Police Ticket Quota

Off Topic
301

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
1st let me state that legal doesn’t equal righteous.
Many of us are in decision making positions at work; we exercise discretion. I can’t speak for everyone, but if I was correct less than 20% of the time I would not be considered effective. I would be considered incompetent and would be fired. I realize you guys are in a difficult spot, I’m all for extending the ‘benefit of doubt’ in the officers direction, but it’s impossible to morally justify those numbers.
[/quote]

Good point. Now consider the fact that an undetectable(to everyone other than the handler) alert by a DOG gives police the right to search anything they want without a warrant and you really begin to get an understanding of how ridiculous this stuff is. Those dogs are correct far less than 20% of the time(in my estimation).[/quote]

You should tell the rest of the world that dogs are not effective for scent detection work. You might want to start with the military, search and rescue organizations, police departments, customs, etc.

302

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
The New York City Council (or whatever they call it), along with certain other advocacy groups, have proposed a ban on ANY sort of racial profiling…perceived or otherwise. In and of itself, not a bad thing…HOWEVER…this extends to even using a suspect’s race as a method of DESCRIBING him.

So, essentially, an officer dealing with a crime that has just occurred would be FORBIDDEN from using the suspect’s race on the radio.

For example:
“Attention all units, robbery suspect last seen running north on Main St. Suspect is a black male, wearing red shirt and black shorts.”

will effectively become,

“Attention all units. Robbery suspect last seen running north on Main St. Suspect is a male, wearing red shirt, black shorts.”

If the measure passes, that is EXACTLY what is going to have to occur. I thought, surely, these guys are screwing with me, but they were dead serious.
[/quote]

Wow. Yes, I agree that’s taking it a bit too far.

303

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
And remember, these methods are used in high crimes area mostly. Which goes back to the discussion of how do you address an area with a high concentration of shootings, robberies, burglaries, drug activity, gang violence Etc.

How so? Please don’t say citizen tips though…

This is the trade off. And that’s my point.
[/quote]

Video surveillance? Passive metal and explosives detection? Other non-invasive technologies that can be used to signal further action/investigation?

These are a few actual alternatives.

Now, certainly, most departments don’t have access to the technology or the funds to purchase that equipment… but the technology is out there.

304

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
‘In your estimation’. Exactly. Be careful when citing statistics this way w/o source.

What is your law enforcement experience?
[/quote]

Do you have statistics for how often dogs and their handlers are correct? Don’t you think that would be an important statistic to have when we are declaring something to be PROBABLE CAUSE TO PERFORM A WARRANTLESS SEARCH? Should the burden of proof not rest on the government? I would say officers better be finding dope at least 51% of the time a dog alerts if that dog’s nose is to be considered probable cause.

305

[quote]WN76 wrote:
You should tell the rest of the world that dogs are not effective for scent detection work. You might want to start with the military, search and rescue organizations, police departments, customs, etc.

[/quote]

I’m not arguing about effectiveness. I’m arguing against a dog(and its handler’s interpretation of its actions) being PC for A WARRANTLESS SEARCH.

307

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:
The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you (Terry v. Ohio). “Stop and Frisk” is not a clear violation of our civil rights. You and others on this forum may not agree with it but the Supreme Court of the land has ruled on this. An officer can stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous.

Now that said, I do agree that “Stop and Frisk” tactics can be abused or misused by LE. I think where we, as LEOs, get ourselves into conflict with what the Supreme Court has outlined as permissible, is when we fail to clearly articulate what our “reasonable suspicion” is when we conduct these warrantless searches. Merely stating “officer safety” is not sufficient and I cringe as a supervisor when I hear or read this in an officer’s report as to why they conducted a warrantless search.

If these searches continue to be abused or misused the Courts can just as easily take this “tool” away from us, especially if there are enough incidents where the abuse or misuse “shocks the public conscious”. Departments need to train and revisit this topic often in order to keep their personnel within the scope of what the Supreme Court intended these tactics to be used under.[/quote]

1st let me state that legal doesn’t equal righteous.
Many of us are in decision making positions at work; we exercise discretion. I can’t speak for everyone, but if I was correct less than 20% of the time I would not be considered effective. I would be considered incompetent and would be fired. I realize you guys are in a difficult spot, I’m all for extending the ‘benefit of doubt’ in the officers direction, but it’s impossible to morally justify those numbers.
[/quote]

I can’t argue with you on the “legal = righteous” issue and come up with a who is right and who is wrong conclusion. Morality comes into play on this and your measurement of what is morally right or acceptable and what mine is may and probably is different based on what our life experiences and or belief systems are. In the end it boils down to each other’s perspective.

I understand your issue with the 20% statistic. Not sure how NYPD came up with this and how they compiled their data, but for the sake of this discussion I’ll go with it.

You are right. In the vast majority of professions if you are wrong 80% of the time you will not be employed for long, and rightfully so. I get it. However, in this particular discussion surrounding the utilization of Terry Stops I believe the US Supreme Court recognizes the life safety issue involved and what is at stake if the officer does not have the legal right to conduct these warrantless searches. Because of this life safety issue I am assuming they were willing to accept the human error that goes along with trying to accurately ascertain if a suspect is dangerous and is carrying a deadly weapon. I would guess that when they all sat down and discussed this amongst themselves they were hesitant to infringe upon the 4th Amendment but in the end saw it as a lesser of the two evils to permit these type of warrantless searches.

Early on in my career I was involved in an incident where my partner was shot and killed in the line of duty. I watched him bleed out in the street and take his last breath. To top it off he was a very close friend. That night forever changed my perspective on a lot of things. I tell you this so you can somewhat understand what my perspective is on the 20% statistic. If I am right and find a weapon only 20% of the time when I search a suspect that I have an articulable reasonable suspicion to suspect that he/she is possibly armed and dangerous then so be it. Short of the suspect hanging a sign around his neck announcing that he is dangerous and caring a deadly weapon I do not know of a realistic way that would bring these percentages up to an “acceptable” range. Any suggestions?

308

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
As we have all seen in the past, the pendulum swings both ways. Unfortunately, sometimes it swings WAY too far in either direction. In my opinion, the NYC “stop and frisk” policy, which was too loosely managed to begin with, has now resulted in officers possibly having to work completely blindfolded.

There are repurcussions for taking peoples’ liberty away. And this may well be one of them.[/quote]

TRAGIC…

309

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Of course not. Safety at all costs! Priority #1: WE MUST HAVE A SAFE SOCIETY!

Let’s face it, that’s all the British were doing in 1775 with warrantless searches of its colonists along with housing soldiers in private citizens’ homes – they were ensuring SAFETY.

What’s the big deal, people? You are SAFER now as a result! Lighten up! It’s only a minority that place liberty above SAFETY and after all, we do live in a democracy, right?[/quote]

Good point. I retract my opposition.

311

[quote]clinton131 wrote:
I understand your issue with the 20% statistic. Not sure how NYPD came up with this and how they compiled their data, but for the sake of this discussion I’ll go with it.

If I am right and find a weapon only 20% of the time when I search a suspect that I have an articulable reasonable suspicion to suspect that he/she is possibly armed and dangerous then so be it. I do not know of a realistic way that would bring these percentages up to an “acceptable” range. Any suggestions? [/quote]

If we lived in Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Iran,…etc. I would agree with you. In the United States individual rights trump group rights in all but the rarest situations. I realize the countries I used are an extreme example, but my point remains. I concede that an officers job is very challenging; however as far as work place fatalities are concerned LEOs barely break the top ten, if you subtract deaths from Auto-accidents where the officer was responsible for the crash it drops to the mid-teens. Like I mentioned; I extend the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to the officer, but less than 20% is casting the broad net, not reasonable suspicion.

312

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:
You should tell the rest of the world that dogs are not effective for scent detection work. You might want to start with the military, search and rescue organizations, police departments, customs, etc.

[/quote]

I’m not arguing about effectiveness. I’m arguing against a dog(and its handler’s interpretation of its actions) being PC for A WARRANTLESS SEARCH.[/quote]

You were arguing the effectiveness. You even provided your estimate of the rate of effectiveness.

313

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
And remember, these methods are used in high crimes area mostly. Which goes back to the discussion of how do you address an area with a high concentration of shootings, robberies, burglaries, drug activity, gang violence Etc.

How so? Please don’t say citizen tips though…

This is the trade off. And that’s my point.
[/quote]

Video surveillance? Passive metal and explosives detection? Other non-invasive technologies that can be used to signal further action/investigation?

These are a few actual alternatives.

Now, certainly, most departments don’t have access to the technology or the funds to purchase that equipment… but the technology is out there.[/quote]

…at what cost to taxpayers?

314

[quote]WN76 wrote:
You were arguing the effectiveness. You even provided your estimate of the rate of effectiveness.
[/quote]

I’m not arguing that a dog is not sometimes useful. I am arguing that there is no way a dog(and especially its handler’s interpretation of its actions) should replace a search warrant. I will stand by my claim that a dog team is correct well under half the time(and that’s even after only being called for when an officer already suspects something). I will also guess that few, if any, police departments keep track of statistics regarding their dogs’ effectiveness.

315

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Brett,

I’ll bite with the firehouse style policing. I am sure that “it works”. But “stop and frisks” are clear violation of our civil rights. Now I’m not saying that the police should just sit around waiting for a call. I’m sure there are pro active things to be done such as patroling, developing good relationships with neighbors, rescuing cats from trees, etc… But I think there has to be a middle ground somewhere between stop and frisks and firehouse style.

I’d love for cops to catch bad guys. But I’m not so cool with the whole, “that black teenager is wearing a hoody and his pants are sagging, he’s coming from a bad neighborhood, so he MUST be trouble - I’m gonna frisk him and violate his civil rights even though he hasn’t obviously broken the law and he doesn’t fit a description of anyone I’m looking for at the moment”.

I think ACTING on an assumption (even though in a minority of situations the assumption may be correct) is wrong. If you OBSERVE someone handing off or something, then bust their ass. But a person walking down the street minding their own business? That person has a right to go about their business unmolested.[/quote]

AC,

The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you (Terry v. Ohio). “Stop and Frisk” is not a clear violation of our civil rights. You and others on this forum may not agree with it but the Supreme Court of the land has ruled on this. An officer can stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous.

Now that said, I do agree that “Stop and Frisk” tactics can be abused or misused by LE. I think where we, as LEOs, get ourselves into conflict with what the Supreme Court has outlined as permissible, is when we fail to clearly articulate what our “reasonable suspicion” is when we conduct these warrantless searches. Merely stating “officer safety” is not sufficient and I cringe as a supervisor when I hear or read this in an officer’s report as to why they conducted a warrantless search.

If these searches continue to be abused or misused the Courts can just as easily take this “tool” away from us, especially if there are enough incidents where the abuse or misuse “shocks the public conscious”. Departments need to train and revisit this topic often in order to keep their personnel within the scope of what the Supreme Court intended these tactics to be used under.[/quote]

I’m not saying that the supreme court is wrong by saying an officer has the power to conduct a Terry stop, “if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous”.

My bone of contention here is this: since when is wearing a hoodie, or having sagging pants, or four black teens walking in a group, or <<>> - when is ANY of that REASONABLE SUSPICION?

I would argue that it’s a very unreasonable and often racist assumption - especially with the low statistical percentage of finding a weapon. I GREW UP in a high crime area. Or to describe it more accurately, an economically depressed area with a high percentage of folks on public assistance. Not everyone who lived there broke the law - most of them were just poor, yet according the logic of most LEO’s the fact that they are IN that area constitutes reasonable suspicion. Back then (in Baltimore City in the 70’s and 80’s), it was more than just a stop and frisk, it was more of a “prevention ass-kicking”.

Now, let’s peel back the onion another layer and examine what could POSSIBLY be the motivation of a person living in a high crime area for carrying a weapon. Could it possibly be that he’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6? Perhaps it for self defence because he lives in a high crime area and doesn’t the STATE’s interference and searching for a gun CLEARLY violate his SECOND AMMENDMEMT rights? The second ammendment clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (except in high crime areas)”. It doesn’t say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (unless you are black, wearing a hoodie, and looking suspicious)”.

Now I know you’re just going to come back and say, well the SCOTUS doesn’t agree with you. And you are correct. Special interest groups and liberal pussies have taken our country in a VERY sad direction. But FOR NOW, it’s still legal to speak my mind, so I’m exercising my right to do so.

Question to LEO’s:

At WHAT point would you tell your commanding officer to fuck off? In a disaster situation like Katrina where they are telling you to arrest/shoot people for being out after dark? If the dollar collapses and there is a run on the banks and people want to get THEIR money and you are told to keep them away? Where would you draw the line at exercising TOO much power? Or WOULD you? Would you just follow orders and violate the Constitution because someone told you to do it?

316

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Question to LEO’s:

At WHAT point would you tell your commanding officer to fuck off? In a disaster situation like Katrina where they are telling you to arrest/shoot people for being out after dark? If the dollar collapses and there is a run on the banks and people want to get THEIR money and you are told to keep them away? Where would you draw the line at exercising TOO much power? Or WOULD you? Would you just follow orders and violate the Constitution because someone told you to do it?[/quote]

I would ask myself the following questions:

How would I expect to be treated?
What would the public expect me to do?
What would my superiors want me to do?

Balance out the three and go from there. Or, I might just come down with a case of the Blue Flu and deal with the repercussions later. I wouldn’t be the only one, and they can’t get all of us.

317

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:
The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you (Terry v. Ohio). “Stop and Frisk” is not a clear violation of our civil rights. You and others on this forum may not agree with it but the Supreme Court of the land has ruled on this. An officer can stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous.

Now that said, I do agree that “Stop and Frisk” tactics can be abused or misused by LE. I think where we, as LEOs, get ourselves into conflict with what the Supreme Court has outlined as permissible, is when we fail to clearly articulate what our “reasonable suspicion” is when we conduct these warrantless searches. Merely stating “officer safety” is not sufficient and I cringe as a supervisor when I hear or read this in an officer’s report as to why they conducted a warrantless search.

If these searches continue to be abused or misused the Courts can just as easily take this “tool” away from us, especially if there are enough incidents where the abuse or misuse “shocks the public conscious”. Departments need to train and revisit this topic often in order to keep their personnel within the scope of what the Supreme Court intended these tactics to be used under.[/quote]

1st let me state that legal doesn’t equal righteous.
Many of us are in decision making positions at work; we exercise discretion. I can’t speak for everyone, but if I was correct less than 20% of the time I would not be considered effective. I would be considered incompetent and would be fired. I realize you guys are in a difficult spot, I’m all for extending the ‘benefit of doubt’ in the officers direction, but it’s impossible to morally justify those numbers.
[/quote]

And remember, these methods are used in high crimes area mostly. Which goes back to the discussion of how do you address an area with a high concentration of shootings, robberies, burglaries, drug activity, gang violence Etc.

How so? Please don’t say citizen tips though…

This is the trade off. And that’s my point.
[/quote]

Well I’m not sure how to FIX those problems, but if I were a poor, underemployed minority living in a bad neighborhood, getting profiled and getting fined for “non-criminal” traffic violations that A) cost me money B) cost me missed time that I cant afford to go to court C) can possibly impact my ability to drive and GET to work or D) can affect my credit and employability, definitely does not IMPROOVE my situation…

In fact, some folks are probably in a position where they have to choose to pay a bullshit fine or feed their kids. That’s a no brainer. Then their license gets suspended. NOW they are getting themselves in a position where they are breaking the law just to try and get to work to feed their family.

Bullshit fines for minor traffic offenses MAY give LEO’s the “in” to search a vehicle and maybe find something, but on all of the times it doesn’t, you are just sqeezing money from a poor citizen who is barely scraping by. That’s fucked up. In my opinion, it actually CONTRIBUTES to the cycle of poverty and the crime that inevitably follows rather than prevents it.

318

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Bullshit fines for minor traffic offenses MAY give LEO’s the “in” to search a vehicle and maybe find something, but on all of the times it doesn’t, you are just sqeezing money from a poor citizen who is barely scraping by. That’s fucked up. In my opinion, it actually CONTRIBUTES to the cycle of poverty and the crime that inevitably follows rather than prevents it.[/quote]

They definitely give us the “in”, but I rarely write a ticket unless I have to. If everything seems OK during the stop they are free to go without paying a dime.

319

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Bullshit fines for minor traffic offenses MAY give LEO’s the “in” to search a vehicle and maybe find something, but on all of the times it doesn’t, you are just sqeezing money from a poor citizen who is barely scraping by. That’s fucked up. In my opinion, it actually CONTRIBUTES to the cycle of poverty and the crime that inevitably follows rather than prevents it.[/quote]

They definitely give us the “in”, but I rarely write a ticket unless I have to. If everything seems OK during the stop they are free to go without paying a dime. [/quote]

And that is YOUR choice to make. And I commend you for it. I can tell by your input here that you are definitely one of the good guys and your community is lucky to have you. But how many other officer’s make that same choice? Some officers would write their mother a ticket.

Remove YOUR personal actions from the equation and examine my statement again. Does writing poor citizens tickets and fines (and all of the cascading effects of them) for relatively minor infractions move an economically depressed community in a positive direction?

Does it STOP crime? Or open the door to desparate action?

Does it encourage trust of LEO’s? Or does it breed resentment and a mistrust?

Does it make minority teenager confronted with life changing decisions feel HOPE? Or FEAR?

320

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
And that is YOUR choice to make. And I commend you for it. I can tell by your input here that you are definitely one of the good guys and your community is lucky to have you. But how many other officer’s make that same choice? Some officers would write their mother a ticket.

Remove YOUR personal actions from the equation and examine my statement again. Does writing poor citizens tickets and fines (and all of the cascading effects of them) for relatively minor infractions move an economically depressed community in a positive direction?

Does it STOP crime? Or open the door to desparate action?

Does it encourage trust of LEO’s? Or does it breed resentment and a mistrust?

Does it make minority teenager confronted with life changing decisions feel HOPE? Or FEAR?[/quote]

I disagree here. If a law is not enforced, it should be dropped and not used to pry into people’s business. I can’t remember the exact words she used, but I believe it was Ayn Rand who said something like, “People think you couldn’t walk down the street in Russia. That’s not true, you could; you just never knew when you were going to be arrested. You didn’t know what was the law. It would have been preferable to know you couldn’t walk down the street.” We shouldn’t have anything written in law that’s not enforced. That just gives the government the opportunity to use that at some point if it wants.

A police department/government does little to nothing to take a community in the right direction.

It does not stop crime, but it gives idiots confidence to know that somebody is doing something. That’s important when election time comes around.

It absolutely opens the door to desperate action. That bolsters big-government folks’ belief that we should just execute people who commit any crime. “Just look at all the repeat offenders we have!”

It seriously hurts the relationship between law enforcement officers and the public. That’s why it’s silly to blame police officers for the dumb shit they sometimes do-they are caught between a rock(their bosses) and a hard place(the citizens). Sometimes they’re going to make the right decision for one and not the other-they have families to feed. The blame needs to be placed on the folks occupying the upper levels of government.