Police Report Disputed

To the Editor:

RE: The publication of police blotter dated Tuesday, September 28, 1999. My position is that the police record is false, based upon incomplete research and deliberate disregard for facts, in exchange for prejudiced corroborative information from a witness tainted by proclaimed prior ulterior motives.

On the afternoon of Tuesday, September 28, my safety was seriously jeopardized by both a poor driver and an inattentive police officer. I was headed to a local nursery. I’d just purchased gasoline from Citgo and was travelling towards Monroe via Route 25. As I came upon Sand Hill Plaza, I observed asphalt work in progress. The site, which consisted of a steamroller and a Newtown policeman, was not marked with construction, roadwork or warning signs, but there were orange safety cones set up so as to eliminate the right lane in a gradual fashion. The police officer was standing at a 90-degree angle from the trajectory of my vehicle, direction right. The officer appeared to be looking at the back of the steamroller as it paved perpendicular to the street. I remained in the left lane, when suddenly I realized that the driver parallel me in the right lane was merging left directly into me and that he would soon hit me. He must not have even seen me!

I honked, desperate to avoid being broadsided into oncoming traffic, but to no avail. His course was set and I was thus forced to make immediate radical maneuvers to preserve my life by swerving around the left side of the encroaching vehicle and re-entering my lane. I simultaneously avoided not only a broadside collision from the right, but a head-on collision with oncoming vehicle(s) in the opposing lane, with which I would certainly have collided had I taken no drastic action or simply braked.

Meanwhile, my horn had finally arrested the attention of the officer, who then turned toward my vehicle just as I was passing the encroaching vehicle while over the double yellow line headed directly into oncoming traffic. The officer ran towards me, as if he intended to stop me with his body. Hands flailing, he gestured for me to stop. If I had I’m certain I’d not be here to talk of it. Precious few survive a 90-mph head-on collision.

Shaken, I returned home. The evening passed. Then, the next morning two officers, neither of whom were there themselves, knocked at my door. I was hit with four tickets. I protested. They responded that they already knew what happened. Their officer (turns out he’s a sergeant) is indisputably, always right, and nothing I could say would cause them to reassess the situation. I questioned why no effort was  made to speak with me the past evening. The officer said (falsely) that “[I] refused to come home.” The officer also stated that my attempt to explain the event constituted calling the sergeant a liar. The police position was fixed. I was caught flagrante delicto!

It is shameful and unjust that the N.P.D. has chosen to base their decisions upon prejudiced and assumptive theories, conjecture, and false premise rather than facts and expeditious, viable research. I believe that this deliberate disregard for factual evidence gathering constitutes a malicious attempt to cause me harm.

Sincerely,

John Engel

 3 Lovell’s Lane, Newtown                                   October 6, 1999