Let's see your squad car

[sgtnewby]

Government cars are exempt from paying tax, not from running license plates. Only the Authorized Emergency Vehicles listed in statute 168.012 are exempt from running plates, and they have to be "un mistakable".

sgtnewby, is your car in that list?

Not really an ambulance, lol, but HCMC is an EMS service. The county put the HCMC plates on the car when they built it. None of the ambulances, cammand vehicles, physician squads, support vehicles, or our squad, were ever given plates other than the HCMC plates when built by the county garage. The sheriff's office also have their own lisence plates. Some departments just have MN plates that say "POLICE," "SHERIFF," or "FIRE." Others have their own, it's up to the municipal agency. And, I don't think people are going to look at our squad and think, 'Hey, there goes the Minneapolis Police!' I designed the graphics so that there was no question as to who the vehicle belonged to. LOL

[N. A. Corbier]

So, the county is calling it an ambulance. What's Blue in MN mean? Medical vehicles, or law enforcement?

[sgtnewby]

So, the county is calling it an ambulance. What's Blue in MN mean? Medical vehicles, or law enforcement?

No, they're not calling it an ambulance , but that is just how the county built it (to include the HCMC plates). But, what do you mean about the blue? Do you mean the lights? I'll find the statute for it and get back to ya.

[Christopherstjo]

No, they're not calling it an ambulance , but that is just how the county built it (to include the HCMC plates). But, what do you mean about the blue? Do you mean the lights? I'll find the statute for it and get back to ya.

If the patrol vehicle is owned by HCMC and HCMC is a county government entity (hospital) then that would make the patrol vehicle an emergency vehicle permitted to run red and blue lights under the premise that it is a county law enforcement vehicle, even if only on the property though since it is a government vehicle, it should not be confined solely to the property.

I'm confused

[sgtnewby]

I guess it's been amended. It used to include municipal and government service vehicles. But anyway, here's the current statute. Oops....

169.64 PROHIBITED LIGHTS; EXCEPTIONS.
Subdivision 1. Bright light. Any lighted lamp or illuminating device upon a motor vehicle,
other than a headlamp, a spot lamp, or an auxiliary driving lamp, which projects a beam of
light of an intensity greater than 300-candle power, shall be so directed that no part of the beam
will strike the level of the roadway on which the vehicle stands at a distance of more than 75
feet from the vehicle.
Subd. 2. Colored light. Unless otherwise authorized by the commissioner of public safety,
no vehicle shall be equipped, nor shall any person drive or move any vehicle or equipment upon
any highway with any lamp or device displaying a red light or any colored light other than those
required or permitted in this chapter.
Subd. 3. Flashing lights. Flashing lights are prohibited, except on an authorized emergency
vehicle, school bus, bicycle as provided in section 169.222, subdivision 6, road maintenance
equipment, tow truck or towing vehicle, service vehicle, farm tractor, self-propelled farm
equipment, rural mail carrier vehicle, funeral home vehicle, or on any vehicle as a means of
indicating a right or left turn, or the presence of a vehicular traffic hazard requiring unusual care
in approaching, overtaking, or passing. All flashing warning lights shall be of the type authorized
by section 169.59, subdivision 4, unless otherwise permitted or required in this chapter.
Subd. 4. Blue light. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) to (d), blue lights are prohibited
on all vehicles except road maintenance equipment and snow removal equipment operated by or
under contract to the state or a political subdivision thereof.
(b) Authorized emergency vehicles may display flashing blue lights to the rear of the vehicle
as a warning signal in combination with other lights permitted or required by this chapter.
In addition, authorized emergency vehicles may display, mounted on the passenger side only,
flashing blue lights to the front of the vehicle as a warning signal in combination with other
lights permitted or required by this chapter.

Anyhow, I know that this doesn't make it legal either, but, Minneapolis Parking Enforcement, (not lisenced police), have blue and amber lightbars also. Same with St. Paul parking enforcement.

[sgtnewby]

If the patrol vehicle is owned by HCMC and HCMC is a county government entity (hospital) then that would make the patrol vehicle an emergency vehicle permitted to run red and blue lights under the premise that it is a county law enforcement vehicle, even if only on the property though since it is a government vehicle, it should not be confined solely to the property.

I'm confused

It's not confined to the property due to the hospital being surrounded by city streets. The hospital currently covers about 6 city blocks, soon to be more due to expansion, but the hospital is litterally built over Chicago Avenue S., S. 7th Street, and Park Avenue S. (kind of like small tunnells). So, to patrol the exterior of the property other than our ramp, we have to drive on city streets. We are not considered law enforcement even though we do write state citations for "Parking Where Signs Prohibit" MnSS# 169.34.

[SGTJosh]

Minneapolis park patrol Agents which are part of Minneapolis Park police have same details instead of saying Minneapolis Park Police it says Minneapolis Park Patrol Agent and same color stripes and red and blues with siren as they are demeaned first responders threw there EMT training look up Minneapolis park police then Park Patrol Agent same as security doesn't even carry a gun yet same uniform and badge and everything else but gun I think they carry X26s to

[sgtnewby]

If the patrol vehicle is owned by HCMC and HCMC is a county government entity (hospital) then that would make the patrol vehicle an emergency vehicle permitted to run red and blue lights under the premise that it is a county law enforcement vehicle, even if only on the property though since it is a government vehicle, it should not be confined solely to the property.

I'm confused

**UPDATE**

Our car is (and aparently always has been) registerred as a state approved "emergency vehicle." But it has absolutely nothing to do with being a law enforcement vehicle, because it simply is not.

[sgtnewby]

Minneapolis park patrol Agents which are part of Minneapolis Park police have same details instead of saying Minneapolis Park Police it says Minneapolis Park Patrol Agent and same color stripes and red and blues with siren as they are demeaned first responders threw there EMT training look up Minneapolis park police then Park Patrol Agent same as security doesn't even carry a gun yet same uniform and badge and everything else but gun I think they carry X26s to

Actually, Park patrol agents wear a different uniform than the lisenced police officers. The LEO's wear light blue shirts with the regular Minneapolis Police badge and park patrol agents wear gray shirts with a different style badge and slightly different shoulder patch. You can see the difference in badge styles. Park patrol has a decal of their badge on the vehicle door.

[N. A. Corbier]

**UPDATE**

Our car is (and aparently always has been) registerred as a state approved "emergency vehicle." But it has absolutely nothing to do with being a law enforcement vehicle, because it simply is not.

They give red light permits to just about anyone these days.

[N. A. Corbier]

Actually, Park patrol agents wear a different uniform than the lisenced police officers. The LEO's wear light blue shirts with the regular Minneapolis Police badge and park patrol agents wear gray shirts with a different style badge and slightly different shoulder patch. You can see the difference in badge styles. Park patrol has a decal of their badge on the vehicle door.

I was gonna say, Park Patrol are not licensed Police Officers.

[sgtnewby]

They give red light permits to just about anyone these days.

It's not even a permit, it's actually how the vehicle is registerred with the state. We still do not use red lights to the front right now (amber, clear, and blue currently. there is red to the rear though). We don't train our staff for code 3 driving. But we can if they choose to.

[N. A. Corbier]

It's not even a permit, it's actually how the vehicle is registerred with the state. We still do not use red lights to the front right now (amber, clear, and blue currently. there is red to the rear though). We don't train our staff for code 3 driving. But we can if they choose to.

I always thought the red to the front meaning emergency, and blue meaning nothing was weird. Are you eligible for blue to the front, or does it have to be red only?

[davis002]

I always thought the red to the front meaning emergency, and blue meaning nothing was weird. Are you eligible for blue to the front, or does it have to be red only?

If it's an "emergency vehicle" per the State, they can have up to 50% blue on the passenger side only, front and/or rear. Per statute, blue is actually reserved for DOT vehicles, i.e., plow trucks. A change by the legislature within the past decade allowed emergency vehicles the use of blue to the front, but only on the passenger side. Before that they could always have blue to the rear on the passenger side only. Funny laws...

[sgtnewby]

If it's an "emergency vehicle" per the State, they can have up to 50% blue on the passenger side only, front and/or rear. Per statute, blue is actually reserved for DOT vehicles, i.e., plow trucks. A change by the legislature within the past decade allowed emergency vehicles the use of blue to the front, but only on the passenger side. Before that they could always have blue to the rear on the passenger side only. Funny laws...

Yep, I always thought that was a weird law. But isn't there a law in California that requires LE vehicles to have at least 1 steady burning red light t the front?