LE Myths and misconceptions

[Carol]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.