R EGIO N A L NE W S
REGION II
Quality or Just Going through the Motions? By John E. Smoot, MCSAP/Federal Training Coordinator, Kentucky State Police To date, Inspector Harris has documented in excess of 18 false log violations since June 30, 2017. This is outstanding work by a young inspector and a testimony to what can be accomplished when we focus on our mission of highway safety. Here is one example of the observation system and violation identified, carrier and driver details not shown here:
Inspector Patrick Harris, Kentucky State Police
Many times, commercial motor vehicle inspections are completed and we have no real way of knowing what kind of job was done, how thorough the inspector was or how detailed his/her process was. I have often compared the process to crime scene investigation. How do we determine if a fingerprint technician did a thorough job at a crime scene? One can go in and throw a bunch of fingerprint powder around, but how do we know if they were performing a quality task or not? Many times, we don’t. It is pretty obvious that an eight-minute inspection is not thorough. But what about the inspector who spends an hour and completes the inspection with no violations? Was the truck in great shape? Was there a poor selection by the inspector or did they just go through the motions? Again, we may not always know. But then, there is the inspector who goes well beyond the motions, using everything at their disposal, evaluating the findings and making a difference. One of our new inspectors is that kind of person. Just recently, it came to our attention that Patrick Harris, a fairly new inspector, less than a year on the job, found a good way to identify and validate false records of duty status. First, a little background: In 2013, Kentucky put into place its Kentucky Automated Truck Screening (KATS) system which screens vehicles against several credentials, validates as they enter the weigh stations, photographs them and creates an observation that is stored in the
database and reviewable by officers and inspectors. Inspector Harris utilized that observation tool to check observations against the driver’s record of duty status. Inspector Harris describes some of this process:
“
I always start with looking to see if there are any observations that have been captured. A lot of times, you'll stop trucks that have none; mainly the weekend runners or the guys that stay off the main roads. One of the main priority questions I ask at the beginning of the inspection is 'Do you have a co-driver and are you the only driver of the truck?' Mainly due to the drivers who 'slip seat' (normally drive different trucks all the time); in which case, at that time, you have to pay attention to what truck they have documented on the log entry on that day. The interview goes a long way. When confronted and told about the KATS observation, generally drivers admit to it. I've had a few that have argued. When they do, I take a few extra steps. I will attempt to contact the company which has led to them confirming the driver being on a trip and confirmed that the driver was, in fact, off duty. If that fails, I use my discretion. – Patrick Harris
”
The driver’s log entries presented at time of inspection indicated that the driver was off duty at 5:15 p.m. in Cattlesburg, Kentucky, on July 31, 2017. The KATS system captured images of the truck/driver going through Shelby County scales I-64 east at 8:06 p.m. on July 31, 2017. The driver stated that he was the only driver of the truck and had no co-driver.
Nice work, Inspector Harris, and a lesson for us all on using the tools available to keep our roadways safe. It’s not the amount of fingerprint powder you throw around that finds the issues. It’s a good, solid work ethic and a desire to make a difference. A job well done. FOURTH QUARTER 2017
31