Cruiser involved in fatal crash is returned to Nesquehoning
This Nesquehoning police cruiser, driven by then patrolman Steven Homanko, has been held as evidence since a fatal crash in 2014. It is being returned to the borough and will remain in evidence. TIMES NEWS FILE PHOTO
A totaled Nesquehoning police cruiser that has been held by Pennsylvania State Police as evidence since a fatal 2014 crash is coming back to the borough.
On Wednesday, following a brief executive session, borough council voted to transport the cruiser, which was driven by then patrolman Steven Homanko on the evening of May 12, 2014, when he crashed into an oncoming vehicle, killing a woman, as he pursued another car along Route 209 near Jim Thorpe. At the time of the fatal crash, Homanko hit speeds of 113 mph in the 55 mph zone.
Council President David Hawk said that the cruiser has sat in the state police impound lot in Lehighton as evidence since the crash, but state police have indicated they no longer want to keep it because it is taking up space and asked the borough to take it back.
“They want to transfer the car as evidence to Nesquehoning and have us continue to impound it until the case reaches its full resolution in the courts,” Hawk said.
The borough will need to pay the towing fee, but will house the vehicle on its fenced-in property near the borough garages.
Homanko, in 2016, was sentenced by Bucks County Judge John Rufe, who oversaw the case, to serve three to 23 months in a county prison, followed by two years of probation for his involvement in the case.
He pleaded guilty to homicide by vehicle and recklessly endangering another person, plus two summary motor vehicle code violations with the other charges he faced being drop as part of a plea bargain.
Carola Sauers, 69, died in the crash. Her husband, Michael Sauers, of Lehighton, also sustained serious injuries.
In other court matters, council also voted 3-1 to settle a dispute with the Carbon County District Attorney’s office over some drug forfeiture money. Councilmen George Sabol III abstained from the vote due, Michael Radocha voted against the action, Frank Jacobs left before the vote was taken and David DeMelfi was absent.
Hawk said that the district attorney’s office said there was a discrepancy over some of the money that was remitted to the office and this action resolves that dispute.
Comments
I recall that there wasn't a pursuit--this guy was running to Jim Thorpe to assist with finding some vehicle that was being stopped in that town...maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I recall.. Maybe someone can search the times news archives for the full story here.
The question that citizens need to ask is are pursuits that put the public at great risk justified? Look at the van of people that were pursued in recent months. Sure, they were criminals probably. I think the crime was check fraud, theft, etc. Violent offenses? Probably not. Anyway, the police chased this car or van or whatever, multiple departments flew to the pursuit probably at breakneck speed because of the heinous violent alleged crime that was committed by the occupants as reported by the Beaver Meadows police who deemed the pursuit justified and started the chase and then someone ended up accidentally shooting and killing one person. Unbelievable? Thankfully, no innocent citizens were injured.
Next, the District Attorney decides to not offer information into the identities of the AGENCIES that were involved--not the officers identities. Then the Times News has to go to the extent to file a Right to Know Law or whatever request to get this information.
If the DA and the police departments want true TRANSPARENCY and TRUST then this information should have been provided timely at the conclusion of their investigation. Law enforcement wants and needs the trust of the citizen. Why does it seem as if there is a double standard at times, especially in this region?
Are police pursuits dangerous? Yes. Are they necessary, yes--at times. Do investigative traffic stops being fled without knowledge of a serious crime warrant a pursuit? Sure they do if the police officer is permitted to make such a judgement call and do so without any regard for the safety of the public absent of any policy guiding the officer in that matter.
I would hope that the elected leaders of our communities that maintain police departments would review the horrible facts of this incident and place policies into use that serve to truly protect the citizens who put blind trust into them to do so. It is their responsibility. We elect them and we trust them to make the best decisions.
It's unfortunate that police in the smaller towns do not have the benefit of enhanced training and perhaps better pay to do a job that is necessary. This is a condition that can be changed and should not be used as a poor excuse to permit things like this from happening. Citizens--ask questions, inquire, make sure your elected leaders are doing their job--not just shoveling off a responsibility because it's too hard to think about or it would require actual effort beyond the 39 minutes spent at a regular council meeting.
The State Police are frequently reported to end pursuits at the direction of their supervisor, etc. when the real time review of the details of pursuit are weighed in order to minimize risk? How do smaller municipal police departments handle these real time reviews? Do they even have a way to? Usually not.
The question to ask is do the risks outweigh the gain? Sadly, the answer is too often no.
Just look at the photo of the wrecked car in the story, that is the possible reality of things that were fully allowed to go wrong. Not an accident, but most likely an avoidable crash.