U.S. 316. By any standard,Federal law enforcementofficersoperatepolice vehiclesand, as in question1, local authorizationis not Ho& Homer Garrison,Jr., Page 3, V-580.
'1. ,.y.~. ~_ ,,,
requiredsince the statutedeclaresthe authorization to sxist. Therefore,question2 is answeredin the affirmativeand ques- tion 3 in the negative.
(4) What is a policevehiclefi6hl.athe mean- ing of the UniformAct RegulatingTraff$o on Highways?
In the absenceof a statutorydefinitionas to what is a police vehicle,we must look to the intentof the Legisla- ture to arrive at a properunderstandingof the term. In this regard,it is reasonableto supposethat the intentof the Leg- isUtum was that a policevehicleshould includeany official vehdcleused to dischargefunctionsvitally connectedwith pub- lit safety, It cannotbe conceivedthat the Legislaturein- tended solelythose vehiclesused in enforcingtrafficlaws. City of RochesterV. Lindner,4 N.Y.S. (2d) 4; State v. Gorhsm, 188 P. 457; Edbergv. Johnson,184 N.W. 12. On the other hand, officialnecessityis not to be mistakenfor personalprivilege, nor authorityfor impeccability.The true test seemsto be pub- lic safety or other matter of vital importanceto the public. Title and ownershipto the vehiclesare, of course,evldentiary.
(5) What is a vehicleof the fire department or fire patrol vehiclewithin the meaning of the UniformAct RegulatingTraffic?
The commonmeaningof the wording of the statuteaan have no other interpretationthan that the'vehiclemust belong to the fire departmentor be under its control. Title and own- ership,perhaps,are not absolutelynecessary;but, the element of absolutecontrolis essential.
(6) Is every policevehicleand fire depart- ment or fire patrol vehiclean "authorized emergencyvehicle"within the meaningof the UniformAct RegulatingTrafficwithout being so designatedby khe Police Commis- sioneror Chief of Police7
Question6 is answeredby question1 insofaras it per- tains to policevehicles. And, in addition,the same reasoning would apply to vehiclesof the fire department,in that, the , statutein questiondoes not requirean act of designationby the Pol.i,oe Commissioneror Chief of Police.
(7) Would a privatevehicleused by a volun- teer firemanbe a vehiclemf a fire depart- ment within the meanlugof the UniformAct RegulatingTraffic?, Hon. Homer Garrison,Jr., Page 4, V-580.
Question7 is answeredin the negativeby the answer to question5. These vehiclesdo not belong to the fire depart- ment and are not under its control.
(8) If you have answeredquestionnumber 7 in the negative,could it be made one by being so designatedby the police commissioneror the chief of police?
The statutereads that the Chief of Police or the Po- lice Commissionercan designateas an authorizedemergencyve- hicle only those ambulancesand emergencyvehiclesthat belong to a municipaldepartment.It follows,therefore,that such officialscannotmake a privatelyowned vehiclean authorized emergencyvehicle. Walsh v. DallasRailwayand TermincalCom- pany, supra.
(9) Is a privatelyowned ambulance,such as is ordinarilyowned and operatedby an individualfuneralhome, an ."authorized emergencyvehicle",and is it necessary that such ambulancebe designatedan "au- thorizedemergencyvehicle"by the police commissioneror the chief of police?
(10) What is a,publicservicecorporationwith- in the meaningof the UniformAct Regulat- ing Traffic?
These questionshave been answeredpreviously,follow- ing the case of Walsh v. DallasRailwayand TerminalCompany. As to these vehicles,the statuteis unconstitutional;and hence inapplicable.
(11) When a vehiclehas been legallydesignated an authorizedemergencyvehicleby the po- lice commissioneror the chief of police., does such vehiclecontinueto be an author- ized emergencyvehiclewhen operatedbeyond the limits of a corporatecity or town of the police commissioneror chief of police making,thedesignation?
The