# SC cop fights with deputies after getting ticketed



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 22, 2010)

*SC cop fights with  deputies after getting ticketed
Christine  Phinney fought with officers after being pulled over for speeding*

SUMMERVILLE,  S.C.  Angered and bloody after being chased for speeding on Christmas  Eve, an off-duty North Charleston police officer questioned why her  pursuers hadn't simply given a fellow officer a free pass.

Officer  Christine Phinney told a Dorchester County sheriff's deputy that if she  stopped another police officer for speeding, she would let them go and  say "take it easy, see you later and have a good night."

"You  know, I pull people over for driving 100 mph - you know what they say?  'I'm a narcotics officer in an unmarked vehicle.' 'Great, well slow it  down, have a good night,' " Phinney explained. "As long as they show me a  badge, I don't care."

That proclamation was captured by a  Summerville police cruiser's video camera after Phinney led officers on a  pursuit through town and tussled with a deputy, bloodying her lip in  the process. On the tape, Phinney can be heard cursing the deputy and  warning that he would "have a much bigger problem" when her husband,  Dorchester County Sheriff's Lt. Tony Phinney, arrived on the scene.

"I'm  Lt. Phinney's wife," she shouts on the tape. "He's gonna love it when  you get sued for a (expletive) fat lip."
===


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 23, 2010)

Tip: You don't DEMAND or ASK for an "officer courtesy". It's GIVEN to you.

If you deserve it.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 23, 2010)

Professional courtesy starts with making a reasonable effort NOT to cause someone to stop you in the first place.

It continues with being courteous yourself when stopped.  

This woman just made herself look like an ***.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2010)

I don't know how it is in America but over here emergency vehicles speeding to an incident are technically breaking the law because no one can be seen to be above the law, even the Royal Family have had tickets for speeding but a free pass shouldn't be expected and I bet in most cases when it's not, it's given. More often here though the speed guns automatically process speeding tickets to be sent out so no one can avoid getting one other than by not speeding.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 23, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know how it is in America but over here emergency vehicles speeding to an incident are technically breaking the law because no one can be seen to be above the law, even the Royal Family have had tickets for speeding but a free pass shouldn't be expected and I bet in most cases when it's not, it's given. More often here though the speed guns automatically process speeding tickets to be sent out so no one can avoid getting one other than by not speeding.


 
Most states have an exemption in their traffic laws allowing police to operate with disregard to some traffic laws. There are limitations however, it has to be in the course of duty...and it does not exempt officers from operating with gross negligence or recklessness.


----------



## 72ronin (Jan 23, 2010)

She may very well have been granted a free pass, if not for the need for the persuit. Perhaps next time she will pull over immediately upon being requested to .
          The scuffle with the officer didnt help either...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2010)

She was WAY out of line......and continued to be so even after stopped.  She should have been given a breathalyzer, as I suspect she was intoxicated, as listening to her tirade, it was typical of an alcohol fueled tirade.


----------



## grydth (Jan 23, 2010)

"Professional courtesy" is one thing; this person seems to think her badge is a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. 

While many would almost expect a small infraction to be overlooked, I think a lot of the public would be surprised if extreme speeding/flight from an officer/assault on an officer/DWI and communicating threats were being let go.

Police in the city of Auburn are being asked questions after it was revealed the chief told them to write at least one ticket every day.... which changes the image of police from protectors to parasites. Now, add in immunity for dangerous illegal acts and I'd say they've done a great job of smearing the reputations and image of a lot of brave and good folks in uniform.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 23, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know how it is in America but over here emergency vehicles speeding to an incident are technically breaking the law because no one can be seen to be above the law, even the Royal Family have had tickets for speeding but a free pass shouldn't be expected and I bet in most cases when it's not, it's given. More often here though the speed guns automatically process speeding tickets to be sent out so no one can avoid getting one other than by not speeding.



Each state's particular laws governing the operation of emergency vehicles are different, but they typically allow certain actions which would ordinarily be violations under emergency conditions and with due regard for safety, and they are pretty similar.  For example, 46.2-920 in Virginia allows an emergency vehicle, operating appropriate lights and siren, to do seven specific things: disregard speed limits, pass on the right (siren not required), disregard stop signs and signals, disregard regulations on turning, park or stand anywhere, pass at an intersection, and cross the double yellow to pass.  NONE of these remove the responsibility to operate with due regard for safety -- and officers have been successfully sued for being reckless.  And prosecuted, too.  



grydth said:


> "Professional courtesy" is one thing; this person seems to think her badge is a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card.
> 
> While many would almost expect a small infraction to be overlooked, I think a lot of the public would be surprised if extreme speeding/flight from an officer/assault on an officer/DWI and communicating threats were being let go.
> 
> Police in the city of Auburn are being asked questions after it was revealed the chief told them to write at least one ticket every day.... which changes the image of police from protectors to parasites. Now, add in immunity for dangerous illegal acts and I'd say they've done a great job of smearing the reputations and image of a lot of brave and good folks in uniform.



I don't have a problem with a standard like one ticket a day, so long as there's enough leeway for an officer busy on something else to be OK, too.  An officer often works most of their day with little or no direct supervision.  Performance standards like that are simply a tool to know what they're doing with their time -- so that they don't spend the whole day in some donut shop.  One ticket per day per officer in even a very large department isn't a scratch on the surface of the costs, and often can be accomplished by simply working a traffic crash.  Especially if the tickets something like a Virginia seat belt law ticket, whose fines go to the literary fund.  Now, a quota like 30 tickets a day, with no leeway for other duties or activities... that's a problem.  At that point, it's pretty clearly about money.  At a minimum, it looks bad.


----------



## grydth (Jan 23, 2010)

When did "to serve and protect" get warped into "to snoop and collect" ?

The story appeared in the January 13, 2010 issue of the Syracuse Post Standard. The writer noted the ticket quota imposed by the Auburn police chief appears to violate NY State labor law. The union has threatened a grievance. Two professors were quoted as questioning the basic ethics behind the order.

One can read the story on the paper's website. I abhor this, and the looming threat of red light cameras. Sorry, but police are there to protect us, not mooch off us. Ticket quotas, like the one here, pervert LEOs into mere revenue agents.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 23, 2010)

grydth said:


> When did "to serve and protect" get warped into "to snoop and collect" ?
> 
> The story appeared in the January 13, 2010 issue of the Syracuse Post Standard. The writer noted the ticket quota imposed by the Auburn police chief appears to violate NY State labor law. The union has threatened a grievance. Two professors were quoted as questioning the basic ethics behind the order.
> 
> One can read the story on the paper's website. I abhor this, and the looming threat of red light cameras. Sorry, but police are there to protect us, not mooch off us. Ticket quotas, like the one here, pervert LEOs into mere revenue agents.


Note that some of this depends on the jurisdiction; a beat cop in DC or NYC, for example, has plenty to do and to show that he's working without writing tickets, for example.  But where I work?  If a patrol officer can't find 1 reason to stop a car and write a ticket in a day... they're actively hiding.  And, again, I expect a supervisor to know that the guy wasn't hiding, but was dispatching all day or handling a series of school crossings or guarding a major crime scene or whatever, so he didn't write anyone.  'Cause my departments patrol section just doesn't answer that many calls...  (Average calls for service per day since January 1, including all t-stops and other generated calls would be around 30 right now.  Like I said, those numbers include traffic stops and other self-initiated activity, too.

Let me give a typical patrol day in my jurisdiction:  Patrol units work a 12 hour day.  Roll call is about 1/2 an hour, and general "getting out the door" stuff can take another half hour after roll call.  And roll call may be the last time the supervisor sees the officer until the next shift!  Day shift you can figure a wreck or two (often resulting in a ticket), some alarm calls, and some other general calls.  And that's if you're assigned a beat rather than floating to cover when the area unit is on a call or needs back-up.  Figure that a busy day in my jurisdiction is about a half dozen calls for service...  and a floating unit may not have any!  In patrol, I used to average two to three reports a day -- and I felt like a slacker if I had none.  (Some people currently don't have quite the same mindset...  They try to avoid paper and calls as much as they can.)  Performance goals, used properly, and not as a rigid quota system, are one tool for a supervisor to know what the officers are doing during the day.  And traffic enforcement is an important thing in my area; we have tons of traffic and plenty of unsafe activity.  It's not really any different than a law firm demanding billable hours or a company looking for a certain number of contracts. 

Quotas are bad; I agree with that.  A strict "must produce" without assessing other factors like criminal arrests, special assignments, working cases, and so on, is different than a performance goal.  When the numbers are about bringing in revenue rather than promoting safety and monitoring worker activity -- that's bad.  Public police aren't (or shouldn't be) a revenue producing stream.  In Virginia, police budgets can't receive directly from ticket revenue -- and individual cops are prohibited from receiving any extra compensation for writing tickets or from tickets.  In my jurisdiction, I think that ticket revenue amounted to about 10% of the total budget revenue -- and was significantly less than the PD's budget.

One more thing...  A good supervisor should know roughly what his people are up to.  He should know who the traffic hounds are and who is the guy who's going to rattle every doorknob in a shopping center on midnights, as well as who's going to go out and find dope or whatever criminal activity.  There should be room for all of them -- and the supervisor should be able to explain what his people are doing if he's asked by the brass.


----------



## Carol (Jan 23, 2010)

grydth said:


> When did "to serve and protect" get warped into "to snoop and collect" ?



When the city politicians pervert the department in to such a function.

Odd that you didn't mention that the directive came from the City Manager and not the Chief of Police?  Was that why you quoted the article without linking to it?  

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/auburn_police_chiefs_wants_off.html



> Giannotta told the dozen or so captains, lieutenants and sergeants at the meeting that City Manager Mark Palesh had told him he expects the department to start making $10,000 a month from vehicle and traffic fines, according to officers who were there. The department averaged about $7,500 monthly last year.



It may be fashionable to put the hate on the cops, but I think what is happening in Auburn is because of City Manager Mark Palesh.


----------



## grydth (Jan 23, 2010)

Carol said:


> When the city politicians pervert the department in to such a function.
> 
> Odd that you didn't mention that the directive came from the City Manager and not the Chief of Police?  Was that why you quoted the article without linking to it?
> 
> ...



Please give me credit for some small level of intellect. Nobody who is trying to mislead the membership in general gives a precise citation to an article which is readily viewable. 

I didn't link to it because I don't know how to. My computer skills allow me to get here and single finger type, nothing much more.

I don't do 'fashionable', anywheres. Even the most cursory review here will show I support the police viewpoint the large majority of times.

To get our facts exactly correct..... all are invited to read the article and see who set the revenue goal and who set quota and who threatened to punish the cops over it and how.


----------



## Carol (Jan 23, 2010)

grydth said:


> Please give me credit for some small level of intellect. Nobody who is trying to mislead the membership in general gives a precise citation to an article which is readily viewable.
> 
> I didn't link to it because I don't know how to. My computer skills allow me to get here and single finger type, nothing much more.
> 
> ...



I am sorry :asian:   I do respect you and your intellect.  My apologies for reading something that wasn't there to begin with.


----------



## grydth (Jan 23, 2010)

I accept, only with the deepest humility. 

You are a far more valuable contributor here than I could ever be. 

How could one of your superb professional skills be expected to imagine how limited mine are? I bet it _did _seem incredible........

Thanks!


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 23, 2010)

If you are a cop and you did nothing else all day you better damn well at least have a ticket to show for your daily paycheck.


----------



## Carol (Jan 23, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> If you are a cop and you did nothing else all day you better damn well at least have a ticket to show for your daily paycheck.



But when there are revenue goals stated for the department, wouldn't that indicate that the focus is more on revenue generation than a performance metric?


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 23, 2010)

Carol said:


> But when there are revenue goals stated for the department, wouldn't that indicate that the focus is more on revenue generation than a performance metric?



Absolutely. THATS wrong. I'm just sayin. 

I have had to say the same thing to a few officers at performance reviews ("do something"). You can't just let cops "hide n' slide" for a whole shift. If they are not making criminal arrests then at least write a few tickets. People violate traffic law ALL the time and that car stop may lead to an arrest in itself. Many criminals and wanted people drive cars too.


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> *SC cop fights with deputies after getting ticketed*
> *Christine Phinney fought with officers after being pulled over for speeding*
> 
> SUMMERVILLE, S.C. &#8212; Angered and bloody after being chased for speeding on Christmas Eve, an off-duty North Charleston police officer questioned why her pursuers hadn't simply given a fellow officer a free pass.
> ...


 
This, IMHO, is a classic example of someone who should NOT be a LEO. Why? Because her attitude pretty much sucks. She has this, "My **** doesnt stink, I'm a cop, so I can do what I want, when I want" attitude. Lets see...driving like an *******, leading her fellow officers on a high speed chase, fighting and making threats that her big, bad hubby wont be happy. I'm sure he's someone that has a 'wonderful' attitude as well. 

Now, before anyone mistakes what I'm saying, let me say this....I grew up in a LEO household, I work around them with my current job, have many good friends who're LEOs, so yes, I do have alot of respect for them, and fully understand the stuff they have to deal with. What I dont like is the high and mighty attitude. 

As for her fat lip....well Officer Hothead...maybe, just maybe, if you weren't acting like an ***, you'd have less headaches. Was it really necessary to fight? Maybe if you didnt your lip wouldn't be as big as your head.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 23, 2010)

MJS -- I already said she made an *** out of herself.

Rule 1 of Professional Courtesy is try not to give someone a reason to stop you.  I wouldn't have thought that it was necessary -- but the corollary is that when you do get stopped -- STOP, don't cause a pursuit.

Rule 2 is be courteous when you are stopped.  If you have to eat a cite... take it like a grown up.  When I'm stopped -- I always ID myself first, usually paired with an apology, along the lines of "Sorry; I'm a cop with ... PD.  My gun is..."  The corollary I didn't realize was needed is don't fight with the cops who stopped you.

We had a cop in my area, and whom I know, recently pull something incredibly boneheaded which led to headlines, his arrest, and his resignation.  He at least had the wisdom to realize he'd screwed the pooch majorly, and turn himself in and quit.  He's taking his lumps, in other words, and not trying to blame anyone else.  That's a worst case scenario -- but at least he's handled it with a bit of class.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 27, 2010)

UPDATE


> Christine Phinney parted ways with the North Charleston Police  Department on Tuesday, but officials won't say whether she was fired or  resigned in the wake of a Christmas Eve pursuit in which she tussled  with a sheriff's deputy.
> 
> 
> Police Chief Jon Zumalt said personnel policies prevent him from  discussing the reasons for Phinney's departure. But he was not pleased  with what he saw on police videotapes of the Dec. 24 confrontation, he  said.



http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/jan/27/accused-officer-ncpd-part-ways/


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 27, 2010)

Something similar happened in Albany NY a few years back 

An Albany LEO was pulled over by a SUNY Campus Police Officer (they are full police in NYS) for speeding and somewhat erratic driving (allegedly he was also a bit under the influence) and the APD guy told the SUNY guy that he could not give him a ticket because he was a REAL cop in Albany. The campus officer gave him a ticket the APD guy tore it in half and threw it in the issuing officers face and followed that with an attempted punch to the issuing officers face. Suffice to say he got arrested and charged, followed by a suspension from APD. 

However he did have other problems. Soon after, while still on suspension, it was discovered through a NYC investigation that he and his partner (who was also on suspension at the time for assaulting his GF, pushed her "through" a door... it was closed at the time) were confiscating drugs from dealers and letting them go and later selling the drugs. They, as far as I know, went to jail.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 27, 2010)

*Cops admit protecting their own from DWI*



> A driver speeding through Tarrytown rolled over and  struck a fence and guardrail. Another was accused of running a red light  before smashing into a Scarsdale police car. A third hit a Greenburgh  ambulance, and a fourth rammed into a truck on Interstate 287.
> 
> Four accidents involving allegedly drunken drivers  within a three-week period is hardly unusual in Westchester. What made  these stand out were the drivers: All were off-duty law enforcement  officers, and all now face misdemeanor charges of driving while  intoxicated.
> 
> ...


http://www.lohud.com/article/20100117/NEWS01/1170368/Cops-admit-protecting-their-own-from-DWI


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 27, 2010)

Yes Bob that does happen. And sometimes I have let "non-cops" call for a ride home too...as long as there was no accident. Rarely are we MANDATED to arrest, except in domestic violence incidents. However, my personal rule is "you get only ONE pass".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 27, 2010)

I have a problem with "anonymous".  Now mind you, whistle blowers still get shafted despite rules and laws designed to protect them, but, having real people stand behind such claims strengthens them.  Anonymous, well.....I take it with a grain of salt as it were.

What bothers me about that article is the working around the law on breathalyzers, etc.  If I refuse I lose my license and 1 cops word is enough. If they refuse, it's iffy and requires more proof.  Dunno if I like that.  

On the other hand, I'm not sure I want a "by the book, letter of the law, no exceptions" approach either.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 27, 2010)

I have no problem with the "get them a ride" solution, as long as there was no accident, and as long as I haven't dealt with them before. However, if I do have to arrest them, then they SHOULD be treated like anybody else. Here a refusal is an automatic license suspension, their license should be suspended like any other. BUT that is a court issue...not a cop one.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 27, 2010)

People have to realize that there is a BIG difference between "I pull over a swerving car...find its a DWI LEO..and get him a ride home" VS "I respond to a fatal car accident and find one driver is a DWI LEO and I cover it up".

I have let DWI "civilians" get a ride...I have let kids caught with a little bit of pot go home..I have made kids dump booze and get a ride home from a party...

Somehow I don't think THEY had an issue with officer discretion. LOL!


----------



## Carol (Jan 27, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I have let DWI "civilians" get a ride...I have let kids caught with a little bit of pot go home..I have made kids dump booze and get a ride home from a party...
> 
> Somehow I don't think THEY had an issue with officer discretion. LOL!



...and of those people that earned your discretion as an officer; how many were belligerent, disrespectful, or otherwise gave you a hard time about the encounter?


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 27, 2010)

Carol said:


> ...and of those people that earned your discretion as an officer; how many were belligerent, disrespectful, or otherwise gave you a hard time about the encounter?



LOL...zero.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 27, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Yes Bob that does happen. And sometimes I have let "non-cops" call for a ride home too...as long as there was no accident. Rarely are we MANDATED to arrest, except in domestic violence incidents. However, my personal rule is "you get only ONE pass".


I've let more non-cops get in a cab or have a sober friend drive them home than cops.  (Never stopped a drunk cop driving.  I've stopped two fire fighters who perhaps had overindulged.  No crash; they realized the error of driving, and opted for an alternate way home before I had PC for an arrest.)  The arrest is at my discretion, and choosing not to arrest someone for DUI is not an abuse of that discretion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 29, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> On the other hand, I'm not sure I want a "by the book, letter of the law, no exceptions" approach either.


 I can assure you that you do not, nor would I!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 29, 2010)

Carol said:


> ...and of those people that earned your discretion as an officer; how many were belligerent, disrespectful, or otherwise gave you a hard time about the encounter?


 Good point.

Attitude gets you a lot of places in life.......good or bad.

I've actually had police officers (instructors, even) argue that someone's attitude should not be involved in whether to make a decision to give them a ticket or not.  Those officers were, quite frankly, wrong.  The reality is that the purpose of traffic enforcement is, first and foremost, primarily to deter dangerous driving behavior that injures and kills people.  I know that revenue generation has taken a driver's seat in many jurisdictions, but that should not be the primary focus.

Since the job of traffic enforcement is to deter behavior, one finds that it can be done to through an escalating scale........simply having officers out there will deter many people..........being stopped and given a warning will deter others........some folks will be deterred by a summons.........still others through hefty fines...........others still through losing their driver's license..........some very few by going to jail.

Now, if a warning will suffice, why would I use the bigger stick?  How do I know a warning may suffice?  They are polite, apologetic, sincere and I haven't caught them before is a good start for me.  If everything else checks out, a warning may be enough to deter behavior.  If I stop them again, obviously a warning wasn't enough.

Likewise, if I stop the guy a third time, and he's a complete jack ***, that tells me he has absolutely no intention of slowing down or quitting whatever dangerous behavior he's involved in, and he wants me to know how defiant and dedicated he is........so he gets the next step or two.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 29, 2010)

I've known cops and instructors who decided before they got out of the car whether or not they were going to cite the driver...  And, yeah, if they stopped someone, it was generally to write a ticket.  Never bought into that myself -- I'm always willing to listen to what the driver has to say.  It may influence me either way; I've a few talk themselves into tickets that I didn't intend to write at first!


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 29, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Absolutely. THATS wrong. I'm just sayin.
> 
> I have had to say the same thing to a few officers at performance reviews ("do something"). You can't just let cops "hide n' slide" for a whole shift. If they are not making criminal arrests then at least write a few tickets. People violate traffic law ALL the time and that car stop may lead to an arrest in itself. Many criminals and wanted people drive cars too.


 
Traffic is always a strange beast, because ALL people violate traffic laws and see themselves as "good people" and get upset if they are cited for an infraction.  Then some people look at quotas and see it as a way to screw over the public by writing more tickets, even though if you weren't breaking a law you wouldn't be getting a ticket.  MOST of the time, it is a way to track if officers are doing anything other than being parked somewhere reading a book or something.  We have to keep daily logs that have each call we take, each traffic stop we do and whether or not a ticket was issued or a warning given.  This allows officers a little more judgement on writing or warning because they are still accounting for their time on the road and what they are doing.

But, I have seen City Managers also get involved and try to make LE work into a fund raiser for the budget.  If we get X tickets a month, that will give us an extra XXX in the budget.  Bad idea all around on that one.  Of course I feel that way about trying to run ANY public service as a business.

But, as to the topic at hand.  Courtesy is earned, not an automatic right.  If you are that stupid and endangering people, you SHOULD be cited.


----------

