LE Myths and misconceptions

[Steve]

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]

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]

...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.