SC cop fights with deputies after getting ticketed

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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.

At a time when police brass are pushing DWI crackdowns, which have led to a record number of arrests, the recent cluster of crashes allegedly by drunken police officers from Dobbs Ferry, Westchester County and White Plains, plus a county correction officer, has been an official embarrassment and a public eye-opener. However, police say it's not completely surprising, given that many in law enforcement quietly turn a blind eye to drunken off-duty officers when they're stopped.

"If you can get them a ride home and put their car someplace safe, that's what you do," said one central Westchester patrol officer who agreed to speak anonymously. "It's kind of an unwritten rule. You don't jam up another cop unless you have to."

In conversations with 10 police officers who spoke under the condition that their names and departments not be identified, all told The Journal News that off-duty cops are rarely charged with driving while intoxicated unless they were involved in an accident.

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

 

[Archangel M]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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.