I absolutely agree. If the law is on the books and an officer is called to the scene, he has to act on it. If the officer left the scene believing the mother's story about being nearby, then the baby dies later on because it was left alone, he'd get blamed for leaving the scene. Since this is a no-win situation for that officer, he must follow protocol for his own, and the department's, protection.
Unfortunately, this is where the arrogant phrase "Zero Tolerance" and our inability to use common sense has gotten us. You want the government to control others whom you think are doing bad things. But you fail to realize that this kind of control applies to ALL OF US, not just the people we accuse of being bad.
So when the public's righteous indignation and baying for blood over a toddler's death from being left in a car for 8 hours leads them to vehemently support and applaud (without reading the fine print) a new law that says "NO child will be left alone in a vehicle for any length of time; parents will be prosecuted", they shouldn't be blaming a police officer for arresting them for running into a gas station to pay, taking the cart back to the corral, or walking up to the school to pick up the other child while their other child(ren) are left alone in the car.
I agree. The problem with writing new laws to meet a perceived need is being specific enough to avoid being ruled unconstitutional due to vagueness, and yet not so all-encompassing as to ensnarl the innocent.
For instance:
The problem: unattended children dying in automobiles.
The solution: pass a law prohibiting children from being left alone in automobiles.
But how should such a law be phrased? You could be exact, and state that a child shall be considered by law to be unattended if said child is left unsupervised in an automobile for a duration of not less than 10 minutes.
Ah! But in some places, such as Texas, 10 minutes is long enough to kill a child, if the car is sitting in 110 degree heat with the windows rolled up. If the car is parked yet running, and has an exhaust problem, 3 minutes can be long enough for carbon monoxide poisoning. A good car thief can steal any make of car within a minute (remember the Nicolas Gage move, Gone in Sixty Seconds?). As such, a specific duration problem will not meet the need.
I bet that many States statutes simply neglect to specify the length of time a child has to be in a car before being considered unattended. The law probably states something simple: a child inside a motor vehicle shall be considered to be unattended if an adult is not within the vehicle.
It is hard to distinguish, in creating a law, between the type of behavior the law is meant to prohibit (such as an adult leaving a child in a care for long periods of time) and behavior that most of a community would regard as being responsible and so not unlawful (as possibly in this case).
Usually these laws pop up due to the outrageous behavior of a single person: for instance, a mother drives to a casino and leaves her children inside the car while she goes inside and plays for eight straight hours. The children die due to heat. People are outraged, and demand new laws to deal with this situation. However, you cant write a law saying that It shall be against the law for women to drive to casinos and leave their children in the car for hours while the mother plays the slots. Hence you come up with the more vague, all-encompassing law.
I have no doubt this woman will escape going to jail, or even being slapped on the wrist. Judges do have some discretion in these matters, a discretion which police officers are not usually entitled. Heck, if nothing else, a jury will probably quickly acquit her. I cant see the district attorney trying hard to win a conviction (or even trying this case).
