# LE Myths and misconceptions



## Tgace (Oct 27, 2013)

This thread is for things people commonly believe or wonder about when it comes to police and police procedure.

1. Undercover cops have to tell you they are LE when asked- No

2. If a cop doesn't mirandize me at the time of arrest then my arrest is unlawful and/or will be dismissed- No. Miranda only matters if you are/were questioned while in custody. And if the police use your answers against you or use them to obtain evidence against you. No questions no need....and no asking your name and address don't count.

3. Putting a car on the street and waiting for someone to steal it is not entrapment.

4. We will dust for prints and collect DNA when someone steals your lawn ornaments. -Not usually.

...any other things you can think of or wondered about?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 27, 2013)

_We can always find fingerprints, and the fingerprints will always identify the suspect. _  No, and no.  It's pretty rare to get usable prints, and rarer still for them to match someone in the system.

_A cop can easily transfer agencies, with no loss of position, etc._  Nope.  Change agencies, and you usually start at the bottom.  (And, no, most street cops don't aspire to be FBI agents.  Quite a few don't even want to be detectives.)


----------



## arnisador (Oct 27, 2013)

Tgace said:


> 4. We will dust for prints and collect DNA when someone steals your lawn ornaments. -Not usually.



There was a string of car break-ins on our street one night a few years ago. Ours was parked in the driveway and for better or worse one of the kids had left a door unlocked so they opened it without damaging the car and stole a fair amount of loose change. Most of it was in a container they had to open but had left there. I was disappointed they didn't dust for fingerprints. The cop explained to me in a somewhat condescending manner that it wasn't like on CSI where there's a magic database of all criminals' fingerprints. I figured it would've been worth hoping for a hit and that more likely than that it'd be worth knowing when the 15 y.o. that probably did it was caught two years later for something bigger. We were disappointed. 

I've had great luck getting written warnings rather than speeding tickets. I've been going 10-15 mph over the limit when it's happened. I'm polite and respectful, but even I'm surprised that with a written warning per year for the past 3 years I haven't gotten one yet. How often do you cut someone a break?


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 27, 2013)

arnisador said:


> There was a string of car break-ins on our street one night a few years ago. Ours was parked in the driveway and for better or worse one of the kids had left a door unlocked so they opened it without damaging the car and stole a fair amount of loose change. Most of it was in a container they had to open but had left there. I was disappointed they didn't dust for fingerprints. The cop explained to me in a somewhat condescending manner that it wasn't like on CSI where there's a magic database of all criminals' fingerprints. I figured it would've been worth hoping for a hit and that more likely than that it'd be worth knowing when the 15 y.o. that probably did it was caught two years later for something bigger. We were disappointed.


Dusting a car for prints makes a huge mess.  Fingerprint powder is like copier toner or talcum powder; it's very fine, and sticks to everything, and hard to clean up.  Add that a lot of surfaces in a car just plain are not good for collecting prints, though more advanced (and more destructive...) approaches like superglue can be more effective, and it's often not very productive.  I'll often not print a car for a petit larceny, unless there's a bigger reason.  I will, however, look for prints, and if there's something (like that container you described) that might be more amenable to successful processing, I'll do it.  

As to the database... The simple fact is that, even if I get a perfect print, it's useless if it's not in the system.  So, they add my unidentified print to the system, and 3 or 4 years later, maybe, a hit comes back.  Not easy to prosecute, if the statute of limitations hasn't passed, and of limited utility in future cases.  I had a case thrown out by a judge who (without warning and incorrectly) held a probable cause hearing in place of a bond hearing because I the prosecutor couldn't say that the victim had never had their car in the suspect's neighborhoods...  Even though that's about as likely as finding my prints on one of Bob's cameras.



> I've had great luck getting written warnings rather than speeding tickets. I've been going 10-15 mph over the limit when it's happened. I'm polite and respectful, but even I'm surprised that with a written warning per year for the past 3 years I haven't gotten one yet. How often do you cut someone a break?



Probably 2:1 warnings to cites, and most of those verbal rather than written, depending on what's going on and specifics of assignments (like if I work a traffic detail with an emphasis on citing...  than I'm writing almost everything...).


----------



## Tames D (Oct 27, 2013)

arnisador said:


> There was a string of car break-ins on our street one night a few years ago. Ours was parked in the driveway and for better or worse one of the kids had left a door unlocked so they opened it without damaging the car and stole a fair amount of loose change. Most of it was in a container they had to open but had left there. I was disappointed they didn't dust for fingerprints. The cop explained to me in a somewhat condescending manner that it wasn't like on CSI where there's a magic database of all criminals' fingerprints. I figured it would've been worth hoping for a hit and that more likely than that it'd be worth knowing when the 15 y.o. that probably did it was caught two years later for something bigger. We were disappointed.
> 
> *I've had great luck getting written warnings rather than speeding tickets*. I've been going 10-15 mph over the limit when it's happened. I'm polite and respectful, but even I'm surprised that with a written warning per year for the past 3 years I haven't gotten one yet. How often do you cut someone a break?



I've never heard of a written warning. I've been pulled over and let go without getting a ticket. Cops have always been respectful to me.


----------



## Tames D (Oct 27, 2013)

Police will patrol expensive neighborhood tracts that have been hit by crime. *NO*.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 27, 2013)

Tames D said:


> I've never heard of a written warning. I've been pulled over and let go without getting a ticket. Cops have always been respectful to me.



Some agencies require written documentation of every traffic stop.  In others, it's a way to document the reason for a stop without actually putting a traffic charge on the driver.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 28, 2013)

arnisador said:


> There was a string of car break-ins on our street one night a few years ago. Ours was parked in the driveway and for better or worse one of the kids had left a door unlocked so they opened it without damaging the car and stole a fair amount of loose change. Most of it was in a container they had to open but had left there. I was disappointed they didn't dust for fingerprints. The cop explained to me in a somewhat condescending manner that it wasn't like on CSI where there's a magic database of all criminals' fingerprints. I figured it would've been worth hoping for a hit and that more likely than that it'd be worth knowing when the 15 y.o. that probably did it was caught two years later for something bigger. We were disappointed.
> 
> I've had great luck getting written warnings rather than speeding tickets. I've been going 10-15 mph over the limit when it's happened. I'm polite and respectful, but even I'm surprised that with a written warning per year for the past 3 years I haven't gotten one yet. How often do you cut someone a break?



We ate required to dust for prints on all theft from autos.b 9 times out of 10 we recover nothing and as stated we created a huge nasty mess.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 28, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Some agencies require written documentation of every traffic stop.  In others, it's a way to document the reason for a stop without actually putting a traffic charge on the driver.



These have been computer-generated printouts that were handed to me.



ballen0351 said:


> We ate required to dust for prints on all theft from autos.b 9 times out of 10 we recover nothing and as stated we created a huge nasty mess.



It was most likely a kid but around here could also have been a meth user with a record. It was a container they would've had to unscrew to get at the change inside so I figured there might be prints on it. It wasn't part of the car and damaging it would've not been a concern to us. We weren't upset by this--we knew it was unlikely they'd catch anyone--but had hoped they'd do this anyway.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 28, 2013)

Here's another one...

Your local PD has the ability to tap your phone.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Oct 28, 2013)

I've been assured that you're all getting filthy rich on overtime and boosting your pensions by going nuts with overtime in the last few years of your careers.

I do sometimes look at the overtime amounts and wonder why they don't just hire more police officers. I know sometimes it's an ongoing emergency or an unpredictable-length court appearance but at other times it seems like agencies would want more people for more flexibility and less paying time-and-a-half.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 28, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I've been assured that you're all getting filthy rich on overtime and boosting your pensions by going nuts with overtime in the last few years of your careers.
> 
> I do sometimes look at the overtime amounts and wonder why they don't just hire more police officers. I know sometimes it's an ongoing emergency or an unpredictable-length court appearance but at other times it seems like agencies would want more people for more flexibility and less paying time-and-a-half.



There's always some sort of overtime available. From simple manpower issues like people out sick, injured, on vacation etc. to grant funded overtime for target enforcement, DWI checkpoints etc. In my PD at least, most OT is due to the latter. OT is given out on a seniority basis and as an officer approaches retirement he/she will usually start signing up for as many OT details as possible.

Where I work most of the "filthy rich cop" stories are about cashing in unused sick/vacation/compensatory time at retirement more than it is about OT. Instead of paying us for our time, some employers thought it would be wiser to forego raises in lieu of letting us save up vacation/comp time instead of capping it.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 28, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I've been assured that you're all getting filthy rich on overtime and boosting your pensions by going nuts with overtime in the last few years of your careers.
> 
> I do sometimes look at the overtime amounts and wonder why they don't just hire more police officers. I know sometimes it's an ongoing emergency or an unpredictable-length court appearance but at other times it seems like agencies would want more people for more flexibility and less paying time-and-a-half.



It's my understanding that in at least some cities, it is true that your pension calculations include overtime, and you'll see officers working insane hours their last few years to bump it up.  Those are also unionized departments, and it's in their contract...  

As to overtime more generically...  It's not always as simple as "hire more cops."  In some cases, that overtime is off-duty assignments like traffic control on construction projects, grant funded overtime, or special details (like the 4th of July or a parade).  You can't (or shouldn't...) use the guys working the street to do these assignments -- and some of them are paid for by the construction company or event.  And other overtime is unavoidable and can't be shifted to someone who's on straight time.  Nobody else can testify in many of my cases; they're MY cases.  Late arrests and required documentation pop up, too.  Most agencies have a pretty good idea how much OT they'll use in a given year, and figure that into the budget.  Coverage and staff size is a separate calculation.  And, at the moment, I know several agencies are getting hit hard by recruiting problems and retirements... and it takes most of a year to put a cop on the street once hired.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 28, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Dusting a car for prints makes a huge mess.  Fingerprint powder is like copier toner or talcum powder; it's very fine, and sticks to everything, and hard to clean up.  Add that a lot of surfaces in a car just plain are not good for collecting prints, though more advanced (and more destructive...) approaches like superglue can be more effective, and it's often not very productive.  I'll often not print a car for a petit larceny, unless there's a bigger reason.  I will, however, look for prints, and if there's something (like that container you described) that might be more amenable to successful processing, I'll do it.
> 
> As to the database... The simple fact is that, even if I get a perfect print, it's useless if it's not in the system.  So, they add my unidentified print to the system, and 3 or 4 years later, maybe, a hit comes back.  Not easy to prosecute, if the statute of limitations hasn't passed, and of limited utility in future cases.  I had a case thrown out by a judge who (without warning and incorrectly) held a probable cause hearing in place of a bond hearing because I the prosecutor couldn't say that the victim had never had their car in the suspect's neighborhoods...  Even though that's about as likely as finding my prints on one of Bob's cameras.
> 
> ...



People would be surprised at the places that may yield fingerprints.  They are more surprised that prints, especially usable prints cannot be found everywhere, and used to solve every crime within one hour, including commercial breaks.  Fingerprint powder does leave a mess.  I used to try and tell people the best ways I knew to clean up, but certainly did not spend my valuable time as a butler, which some people seem to expect.

Often I think police make a decision not to fingerprint for the reason that it may be somewhat destructive and there is a low expected return, and the crime may not be serious enough to warrant the trouble for the victim.



arnisador said:


> There was a string of car break-ins on our street one night a few years ago. Ours was parked in the driveway and for better or worse one of the kids had left a door unlocked so they opened it without damaging the car and stole a fair amount of loose change. Most of it was in a container they had to open but had left there. I was disappointed they didn't dust for fingerprints. The cop explained to me in a somewhat condescending manner that it wasn't like on CSI where there's a magic database of all criminals' fingerprints. I figured it would've been worth hoping for a hit and that more likely than that it'd be worth knowing when the 15 y.o. that probably did it was caught two years later for something bigger. We were disappointed.
> 
> I've had great luck getting written warnings rather than speeding tickets. I've been going 10-15 mph over the limit when it's happened. I'm polite and respectful, but even I'm surprised that with a written warning per year for the past 3 years I haven't gotten one yet. How often do you cut someone a break?



When I processed crime scenes, it was our policy to process for prints if there was any chance there were any.  I once went to a crime scene which had been processed by the local police.  They left a lift behind thinking it was of no value.  I collected it and it was in fact traced to the perpetrator.  But that doesn't happen often, especially with partial prints.  There has to be enough there for an examiner to be able to conclude there is a match to a certain standard.  And there has to be a suspect to compare the partial to.



jks9199 said:


> _We can always find fingerprints, and the fingerprints will always identify the suspect. _  No, and no.  It's pretty rare to get usable prints, and rarer still for them to match someone in the system.
> 
> _A cop can easily transfer agencies, with no loss of position, etc._  Nope.  Change agencies, and you usually start at the bottom.  (And, no, most street cops don't aspire to be FBI agents.  Quite a few don't even want to be detectives.)



People who watch CSI or the like think if there is anything there it will show up in a search of the system.  There may not be enough to send a print in to the FBI, or even the State system, but is a suspect is identified, there may if one is lucky, be enough for a usable match, as I mentioned above.  But in fact, it isn't the sure thing the TV makes it sound like.



ballen0351 said:


> We ate required to dust for prints on all theft from autos.b 9 times out of 10 we recover nothing and as stated we created a huge nasty mess.



That was the policy when I processed crime scenes as well.  I think it is best.  Better not to get a hit on something you have lifted, than let a perp get away because you didn't look for whatever reason.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 28, 2013)

In my PD patrol officers do not lift prints so a detective would need to be called in...on a busy day, or on a weekend, or in the middle of the night, an OT call in of a detective to look for prints in a car where loose change was taken just isn't gonna happen. 

If this is part of a string of crimes or a special circumstance where "all the stops are pulled" then maybe. For a routine non felony, non personal injury crime? Not likely. That being said. If something portable may have prints on it (a jar, a drawer, etc.) the officer typically will collect it for "in house processing" at a later time.

And to be cynical, how much money and time should be invested in a crime where...even if an arrest was made...all that is gonna happen is the offender being given a plea to probation or time served?


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 28, 2013)

I'll process for prints myself; I started carrying my own kit when I was on a squad with a "trained" evidence tech who wouldn't take the time to do it right.  And I don't want it to seem like I don't or won't do it...  I just make a practical call.  Many vehicle tampering/larceny from vehicle calls, the victim has already contaminated the scene beyond hope when we get there.  I start by looking for prints visually, before I dust.  If I decide not to process further, I explain it to the victim, so that they do understand why I didn't.  

As to cleaning up...  There's a functional minimum.  I'm not going to leave your house or car trashed -- but I'm not detailing it, either.  I'll wipe off what I can reasonably, and offer tips for thorough cleaning.  And I use common sense, like putting newspaper or something down before I dust in the house.  (Knew someone who used black powder in a spotlessly white carpet...  Didn't go over well since they didn't do anything to minimize the mess.)

I'll also collect and submit for processing (or at least collect so a detective can make the call) items that might be better processed in a lab setting.


----------



## Steve (Oct 28, 2013)

All cops like donuts.  Clearly, a myth.  Everyone knows that you guys eat muffins at Starbucks.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 28, 2013)

Tgace said:


> If this is part of a string of crimes or a special circumstance where "all the stops are pulled" then maybe. For a routine non felony, non personal injury crime? Not likely. That being said. If something portable may have prints on it (a jar, a drawer, etc.) the officer typically will collect it for "in house processing" at a later time.
> 
> And to be cynical, how much money and time should be invested in a crime where...even if an arrest was made...all that is gonna happen is the offender being given a plea to probation or time served?



I understand that reasoning. I pay the taxes for that processing. This was a string of cars on one street but had been happening in a different neighborhood every so many nights for a long time--a mix of meth users and broke teenagers, they guessed--and the cop I spoke with said that he personally took at least one such call every day. Meth drives so much of our crime here.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 28, 2013)

It is less expensive on the agency (and the tax payers) to pay overtime than hire more police.  With OT you're only paying time and a half or double time.  Hiring a new person means money for the hiring process (which isn't cheap), salary, pension, benefits etc which is substantially more than simply paying OT.  Veterans bumping up their pension with later year OT is a perk for having to risk their lives on a daily basis for 25-30 years.  It is more than reasonable.   Same thing if the agency/state has a DROP program.  It is a very reasonable benefit for the job in question.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 28, 2013)

Slight tangent...the "I'm a taxpayer" thing...

Here its property taxes that "pay my salary". So if you are a homeowner do I owe you a different standard of service than I do to a person renting an apartment? Is that guy "paying my salary" or is it the landlord? Since I own a home in my jurisdiction am I paying my own salary?


Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Oct 28, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Slight tangent...the "I'm a taxpayer" thing...
> 
> Here its property taxes that "pay my salary". So if you are a homeowner do I owe you a different standard of service than I do to a person renting an apartment? Is that guy "paying my salary" or is it the landlord? Since I own a home in my jurisdiction am I paying my own salary?
> 
> ...


Interesting questions.  Aren't there places in the country where the firemen will allow a home to burn down if that person doesn't pay into the station's funding?  

To answer, I'd expect you provide the same level of service.   But that's just me.  I generally lump a few things into a broad category of baseline services I think we should all be able to reasonably expect as citizens of the wealthiest country in the world.  Healthcare, fire and police services, and a general education come to mind.  

Edit:  Link to the firestation thing.  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

Apparently, it has happened more than once.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 28, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Slight tangent...the "I'm a taxpayer" thing...
> 
> Here its property taxes that "pay my salary". So if you are a homeowner do I owe you a different standard of service than I do to a person renting an apartment? Is that guy "paying my salary" or is it the landlord? Since I own a home in my jurisdiction am I paying my own salary?
> 
> ...



I used to have an acquaintance who had calculated the contribution of the average tax payer to his salary, and carried the change to refund it during traffic stops when the driver trotted that one out...  (It was small change... I think less than a quarter.)

Realistically, our salaries come out of the general fund.  That's made of tax receipts (property, sales, meals, etc) and other income to the jurisdiction.  The one thing that doesn't go into that in an identifiable way is ticket income...


----------



## crushing (Oct 28, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Here's another one...
> 
> Your local PD has the *ability* to tap your phone.



Ability or authority?  If you can use a knife and a butt set you have the ability to tap a phone.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 28, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Slight tangent...the "I'm a taxpayer" thing...
> 
> Here its property taxes that "pay my salary". So if you are a homeowner do I owe you a different standard of service than I do to a person renting an apartment?



No. But since I own two houses, I'm not opposed to police not wasting money. Incidentally, the people renting our previous home from us _do _pay property tax--in that I figured that into the rent level. I ain't paying that!


----------



## Tgace (Oct 28, 2013)

What about the "quota" meme?

I know PD's vary, but I never had a "quota" or even a target number of tickets I was expected to write. During evaluations my traffic enforcement numbers were part of the metrics, but that was only to show that the officer was "doing something". As a supervisor all I ever looked for was productivity. If someone made a bunch of penal law arrests I wouldn't sweat them over lower than average traffic tickets. If they showed no tickets whatsoever they would get a talking to. If you are out driving around and you don't see at least a few major infractions worth writing you simply are not looking around.


----------



## Carol (Oct 28, 2013)

Steve said:


> Interesting questions.  Aren't there places in the country where the firemen will allow a home to burn down if that person doesn't pay into the station's funding?
> 
> To answer, I'd expect you provide the same level of service.   But that's just me.  I generally lump a few things into a broad category of baseline services I think we should all be able to reasonably expect as citizens of the wealthiest country in the world.  Healthcare, fire and police services, and a general education come to mind.
> 
> ...



There are also places in the country where fire departments and EMS are volunteer.  Some of those places are within minutes of where I live. And there is no trash pickup, you sack your own trash and bring it to the transfer station, or you hire your choice of private contractors.   

Without taking diverting this thread too far -- while I understand that may not be a good option in some places (including cities like mine, the 3rd largest in northern New England), I do think that there are many places where such efforts can work.    Volunteer efforts and consumer-privatized efforts are not without cost.  However, I think the expectations for some of these baseline services have also eroded some of the motivation for people and their communities to work together while demands for services increase the overall tax burden.


----------



## Steve (Oct 28, 2013)

Tgace said:


> What about the "quota" meme?
> 
> I know PD's vary, but I never had a "quota" or even a target number of tickets I was expected to write. During evaluations my traffic enforcement numbers were part of the metrics, but that was only to show that the officer was "doing something". As a supervisor all I ever looked for was productivity. If someone made a bunch of penal law arrests I wouldn't sweat them over lower than average traffic tickets. If they showed no tickets whatsoever they would get a talking to. If you are out driving around and you don't see at least a few major infractions worth writing you simply are not looking around.


Depends on what you mean by "quota."   A few years ago, I got pulled over for expired tabs and the guy gave me like a $90 ticket for it.  I had the tabs, I just had forgotten to put the sticker on the car (it was on my counter at home).  So, that night at class, a training partner who is Seattle PD was there and I asked him about it.  He said, "Was the cop on a motorcycle?"  I replied that he was, and his response was, "Well, that's why.  Their job is to write tickets, and that's all they do."

Point is, the impression that I got after talking for a while longer is that these guys are tasked with writing tickets, and that their appraisals are based upon their productivity, which is centered around writing a certain number of tickets.  That jives with what you said above.  So, while there might not be a department wide quota to write, say, 500 tickets per month, there does seem to be something to the idea of quotas.  Because, as you say, it's a metric used to determine productivity.  And if X number of tickets is considered "average" productivity, and I'm a good cop trying to get high marks on my appraisal, I'm going to exceed that number every month.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 28, 2013)

Steve said:


> Depends on what you mean by "quota."   A few years ago, I got pulled over for expired tabs and the guy gave me like a $90 ticket for it.  I had the tabs, I just had forgotten to put the sticker on the car (it was on my counter at home).  So, that night at class, a training partner who is Seattle PD was there and I asked him about it.  He said, "Was the cop on a motorcycle?"  I replied that he was, and his response was, "Well, that's why.  Their job is to write tickets, and that's all they do."
> 
> Point is, the impression that I got after talking for a while longer is that these guys are tasked with writing tickets, and that their appraisals are based upon their productivity, which is centered around writing a certain number of tickets.  That jives with what you said above.  So, while there might not be a department wide quota to write, say, 500 tickets per month, there does seem to be something to the idea of quotas.  Because, as you say, it's a metric used to determine productivity.  And if X number of tickets is considered "average" productivity, and I'm a good cop trying to get high marks on my appraisal, I'm going to exceed that number every month.



I can only talk from my experience, here at my PD we have a traffic enforcement unit...they are dedicated to speed enforcement, accident investigatons, commercial vehicle enforcement, etc. Their performance standard will of course focus on traffic summons and parking tickets, but they don't have a "quota" as in a specific number to write within a month/year. Your local mileage may vary, but around my parts a hard "quota" is a rarity.

And not to mock my Trooper brethren, but SP's who's primary patrol areas are State highways are known to have more pressure placed on them to hang paper than other arms of LE.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 28, 2013)

While it may sound unfair to anyone who wants to excuse their ticket to "quotas," remember that if a ticket was written, it means a law was broken.  :uhyeah:


----------



## Tames D (Oct 28, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> While it may sound unfair to anyone who wants to excuse their ticket to "quotas," *remember that if a ticket was written, it means a law was broken.  *:uhyeah:



Maybe, maybe not...


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 29, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> While it may sound unfair to anyone who wants to excuse their ticket to "quotas," remember that if a ticket was written, it means a law was broken.  :uhyeah:



Unfortunately, many people don't see traffic violations as being a law.  They don't see themselves as having done anything wrong.  Rarely do I see someone get pulled over 'just because' i.e. they're doing something stupid like speeding, tail-gating, texting while driving etc.  

As far a quota's are concerned, it is unofficially called 'self initiated police work' around here and the 'target' is 10 per month.  It isn't enforced but 'encouraged'.


----------



## crushing (Oct 29, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Unfortunately, many people don't see traffic violations as being a law.  They don't see themselves as having done anything wrong.  Rarely do I see someone get pulled over 'just because' i.e. *they're doing something stupid like speeding, tail-gating, texting while driving etc.  *
> 
> As far a quota's are concerned, it is unofficially called 'self initiated police work' around here and the 'target' is 10 per month.  It isn't enforced but 'encouraged'.



Another stupid thing people do to get pulled over is to run a 'stale' green light where the light turns yellow after they have already begun crossing the intersection.  Drivers really need to better anticipate when the green light is turning yellow and stop on green.  Instead of developing this anticipatory skill they would rather blame the officer for poor judgement.   Unfortunately, developing this skill can and has resulted in people getting rear ended by those that lack the skill.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2013)

Actually..by our traffic laws (and most others) you can legally enter an intersection under a yellow light. Once *in *you are not violating traffic law once the light turns red. Most VTL states its a violation to *enter *an intersection under a red light except in circumstances like making a right on red (or a left onto a one way street).

What many people don't realize is that only one vehicle can wait in the intersection under the yellow light (from each direction). Its the people who don't wait in the intersection, or follow the vehicle in the intersection through the turn who are "blowing the red light".


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2013)

Right of Way at intersections seems to be becoming lost knowledge too......


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Unfortunately, many people don't see traffic violations as being a law. They don't see themselves as having done anything wrong. Rarely do I see someone get pulled over 'just because' i.e. they're doing something stupid like speeding, tail-gating, texting while driving etc.
> 
> As far a quota's are concerned, it is unofficially called 'self initiated police work' around here and the 'target' is 10 per month. It isn't enforced but 'encouraged'.


To be clear, I don't feel strongly about this, but I'm interested in it for the sake of discussion. 

So, I have mixed feelings about the entire "they're doing something stupid" or "they're breaking a law" line of thought. it's easy to say.  And yeah, we should abide by the laws.  But, who here (raise of virtual hands) doesn't jaywalk from time to time?  Who here can honestly say that they have never knowingly broken a law of any kind?  I think we all do, in some ways.  I've been pulled over 3 times in my life.  I've received one ticket for speeding, and that was forgiven by the judge (30mph in a school zone, after the school had started and with no kids in sight... I think he had been given a quota. )   I only say that to establish that I'm not bitter nor am I an aggressive or reckless driver.  

So, with laws like jaywalking or places where speeding is strictly enforced (ie, speed traps and such), it's not that the laws are enforced.  It's that they are enforced in an arbitrary manner.  In order to get a jaywalking ticket, you must jaywalk.  Sure.  That's the first step.  But you must also jaywalk in front of a cop... who is bored or has been told to give out jaywalking tickets on that day or who just doesn't like the cut of your jib or, for some reason... just wants to eff with you a little.  That's the problem.

And regarding quotas, whether the quota is strictly enforced or not, a quota it remains.  Calling it a soft goal, a performance metric or a target is simply making it look less like a quota.  Personally, I don't have a real problem with quotas, but it's odd how the agencies which have them try to deny that they exist.

This also touches on a point I made in another thread, where it's about the belief that they aren't REALLY breaking a law.  It has been about 20 years since people began downloading music over the internet, and it's still difficult to convince many people that when you download a song from a torrent website or the usenet, that you are stealing it.  It seems so innocuous to so many.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2013)

It's either a rule or it's not.

People KNOW that they could get a ticket if they do it...they just don't like it when they do and try to rationalize why THEY should be exempt.


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Actually..by our traffic laws (and most others) you can legally enter an intersection under a yellow light. Once *in *you are not violating traffic law once the light turns red. Most VTL states its a violation to *enter *an intersection under a red light except in circumstances like making a right on red (or a left onto a one way street).
> 
> What many people don't realize is that only one vehicle can wait in the intersection under the yellow light (from each direction). Its the people who don't wait in the intersection, or follow the vehicle in the intersection through the turn who are "blowing the red light".





Tgace said:


> Right of Way at intersections seems to be becoming lost knowledge too......


As someone who has recently taught two teenagers to drive (and still provides more coaching than they would probably like), I will second the above.  There are rules that people just flat out don't understand that make driving more dangerous.

Another is what to do when two lanes merge into one.  Jesus... what's so difficult about the concept of merging like a zipper???


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2013)

QUOTA= 2. a prescribed number or quantity, as of items to be manufactured, imported, or exported, immigrants admitted to a country, or students admitted to a college

If it's not given to you as a quantity (write 10 tickets a week) it's not a quota.


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> It's either a rule or it's not.
> 
> People KNOW that they could get a ticket if they do it...they just don't like it when they do and try to rationalize why THEY should be exempt.


Here's a question for the LEO on the forum.  I've heard different things over the years, so I'd love to hear your take.

You're on a busy freeway, posted speed limit is 65mph, but the "pace of traffic" is 80mph.  You're driving 65mph.  I've heard from different people that the person driving the strict speed limit is actually "the problem."  Because you're driving so much slower than then "pace of traffic," you're clogging up your lane and everyone behind you is taking risks trying to cut over to the faster lane to pass.  

What would you guys do in this situation?


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> Here's a question for the LEO on the forum.  I've heard different things over the years, so I'd love to hear your take.
> 
> You're on a busy freeway, posted speed limit is 65mph, but the "pace of traffic" is 80mph.  You're driving 65mph.  I've heard from different people that the person driving the strict speed limit is actually "the problem."  Because you're driving so much slower than then "pace of traffic," you're clogging up your lane and everyone behind you is taking risks trying to cut over to the faster lane to pass.
> 
> What would you guys do in this situation?



If the "pace" on that stretch of road is 15 mph over the limit than some targeted speed enforcement is due for that highway.

If someone is doing 15 mph over past me they are getting stopped. You can't write a ticket for obstructing traffic because someone is doing the speed limit.


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> QUOTA= 2. a prescribed number or quantity, as of items to be manufactured, imported, or exported, immigrants admitted to a country, or students admitted to a college
> 
> If it's not given to you as a quantity (write 10 tickets a week) it's not a quota.


That's true.  At the risk of nitpicking, though, you said that you've seen it used as a performance matrix.  That involves numbers.  Right?  If X is considered "productive" and numbers below X are under producing, that (in my opinion) meets the criteria for a quota.  Unless the standard is a secret, I can't believe that the officers don't know what number they are expected to produce.


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> If the "pace" on that stretch of road is 15 mph over the limit than some speed enforcement is due for that highway.
> 
> If someone is doing 15 mph over past me they are getting stopped. You can't write a ticket for obstructing traffic because someone is doing the speed limit.


Makes sense.  I've been on stretches of road where this is the case.  We drive down to California fairly often, and the freeways down there are an object lesson in extremes.  Either you're crawling along in gridlock, or everyone is literally hauling ***.  I usually drive 5 or so above the speed limit, but typically settle for "slightly slower than everyone else" when in California.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> That's true.  At the risk of nitpicking, though, you said that you've seen it used as a performance matrix.  That involves numbers.  Right?  If X is considered "productive" and numbers below X are under producing, that (in my opinion) meets the criteria for a quota.  Unless the standard is a secret, I can't believe that the officers don't know what number they are expected to produce.



The way we do it is comparative to the rest of ones shift..not by raw number. If one officer is 75% below the shift average for traffic tickets (I never saw an actual number of tickets issued in the report I received) without a reason like illness, extended training, special assignment...they will get a talking to. 

The shift average could only be a handful of summons depending on the time of year/shift/etc. All they are expected to do is be in the average...and if their productivity in another area like "burglary arrests" is above the shift average all they may be told is "stop a car every once and a while too".


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2013)

In a nutshell Steve...from a LE Supervisor... a "quota" is a directive from me to my guys saying "you all have a quota of 3 tickets a day...or else". 

A performance standard is more like "part of being a patrol cop here is traffic enforcement..if you are not writing some tickets you are not doing your job." "Why is everyone else writing 65% more traffic summons than you?"


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Right of Way at intersections seems to be becoming lost knowledge too......



Here's a simple concept...being to the right is not automatically the "right of way" at an intersection. If someone reaches the intersection before you do they have the right of way regardless of your position. Likewise when there's someone ahead of you and they go through you don't simply blow the stop sign and follow them through.


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> In a nutshell Steve...from a LE Supervisor... a "quota" is a directive from me to my guys saying "you all have a quota of 3 tickets a day...or else".
> 
> A performance standard is more like "part of being a patrol cop here is traffic enforcement..if you are not writing some tickets you are not doing your job." "Why is everyone else writing 65% more traffic summons than you?"


I get it, Tgace.  Are you guys a union shop?  (just curious... unions introduce an interesting wrinkle to performance management).


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Here's a simple concept...being to the right is not automatically the "right of way" at an intersection. If someone reaches the intersection before you do they have the right of way regardless of your position. Likewise when there's someone ahead of you and they go through you don't simply blow the stop sign and follow them through.


I learned to drive in Washington, but was stationed in Germany from age 18 to age 20, so a lot of my driving habits were really developed there.  In Germany, they are (or were when I was there) militant about right of way.  I saw a German slam into an American car because the American didn't yield proper right of way.  It was like, "Yeah?  Suck it, American.  When the polizei get here, it's YOUR FAULT because you didn't yield!"

So, I take failures to yield right of way seriously.  I also get REALLY uptight when people don't TAKE proper right of way.  Both are, in my opinion, great ways to cause accidents.  

I told my kids that when I teach them to drive, my primary goal is to teach them to drive predictably.  It's all about being predictable, more than it is about obeying every law (in my opinion.)


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> I get it, Tgace.  Are you guys a union shop?  (just curious... unions introduce an interesting wrinkle to performance management).



Yes we are. However, Police Unions here don't really impact how I supervise all that much. 

How I handle call ins for OT? Yes. And I can't summarily force someone to midnights or dock pay w/o process, but the Union really can't stop any form of discipline as long as agreed upon procedure is followed.


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Yes we are. However, Police Unions here don't really impact how I supervise all that much.
> 
> How I handle call ins for OT? Yes. And I can't summarily force someone to midnights or dock pay w/o process, but the Union really can't stop any form of discipline as long as agreed upon procedure is followed.


The impact has to do with the contract, so makes sense.  Unions often have significant impact on the appraisal process, and direct comparisons between two employees can be a red flag ("Bob processed 20 tickets and you only did 10.  Therefore you're a 3 and he's a 4").  Of course, the contract will have a lot of influence over that.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> What many people don't realize is that only one vehicle can wait in the intersection under the yellow light (from each direction). Its the people who don't wait in the intersection, or follow the vehicle in the intersection through the turn who are "blowing the red light".



When I lived in San Jose, CA there was a weekly traffic column in the paper. One time they were asked about this: In a busy city, only one car gets through per light change this way and you could develop a huge backlog of cars waiting to turn, possibly even impeding straight-bound traffic further back. They asked the police dept. about that and received an on-the-record response that while what you say above is indeed the law, it's unworkable in Silicon Valley or other high-traffic areas and that drivers should probably continue to do what they always do--pull into the intersection even if a car is already there so 2-3 cars can go at the end of each green, even though those will probably be turning on red. They did say no one else should pull into the intersection at that point.

I'd have to agree: In many  locales that law is simply unworkable.


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2013)

arnisador said:


> When I lived in San Jose, CA there was a weekly traffic column in the paper. One time they were asked about this: In a busy city, only one car gets through per light change this way and you could develop a huge backlog of cars waiting to turn, possibly even impeding straight-bound traffic further back. They asked the police dept. about that and received an on-the-record response that while what you say above is indeed the law, it's unworkable in Silicon Valley or other high-traffic areas and that drivers should probably continue to do what they always do--pull into the intersection even if a car is already there so 2-3 cars can go at the end of each green, even though those will probably be turning on red. They did say no one else should pull into the intersection at that point.
> 
> I'd have to agree: In many locales that law is simply unworkable.


It seems like adding a turn lane with a turn only signal would be a good expenditure of public funds.  I mean, come on.  Rather than suggest that everyone simply ignore the law, there are practical solutions available.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> It seems like adding a turn lane with a turn only signal would be a good expenditure of public funds.  I mean, come on.  Rather than suggest that everyone simply ignore the law, there are practical solutions available.




Beat me to it. 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

The only time I've ever seen a real quota is for OT traffic assignments that are paid by State highway grant funds.  They (state highway administration). Set a 4 tickets per hour minimum.  If at the end of the grant period when the department turns in the numbers to state highway we don't have at least 4 per hour average for the month they won't give us as much grant money next time.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> I get it, Tgace.  Are you guys a union shop?  (just curious... unions introduce an interesting wrinkle to performance management).



We are a union shop and they do make it hard for our upper lvl supervisors to manage effectively some times.  I'm one of the only patrol officers not in the union.  For example if we have a spike in crime at a certain hour of the day.  Supervisors can not adjust anyone schedules to add more police at the time of the spike with out 10 days prior notice per the union.  So the city is forced to pay OT to cover that spike in crime instead of just moving some officers schedules around so it eats up our OT budget and every year or never fails the last two months of the fiscal year webrun out of OT money and all but emergency OT gets cancelled.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> It seems like adding a turn lane with a turn only signal would be a good expenditure of public funds.  I mean, come on.  Rather than suggest that everyone simply ignore the law, there are practical solutions available.



I'm for obeying the law but that is rarely a practical solution. It's not realistic to assume, in a big city, that space could always be made available. How would that work in Manhattan? And again, the point is rush-hour traffic in a very populated area, where a very long turn lane might be needed. This was the advice given--and has anyone every been cited for being a second car in the intersection waiting to turn _unless_ they failed to clear the intersection before traffic started coming the other way? Clearly the law is meant to prevent that, but I've never known anyone ticketed if they successfully cleared as generally happens.


----------



## Steve (Oct 29, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'm for obeying the law but that is rarely a practical solution. It's not realistic to assume, in a big city, that space could always be made available. How would that work in Manhattan? And again, the point is rush-hour traffic in a very populated area, where a very long turn lane might be needed. This was the advice given--and has anyone every been cited for being a second car in the intersection waiting to turn _unless_ they failed to clear the intersection before traffic started coming the other way? Clearly the law is meant to prevent that, but I've never known anyone ticketed if they successfully cleared as generally happens.


I don't know, but in general, the situation will have been addressed somewhere.  In Seattle, major streets have been widened so that they accommodate a center turn lane, and the lights where this is problematic are adjusted to accommodate the traffic.

I am not suggesting that every intersection have a dedicated turn lane.  I'm suggesting that the ones that matter do.  While I've never been to Manhattan, I have been to San Jose, where I have family, and I can't think of too many intersections that are completely beyond hope.  It might take some dough to widen the street and potentially rework sidewalks and such, but it can be done.  And if it can't, there are other things that can be done.  Traffic circles, like the ones in Long Beach, for example.

I'm not trying to be argumentative.  It just seems to me that, even if two or three cars get through on each light, that still sucks.  It doesn't seem like a solution to me if cars are backing up.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 29, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Unfortunately, many people don't see traffic violations as being a law.  They don't see themselves as having done anything wrong.  Rarely do I see someone get pulled over 'just because' i.e. they're doing something stupid like speeding, tail-gating, texting while driving etc.
> 
> As far a quota's are concerned, it is unofficially called 'self initiated police work' around here and the 'target' is 10 per month.  It isn't enforced but 'encouraged'.



No...  Last night, I was informed that it wasn't the driver's fault at all that they didn't stop at a stop sign.  It was the car's fault that the driver gets "stopped all the time."  Um, they'de been to traffic school twice in two years, one voluntary, one court ordered.  They've got a self-admitted "bad" record.  No -- it was a HORRIBLE record.  Kinda surprised they're still licensed -- but they may not be by the end of the year.  But, it's "the car's fault."

Quotas:  we don't really have a quota where I work.  But, if you're not writing an average of a bit over a ticket a work day... your supervisor should be questioning what you're doing, unless they can already explain it.  Like having to dispatch a lot, or really taking a lot of reports, making a lot of arrests.  Really, otherwise... what are you doing with 12 hours a day?

Interesting take on self initiated activity by a retired cop: Stop Working


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 29, 2013)

crushing said:


> Another stupid thing people do to get pulled over is to run a 'stale' green light where the light turns yellow after they have already begun crossing the intersection.  Drivers really need to better anticipate when the green light is turning yellow and stop on green.  Instead of developing this anticipatory skill they would rather blame the officer for poor judgement.   Unfortunately, developing this skill can and has resulted in people getting rear ended by those that lack the skill.



There are places that require you to stop, if able, on the yellow (DC, for example).  Generally, you're supposed to use the yellow as a sign that the light will be red shortly, and slow or stop if you won't be able to clear the intersection before it turns red.  But, at least in VA, as long as you entered under a yellow light, you're legal.  Stopping on a so-called "stale green" seems a recipe for a rear end collision to me...


----------



## crushing (Oct 30, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> There are places that require you to stop, if able, on the yellow (DC, for example).  Generally, you're supposed to use the yellow as a sign that the light will be red shortly, and slow or stop if you won't be able to clear the intersection before it turns red.  But, at least in VA, as long as you entered under a yellow light, you're legal.  Stopping on a so-called "stale green" seems a recipe for a rear end collision to me...



I completely agree on the "recipe for a rear end collision."   There is a cross-walk at an intersection in my home town that has a light to indicate when walkers may cross.  I have found that the cross walk light will blink 'Don't Walk' 12 times before the intersection stop light turns from green to yellow.  Because of my previous experience and the experiences of many others in the area, as long as no one is right on my tail, I will stop when the traffic light is green if the cross walk light is going on the 10th blink or later.  I certainly don't want any tickets.  Can stopping on stale green possibly be a ticketable offense as well?


----------



## granfire (Oct 30, 2013)

Tames D said:


> Police will patrol expensive neighborhood tracts that have been hit by crime. *NO*.



LOL, actually yes.
not a patrol patrol, but I have seen the drive bys by the sheriff's department go up considerably after my work place had been broken into several times (a green house, I mean they made off with a valuable welder, but that was all they got, really)

It was fun to see half my crew dive into the flowers...either with outstanding warrants or on probation (and likely violating in some shape or form). Ah, good times!


----------



## Carol (Oct 30, 2013)

Not just with law enforcement but on my opinion, a major misconception that many people have is just how fluid an emergency situation can be.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 30, 2013)

crushing said:


> I completely agree on the "recipe for a rear end collision."   There is a cross-walk at an intersection in my home town that has a light to indicate when walkers may cross.  I have found that the cross walk light will blink 'Don't Walk' 12 times before the intersection stop light turns from green to yellow.  Because of my previous experience and the experiences of many others in the area, as long as no one is right on my tail, I will stop when the traffic light is green if the cross walk light is going on the 10th blink or later.  I certainly don't want any tickets.  Can stopping on stale green possibly be a ticketable offense as well?



Yes; stopping on the highway.  The crux of it is that someone driving behind you has no reason to expect you to stop or be stopped on a green light.  While they have a general duty to drive in a manner and at a distance sufficient to stop if the car in front them stops unexpectedly for a hazard -- the car in front isn't automatically right if they've stopped in circumstances that a reasonable driver wouldn't look for.   It's a bit of a judgment call for the cop.  (FYI, here is Virginia's code section on traffic lights.  By the way -- common error: a traffic light that isn't working at all should be treated as a 4 way stop.  If it's malfuctioning but still working sort of, it should be on flash, indicating one direction with flashing yellow, the other with flashing red.)


----------



## Tames D (Oct 30, 2013)

I find it strange that anyone would even consider stopping at a green light. I can see stopping for a yellow light, but green means go. Seems like it would be dangerous. 
Isn't that something you do after smoking a few too many J's,


----------



## Steve (Oct 30, 2013)

Tames D said:


> I find it strange that anyone would even consider stopping at a green light. I can see stopping for a yellow light, but green means go. Seems like it would be dangerous.
> Isn't that something you do after smoking a few too many J's,



Me too.  Stale greens...  Yeah.  I get it, but you prepare to stop until the point where you are going even if it turns yellow.  I'm a very mellow driver, but I'd be pissed if I didn't make a light because you stopped ahead of me while the light was still green.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## crushing (Oct 31, 2013)

Tames D said:


> I find it strange that anyone would even consider stopping at a green light. I can see stopping for a yellow light, but green means go. Seems like it would be dangerous.
> Isn't that something you do after smoking a few too many J's,



I certainly agree it is dangerous, that is why I think it's ridiculous that motorists are put in the position to consider stopping on green.

I talked to an insurance agent about this specific issue and she kind of laughed about it because she had just processed a claim from a lady was issued a ticket for running a light that had changed to yellow after she had already entered the intersection and the very next week she was rear ended while trying to avoid another ticket.


----------



## crushing (Oct 31, 2013)

Steve said:


> Me too.  Stale greens...  Yeah.  I get it, but you prepare to stop until the point where you are going even if it turns yellow.  I'm a very mellow driver, but I'd be pissed if I didn't make a light because you stopped ahead of me while the light was still green.



No kidding.   There are enough catalysts for road rage out there driving around; I certainly don't want to be another one.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 31, 2013)

Steve said:


> Here's a question for the LEO on the forum.  I've heard different things over the years, so I'd love to hear your take.
> 
> You're on a busy freeway, posted speed limit is 65mph, but the "pace of traffic" is 80mph.  You're driving 65mph.  I've heard from different people that the person driving the strict speed limit is actually "the problem."  Because you're driving so much slower than then "pace of traffic," you're clogging up your lane and everyone behind you is taking risks trying to cut over to the faster lane to pass.
> 
> What would you guys do in this situation?



Years ago it was taught that most people drive at a speed they consider safe, whether over or under the posted speed limit.  But I don't think people drive quite that way any more, at least not in the Washington, DC area.  And then there is the problem of above certain speeds there is insufficient time for recovery from possible problems, and more damage/injury probably if a crash occurs.  Should we then legally reduce the speed limit or not?



Tgace said:


> If the "pace" on that stretch of road is 15 mph over the limit than some targeted speed enforcement is due for that highway; either a change is speed limit or stronger enforcement.
> 
> If someone is doing 15 mph over past me they are getting stopped. You can't write a ticket for obstructing traffic because someone is doing the speed limit.



I agree something needs to be done.  And from a police persons point of view, that is probably the most immediate thing to be done.  But some upward feedback to highway officials, or law makers is probably in order; something difficult for a mere cop to accomplish.



Steve said:


> That's true.  At the risk of nitpicking, though, you said that you've seen it used as a performance matrix.  That involves numbers.  Right?  If X is considered "productive" and numbers below X are under producing, that (in my opinion) meets the criteria for a quota.  Unless the standard is a secret, I can't believe that the officers don't know what number they are expected to produce.



What is/are the alternative(s)?  What gives the policeman the right to determine who will be punished and who will not?  Mind you, I think for some traffic violations that may be appropriate; the 55 year person who never has before, but this time slips up vs the 16 y/o trying to test his manhood.  But the cop does not have that legislated authority.

And what about the cop who never enforces laws, or for argument's sake, never enforces traffic laws?  By what standard does he do that?  And by what standard does his supervisor allow that?  What are the consequences to a community if a majority of the police force takes that attitude?

BTW, have you looked at your tag line recently?  :uhohh:  :uhyeah:


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 31, 2013)

Steve said:


> Here's a question for the LEO on the forum.  I've heard different things over the years, so I'd love to hear your take.
> 
> You're on a busy freeway, posted speed limit is 65mph, but the "pace of traffic" is 80mph.  You're driving 65mph.  I've heard from different people that the person driving the strict speed limit is actually "the problem."  Because you're driving so much slower than then "pace of traffic," you're clogging up your lane and everyone behind you is taking risks trying to cut over to the faster lane to pass.
> 
> What would you guys do in this situation?



Sorry for the delay; I got interrupted answering this one and ended up dumping what I was typing and forgot to return.

The posted limit is, based on traffic volume, road design, and other considerations like business or residential districts and accompanying pedestrian traffic, considered the maximum safe speed limit under ideal conditions.  So, if you're driving at or below, but reasonably close, you're not breaking the law, even if you're impeding the flow of traffic of everyone around you breaking the law.  There are drive to the right laws and the like, though, that can be enforced to deal with a problem.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 31, 2013)

Steve said:


> That's true.  At the risk of nitpicking, though, you said that you've seen it used as a performance matrix.  That involves numbers.  Right?  If X is considered "productive" and numbers below X are under producing, that (in my opinion) meets the criteria for a quota.  Unless the standard is a secret, I can't believe that the officers don't know what number they are expected to produce.



We have a loose performance expectation of about 20 tickets in a month.  We work an average of 14 days out of the month.  That's a bit more than one a day, and would include any tickets written as a result of a crash investigation.  If an officer can't find at least one or two tickets in 12 hours, AND their supervisor can't justify their activity any other way (like assignments in dispatch, criminal arrests, lots of calls for service, leave, training...) -- what are they doing with those 12 hours?  As a clue, without really trying, I'll often end up with 4 or 5 a day just for stuff that more or less happens right in front of me.  And I give plenty of warnings rather than citations...


----------



## Steve (Oct 31, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> What is/are the alternative(s)?  What gives the policeman the right to determine who will be punished and who will not?  Mind you, I think for some traffic violations that may be appropriate; the 55 year person who never has before, but this time slips up vs the 16 y/o trying to test his manhood.  But the cop does not have that legislated authority.


I'm not a cop, but I'm pretty sure that they do have that legislated authority.  





> And what about the cop who never enforces laws, or for argument's sake, never enforces traffic laws?  By what standard does he do that?  And by what standard does his supervisor allow that?  What are the consequences to a community if a majority of the police force takes that attitude?


I think it would be fine, but it would be a quota.  I'm not for or against quotas, for the record.  What I am saying is that there is a disconnect between a department saying, "We don't have quotas." and that department appraising their officers based upon the number of tickets they write.  As Tgace and I discussed, there are ways to do this without establishing strict quotas, but you'd have to be pretty careful.  It would be easy for a careless supervisor to establish a fixed matrix where an average of 2.5 tickets per day meets the expectation and 3 exceeds the expectation.  That's a quota.

So, is a quota a bad thing?  I don't know.  Maybe, maybe not.  


> BTW, have you looked at your tag line recently?  :uhohh:  :uhyeah:


Don't be coy and please speak plainly.  I don't know what you mean by this.


----------



## Steve (Oct 31, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> We have a loose performance expectation of about 20 tickets in a month.  We work an average of 14 days out of the month.  That's a bit more than one a day, and would include any tickets written as a result of a crash investigation.  If an officer can't find at least one or two tickets in 12 hours, AND their supervisor can't justify their activity any other way (like assignments in dispatch, criminal arrests, lots of calls for service, leave, training...) -- what are they doing with those 12 hours?  As a clue, without really trying, I'll often end up with 4 or 5 a day just for stuff that more or less happens right in front of me.  And I give plenty of warnings rather than citations...


And to be clear, I don't have a problem with it.  Suffice to say, the expectation of "about 20 tickets in a month" is a quota, in my opinion.  

"Hey John.  You came up short last month... only 15 tickets.  What's up?"  
"Oh, I was doing x, y and z."  
"Ah, makes sense that you didn't hit the target.  Thanks."

That's a quota, in my book.  But again, is that a bad thing?  I don't know.  Could be, I guess, but I don't have a problem with it.  Everyone has to justify their paycheck, and numbers are, by their nature, easy to quantify.  And tickets doubly so, because you have the number of tickets and also the revenue for the municipality.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 31, 2013)

Way back in the day when I wrote tickets we had no quota, no expectation to have a certain number.  However, there was the expectation that you were busy and one way to justify it was tickets, arrests, etc.  I think I had a pretty fair policy when writing a ticket.  If you were 10 miles over you got a ticket.  My patrol area mostly consisted of very curvy roads so frankly not that many people were speeding.  I did not give warnings.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 31, 2013)

Back when I wrote tickets I had a personal goal of 4 tickets a work week (we work 4 on 2 off). That didn't necessarily mean one a day. If I had a stop that lead to an arrest I could easily write 4-5 tickets there alone and met my "quota" for the week. I would routinely look for violations and make stops only to let people off with warnings till I hit a jackpot stop with an arrest.....

I was routinely at the top of the curve during evaluations.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 31, 2013)

I give plenty of warnings (probably more than tickets); decent record coupled with a decent attitude about the offense, and you'll probably get a warning unless I'm on a zero tolerance grant funded detail.  I also write a fair number of tickets for things like expired inspections and dead tags; I'll generally tell them how they can almost certainly get the charge dismissed if they take care of the problem.  It costs them a morning in court -- but that's their call.  My goal is simple: I pay my taxes, get my car inspected, and so on -- so they can, too.  Once they've complied, I don't care.

It sounds trite, but I really do use traffic enforcement as a means to get people to voluntarily comply with the law.  If they're seeing people stopped for speeding or running stop signs or whatever, they're more likely to obey themselves.  Of course, I also use traffic enforcement as a tool to find other things, like drunk drivers or drugs...


----------



## Tgace (Oct 31, 2013)

One of my academy classmates and I used to bet lunch on who could make the first arrest of the shift...dispatch knew when we were doing it due to all the car stops released with warnings.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 31, 2013)

Closest thing to a quota we have is we have 6 categories you cant have zeros in for the month.  The cats a tickets, warnings, traffic stops, arrests, warrant attempts, and FIRs  So we need a min of 1 in each of those categories.   I hate tickets so I rarely write tickets and they are normally reserved for offenses that I cant issue warnings for like driving suspended, DUIs, driving without a license.  So I almost always have 2 to 3 times more warnings then tickets a month but all I need is one.  Believe it or not in a 12 hour day 14 days a month there are people that still have zeros on multiple categories.  Thats where the Union comes in to protect them so nothing gets done to correct it


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 31, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm not a cop, but I'm pretty sure that they do have that legislated authority.



I will stand to be corrected by another of the police here at MT, but I am unaware of any such legislation.  I am sure legislators know police do that, but I doubt any would codify that in law.  I'm not even sure how you would pass such a law that would pass public and/or judicial scrutiny.



Steve said:


> I think it would be fine, but it would be a quota.  I'm not for or against quotas, for the record.  What I am saying is that there is a disconnect between a department saying, "We don't have quotas." and that department appraising their officers based upon the number of tickets they write.  As Tgace and I discussed, there are ways to do this without establishing strict quotas, but you'd have to be pretty careful.  It would be easy for a careless supervisor to establish a fixed matrix where an average of 2.5 tickets per day meets the expectation and 3 exceeds the expectation.  That's a quota.



If you are not for or against quotas I wonder why you are talking about it so much?  I would have thought from you earlier posts you were quite against them.  And that is OK.  You don't have to agree with them.  

What however, would be the problem if a department did have a quota of 5 traffic tickets a day, or a week, or a pay period?  And if however, it were perceived as bad by the public, would they be justified in trying to disguise it?  And why would the public think a quota of traffic tickets was a bad thing, as I perceived you felt?  And if I am wrong about that I apologize.  But I think those are pertinent questions for discussion.  



Steve said:


> So, is a quota a bad thing?  I don't know.  Maybe, maybe not.



I would say it would depend on how it was used in general, and how rigid the quota was.




Steve said:


> Don't be coy and please speak plainly.  I don't know what you mean by this.



OK, it seems to me you keep saying you don't care about quotas, but you just don't seem to want to let it go if they exist or not.  So my comment was meant to be tongue in cheek about that.  If you don't like quotas, speak plainly and say so.  Maybe even give a reason.  I think a case can be made either way.  But personally, I am a little suspicious of quotas.

I think most police here have said or implied they don't need quotas to be able to show they are doing their job, and that part of that job is to make decisions about who will get a ticket and who won't.  I am curious, do you think that is good law enforcement?


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 31, 2013)

There's very little legislation that I'm aware of regarding police discretion.  However, generally officers have a wide degree of latitude in what they do.  If I see a traffic infraction, I can ignore it.  I may be busy, I may have something else going on, or, for whatever reason, I may just not feel like dealing with it at that moment.  I can stop the driver and give them a verbal warning.  Maybe they're contrite, maybe it was something like a burnt out or broken tail light that they didn't know about.  Or I just don't feel like writing it out for whatever reason.  I can give them a written warning.  Or I can give them a ticket.  Discretion goes down as the seriousness of the offense goes up.  Most misdemeanors, I can probably justify doing something other than charging them if I really want to -- but I'd better have a damn good reason for not making an arrest on a felony, or even the more serious misdemenaors


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 31, 2013)

The only law I know Discretion has been taken away from me as an officer in Maryland is domestic assault.  Most laws are written "May arrest" domestic violence law is written "Shall Arrest"


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 31, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> *There's very little legislation that I'm aware of regarding police discretion.*  However, generally officers have a wide degree of latitude in what they do.  If I see a traffic infraction, I can ignore it.  I may be busy, I may have something else going on, or, for whatever reason, I may just not feel like dealing with it at that moment.  I can stop the driver and give them a verbal warning.  Maybe they're contrite, maybe it was something like a burnt out or broken tail light that they didn't know about.  Or I just don't feel like writing it out for whatever reason.  I can give them a written warning.  Or I can give them a ticket.  Discretion goes down as the seriousness of the offense goes up.  Most misdemeanors, I can probably justify doing something other than charging them if I really want to -- but I'd better have a damn good reason for not making an arrest on a felony, or even the more serious misdemenaors



Pretty much how I understand it.  And I think that is the way it should be.  But written or unwritten quotas have their place to ensure an officer isn't just sending the local doughnut stores kids to college.  :uhyeah:  (Be sure I believe that type of officer would be rare and would get the attention that action would deserve from department supervisors.)  

But the point being most officers exercise a great deal of discretion in how they write tickets, and sometimes in other areas as well.  As mentioned, felonies and serious misdemeanors aren't likely to get a pass.  But a less serious one, especially with a kid who isn't thought to be a jerk bagger and is sufficiently scared of what is about to happen to him, maybe so.

Knowing when and how is a very personal thing and can't be taught in the classroom.  It must be learned on the street, hopefully with the help of peers, and with the knowledge that mistakes may be made that will have grave consequences.


----------



## Steve (Nov 1, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I will stand to be corrected by another of the police here at MT, but I am unaware of any such legislation.  I am sure legislators know police do that, but I doubt any would codify that in law.  I'm not even sure how you would pass such a law that would pass public and/or judicial scrutiny.


I'd welcome one of the LEOs here to comment on this as well, but I'm pretty sure that they have discretion to make tactical decisions.  And not just for traffic stops.  


> If you are not for or against quotas I wonder why you are talking about it so much?  I would have thought from you earlier posts you were quite against them.


See, that's the funny thing about a discussion forum.  Things are discussed.  I don't know what more to say about that.  





> And that is OK.  You don't have to agree with them.


LOL.  Well, gee.  Thanks.  I appreciate your blessing to hold my own opinion. 


> What however, would be the problem if a department did have a quota of 5 traffic tickets a day, or a week, or a pay period?


Are you asking my opinion on quotas or for me to answer your question.  I want to be careful here, because if I tell you what I believe are the counter arguments, you might confuse them for my own opinions.





> And if however, it were perceived as bad by the public, would they be justified in trying to disguise it?  And why would the public think a quota of traffic tickets was a bad thing, as I perceived you felt?  And if I am wrong about that I apologize.  But I think those are pertinent questions for discussion.


Those were the questions.  Good job. 





> I would say it would depend on how it was used in general, and how rigid the quota was.


I think that if a quota is being used as a strict performance measure, it's pretty rigid.  


> OK, it seems to me you keep saying you don't care about quotas, but you just don't seem to want to let it go if they exist or not.


As I said, this is a discussion forum.  If people are interested in talking to me, I feel obligated to respond.  This post is a case in point.  





> So my comment was meant to be tongue in cheek about that.


If you meant it tongue in cheek, fine.  





> If you don't like quotas, speak plainly and say so.


I feel pretty good about how plainly I've spoken so far.  If you don't believe me, that's more about you than me.





> Maybe even give a reason.


Give a reason?  For the position you want to believe I really hold?  That's kind of silly.  Don't you think?  I could, if you'd like.  I do it all the time around here, in order to keep conversations which I think are interesting going.  





> I think a case can be made either way.


I agree. 





> But personally, I am a little suspicious of quotas.


Really?  Why is that?


> I think most police here have said or implied they don't need quotas to be able to show they are doing their job, and that part of that job is to make decisions about who will get a ticket and who won't.  I am curious, do you think that is good law enforcement?


Wait..  didn't you say in your first statement that you don't believe that a cop has the discretion to decide who will be punished and who won't?  Let's go back and see: "_What is/are the alternative(s)? What gives the policeman the right to determine who will be punished and who will not? "_ 

Except for traffic violations.  That's right.  You trust their discretion for traffic stops.  But not for anything else.  I get it.  





> I am curious, do you think that is good law enforcement?


I'd be happy to answer, but first, could you tell me what you think I think?  It'll save me some time trying to convince you if I just tell you what you want to hear.


----------



## Steve (Nov 1, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Pretty much how I understand it.  And I think that is the way it should be.  But written or unwritten quotas have their place to ensure an officer isn't just sending the local doughnut stores kids to college.  :uhyeah:  (Be sure I believe that type of officer would be rare and would get the attention that action would deserve from department supervisors.)
> 
> But the point being most officers exercise a great deal of discretion in how they write tickets, and sometimes in other areas as well.  As mentioned, felonies and serious misdemeanors aren't likely to get a pass.  But a less serious one, especially with a kid who isn't thought to be a jerk bagger and is sufficiently scared of what is about to happen to him, maybe so.
> 
> Knowing when and how is a very personal thing and can't be taught in the classroom.  It must be learned on the street, hopefully with the help of peers, and with the knowledge that mistakes may be made that will have grave consequences.


Wait.  What the hell?  You just said, "_What is/are the alternative(s)? What gives the policeman the right to determine who will be punished and who will not?"_

What does that mean, if not that you don't think cops should be able to exercise discretion.  Are you changing your story just to mess with me?  This feels like a practical joke.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 2, 2013)

Steve said:


> ...
> 
> This feels like a practical joke.



I think I can relate to that, I'm beginning to feel the same way.

Time to get back on topic.


----------



## Steve (Nov 2, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think I can relate to that, I'm beginning to feel the same way.
> 
> Time to get back on topic.


lol.. Days later, instead of actually getting back on topic, you choose instead to continue poking at me.  Let it go.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 2, 2013)

Back on topic.  One myth I heard last night. 
 "You can't stop me for going 6 over the speed limit. You have to wait until I'm going 10 over". 
1st off ma'am you were doing 16 over because the speed limit on this road is 25 not 35.  And 2nd I can stop you and ticket you for 1 over if I wanted to.


----------



## Steve (Nov 2, 2013)

How long does it take to "trace" a call?  On the cop shows, it always takes some time for the computer to zero in on the target.

Another myth is that you can take a grainy picture and "enhance" it so that a person, object or reflection in the extreme background can be recognized.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 2, 2013)

Steve said:


> How long does it take to "trace" a call?  On the cop shows, it always takes some time for the computer to zero in on the target.


Now days as long as all my court documents are in order.  I can ping your phone and get a GPS location with in 3 meters almost instantly.  



> Another myth is that you can take a grainy picture and "enhance" it so that a person, object or reflection in the extreme background can be recognized.


yeah i wish we could do that we can clean stuff up a little but nothing like TV


----------



## Tgace (Nov 2, 2013)

Pinging cells can be done...actual "tracing" of calls? Never seen it. In this day of Enhanced 911 though many non cellular  calls come in with the address already attached.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 2, 2013)

Steve said:


> How long does it take to "trace" a call? On the cop shows, it always takes some time for the computer to zero in on the target.


Ask the phone company -- but really, it's near instant with reasonably current tech.  The time in the past involved people manually locking or logging connections.  (Look up the origin of the term pen trace.)


> Another myth is that you can take a grainy picture and "enhance" it so that a person, object or reflection in the extreme background can be recognized.


You can't get what's not there.  Bob and the other photographers here can probably explain it better -- but, basically, you can't get any finer than the resolution that took the picture.  Most of that stuff shown on tv is so far beyond reality as to be fantasy...


----------



## Carol (Nov 3, 2013)

Steve said:


> How long does it take to "trace" a call?  On the cop shows, it always takes some time for the computer to zero in on the target.
> 
> Another myth is that you can take a grainy picture and "enhance" it so that a person, object or reflection in the extreme background can be recognized.



I think another myth is that cops "trace" calls to begin with.  Cops don't trace calls, telecom engineers do.    

As far as how long it takes...anywhere from minutes to weeks.  The LE agency approaches the carrier with the order, the carrier executes the necessary config on their equipment to comply with the specifics of the order, then returns the data to the LE agency when the LE agency requests it.   Not all captures are alike.  Some orders may just for the digits dialed and nothing else.  Some might just be for the audio of the conversation and nothing else.  The type of order is determined by the issuing judge.

When everything goes the way it should, the actual activation of the capture only takes a few minutes...however, with service providers of varying quality out in the telecom world, not everything goes the way it should.  CALEA/Lawful Intercept is something that is rarely used compared to the zillions of other things the engineers have to deal with.   Rarely used = easily forgotten.  If the available talent does not know how to execute Lawful Intercept commands or doesn't execute them properly, that can cause a delay in the process.  If the carrier doesn't have the proper equipment in place for Lawful Intercept functionality, that also causes delay.  

I'm not saying this sort of delay is right, or excusable, or even legal...just describing how things can go wrong in the process.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 4, 2013)

What I find amusing is that, with all the advanced microelectronics, miniature camera's and microphones available these days, when you see some police informant wearing a wire on TV it's usually some huge microphone thing taped to their chest. Maybe that's just on TV.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 4, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> What I find amusing is that, with all the advanced microelectronics, miniature camera's and microphones available these days, when you see some police informant wearing a wire on TV it's usually some huge microphone thing taped to their chest. Maybe that's just on TV.


Yes that's just TV


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 4, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> What I find amusing is that, with all the advanced microelectronics, miniature camera's and microphones available these days, when you see some police informant wearing a wire on TV it's usually some huge microphone thing taped to their chest. Maybe that's just on TV.



Yes & no.  I'm not going to get too detailed, since you can find examples on line at distributors.  The size of a wire or camera is dictated by the power source and the transmission approach, especially antenna, as much as anything else.  Antenna size drives signal strength, as does power source.  Then you get into reliability and ease of use in the field; not much use making a super tiny wire that you need a microscope to use.


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2013)

Myth:  Cops aren't allowed to lie to you.  

A guy I knew way back in high school (back in the 80s), was really upset because he did some bad stuff and the cop said that if he cooperated and talked, he'd get a much lighter sentence.  He was really pissed that the cop "lied to him."  My impression is that you guys will say whatever necessary to get the information you need.  Is there any requirement that you tell the truth while questioning someone?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 4, 2013)

Steve said:


> Myth:  Cops aren't allowed to lie to you.
> 
> A guy I knew way back in high school (back in the 80s), was really upset because he did some bad stuff and the cop said that if he cooperated and talked, he'd get a much lighter sentence.  He was really pissed that the cop "lied to him."  My impression is that you guys will say whatever necessary to get the information you need.  Is there any requirement that you tell the truth while questioning someone?


Depends on how I worded what I said.  I cant tell you "If you tell me what happened you will get a lighter sentence"  I dont have that power. I can say "tell me what happend and Ill talk to the States Atty and tell them you cooperated and it could help you get a lighter sentence"  I also cant say "Tell me what I want to know and I wont use it against you"  and then turn around and bring it up in court.  Last night I locked up a guy on an armed carjacking.  I knew he had a gun a few hours before I caught him.  He refused to talk to me about what happened.  So I did say "off the record I wont use it in court Just tell me the gun is safe and not some place a kid might find it and shoot himself.  The guy said "Yeah its someplace safe no kid will find it"  Thats was good enough for me that statement wont end up anyplace in the report.  I couldn't use it in court even if I wanted to.


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Depends on how I worded what I said.  I cant tell you "If you tell me what happened you will get a lighter sentence"  I dont have that power. I can say "tell me what happend and Ill talk to the States Atty and tell them you cooperated and it could help you get a lighter sentence"  I also cant say "Tell me what I want to know and I wont use it against you"  and then turn around and bring it up in court.  Last night I locked up a guy on an armed carjacking.  I knew he had a gun a few hours before I caught him.  He refused to talk to me about what happened.  So I did say "off the record I wont use it in court Just tell me the gun is safe and not some place a kid might find it and shoot himself.  The guy said "Yeah its someplace safe no kid will find it"  Thats was good enough for me that statement wont end up anyplace in the report.  I couldn't use it in court even if I wanted to.


Makes sense.  I will admit that my impression was that you could say pretty much whatever you want to get the information you were looking for.  I'm actually a little surprised.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 4, 2013)

Steve said:


> Myth:  Cops aren't allowed to lie to you.
> 
> A guy I knew way back in high school (back in the 80s), was really upset because he did some bad stuff and the cop said that if he cooperated and talked, he'd get a much lighter sentence.  He was really pissed that the cop "lied to him."  My impression is that you guys will say whatever necessary to get the information you need.  Is there any requirement that you tell the truth while questioning someone?


Very circumstantial.  Ballen addressed some, I see.  Basically, we don't have to be completely honest, but we can't be so dishonest that it would compel an innocent person to confess to a crime, and the tactics cannot "shock the conscience."  There's a lot of latitude...  I can walk in with a stack of video tapes or cds and discuss security camera footage.  I can claim to have proof that I don't.  But I can't make a promise that I don't have the authority to carry out, or threaten your family.

Reports and of course testimony must be honest.  Cops can get fired for lying about relatively minor things, outside of investigative tactics, because those lies can be used to impeach them on the stand.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 4, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> There are places that require you to stop, if able, on the yellow (DC, for example). Generally, you're supposed to use the yellow as a sign that the light will be red shortly, and slow or stop if you won't be able to clear the intersection before it turns red. But, at least in VA, as long as you entered under a yellow light, you're legal. Stopping on a so-called "stale green" seems a recipe for a rear end collision to me...



In Michigan, it is this way.  When the light turns yellow, you must stop if able to safely do so.  If you are too close to the intersection or in the intersection, then you proceed through.  What MOST people do that earns themselves a ticket is viewing the yellow light as the warning to gun it through the rest of the way before it turns red.

As to quotas.  We do not have them.  Even our traffic grant guys turn in daily logs that show how many traffic calls and traffic stops that they make each day.  They are given leeway on their discreation on whether they give a ticket or just a verbal warning.  But, all contacts with the public are documented so when it comes to evaluations a supervisor knows that they were still doing their job.  Although, we do have some guys who give everyone they stop a ticket so they can't be faulted for favoritism etc.  They do try to encourage traffic tickets written in work sites when the state is paying OT for traffic enforcement in those areas to protect the workers.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 4, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Pretty much how I understand it. And I think that is the way it should be. But written or unwritten quotas have their place to ensure an officer isn't just sending the local doughnut stores kids to college. :uhyeah: (Be sure I believe that type of officer would be rare and would get the attention that action would deserve from department supervisors.)
> 
> But the point being most officers exercise a great deal of discretion in how they write tickets, and sometimes in other areas as well. As mentioned, felonies and serious misdemeanors aren't likely to get a pass. But a less serious one, especially with a kid who isn't thought to be a jerk bagger and is sufficiently scared of what is about to happen to him, maybe so.
> 
> Knowing when and how is a very personal thing and can't be taught in the classroom. It must be learned on the street, hopefully with the help of peers, and with the knowledge that mistakes may be made that will have grave consequences.



Cops have discretion when it comes to most traffic tickets because they are civil infractions.  A police officer does NOT have legal immunity on  misdemeanors or felonies, only the Prosecutor's office does. That does not mean that officers don't ignore that and let people go for less serious misdemeanors like, driving without a license and just giving them an appearance ticket.  BUT, if that person got into an accident right after the traffic stop that they let them leave, then you better get out the ink pen and adding zeros to the check you will be writing.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 4, 2013)

I may have missed it, but the one I hear daily is, "You didn't read me my rights".  They think that if the Miranda Warning isn't read automatically when the cuffs go on that it means that the case is invalid (or the ever famous "false arrest").  Drives me nuts when I see this ALL THE TIME on TV.

Sorry, but Miranda is ONLY applicable to an in-custody questioning.  It doesn't even apply to an investigative questioning out on the street or during a traffic stop while I'm still gathering information to determine what happened.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 4, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> In Michigan, it is this way.  When the light turns yellow, you must stop if able to safely do so.  If you are too close to the intersection or in the intersection, then you proceed through.  *What MOST people do that earns themselves a ticket is viewing the yellow light as the warning to gun it through the rest of the way before it turns red.*
> 
> As to quotas.  We do not have them.  Even our traffic grant guys turn in daily logs that show how many traffic calls and traffic stops that they make each day.  They are given leeway on their discreation on whether they give a ticket or just a verbal warning.  But, all contacts with the public are documented so when it comes to evaluations a supervisor knows that they were still doing their job.  Although, we do have some guys who give everyone they stop a ticket so they can't be faulted for favoritism etc.  They do try to encourage traffic tickets written in work sites when the state is paying OT for traffic enforcement in those areas to protect the workers.



Not sure I understand the thinking behind this one. If I'm allowed to enter the intersection on a yellow, then what does it matter if I "gun it" as you put it? As long as I'm not speeding as I enter the intersection, what's the problem? Why should that earn me a ticket?


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 4, 2013)

Tames D said:


> Not sure I understand the thinking behind this one. If I'm allowed to enter the intersection on a yellow, then what does it matter if I "gun it" as you put it? As long as I'm not speeding as I enter the intersection, what's the problem?



The idea is that the yellow light is a warning that the light is going to change to red.  You're supposed to assess if you will be able to stop safely before entering the intersection, or if you need to continue through.  You're not supposed to view it as a challenge to beat the red...  You're not supposed to be accelerating; the yellow's timing assumes legal speed and normal conditions.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 5, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> The idea is that the yellow light is a warning that the light is going to change to red.  You're supposed to assess if you will be able to stop safely before entering the intersection, or if you need to continue through.  You're not supposed to view it as a challenge to beat the red...  You're not supposed to be accelerating; *the yellow's timing assumes legal speed and normal conditions.*



That is what I'm talking about, legal speed and normal conditions. And what are "normal conditions"? I haven't read the manual in awhile, so curious if it gives a definition. Or is it subjective?


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 5, 2013)

Tames D said:


> That is what I'm talking about, legal speed and normal conditions. And what are "normal conditions"? I haven't read the manual in awhile, so curious if it gives a definition. Or is it subjective?



Legal speed is the posted limit.  Normal conditions would be dry & clear, not raining, foggy, snowing, ice covered, etc.  The length of a yellow is based on things like line of sight for the approach, traffic speed, and reasonable stopping conditions.  It doesn't take into account someone traveling significantly over the limit, or conditions that make stopping harder.  Those are things a cop would have to assess if he saw you enter the intersection.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 5, 2013)

Tames D said:


> Not sure I understand the thinking behind this one. If I'm allowed to enter the intersection on a yellow, then what does it matter if I "gun it" as you put it? As long as I'm not speeding as I enter the intersection, what's the problem? Why should that earn me a ticket?



jks9199 pretty much summarized it.  The point behind it is when you see the yellow light and are going the speed limit, then you should be able to safely come to a stop prior to the intersection.  Most people, when they have the chance to stop in a safe assured distance speed up to beat the light before it gets to red.  Many times, the light changes while they are in the intersection and they think that "they are safe" because it wasn't red when they entered the intersection.

Now, on the flip side.  You ARE going the speed limit, and are almost on top of the intersection when it turns to yellow.  You just proceed as normal and no problems.  OR if the weather is very bad and you are already driving slower due to conditions and it wouldn't be safe to try and stop when it turns yellow, then you proceed.

It is designed to have traffic stopped and the intersection clear for the other lanes of travel to safely go when their light turns green.  I have seen many accidents happen in larger/longer intersections because one lane of travel has their light turn green as they are approaching it at regular speed and another car has tried to gun it through the yellow and it was red as they were entering the intersection.  Another one is the car waiting to turn left and the light turns yellow and they try to turn as the approaching car tries to get through the intersection instead of stopping.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 5, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> Now, on the flip side.  You ARE going the speed limit, and are almost on top of the intersection when it turns to yellow.  You just proceed as normal and no problems.  OR if the weather is very bad and you are already driving slower due to conditions and it wouldn't be safe to try and stop when it turns yellow, then you proceed.


Or you have someone tailgating you and if you were to stop, you'd be rear ended...  Yeah, I see that one happen plenty.





> It is designed to have traffic stopped and the intersection clear for the other lanes of travel to safely go when their light turns green.  I have seen many accidents happen in larger/longer intersections because one lane of travel has their light turn green as they are approaching it at regular speed and another car has tried to gun it through the yellow and it was red as they were entering the intersection.  Another one is the car waiting to turn left and the light turns yellow and they try to turn as the approaching car tries to get through the intersection instead of stopping.


It's so bad in a couple of intersections where I live that I commonly see 3 or 4 cars go through while I have a green light.


----------



## Steve (Nov 5, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> The idea is that the yellow light is a warning that the light is going to change to red.  You're supposed to assess if you will be able to stop safely before entering the intersection, or if you need to continue through.  You're not supposed to view it as a challenge to beat the red...  You're not supposed to be accelerating; the yellow's timing assumes legal speed and normal conditions.


I'm confused about this one, as well.  I mean, there's a point where I'm not going to be able to stop, even though I'm not actually in the intersection.  So, I'm approaching the intersection and the light is green.  Then, it turns yellow and I have to decide whether I can stop or not.  If I can't stop, I will typically "gun it" through the intersection.  I'm not hauling ***, or anything, but I am clearly accelerating.  In my mind, the idea is that I know that the light is changing and I am trying to get through the intersection as quickly as possible.  Putting myself in your shoes, trying to evaluate that would seem to be pretty difficult.


----------



## Steve (Nov 5, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> jks9199 pretty much summarized it.  The point behind it is when you see the yellow light and are going the speed limit, then you should be able to safely come to a stop prior to the intersection.


I don't get it.  Your ability to stop is completely dependent upon two things: when you see the light change to yellow, and how close you are to the intersection.  It has nothing to do with the length of the yellow.  Does it?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm confused about this one, as well.  I mean, there's a point where I'm not going to be able to stop, even though I'm not actually in the intersection.  So, I'm approaching the intersection and the light is green.  Then, it turns yellow and I have to decide whether I can stop or not.  If I can't stop, I will typically "gun it" through the intersection.  I'm not hauling ***, or anything, but I am clearly accelerating.  In my mind, the idea is that I know that the light is changing and I am trying to get through the intersection as quickly as possible.  Putting myself in your shoes, trying to evaluate that would seem to be pretty difficult.



I agree. It would be interesting to see the VTL statutes and compare them. Either its a violation to enter an intersection under a yellow or it's not I would assume. Where I am, if you speed to enter it in time you have violated a speed section of the VTL not the yellow light section...

NY:

http://ypdcrime.com/vt/article24.htm



> (b) Yellow indications:  1. Traffic, except pedestrians, facing a steady circular yellow signal
> may enter the intersection; however, said traffic is thereby warned that
> the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication
> will be exhibited immediately thereafter.
> ...



The risk you run "gunning it" is missing the yellow light. The split second it turns red you have violated the statute.....

In our VTL failure to use due care only applies when physical injury has occurred. 

http://ypdcrime.com/vt/article26.htm#t1146


----------



## Steve (Nov 5, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Or you have someone tailgating you and if you were to stop, you'd be rear ended...  Yeah, I see that one happen plenty.


That's actually the only accident I've ever been in.  I was in San Antonio, and the freeways down there have access roads that follow them along. I had just exited the freeway and was on the access road.   The guy in front of me came to a very sudden stop, so I stopped behind him pretty sharply, then I was hit from behind and rammed into the guy in front of me.  I was impressed with the cop.  The first question he asked was to the guy in front, "How many impacts did you feel?"  He replied that he only felt one impact, and voila.  I was off the hook.  My understanding is that if he had felt two impacts, I would have been at fault for the entire accident.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 5, 2013)

Have you ever ticketed someone for not yielding to an ambulance? As with the yellow light, I say without exaggeration that I am sometimes worried about pulling over for fear that the guy behind me will crash into me.


----------



## Steve (Nov 5, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Have you ever ticketed someone for not yielding to an ambulance? As with the yellow light, I say without exaggeration that I am sometimes worried about pulling over for fear that the guy behind me will crash into me.


That's interesting.  Around here, people will pull over for emergency vehicles so far in advance, I usually don't know what they heck they're doing.  I'm passing them thinking, "Why did that guy pull over?" And then like 2 minutes later I see the roscos way back on the horizon. (I may be exaggerating a wee bit).


----------



## Tgace (Nov 5, 2013)

Pulling over doesn't mean spike the brakes and yank the wheel. You pull over safely when possible.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Carol (Nov 5, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Pulling over doesn't mean spike the brakes and yank the wheel. You pull over safely when possible.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2




Thanks for that :asian:  This is an issue in the mountains where I volunteer.   Once you get outside of the in-town areas, it can be difficult to find a safe place to pull over (especially if you are driving a larger vehicle).   Good to know that there is some mutual understanding.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> I don't get it.  Your ability to stop is completely dependent upon two things: when you see the light change to yellow, and how close you are to the intersection.  It has nothing to do with the length of the yellow.  Does it?



Yes & no.  Let's take a fairly typical business/city type area.  Speed limit is posted 25 mph.  We'll assume everyone is traveling at 25 mph, or 36.7 ft/sec.  You need about 40 ft to skid to a stop, if you lock up all 4 tires.  That would take you about 1.8 seconds or so.  A reliably typical driver reaction time is about 1.5 seconds under pretty good conditions.  (There's some caveats there, but it's a useable number, derived from experimental data.) Honestly, it's probably a bit shorter if the driver knows that he's approaching a light that may change, so is looking for it -- for design and planning purposes, figuring on more time is probably a good thing.  I mean, it's not like drivers are ever distracted and not paying attention, right?    So... figure 1.8 seconds to stop plus 1.5 seconds to observe and react; that gives us just over 3 seconds to see the yellow and stop, and something like 95 feet.  A recommended yellow light time for 25 mph is 3 seconds; dovetails nicely there, huh?  Cars more than 3 seconds out should be able to stop in time for the red; cars less than that won't.

Probably clear as mud... but essentially, the length of the light is related to the ability of the driver to recognize and stop before it turns red.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 5, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Depends on how I worded what I said.  I cant tell you "If you tell me what happened you will get a lighter sentence"  I dont have that power
> 
> ...



As it was always explained to me, was that you are an agent of the government, so when you make such a promise, even without authority, you bind the government.



punisher73 said:


> I may have missed it, but the one I hear daily is, "You didn't read me my rights".  They think that if the Miranda Warning isn't read automatically when the cuffs go on that it means that the case is invalid (or the ever famous "false arrest").  Drives me nuts when I see this ALL THE TIME on TV.
> 
> Sorry, but Miranda is ONLY applicable to an in-custody questioning.  It doesn't even apply to an investigative questioning out on the street or during a traffic stop while I'm still gathering information to determine what happened.



I remember during my time in the Army, listening to a couple of agents discuss Miranda and Escobido (remember that?), and telling each other how they simply would never allow a lawyer into their interrogation room during an interrogation.  At the time I thought it was a rather silly idea to latch onto.  The US military had more rights under the UCMJ than most civilian jurisdictions, including a right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself.  The military was actually ahead, although we had our ways to stretch things and still stay within the law.  But times changed and we also had to adapt to more suspect rights.

At that time, in most civilian jurisdictions, that, along with a right to an attorney, was considered to apply only in court.  After Miranda and Escobido, we developed a long thing about a suspect being able to request a "lawyer, attorney or attorney at law, or any one else" a person wanted for legal advise.  On one investigation, I had one person ask to speak to his battalion commander (?), and another ask to speak to the chaplain.  Kind of blew my mind, but the latter interviewee allowed us to solve a difficult case.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> That's interesting.  Around here, people will pull over for emergency vehicles so far in advance, I usually don't know what they heck they're doing.  I'm passing them thinking, "Why did that guy pull over?" And then like 2 minutes later I see the roscos way back on the horizon. (I may be exaggerating a wee bit).



About 1987, when I got to the general area where I have lived since, people would climb the sidewalks to get out of the way of emergency vehicles, and be there before they arrived.  Now they just seem to get irritated if an emergency vehicle makes so much noise behind them that they have to get out of the way.  :xtrmshock


----------



## arnisador (Nov 5, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Pulling over doesn't mean spike the brakes and yank the wheel. You pull over safely when possible.



I do. But I live in the country with narrow, minimal-shoulder roads right up against the cornfields. Getting all the way off the road is often not feasible, and as I slow the guy behind me does not.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 5, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Have you ever ticketed someone for not yielding to an ambulance? As with the yellow light, I say without exaggeration that I am sometimes worried about pulling over for fear that the guy behind me will crash into me.



Yes, actually.  

Truth is we can't do it too often because if we're in position to catch them, odds are halfway decent that we're going with the ambulance.  But it does happen once in a while...  For instance, we were working a big crash, and summoned rescue for one of the driver's involved.  (They'd initially said no injuries, but as we worked, that changed.)  This was in a location and involved enough cars that several of us were on scene.  As fire and EMS are arriving, this car comes up beside them.  He gets put in the penalty box -- and the fire captain tells me that he'd been basically racing the fire truck the whole way.  Penalty box became an invitation to court...

(Penalty box: we're going to hold you up for a few minutes, correct your behavior, and likely let you on your way with no ticket.)  

Another... the guy was right in front of me, and disregarded a fire fighter's traffic control telling him not to enter.  Yep -- he got cited, too.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 5, 2013)

I remember going on a lights and sirens call where I was slowing down to cross an intersection on red....a guy gave me the finger and kept going through his green light in front of me. He probably assumed that since I was going on a call I wasn't going to be able to do anything to him.

Unluckily for him my call was canceled at that exact moment......



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 5, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I remember going on a lights and sirens call where I was slowing down to cross an intersection on red....a guy gave me the finger and kept going through his green light in front of me. He probably assumed that since I was going on a call I wasn't going to be able to do anything to him.
> 
> Unluckily for him my call was canceled at that exact moment......
> 
> ...


Ain't it fun when karma catches up...

Guy tried to cut through a funeral procession once.  One of our motors happened to be right there -- and informed the driver that he was now going to the graveside.  Unless, of course, he wanted the ticket.


----------



## Steve (Nov 5, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I remember going on a lights and sirens call where I was slowing down to cross an intersection on red....a guy gave me the finger and kept going through his green light in front of me. He probably assumed that since I was going on a call I wasn't going to be able to do anything to him.
> 
> Unluckily for him my call was canceled at that exact moment......
> 
> ...


Awesome!  There's never an excuse for being a dick!


----------



## grumpywolfman (Dec 9, 2013)

nvm


----------



## moonhill99 (Mar 19, 2015)

I don't know if this is myths, misconceptions, true or not.

But do police officers have to pay to buy a gun or bullets? Or does the police department give that to you? Going to the shooting range is free or not if you a cop.

Do most police department pay part of the cost of martial arts training? Or only the first two years of martial arts training?


----------



## Buka (Mar 19, 2015)

moonhill99 said:


> I don't know if this is myths, misconceptions, true or not.
> 
> But do police officers have to pay to buy a gun or bullets? Or does the police department give that to you? Going to the shooting range is free or not if you a cop.
> 
> Do most police department pay part of the cost of martial arts training? Or only the first two years of martial arts training?



There's about 15,000 Police Departments in the United States. (ballpark) They have different budgets (from nothing to next to nothing), different _resources_, different rules, different personnel pools to draw from, different needs, different threats and different histories.

Tough to define.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 20, 2015)

moonhill99 said:


> I don't know if this is myths, misconceptions, true or not.
> 
> But do police officers have to pay to buy a gun or bullets? Or does the police department give that to you? Going to the shooting range is free or not if you a cop.
> 
> Do most police department pay part of the cost of martial arts training? Or only the first two years of martial arts training?



In UK weapons are issued, we do have armed sections of police and we have one rather good force is  permanently armed. No force pays for martial arts training.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 20, 2015)

moonhill99 said:


> I don't know if this is myths, misconceptions, true or not.
> 
> But do police officers have to pay to buy a gun or bullets? Or does the police department give that to you? Going to the shooting range is free or not if you a cop.
> 
> Do most police department pay part of the cost of martial arts training? Or only the first two years of martial arts training?


It depends on the agency.  Some do require an officer to purchase their handgun; many issue them.  Some provide ammo to practice on department ranges or commercial ranges, many do not.  There's just a wide range of practices, based on department budget and what they've chosen to do over time.  

I'm not aware of any departments paying for martial arts training.  You might get your agency to send you to an approved DT class, maybe even a special seminar somewhere, but it's liable to take some serious explaining and convincing unless DT training is part of your duties.  Especially with tight budgets...


----------



## moonhill99 (Mar 21, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> It depends on the agency.  Some do require an officer to purchase their handgun; many issue them.  Some provide ammo to practice on department ranges or commercial ranges, many do not.  There's just a wide range of practices, based on department budget and what they've chosen to do over time.
> 
> *I'm not aware of any departments paying for martial arts training.*  You might get your agency to send you to an approved DT class, maybe even a special seminar somewhere, but it's liable to take some serious explaining and convincing unless DT training is part of your duties.  Especially with tight budgets...



May be that thing in other counties than the US.

An Aikido instructor go to the police station to teach new officers Aikido.


----------



## Shai Hulud (Mar 21, 2015)

There are urban myths floating around that all the coppers here in Russia are drunk. 

Bollocks. _Only half of them are._


----------

