Police Ticket Quota

Off Topic
261

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Is there any legal requirement for the recording, or is it just a matter of policy?

Do those recordings ever just “disappear”?[/quote]

Policy, and I encourage it because it can save your ass.

To be honest, I’m not very familiar with the system other than how to operate it. I just know the camera and microphone record what I do when I use my lights or manually turn the system on.

I’ve never heard of footage just disappearing. [/quote]

The “it can save your ass” thing goes both ways though.

It just seems a bit odd to me that officers can use footage to defend themselves in court, but citizens cannot… especially if the events occur in public view and/or in the citizen’s own vehicle.

Not that I’m really a fan of our current panopticon society, but the double standard (at least, in the cases where it’s illegal to record an officer) is treading into dangerous territory.[/quote]

It doesn’t go both ways if you’re doing what you’re supposed to do. The only thing I’m worried about when the camera is on is getting caught shit talking management if I forget to turn it off.

I wouldn’t use it to defend myself in court unless I was charged criminally for conduct caught on the camera. I would use the footage for administrative action taken against me for a complaint. I have more faith in the courts than I do in my managers for giving me a fair shake.

262

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Is there any legal requirement for the recording, or is it just a matter of policy?

Do those recordings ever just “disappear”?[/quote]

Policy, and I encourage it because it can save your ass.

To be honest, I’m not very familiar with the system other than how to operate it. I just know the camera and microphone record what I do when I use my lights or manually turn the system on.

I’ve never heard of footage just disappearing. [/quote]

The “it can save your ass” thing goes both ways though.

It just seems a bit odd to me that officers can use footage to defend themselves in court, but citizens cannot… especially if the events occur in public view and/or in the citizen’s own vehicle.

Not that I’m really a fan of our current panopticon society, but the double standard (at least, in the cases where it’s illegal to record an officer) is treading into dangerous territory.[/quote]

It doesn’t go both ways if you’re doing what you’re supposed to do. The only thing I’m worried about when the camera is on is getting caught shit talking management if I forget to turn it off.

I wouldn’t use it to defend myself in court unless I was charged criminally for conduct caught on the camera. I would use the footage for administrative action taken against me for a complaint. I have more faith in the courts than I do in my managers for giving me a fair shake. [/quote]

This. My personal recorder was mostly to guard against misconduct allegations and complaints. I never used my “personal” one for that. Of course, I used the official one all the time when conducting drug buys while working narcotics. You have to keep your informant wired of course, that’s just how drug work is done. And it’s available to the defense for subpoena.

My personal one cannot be used in discovery, since I don’t develop my case/evidence based on it.

So it’s not part of Discovery.

263

[quote]Drunkard wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.

Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.

I’d like comments on this from the LEO’s who’ve participated in this thread.

BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, badge or no badge.[/quote]

Brett620 covered it well.

I requested answers concerning two questions I had, but no one stepped up to the plate. I’ll ask again.

What are the thoughts on fire-hall style policing?

Why is it OK to make an assumption about a group of people and treat them accordingly without even knowing them? Would you be able to see past your initial assumption?

[/quote]

Could you explain what “fire hall style policing” is? I’ve never heard of it and nothing is coming up on Google. Perhaps that’s why you haven’t gotten a response.[/quote]

A reactive style of policing instead of a proactive style. Cops would sit in the office until called upon, like a fire hall. [/quote]

I wonder if the citizen of South Chicago could vote on this. Chicago does not use stop and frisk, and look at their murder rate. Compare it to NYC which does use it effectively (although that liberal judge is causing a hissy). Compare their murders/gun arrests etc. It’s shocking. Chicago uses all the other tools I’m sure, but any street cops knows how effective “Terry Stops” are. It’s just a fact.

I guess you can scream ‘racism’ all you want… then end up like Chicago. Let the public have a say. If you don’t want police intervention and proactive community policing, vote it up or down.

Just don’t gripe when it’s re-active Fire-Hall style.

The high crime areas in NYC that Stop and Frisk is used, the residents SUPPORT it’s use. And the officers typically assigned to those districts (like in NYC) are more likely to be non-white also.[/quote]

I don’t mean to hijack this thread with the following.

Do you think that the strong gun control laws contribute(d) to what has, and is happening on the South Side of Chicago? Chicago government made it impossible and now rather difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

As for the fire-hall style policing, isn’t that what it is for the most part? Granted, I see Chicago cops driving around, but aren’t they waiting for someone to call 911, or actually hear gunshots before they can do anything? [/quote]

Very much so in my opinion. The strict gun laws ONLY harm the lawful citizen wanting a firearm to protect their family and property. These thugs know this, and they prey on an unarmed populace. The laws don’t hinder the criminals because they buy their guns ILLEGALLY to begin with!

Silly liberal logic. No, the Crips and Gangster Disciples don’t wait for background checks when buying their weapons! I know it’s a shock.

It’s funny. If you ever try to make a Federal Gun Case with a Bad Guy, you have to fill out this little “packet” to submit to the feds along with your arrest for review. Part of that packet includes a ‘Gun Questionnaire’. Some of the questions when you ask some of these gang members… they just laugh in your face. It’s all about how they purchased it, acquired it, etc.

In Chicago?? Are you familiar with Stop-and-Frisk? Go search it. It’s BANNED in Chicago… and I’m sure other pro-active methods/tactics are too.

Think there is a link? Maybe?

264

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
In MD they made it illegal to take video of Police.[/quote]

That’s absurd. I mean, that’s one of the more asinine laws I’ve heard. Then again, we don’t televise executions in this country. The state probably is more effective when few see what it does.

265

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
In MD they made it illegal to take video of Police.[/quote]

That’s absurd. I mean, that’s one of the more asinine laws I’ve heard. Then again, we don’t televise executions in this country. The state probably is more effective when few see what it does.[/quote]

Really? What’s the charge?

I disagree with that. The only way I could see me taking action against someone trying to video an arrest or something, is if they were obstructing the officer. Other than that, it’s annoying- but it’s their right to film if they want.

That’s bizarre. Esp. in MD.

Not a state like TX, AZ, AL, FL or MS where it’s known to be LEO friendly.

Maybe they have it covered under some other statute and use it as a loophole… dunno.

266

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Really? What’s the charge?

I disagree with that. The only way I could see me taking action against someone trying to video an arrest or something, is if they were obstructing the officer. Other than that, it’s annoying- but it’s their right to film if they want.

That’s bizarre. Esp. in MD.

Not a state like TX, AZ, AL, FL or MS where it’s known to be LEO friendly.

Maybe they have it covered under some other statute and use it as a loophole… dunno.[/quote]

I would like to think Maryland decriminalized being drunk-in-public, and will now be forcing its police officers to obtain a warrant before taking any action-even on plain/public view offenses(since police officers were filmed in plain view)…but I’m sure that’s not what happened.

Being law enforcement officer friendly is not the same as being friendly to the state. The closer a state keeps it police officers to being public servants(as opposed to tyrannical henchmen), the more favorable will be the public opinion of them.

267

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Really? What’s the charge?

I disagree with that. The only way I could see me taking action against someone trying to video an arrest or something, is if they were obstructing the officer. Other than that, it’s annoying- but it’s their right to film if they want.

That’s bizarre. Esp. in MD.

Not a state like TX, AZ, AL, FL or MS where it’s known to be LEO friendly.

Maybe they have it covered under some other statute and use it as a loophole… dunno.[/quote]

I would like to think Maryland decriminalized being drunk-in-public, and will now be forcing its police officers to obtain a warrant before taking any action-even on plain/public view offenses(since police officers were filmed in plain view)…but I’m sure that’s not what happened.

Being law enforcement officer friendly is not the same as being friendly to the state. The closer a state keeps it police officers to being public servants(as opposed to tyrannical henchmen), the more favorable will be the public opinion of them. [/quote]

What??? They have to obtain a warrant for a PI? I gotta look into that… that doesn’t sound right. Public Intoxication, like DUI, is an immediate arrestable offense, even though it’s a misdemeanor. Meaning the whole reason you arrest them is the “reasonable likelihood of the offense continuing”. That is a public safety danger. That can’t be right.

Ever tried to police let’s say downtown during New Years Eve? Or 4th of July? Or any MAJOR celebration? Then trust me, you know exactly what I’m talking about when it comes to public safety.

268

lol

Yeah… didn’t think so.

(Md. Ann. Code § 19-101.)

Public Intoxication. Basically the same standard everywhere…

272

[quote]Drunkard wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.

Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.

I’d like comments on this from the LEO’s who’ve participated in this thread.

BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, badge or no badge.[/quote]

Brett620 covered it well.

I requested answers concerning two questions I had, but no one stepped up to the plate. I’ll ask again.

What are the thoughts on fire-hall style policing?

Why is it OK to make an assumption about a group of people and treat them accordingly without even knowing them? Would you be able to see past your initial assumption?

[/quote]

Could you explain what “fire hall style policing” is? I’ve never heard of it and nothing is coming up on Google. Perhaps that’s why you haven’t gotten a response.[/quote]

A reactive style of policing instead of a proactive style. Cops would sit in the office until called upon, like a fire hall. [/quote]

I wonder if the citizen of South Chicago could vote on this. Chicago does not use stop and frisk, and look at their murder rate. Compare it to NYC which does use it effectively (although that liberal judge is causing a hissy). Compare their murders/gun arrests etc. It’s shocking. Chicago uses all the other tools I’m sure, but any street cops knows how effective “Terry Stops” are. It’s just a fact.

I guess you can scream ‘racism’ all you want… then end up like Chicago. Let the public have a say. If you don’t want police intervention and proactive community policing, vote it up or down.

Just don’t gripe when it’s re-active Fire-Hall style.

The high crime areas in NYC that Stop and Frisk is used, the residents SUPPORT it’s use. And the officers typically assigned to those districts (like in NYC) are more likely to be non-white also.[/quote]

I don’t mean to hijack this thread with the following.

Do you think that the strong gun control laws contribute(d) to what has, and is happening on the South Side of Chicago? Chicago government made it impossible and now rather difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

As for the fire-hall style policing, isn’t that what it is for the most part? Granted, I see Chicago cops driving around, but aren’t they waiting for someone to call 911, or actually hear gunshots before they can do anything? [/quote]

New York has those laws also.

273

The difference in NYC vs. Chicago is simple.

Stop and Frisk.

NYC it’s aggressively used. In Chicago it’s forbidden.

274

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The difference in NYC vs. Chicago is simple.

Stop and Frisk.

NYC it’s aggressively used. In Chicago it’s forbidden.[/quote]

Assuming this is a departmental policy that CPD has.

Terry Vs. Ohio

275

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The difference in NYC vs. Chicago is simple.

Stop and Frisk.

NYC it’s aggressively used. In Chicago it’s forbidden.[/quote]

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the personâ??s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch.

In 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times.
80,176 were totally innocent (82 percent).
In 2003, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 160,851 times.
140,442 were totally innocent (87 percent).
In 2004, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 313,523 times.
278,933 were totally innocent (89 percent).
In 2005, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 398,191 times.
352,348 were totally innocent (89 percent).
In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times.
457,163 were totally innocent (90 percent).
In 2007, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 472,096 times.
410,936 were totally innocent (87 percent).
In 2008, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 540,302 times.
474,387 were totally innocent (88 percent).
In 2009, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 581,168 times.
510,742 were totally innocent (88 percent).
In 2010, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 601,285 times.
518,849 were totally innocent (86 percent).
In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times
473,644 were totally innocent (89 percent).

Less than 20% sounds like a hunch to me, if we limit guilt to weapon possession it drops below 8%.

276

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Really? What’s the charge?

I disagree with that. The only way I could see me taking action against someone trying to video an arrest or something, is if they were obstructing the officer. Other than that, it’s annoying- but it’s their right to film if they want.

That’s bizarre. Esp. in MD.

Not a state like TX, AZ, AL, FL or MS where it’s known to be LEO friendly.

Maybe they have it covered under some other statute and use it as a loophole… dunno.[/quote]

I would like to think Maryland decriminalized being drunk-in-public, and will now be forcing its police officers to obtain a warrant before taking any action-even on plain/public view offenses(since police officers were filmed in plain view)…but I’m sure that’s not what happened.

Being law enforcement officer friendly is not the same as being friendly to the state. The closer a state keeps it police officers to being public servants(as opposed to tyrannical henchmen), the more favorable will be the public opinion of them. [/quote]

What??? They have to obtain a warrant for a PI? I gotta look into that… that doesn’t sound right. Public Intoxication, like DUI, is an immediate arrestable offense, even though it’s a misdemeanor. Meaning the whole reason you arrest them is the “reasonable likelihood of the offense continuing”. That is a public safety danger. That can’t be right.

Ever tried to police let’s say downtown during New Years Eve? Or 4th of July? Or any MAJOR celebration? Then trust me, you know exactly what I’m talking about when it comes to public safety.[/quote]

I think you misunderstood…I said I would like to think Maryland did those things, not that it did.

277

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The difference in NYC vs. Chicago is simple.

Stop and Frisk.

NYC it’s aggressively used. In Chicago it’s forbidden.[/quote]

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the personâ??s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch.

In 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times.
80,176 were totally innocent (82 percent).
In 2003, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 160,851 times.
140,442 were totally innocent (87 percent).
In 2004, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 313,523 times.
278,933 were totally innocent (89 percent).
In 2005, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 398,191 times.
352,348 were totally innocent (89 percent).
In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times.
457,163 were totally innocent (90 percent).
In 2007, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 472,096 times.
410,936 were totally innocent (87 percent).
In 2008, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 540,302 times.
474,387 were totally innocent (88 percent).
In 2009, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 581,168 times.
510,742 were totally innocent (88 percent).
In 2010, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 601,285 times.
518,849 were totally innocent (86 percent).
In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times
473,644 were totally innocent (89 percent).

Less than 20% sounds like a hunch to me, if we limit guilt to weapon possession it drops below 8%. [/quote]

Cite your source for these statistics. Can’t believe that these numbers are based off of Terry Frisks alone.

278

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The difference in NYC vs. Chicago is simple.

Stop and Frisk.

NYC it’s aggressively used. In Chicago it’s forbidden.[/quote]

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the personÃ?¢??s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch.

In 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times.
80,176 were totally innocent (82 percent).
In 2003, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 160,851 times.
140,442 were totally innocent (87 percent).
In 2004, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 313,523 times.
278,933 were totally innocent (89 percent).
In 2005, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 398,191 times.
352,348 were totally innocent (89 percent).
In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times.
457,163 were totally innocent (90 percent).
In 2007, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 472,096 times.
410,936 were totally innocent (87 percent).
In 2008, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 540,302 times.
474,387 were totally innocent (88 percent).
In 2009, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 581,168 times.
510,742 were totally innocent (88 percent).
In 2010, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 601,285 times.
518,849 were totally innocent (86 percent).
In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times
473,644 were totally innocent (89 percent).

Less than 20% sounds like a hunch to me, if we limit guilt to weapon possession it drops below 8%. [/quote]

Cite your source for these statistics. Can’t believe that these numbers are based off of Terry Frisks alone. [/quote]

The NYPD stats submitted to the court. All categorized as Terry Frisks…in 2013 that’s about 1,400 per day.

279

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The difference in NYC vs. Chicago is simple.

Stop and Frisk.

NYC it’s aggressively used. In Chicago it’s forbidden.[/quote]

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the personÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch.

In 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times.
80,176 were totally innocent (82 percent).
In 2003, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 160,851 times.
140,442 were totally innocent (87 percent).
In 2004, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 313,523 times.
278,933 were totally innocent (89 percent).
In 2005, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 398,191 times.
352,348 were totally innocent (89 percent).
In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times.
457,163 were totally innocent (90 percent).
In 2007, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 472,096 times.
410,936 were totally innocent (87 percent).
In 2008, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 540,302 times.
474,387 were totally innocent (88 percent).
In 2009, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 581,168 times.
510,742 were totally innocent (88 percent).
In 2010, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 601,285 times.
518,849 were totally innocent (86 percent).
In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times
473,644 were totally innocent (89 percent).

Less than 20% sounds like a hunch to me, if we limit guilt to weapon possession it drops below 8%. [/quote]

Cite your source for these statistics. Can’t believe that these numbers are based off of Terry Frisks alone. [/quote]

The NYPD stats submitted to the court. All categorized as Terry Frisks…in 2013 that’s about 1,400 per day.
[/quote]

Not all people that are “Stopped” are also “Frisked”. Although the term implies both are used together, any cop knows what a “Terry Stop” is. It’s not always checking someone for weapons.

EXAMPLE:
In my patrol area, let’s say we are having problems with vehicle break-ins. So let’s say I’m working swing-shift, and my LT asks me to work plain clothes for the shift, and to check out an unmarked car and do some pro-active policing in the area were are having problems.

Let’s say all that is known is that the suspect is an “older male white with a beard”.

I get in my car and drive around and also do surveillance at various parking lots. I observe a white guy around 10pm looking into car. I get out, radio dispatch that I’m going to engage the subject in a “Terry Stop”. It’s a brief stop to confirm or dispel that criminal activity is afoot. I stop and identify myself and find out the guy is 17. And since it’s dark, I now get a close look at him and he is clean-shaven. He tells me forgot where he parked his car, and he’s checking the whole lot carefully. I talk with him a little more, find out it’s not our guy due to his age and lack of facial hair. I NEVER FRISK HIM. Why? He gave me no indicators, and I was able to “dispel” the suspicion quickly.

** And Commissioner Ray Kelly has stated according to those stats, not everyone is checked for weapons, but those “Terry Stops” are data from all recorded stops.

This is an example of pro-active police work. Was that citizen “inconvienced”? Yeah, sure… BUT a good officer with good people skills can make a simple STOP not feel at all like a detention. Just, “Hey man, I need to talk to you real quick.” Then it’s about your people skills from there. Officers who usually are overly authoritative or jerks about it will get the complaints.

With Fire-Hall style… we would just sit back and take the break-in reports. Then try to pursue an investigation, or maybe get lucky an catch him in the act. Pro-active police works try to stop or discourage criminal BEFORE it happens.

But sure, if I lived in those areas in NYC, it would suck getting stopped and patted down frequently. But it’s a result of where they live.

Oh, and the NYC residents in those area (highly urban and minority areas) SUPPORT Stop and Frisk.