Local News

Officer cited for speeding before wreck

Posted June 16, 2009

— A Raleigh police officer faces a speeding charge in a wreck last month that injured another driver, police said.

Officer D.V. Naumuk, 28, was northbound on Jones Franklin Road on May 30 when his cruiser collided with an SUV driven by Edwin Keith Cannon, 28, of Raleigh, who was pulling out of a driveway.

A police report shows that Naumuk was driving at 77 mph in a 35-mph zone, then slowed to 57 mph as he swerved to avoid the collision. He was responding to a call from another officer at the time of the wreck, police said.

Cannon's SUV flipped over after the collision, and he suffered some scrapes and cuts.

Naumuk was cited for driving in excess of 35 mph in a 35-mph zone. Cannon was cited for not wearing a seat belt.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Duke _Nukem Jun 17, 2009

    I think your post may be the most ignorant thing I've read in a very long time. Do you real think that a officers private insurance would ever pay for that. LOL. If I had to cover my patrol car with my personal insurance, I would park that car at the police station and it would never move unless there was an absolute emergency. Be careful of what you wish for. Or better yet, think before you type.

  • Duke _Nukem Jun 17, 2009

    Ems is my Life. One word for you. hypocrisy. I'm a cop and some of the biggest speed violators and rule breakers in the emergency response profession are Ambulances drivers. I've seen plenty of you drive careless for routine calls that aren't TRUE emergencies. And you are wrong, Many calls are 2 person calls that require 2 police officers being dispatched. We don't request an additional officers because it will make us feel safer. Know the facts before you speak. I don't comment on medical issues because I'm not as knowledgable as you. And as for everyone else. I hardly ever write tickets at accidents, but I will now. That way everyone can get equal treatment. And I'll be sure to cut no slack on speeding for now on. Your welcome

  • rjacks20 Jun 16, 2009

    The officer is covered under the city's insurance as long as he/she is performing a law enforcement function. I am not defending this officer's actions necessarily. He was either driving too fast for the conditions or outside of his ability. Either way, it was still just an accident. One of hundreds every day in Raleigh. If he is involved in another one that is his fault within the next year he will pay dearly for it. But it's still just an accident, property damage only.

  • leo-nc Jun 16, 2009

    "It absolutely is common practice for the DA and investigating officer to take a long time to determine a charge. Please enlighten us as to how you would know? I am an ex-cop. I know. I have seen it."---

    They all know better then the officers out there doing the job. That's the nature of the business. Everyone knows more about the job then the people actually doing it.

  • leo-nc Jun 16, 2009

    "Journey, on behalf of all law enforcement officers I want to say, I'm sorry about YOUR tax dollars. Really...I'm sorry."----

    He's free to stop by RPD HQ and get his quarter back.

  • rjacks20 Jun 16, 2009

    The difference walker is that drunk driving is a criminal offense. Being involved in a traffic accident is a civil issue unless there is gross negligence like drinking and driving, hit and run, etc.. Read the top of an accident report sometime. The only reason officers even respond to non-injury accidents is because insurance companies don't have the resources to investigate them themselves.

  • wwwalker Jun 16, 2009

    I don't have a problem with money in the budget to pay for accidents. I do oppose money in the "accident fund" paying for negligence. I think the officer's insurance should pay for damages, unless he was responding to an emergency. Now this opens up the whole issue of "check-in calls are emergencies" that's fine, but if that's the case, get there and help the guy. Who's going to back him/her up if your car is in a ditch? It sounds like it's a judgment call that's left up to the officer of whether or not to speed/use lights and siren. Well, poor judgment leads to accidents sometimes, and we all have to pay for our mistakes.

  • Big Brother1 Jun 16, 2009

    Big Brother1-No theory was stated, just facts. Don't agree with me prove me wrong. Show where it is common practice to wait this long. It's not.

    It absolutely is common practice for the DA and investigating officer to take a long time to determine a charge. Please enlighten us as to how you would know? I am an ex-cop. I know. I have seen it.

  • Shaking My Head In Amusement Jun 16, 2009

    EMS is My Life...how long have you been a paramedic? You seem to have the guidelines of emergency response down pact.

    Long enough to be passionate about something I'm also an instructor of! :-) CEVO3 is the emergency vehicle operational course and I obviously have to know the material I teach. Thus, why I have the guidlines "down pact."

    The only way you can assist someone on a call or at a scene is if you get there. If you're unsafe & cause an accident en route, now there is an additional call for help out there and you're no good to the patient, the victim, person in need, or your fellow officer/medic/fire unit who called for assistance.

  • wwwalker Jun 16, 2009

    must always use both, BTW - Only fire trucks and ambulances are required to use both. LEO's aren't required to use them unless it's in their SOG's or something. Sometimes stealth is necessary to sneak up on people, but I said it before, there is NOTHING stealthy about a Crown Vic gagged out at 77 mph…..

    One of the videos showed the response of an eyewitness and he said he didn't hear a siren, don't have a link to it, maybe it just aired on TV, but I did see it. Lights wouldn't have mattered. Trees blocked the guys view.