuances to May 3, 1996, and May 23, 1996, were improperly issued on the court's own motion, without good cause and without prior notice.

The purpose of post-conviction relief is to raise issues unknown or unavailable to the defendant at the trial level. Cossel v. State, 675 N.E.2d 355, 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). Therefore, any issue which could have been addressed at trial may not be raised in a post- conviction proceeding. Johnson v. State, 502 N.E.2d 90, 91 (Ind. 1986).

Here, the record reveals that Sipe failed to object to the continuances in the trial court. Although Sipe contends that an objection to the continuances at the trial level would have been denied, he has failed to allege that this issue was not available. Therefore, he is precluded from raising this issue in his petition for post-conviction relief.

Judgment affirmed.

NAJAM, J., and RILEY, J., concur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote: 1 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote: 2 Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote: 3 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(2).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote: 4 Sipe also argues that the post-conviction court erred by determining that he waived his right to a speedy trial when he plead guilty to burglary. However, having previously concluded that Sipe waived his right to a speedy trial by failing to timely object, we need not address his contention.

Converted from WP6.1 by the Access Indiana Information Network