HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS

January 13, 2007

A couple of years ago, our crew members were assaulted by a patient

during transport. Assault charges were filed, but to our dismay, we

learned that EMS was not included in the current penal code

definition of public servant, which enhances the assault charge ( I

believe from Class A Misdemeanor to Felony 3). Dennis Bonnen has

filed a proposed bill addressing that issue. Since reading the

proposed bill, I have contacted Rep. Bonnen's office and requested

that volunteer EMS, FF and etc. be included in the definition and

hope that the proposed bill will be ammended to reflect that. Please

contact your legislative representatives and ask that they support

this bill.

80R1335 BDH-D

By: Bonnen H.B. No. 495

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to the punishment for assault of emergency services

personnel; imposing a criminal penalty.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Sections 22.01( and (d), Penal Code, are amended to

read as follows:

( An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor,

except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the

offense is committed against:

(1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public

servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation

or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an

official duty as a public servant;

(2) a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant

is described by Section 71.0021(, 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code,

if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has

been previously convicted of an offense under this chapter, Chapter

19, or Section 20.03, 20.04, or 21.11 against a person whose

relationship to or association with the defendant is described by

Section 71.0021(, 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;

(3) a person who contracts with government to perform a service in a

facility as defined by Section 1.07(a)(14), Penal Code, or Section

51.02(13) or (14), Family Code, or an employee of that person:

(A) while the person or employee is engaged in performing a service

within the scope of the contract, if the actor knows the person or

employee is authorized by government to provide the service; or

( in retaliation for or on account of the person's or employee's

performance of a service within the scope of the contract; [or]

(4) a person the actor knows is a security officer while the officer

is performing a duty as a security officer; or

(5) a person the actor knows is emergency services personnel while

the person is providing emergency services.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (, the actor is presumed to have

known the person assaulted was a public servant, [or] a security

officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a

distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a

public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services

personnel.

SECTION 2. Section 22.01(e), Penal Code, is amended by adding

Subdivision (1) to read as follows:

(1) " Emergency services personnel " includes firefighters, police

officers and other peace officers, emergency medical technicians, and

other individuals who, in the course and scope of their employment,

provide services for the benefit of the general public during

emergency situations.

SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an

offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An

offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed

by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former

law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this

section, an offense was committed before the effective date of this

Act if any element of the offense was committed before that date.

SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

Thanks,

Neel, LP

Central EMS

West Columbia, Tx

January 23, 2007

Mike,

The problem with this bill is that it doesn't define what a public servant

is, or at least the portion you posted doesn't.

Is an EMT working for a private service contracted as the 911 provider a

public servant? Probably not.

The trouble with bills like this is that they are usually introduced by

members of the Lege who have not a single clue about how EMS is delivered in

Texas.

They are aggressively ignorant, if there can be such a thing. Somebody

that had given them money comes to them with a bill and asks them to sponsor it,

and they do. They have no commitment to the bill, they do nothing to help

it along, and it dies. But they can say that they " tried. " What pieces of

human offal they are.

I'm certainly in favor of making an assault on an EMS provider a felony, but

why limit it to those who work for governmental agencies? That discriminates

against the majority of EMS providers in Texas who are either private or

volunteer.

I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance and obtuseness of our state

legislators. They file bills sent them by interested parties without ever

taking

a look at them or even considering what they might mean. They don't really

care what passes and what fails, unless there is a big payoff for them.

In short, they are just about all captives of the monied interests, and none

of them are interested in the rank and file worker. Show me one legislator

who is, and I'll buy you a good steak.

A pox upon all of them.

Gene G.

We, as a community of EMS people, choose not to support the only organization

that represents us in the legislature, EMSAT, but then we whine like a pig stu

ck under a gate about what happens to us in the legislature.

So now we've got a bill in the Lege that purports to protect just those of us

who work for governmental entities. It leaves the private medics out, even

if they're the designated 911 responder. What's wrong with that picture?

Gene G.

>

> Assault against ANY public servant is a Third Degree Felony.

>

> ( An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A

> misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree

> if the offense is committed against:

> (1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while

> the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in

> retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or

> performance of an official duty as a public servant;

>

> Mike

>

> > A couple of years ago, our crew members were assaulted by a patient

> > during transport. Assault charges were filed, but to our dismay, we

> > learned that EMS was not included in the current penal code

> > definition of public servant, which enhances the assault charge ( I

> > believe from Class A Misdemeanor to Felony 3). Dennis Bonnen has

> > filed a proposed bill addressing that issue. Since reading the

> > proposed bill, I have contacted Rep. Bonnen's office and requested

> > that volunteer EMS, FF and etc. be included in the definition and

> > hope that the proposed bill will be ammended to reflect that. Please

> > contact your legislative representatives and ask that they support

> > this bill.

> >

> > 80R1335 BDH-D

> >

> > By: Bonnen H.B. No. 495

> >

> > A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

> > AN ACT

> > relating to the punishment for assault of emergency services

> > personnel; imposing a criminal penalty.

> > BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

> > SECTION 1. Sections 22.01( and (d), Penal Code, are amended to

> > read as follows:

> > ( An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor,

> > except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the

> > offense is committed against:

> > (1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public

> > servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation

> > or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an

> > official duty as a public servant;

> > (2) a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant

> > is described by Section 71.0021(, 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code,

> > if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has

> > been previously convicted of an offense under this chapter, Chapter

> > 19, or Section 20.03, 20.04, or 21.11 against a person whose

> > relationship to or association with the defendant is described by

> > Section 71.0021(, 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;

> > (3) a person who contracts with government to perform a service in a

> > facility as defined by Section 1.07(a)(14), Penal Code, or Section

> > 51.02(13) or (14), Family Code, or an employee of that person:

> > (A) while the person or employee is engaged in performing a service

> > within the scope of the contract, if the actor knows the person or

> > employee is authorized by government to provide the service; or

> > ( in retaliation for or on account of the person's or employee's

> > performance of a service within the scope of the contract; [or]

> > (4) a person the actor knows is a security officer while the officer

> > is performing a duty as a security officer; or

> > (5) a person the actor knows is emergency services personnel while

> > the person is providing emergency services.

> > (d) For purposes of Subsection (, the actor is presumed to have

> > known the person assaulted was a public servant, [or] a security

> > officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a

> > distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a

> > public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services

> > personnel.

> > SECTION 2. Section 22.01(e), Penal Code, is amended by adding

> > Subdivision (1) to read as follows:

> > (1) " Emergency services personnel " includes firefighters, police

> > officers and other peace officers, emergency medical technicians, and

> > other individuals who, in the course and scope of their employment,

> > provide services for the benefit of the general public during

> > emergency situations.

> > SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an

> > offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An

> > offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed

> > by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former

> > law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this

> > section, an offense was committed before the effective date of this

> > Act if any element of the offense was committed before that date.

> > SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

> >

> > Thanks,

> >

> > Neel, LP

> > Central EMS

> > West Columbia, Tx

> >

>

January 23, 2007

Assault against ANY public servant is a Third Degree Felony.

( An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A

misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree

if the offense is committed against:

(1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while

the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in

retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or

performance of an official duty as a public servant;

Mike

> A couple of years ago, our crew members were assaulted by a patient

> during transport. Assault charges were filed, but to our dismay, we

> learned that EMS was not included in the current penal code

> definition of public servant, which enhances the assault charge ( I

> believe from Class A Misdemeanor to Felony 3). Dennis Bonnen has

> filed a proposed bill addressing that issue. Since reading the

> proposed bill, I have contacted Rep. Bonnen's office and requested

> that volunteer EMS, FF and etc. be included in the definition and

> hope that the proposed bill will be ammended to reflect that. Please

> contact your legislative representatives and ask that they support

> this bill.

>

> 80R1335 BDH-D

>

> By: Bonnen H.B. No. 495

>

> A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

> AN ACT

> relating to the punishment for assault of emergency services

> personnel; imposing a criminal penalty.

> BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

> SECTION 1. Sections 22.01( and (d), Penal Code, are amended to

> read as follows:

> ( An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor,

> except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the

> offense is committed against:

> (1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public

> servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation

> or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an

> official duty as a public servant;

> (2) a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant

> is described by Section 71.0021(, 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code,

> if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has

> been previously convicted of an offense under this chapter, Chapter

> 19, or Section 20.03, 20.04, or 21.11 against a person whose

> relationship to or association with the defendant is described by

> Section 71.0021(, 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;

> (3) a person who contracts with government to perform a service in a

> facility as defined by Section 1.07(a)(14), Penal Code, or Section

> 51.02(13) or (14), Family Code, or an employee of that person:

> (A) while the person or employee is engaged in performing a service

> within the scope of the contract, if the actor knows the person or

> employee is authorized by government to provide the service; or

> ( in retaliation for or on account of the person's or employee's

> performance of a service within the scope of the contract; [or]

> (4) a person the actor knows is a security officer while the officer

> is performing a duty as a security officer; or

> (5) a person the actor knows is emergency services personnel while

> the person is providing emergency services.

> (d) For purposes of Subsection (, the actor is presumed to have

> known the person assaulted was a public servant, [or] a security

> officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a

> distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a

> public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services

> personnel.

> SECTION 2. Section 22.01(e), Penal Code, is amended by adding

> Subdivision (1) to read as follows:

> (1) " Emergency services personnel " includes firefighters, police

> officers and other peace officers, emergency medical technicians, and

> other individuals who, in the course and scope of their employment,

> provide services for the benefit of the general public during

> emergency situations.

> SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an

> offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An

> offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed

> by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former

> law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this

> section, an offense was committed before the effective date of this

> Act if any element of the offense was committed before that date.

> SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Neel, LP

> Central EMS

> West Columbia, Tx

>

January 23, 2007

> Mike,

>

> Is an EMT working for a private service contracted as the 911

> provider a public servant? Probably not.

Why not? They're providing a service to the public under public

contract.

> I'm certainly in favor of making an assault on an EMS provider a

> felony, but why limit it to those who work for governmental

> agencies? That discriminates against the majority of EMS providers

> in Texas who are either private or volunteer.

It wouldn't exclude volunteer providers who work for RFPD's, ESD's,

counties, municipalities, etc.

As for private EMS - if they're not working for a governmental agency

or under a government contract, they don't deserve protection as

public servants. Period. That's part of the responsibility that a

private provider takes on, and it's a choice an employee makes when

accepting work with a private company vs. a government agency. It's

also what EMS gets when it allows governments to escape

responsibility for the provision of EMS and allows private entities

to accept responsibility for what should otherwise be a mandated

government function.

Or are you in favor of allowing private police departments and

private fire departments, non-affiliated with any governmental agency

(or, better yet, Rural-Metro Police Department contracting with

cities, counties, etc.).

Mike

January 24, 2007

Mike,

Are you serious?? Are you really saying that since someone chooses to work for

a company that is not affiliated with a governmental entity that they really

don't deserve to be protected?

I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues and I truly hope that I have

misunderstood your meaning here.

Dave

Mike wrote:

As for private EMS - if they're not working for a governmental agency

or under a government contract, they don't deserve protection as

public servants. Period. That's part of the responsibility that a

private provider takes on, and it's a choice an employee makes when

accepting work with a private company vs. a government agency. It's

also what EMS gets when it allows governments to escape

responsibility for the provision of EMS and allows private entities

to accept responsibility for what should otherwise be a mandated

government function.

Or are you in favor of allowing private police departments and

private fire departments, non-affiliated with any governmental agency

(or, better yet, Rural-Metro Police Department contracting with

cities, counties, etc.).

Mike

January 24, 2007

I'm going to jump in here with Dave on this one. Clarify your point.

~Bob

www.hargis.info

_____

From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On

Behalf Of

Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:01 PM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Re: HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS

Mike,

Are you serious?? Are you really saying that since someone chooses to work

for a company that is not affiliated with a governmental entity that they

really don't deserve to be protected?

I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues and I truly hope that I

have misunderstood your meaning here.

Dave

Mike <paramedicop@ <mailto:paramedicop%40gmail.com> gmail.com> wrote:

As for private EMS - if they're not working for a governmental agency

or under a government contract, they don't deserve protection as

public servants. Period. That's part of the responsibility that a

private provider takes on, and it's a choice an employee makes when

accepting work with a private company vs. a government agency. It's

also what EMS gets when it allows governments to escape

responsibility for the provision of EMS and allows private entities

to accept responsibility for what should otherwise be a mandated

government function.

Or are you in favor of allowing private police departments and

private fire departments, non-affiliated with any governmental agency

(or, better yet, Rural-Metro Police Department contracting with

cities, counties, etc.).

Mike

January 24, 2007

> Mike,

>

> Are you serious?? Are you really saying that since someone chooses

> to work for a company that is not affiliated with a governmental

> entity that they really don't deserve to be protected?

> I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues and I truly hope

> that I have misunderstood your meaning here.

No, I'm saying that they shouldn't qualify for the same enhanced

punishment range as those working for a government entity, or under

the color of government through contract, etc. otherwise, why not

just make assault a Felony against EVERYONE? Why should someone

engaged in a private, for-profit business be afforded an enhancement/

protection simply based on the type of business they choose to be

engaged in?

We make this distinction because we recognize that those providing

services under the auspices of government are working directly for

the people, and as such, need to be more protected. It's much like

we enhance speed limit fines in construction zones when workers are

present. Private employees, government contract. That same

" enhanced punishment " doesn't apply, however, when they're working on

their lawn at home or putting in a new mailbox for their house - at

that point, they're not serving the public interest anymore and the

" standard " public punishments apply to offenses committed against them.

In short, a " benefit " of being a public provider or providing service

under public auspices is that the penalties for committing assault

against you are enhanced, making it less likely that people will

assault you (or will at least think harder about it as they're facing

more punishment for doing so).

Mike

January 24, 2007

I agree with Mike's analysis. There is no rational reason to mandate

enhanced penalties for those who assault private EMS providers, any more than

there

is a reason to extend such provisions to private plumbers.

There is a vast difference between public EMS providers and private ones.

Public EMS is not profit driven, although it usually must meet budgetary

limitations. Private EMS is a for-profit enterprise, and as such, is a

business

just as WalMart is. It warrants no special legal status. Private EMS

providers do not wear the badge of the state. (Well, they may, but their

badges are

bogus.).

Private EMS employers enjoy many privileges that plumbers do not. As Mike

points out, they can have ambulances that can run with lights and sirens and

violate the traffic laws, and so forth. They are responsible for their

employees, and they can purchase insurance to cover their losses from negligent

acts.

They can purchase health insurance for their employees. They are a

business, and not a governmental entity. So they do not qualify for

governmental

immunities.

I see no reason that any private EMS service not the contracted exclusive

provider for a city or county should have any emergency rights whatsoever.

Texas must address the plethora of bogus EMS services at some time, and now is

the

best time to do it.

When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas County, and 200 in

County, things are seriously out of control.

I do think that if a private contractor has the exclusive right to provide

EMS for a city or county, or both, that there should be some provision to afford

that service recognition as a quasi governmental entity, but it should be

limited, if the provider is a for profit company.

There are many issues involved with private EMS companies, but they ought not

to enjoy special status given to governmental entities.

Gene G.

>

> > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get into this line of PUBLIC

> > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a SERVANT to whom ever calls,

> > where ever it is, and it should make no difference the provider

> > they chose to work for.

>

> We both know that's not true. Private EMS companies exist to make

> money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they exist not for the

> public good, but to make money for the owners, founders or stockholders.

>

> > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the best care possible

> > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve to be free from

> > potential harm or at least know that if they are violated the

> > violator will be punished.

>

> Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor assault, just like any other

> " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it involves serious bodily

> injury or death, it becomes a felony, just like any other " regular "

> person that gets assaulted.

>

> > If there is any chance anyone is looking at limiting protection we

> > should all be worried. Remember most bad guys don't differentiate

> > between Private or Government employees; we wear the same patch for

> > level of EMS certification, and we all bleed red.

>

> Maybe that's where you're lost. Nobody is looking at limiting

> protection. People are looking at creating yet another " exception "

> where someone gets punished MORE, not LESS. Assault is still

> assault, and still a criminal act. If you pass this, why not make it

> the same for the ticket taker at the movies? He takes tickets from

> the public to provide entertainment. How about UPS drivers? They

> deliver packages to the public. Maybe pizza delivery guys - they

> deliver pizza to the public.

>

> The fact that the public can't distinguish between private and public

> EMS providers is indicative of several other problems, the first of

> which is that they don't know there's no " requirement " that their

> government provide them with service at all, and no idea that private

> EMS providers work for for-profit companies who must, as a matter of

> finance, maintain a balance sheet " in the black " vs running on

> government funds (i.e. taxes, approved and paid directly by the

> public). It's also indicative of the problem that we allow private

> providers to operate emergency vehicles - EMS is the *only* public

> service that does so. There are NO private police and NO private

> fire departments in Texas. Private EMS providers cannot get the

> " Texas Exempt " license plates... there's a reason for that - they're

> PRIVATE providers, not public. We've allowed the public to slip into

> apathy, and through a lack of effort to " sell " EMS as a service to

> the public, have allowed (and in some places, 'required') private

> providers to slip into the gap we created. I'm not saying that

> private providers don't do a good job filling the gap - just that we

> should do as little as possible to ENCOURAGE the gap, and this law

> ENCOURAGES the gap by making private and public EMS providers equal,

> which they shouldn't be if we really want the public to see EMS as a

> public service that *must* be provided rather than a " choice " between

> providing and not providing, and allowing profiteers to benefit from

> a lack of public understanding and interest.

>

> > This could be bad for everyone in the industry as a whole....

> Why? It doesn't decriminalize assault, it just doesn't give that

> extra " oomph " for pummeling a public servant.

>

> Mike

>

January 24, 2007

Unfortunately, it really doesn't matter whether or not the medic chooses to

practice for a private service or a private service providing EMS to a

political subdivision. The law doesn't make them governmental employees. So

they

are not de facto public services, for a number of reasons. First, the

governmental entity does not decide who gets hired and who doesn't, the

governmental

entity doesn't decide what the shifts are, what the wages are, what the

benefits are, or what any number of other things are. The " borrowed servant "

doctrine doesn't work here.

The private EMS company remains just that: a private company carrying out a

contract with a governmental entity, just the same as a plumbing contractor

working for the city cleaning our sewers would remain a private employer even

when cleaning out a sewer running below City Hall.

That dog ain't gonna hunt.

Gene G.

>

> This may be bandying semantics, but if a medic works for a private provider

> with a contract to provide EMS to a political subdivision, and they are on a

> call initiated by a governmental entity ( for example, a PSAT) are they not a

> de facto public servant?

>

> It is not the fault of a medic that where they choose to practice might have

> a government that chooses not to use a Public model EMS system. The medic is

> working for the private provider that provides that service probably because

> they provide the EMS service and the medic has an interest in serving that

> particular area.

>

> Mike <paramedicop@paramedic> wrote: