In November, I wrote about Joseph June, a Florida man sentenced to five years in prison for cocaine possession. The cocaine was found in a search that stemmed from a “consensual encounter,” one into which both parties entered voluntarily; the officer had no reason to suspect that June was engaged in illegal activity, and just stopped him in order to chat. In the initial piece, I suggested that consensual police encounters are often anything but. Cops have guns, and handcuffs, and cars with back doors that don’t open from the inside. Even if a police officer is polite as pie, he or she will have the upper hand in most conversational situations. As a consequence, most ordinary citizens will feel compelled to talk with a police officer even when, legally, they don’t have to.
Since then, I’ve received a lot of emails from readers asking what, exactly, you should do if you find yourself in a supposedly consensual conversation with an officer of the law. Apparently a lot of innocent, non-suspicious-looking people have been or expect to be pressured into gratuitous interactions with the police. And, from the emails I’ve received, a lot of people have no interest in talking to the law in these situations. Which, to be sure, is their right. You’re under no obligation to talk with a police officer in non-investigatory situations, and you shouldn’t be intimidated into feeling otherwise. (And to be clear, I’m not talking about those times when a cop stops you for speeding, or jaywalking, or stealing an old woman’s purse. In scenarios like these, when there’s reasonable suspicion that you’ve done something wrong, you’re obliged to cooperate, and refusal to comply may lead to your arrest.)
The simplest answer is that you need to be explicit. It’s up to you to assert your rights. If an officer of the law stops you for a conversation, make it clear that you are uninterested in participating. Ideally, the officer will move on, and the encounter will end. Sometimes, the cop might become offended or truculent and use force or other means to compel you to stay. In this scenario, you might eventually end up in court, which is why you want to make sure that your actions are as clear as possible.
In an excellent, thorough 2001 article for the San Diego Law Review, Daniel J. Steinbock proposed a three-step approach for avoiding unwanted consensual police encounters, informed by the relevant case law. Making the good point that not all police-citizen interactions are adversarial—sometimes, a cop just wants to buy you some boots—Steinbock suggests that citizens answer an officer’s request for conversation with “Why?” or “What is the reason, officer?” If the reason is anything other than overtly benign, or if the police officer gives a non-answer (something like “This’ll just take a minute”), Steinbock suggests you proceed to the second step: “Just Say No.”
He writes:
The crux of avoiding a consensual encounter is noncooperation—refusal to answer questions and to consent to police requests. As noted above, this requires a fair degree of self-confidence and a willingness to flout the conventions of common discourse (which, of course, this is not). Nevertheless, it is the sine qua non of consensual encounter avoidance. "Can we see your driver's license?" "No!" "What are you doing here?" "I am not answering," or less politely, "None of your business."
Saying "no" once may not be enough. Some courts have held that continued badgering after a first refusal causes the encounter to cross the line to a seizure, but others have permitted repeated questioning and requests for consent to search without concluding that a seizure had taken place. A reasonable person would thus be well-advised to say "no" repeatedly, and to reject any attempt by the officer to accompany her if she tries to leave. Some courts have found it significant that the refusals were delivered in a shout or scream, or that the individual ran from police in an attempt to get away. The cases thus not only encourage flatly rebuffing the officer's inquiries, but also encourage doing so in the rudest, most confrontational, and most obnoxious manner.
Take note: Being obnoxious is not a crime. (If it were, we would’ve executed Urkel 20 years ago.) Steinbock goes on to note that saying “no” also means never saying “yes,” because “refusal looks more suspicious if it comes after the individual has already cooperated.” Next, Steinbock encourages you to “announce one’s intent to depart and then do so at a measured pace.”
“A measured pace?” you ask. “But didn’t Steinbock just pretty much say (in the above blockquote) that it’s sometimes OK to run from the police?” Good catch, hypothetical back-talking reader. Steinbock was referring to the 1991 Fourth Circuit opinion on US v. Wilson, in which the court found it significant that Albert Wilson had to run from police in order to terminate an extended and involuntary encounter. But the courts aren’t entirely consistent on this point. In other cases, like Illinois v. Wardlow, flight has been interpreted as providing reasonable grounds for a search and seizure. It’s all very ambiguous.
There are certainly times when running away is justified. (In US v. Wilson, for example, cops followed Albert Wilson through an airport and refused to stop badgering him, despite Wilson’s numerous loud attempts to end the encounter.) But, in general, you don’t want it to appear like you're trying to flee from the police. No matter how the courts might eventually interpret your actions, to a police officer, running away generally looks suspicious; a cop might reasonably argue that your sudden flight transformed the encounter from a consensual one to an investigatory one.
In a recent email exchange, Steinbock told me that he still stands behind this three-step approach. Other people have different strategies. Emailer K.K. from Arizona, a frequent videotaper of police encounters, writes that he carries orange business cards that he hands out to police in these situations. They read like this: “This interaction is NOT consensual, and is being audio and video recorded for my safety as well as yours. I am invoking my Fifth Amendment rights and refusing to answer ANY questions. Please do not ask me any questions without my attorney present. I furthermore invoke my Fourth Amendment rights and do NOT consent to ANY searches of my persons and or property.” If you’ve got a functional printer and a line on some high-quality card stock, you can make this technique work for you. The point is to be explicit, such that both the cop and any potential judge down the line would have no way of mistaking your intentions.
To be clear, I think police officers have tremendously stressful jobs, and I think the vast majority of them approach their work with the best intentions. But I also think it’s important for citizens to know their rights, and many of us don’t understand what rights we’re afforded when we’re stopped by the cops. We live in a society of laws, and as long as those laws set limits on police-citizen encounters, those limits should be well understood and respected by all relevant parties.
I know this site has a few lawyers and LEO types, so I would be interested to hear what they thought of this. On the surface, it seems like being a jerk isn't a winning strategy when dealing witha membe rof law enforcement, but then again I know very little about this subject.
I make it my policy not to walk around with cocaine or other narcotics on my person, or take long walks with hookers, or carry a flash drive full of kiddy porn.
To what extent do US police hang around waiting to harass people for no particular reason?
I mean, are there any data on the number of "consensual" compared to "investigatory" encounters, or is this another piece of Internet fuelled bolshie bs?
The chief occupation of police is hanging around doing nothing, though preferably purposefully.
Honestly most cops I see are sitting in their cars waiting for crime to happen. occasionally I see them driving to and from the station, or even patrolling the streets (this is the least occurring event).
Kilkrazy wrote: To what extent do US police hang around waiting to harass people for no particular reason?
I mean, are there any data on the number of "consensual" compared to "investigatory" encounters, or is this another piece of Internet fuelled bolshie bs?
That depends on state and municipality. Some states hav ea "Stop and Frisk" law. Others do not. I'm not an expert on such laws, so I'm not even 100% certain what a "stop and Frisk" law means.
Kilkrazy wrote: To what extent do US police hang around waiting to harass people for no particular reason?
I mean, are there any data on the number of "consensual" compared to "investigatory" encounters, or is this another piece of Internet fuelled bolshie bs?
It sounds like the old "suss" law in the UK, under which police were allowed to stop and search people on the suspicion that they might be up to no good. (Behaviour like being black in a built up area and such like.)
Depends on the 'type' of police/cop with me on how I interact with them. County and City Officers I am polite enough to and will carry on a conversation with if need be, but if I didn't want to talk all it takes is a "I am late for .........." or something along those lines. I work with inmates every day anyway so talking to local officers is no big deal to me because most of them 'think' they are more important than they really are.
State Police (at least where I live) I will be as nice as possible to. Most are built like brick *******houses and look mean enough to rip a guys head off with just a flick of the wrist. Those guys are probably (and some are) the nicest guys around, but I try to avoid drawing any attention to myself when I see them. I am not going to do anything illegal, they just make me nervous and anyone that is nervous usually gets eyeballed more.
Highway 59 runs from Houston into NE Texas, and T's off on a number of other major highways and interstates. It's a known "drug corridor" where smugglers from Mexico bring in their contraband and it gets handed off to other dealers and such.
You see cars pulled over all of the time, with cops and K9 units going through people's trunks and truck beds. All of the freaking time.
When I was in college, my roommate and I drove from Ruston, LA to Houston, TX to visit a buddy that had a summer internship there. We used HW59 to get there and back. On the way back, it looked like it might rain, so we wrapped up our luggage in garbage bags and put them in the bed of my truck (small cab). So, you had a pair of 19-20 year-olds driving an old pick-up truck with a couple of large black trash bags in the back.
We get pulled over and I knew I wasn't speeding. The cop asked me to come to the back of the truck and asked me who I was, who the person in the car was, where I was going, where I was coming from, what was in the bag, and so on. He then told me to stand by his car and asked my roommate the same questions. I guess he heard what he wanted to hear and let us both go without even searching the truck. I don't think he even took our IDs to call in to see if we had warrants.
There are many many many times people are stopped, searched, questioned and nothing at all is found and they are not doing anything illigal, but why is it so many of these sortys start the same "This person was stopped by the police for no reason at all and found to be carrying drugs!"?
A guy I used to work with hated the police. He said they harrased him because he was twice stopped and searched "for no reason at all" and twice charged with possession of class A drugs.
Anyway, I don't see what is wrong if the police stop and ask to talk to you to smile and "I'm sorry officer, but I'm running late" and walking off. No need to start quoting law, that just makes it look like you are hiding something. Perhaps it's something to do with the diffrent style of policeing in the US that people are intimidated.
Once in the UK, I was carrying my blind drunk wife through Leicester Square. The police stopped me on suspicion of being an abductor but I was able to show we had bank cards in the same name.
Three times I have been stopped by police in Japan on suspicion of being white in an international airport.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have been stopped four times by the police.
Once in the UK, I was carrying my blind drunk wife through Leicester Square. The police stopped me on suspicion of being an abductor but I was able to show we had bank cards in the same name.
Three times I have been stopped by police in Japan on suspicion of being white in an international airport.
was your wife drunk and is normally visually impaired, or was she so stinking drunk she could be construed as blind?
I use to work overnights as a manager of a receiving office. When I drove a beat up, old Oldsmobile Cutlass through town around 2AM everynight I was stopped frequently by local cops for the following reasons:
1. Loud muffler
2. Stuff hanging on my rear view mirror
3. Speeding (2 over going down hill)
4. No light on my license plate, etc.
All of which are technically crimes, but I never got a ticket. Instead they just wanted to eyeball me and make sure I wasn't drunk. Once I upgraded my car to a new, Buick Century I was never pulled over again.
However, this is a bit different than being engaged in random "consensual" engagement so I could be eyeballed to see if I was drunk.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have been stopped four times by the police.
Once in the UK, I was carrying my blind drunk wife through Leicester Square. The police stopped me on suspicion of being an abductor but I was able to show we had bank cards in the same name.
Three times I have been stopped by police in Japan on suspicion of being white in an international airport.
was your wife drunk and is normally visually impaired, or was she so stinking drunk she could be construed as blind?
Falling down drunk.
A Japanese girl had recently been raped while drunk in London so I thought they were doing a good job.
I've been pulled over three times, twice for speeding, once for not burning my headlights, and never gotten a ticket. I also had a regular customer at work who was a cop who came in everyday after getting off and he was a pretty cool guy. Never had a bad experience with the law, personally.
Kilkrazy wrote: It sounds like the old "suss" law in the UK, under which police were allowed to stop and search people on the suspicion that they might be up to no good. (Behaviour like being black in a built up area and such like.)
Don't get me started on that
Still, not as bad as American customs - probably the most obnoxious people I've ever met. It's a wonder that anybody gets into America. If the Native Americans of New England had custom workers, the early colonies wouldn't have stood a chance!
If there are customs workers on this site, they can take a long walk off a cliff edge
Are American police obliged to tell you your rights if you ask for them?
Are American police obliged to tell you your rights if you ask for them?
When you are arrested, they are required to tell you your Miranda rights.
..The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.
Are American police obliged to tell you your rights if you ask for them?
When you are arrested, they are required to tell you your Miranda rights.
..The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.
Sorry for not making myself clearer. I meant, do they tell you your 4th/5th amendment rights? i.e do you have to talk to them? Or can you ignore them as people have mentioned earlier.
This reminds me of something I need to look into before I head back to America. What rights do foreign tourists have in America? If I try and pull the stunt that is mentioned in the article, they'll laugh at me for being non-American. Although they should be jealous
Are American police obliged to tell you your rights if you ask for them?
When you are arrested, they are required to tell you your Miranda rights.
..The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.
The miranda rights are often a point of contention in the average 'Murican's knowledge of the law, the famous "Crime Drama Show" like CSI or Law and Order
Edit: The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, if a cop sees or smells something illegal (a firearm on the seat of the car, smell of pot, paraphernalia like a pipe, visible drugs or suspected stolen goods), then they are allowed to search your persons and or car without a warrant.
The 5th amendment is well known enough, but that doesn't stop the police from pressuring you a bit.
Are American police obliged to tell you your rights if you ask for them?
When you are arrested, they are required to tell you your Miranda rights.
..The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.
They are also required to make a witty and/or ironic statement/barb as they slap cuffs on you, or at least that is what police procedurals have led me to believe.
Are American police obliged to tell you your rights if you ask for them?
When you are arrested, they are required to tell you your Miranda rights.
..The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.
They are also required to make a witty and/or ironic statement/barb as they slap cuffs on you, or at least that is what police procedurals have led me to believe.
Horatio Cane is really the foundation of all modern police training videos, just ask Kanluwen.
Kilkrazy wrote:It sounds like the old "suss" law in the UK, under which police were allowed to stop and search people on the suspicion that they might be up to no good. (Behaviour like being black in a built up area and such like.)
That's basically what "Stop and Frisk" is although it is not a consensual encounter which is what the article is concerned with. Terry stops are investgatory, New Yorks Stop and Frisk policy is somewhat different than your average Terry stop.
If you want to know if you have to stay and talk/stay/etc I guess the best question is "am I legally obliged to..." And if the answer is no, ask if you can leave.
I don't really have a problem talking with the police, but it is nice to know up front if they seem like they are trying to get you to do things you don't have to.
Looks like I can take the 5th after all. According to the British Foreign office site, I have the same constitutional rights as a US citizen, except I can't buy guns, have a library card, or declare a bid to become president
And If I'm travelling and/or holidaying in July, I must remain indoors on the 4th.
Nah, on the 4th of July Americans go out into the streets, find people with British accents (Really any accent will do); and tar and feather them. In some locations, you are run out of town on a rail. It is a long and proud American tradition.
Ahh, Yes, The 4th of july annual British Hunt. I have such fond memories of it.
In my city the mayor would round up all the British families and release them on the Golf Course to us to trap. I bagged a Chav once.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ahh, Yes, The 4th of july annual British Hunt. I have such fond memories of it.
In my city the mayor would round up all the British families and release them on the Golf Course to us to trap. I bagged a Chav once.
I don't suppose you picked golf course as an ironic place to hold the annual British Hunt.
Steve steveson wrote: Anyway, I don't see what is wrong if the police stop and ask to talk to you to smile and "I'm sorry officer, but I'm running late" and walking off. No need to start quoting law, that just makes it look like you are hiding something. Perhaps it's something to do with the diffrent style of policeing in the US that people are intimidated.
Unless you actually are running late for something, I don't see what is wrong with just answering their questions and moving on. They're just trying to do their job... a job that is often thankless, and that so much of the time sees them ostracised by the general community.
If you're not doing anything wrong, you have no reason to fear the police.
Yeah, in a western country, I'd have no reservations about talking to the police or answering any of their questions. At least at present. I've nothing to hide.
SilverMK2 wrote: If you want to know if you have to stay and talk/stay/etc I guess the best question is "am I legally obliged to..." And if the answer is no, ask if you can leave.
And you would be surprised how often they don't give an answer to those questions...
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ahh, Yes, The 4th of july annual British Hunt. I have such fond memories of it. In my city the mayor would round up all the British families and release them on the Golf Course to us to trap. I bagged a Chav once.
I don't suppose you picked golf course as an ironic place to hold the annual British Hunt.
Steve steveson wrote: If you're not doing anything wrong, you have no reason to fear the police.
Again, is this serious or not serious? I just want to know, because about three people have posted this all ready.
I am Serious about it. Why should a Law Abiding Citizen have the need to fear the police.
Because Police are flawed individuals just like you and I; except with the legal power to fine, imprison, assault, or kill you.
They have their own agendas and perceptions, just like you and I. These perceptions and agendas will not always align with your best interests.
Final point, do you know what all the laws are in your municipality? Probably not, so you honestly hav eno idea if you are doing something "wrong" or not.
Easy E wrote: Because Police are flawed individuals just like you and I; except with the legal power to fine, imprison, assault, or kill you.
...and are accountable for those actions.
Final point, do you know what all the laws are in your municipality? Probably not, so you honestly hav eno idea if you are doing something "wrong" or not.
Which doesn't change the point.
Refusing to talk to police on the off chance that you might have broken some law that you're not aware of is bordering on the ridiculously paranoid.
Refusing to talk to police on the off chance that you might have broken some law that you're not aware of is bordering on the ridiculously paranoid.
Many departments in the US utilize internal quotas for citations, or loose measures of productivity to assess the work of any given officer. And yes, they do use casual conversation as a means to elicit grounds for issuing citations on the basis that it is, ultimately, their word against the cited in any potential challenge.
Refusing to talk to police on the off chance that you might have broken some law that you're not aware of is bordering on the ridiculously paranoid.
Many departments in the US utilize internal quotas for citations, or loose measures of productivity to assess the work of any given officer. And yes, they do use casual conversation as a means to elicit grounds for issuing citations on the basis that it is, ultimately, their word against the cited in any potential challenge.
SilverMK2 wrote: If you want to know if you have to stay and talk/stay/etc I guess the best question is "am I legally obliged to..." And if the answer is no, ask if you can leave.
I don't really have a problem talking with the police, but it is nice to know up front if they seem like they are trying to get you to do things you don't have to.
Thats actually good advice in the US as well. The language to use is "am I being legally detained?" If they say no you can leave. If they say yes you have rights to remain silent at that point. Say "at this time I am discontinuing the interview and do not consent to any further discussions or searches."
Are American police obliged to tell you your rights if you ask for them?
When you are arrested, they are required to tell you your Miranda rights.
..The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.
They are also required to make a witty and/or ironic statement/barb as they slap cuffs on you, or at least that is what police procedurals have led me to believe.
Horatio Cane is really the foundation of all modern police training videos, just ask Kanluwen.
It's true.
You are required to have a degree in Sunglasses and Witty Remarks to even be considered for the detective exams.
Steve steveson wrote: Anyway, I don't see what is wrong if the police stop and ask to talk to you to smile and "I'm sorry officer, but I'm running late" and walking off. No need to start quoting law, that just makes it look like you are hiding something. Perhaps it's something to do with the diffrent style of policeing in the US that people are intimidated.
Unless you actually are running late for something, I don't see what is wrong with just answering their questions and moving on. They're just trying to do their job... a job that is often thankless, and that so much of the time sees them ostracised by the general community.
If you're not doing anything wrong, you have no reason to fear the police.
Kilkrazy wrote: To what extent do US police hang around waiting to harass people for no particular reason?
I mean, are there any data on the number of "consensual" compared to "investigatory" encounters, or is this another piece of Internet fuelled bolshie bs?
I've had issues when I was out running. I always dress appropriately for running so it's really annoying and has happened more than once. Another time I was leaving a club drunk as hell and one tried to talk to me then stopped as soon as the sober one held up the car keys. Last but not least, I had taken a friend of mine to the mall to return a phone and he was apparently super drunk and I hadn't noticed (he had a natural slur anyway) and started cussing the guy at the store out so they called the cops on him. I had tried to calm him down and get him to leave and apologized to the store clerks, so I did my best to keep my distance and just sat there but a cop approached me and started asking questions. I asked if I was free to go or being detained and his response was "wait." I knew I wasn't being detained so I just waited it out to see if I could find out where they were taking him to let his family know or give him a ride home to sober up if he walked away from it (which he did, partially because of me waiting for him).
hotsauceman1 wrote: If you are not doing anything Illegal, Why fear the police?
Because some of them abuse their power and I should be able to go out for a run without being harassed. And they never bothered me all the times I actually was carrying something illegal, so why should they now?
Refusing to talk to police on the off chance that you might have broken some law that you're not aware of is bordering on the ridiculously paranoid.
When the officer is trying to ticket people to make quota or you don't have $80~ to spare or his wife just left him and he's pissed off, not really. If a big, strong guy walked up to you and started trying to intimidate you while you were out with your (presumed?) wife, you'd feel differently, so why does the guy in blue get special privilege?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ahh, Yes, The 4th of july annual British Hunt. I have such fond memories of it.
In my city the mayor would round up all the British families and release them on the Golf Course to us to trap. I bagged a Chav once.
I don't suppose you picked golf course as an ironic place to hold the annual British Hunt.
No, Why? Golf Course just popped into my head.
Golf originated in Scotland in the 15th century and was popular in Britian around the time of our glorious revolution. Even if it wasn't on purpose it's well played young padawan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Back on the topic, though, I just wonder why this speculative stop and search is such a widespread problem in "the land of the free".
Is that a serious ponder KK or are you just moving the topic back?
Are American police obliged to tell you your rights if you ask for them?
When you are arrested, they are required to tell you your Miranda rights.
Failure to mirandaize is no longer necessarily going to taint your case, for what it's worth. It's been weakened quite a bit over the years, last in 2010.
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on the topic, though, I just wonder why this speculative stop and search is such a widespread problem in "the land of the free".
Well, I can only speculate, but my speculation is that US law enforcement has been increasingly militarized over the last 10 years, often due to federal grants. When you have local Sheriff's offices buying APC's, eventually I imagine you start to take on an occupying force type mentaility.
And, all these guys saying, hey, you have nothing to fear from the police, they're your friend - I hope you consider that you only feel that way because you were born in the right place and the right color. You might feel differently if you and your peers were frequently roughed up by the police and stopped because you aren't white, and then released without charge after being detained for hours. Auston already touched on stop & frisk, here is some more on it.
There is no good reason to voluntarily speak with a police officer in this country unless you are reporting a crime or being arrested, and you do so at your own peril. Sure, it's a thankless job, but so is being a garbageman; and both knew so going in.
On the one hind I find Miranda redundant. Who doesn't know their rights but someone who is... frankly quite dumb (I mean who doesn't know their Miranda rights?).
On the other, the only reason most people know their Miranda rights is probably because of all the times they hear Miranda recited on TV, in movies, etc etc XD
And, all these guys saying, hey, you have nothing to fear from the police, they're your friend - I hope you consider that you only feel that way because you were born in the right place and the right color. You might feel differently if you and your peers were frequently roughed up by the police and stopped because you aren't white, and then released without charge after being detained for hours.
And people who are constantly worried about the police might consider the reverse is equally true? I knew a guy once who though we'd be better off if we abolished the police, his reasoning being a long line of instances where the police did nothing to help him or his family when they really needed it.
And just because I'm white doesn't mean the police hop up to help me. I was mugged years ago knew who did it and the police did nothing. Didn't even investigate. But then the police there were poor as dirt and overworked like crazy. Social problems like poverty, funding, ongoing institutional discrimination, what have you make it very messy. Is that the fault of the police, or is the fault of larger broader social problems?
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on the topic, though, I just wonder why this speculative stop and search is such a widespread problem in "the land of the free".
Well, I can only speculate, but my speculation is that US law enforcement has been increasingly militarized over the last 10 years, often due to federal grants. When you have local Sheriff's offices buying APC's, eventually I imagine you start to take on an occupying force type mentaility.
It goes back much further then 10 years, and has nothing to do with equipment. Cops have had a military culture, weapons and equipment for decades. A good example of a truly militarized police force is Mexico.
The "occupying force" mentality is exactly what they called it in my Criminal Justice courses, oddly enough. Really the mindset comes from the explosion in violence against police officers around the sixties and seventies that hasn't really let up, although its decreasing, due to better training, equipment and returns to community policing. The number of fatalities back then was almost double the rates of today. It coincides pretty closely to Richard Nixons declaration of a "War on Drugs".
In response to the upsurge in violence, policy and training changed to reflect the increased risk of violence and old style community policing ( cops walking their beat, establishing relations and rapport with their fellow citizens, etc.) went out the window. Cops sitting in their cars waiting for crime to happen or something suspicious to pass by became the norm. The lack of interaction with community members, arrest/citation quotas, coupled with historic disenfranchisement of minority communities, exacerbated by flawed local and federal policies/spending led to the Police that we have today.
The excellent show The Wire (recommend it to everyone, its so much more than a "Cop Show") had a segment in the third season where a main character becomes disenfranchised with his law enforcement career and he flat out rebels against his leadership. The crux of his story arc is how the "War on Drugs" destroyed policing and left us with what we have today and it needs to change.
Things are changing, thankfully, as critics of the drug war become more vocal, legalization gathers steam, and police departments shift back to actual community policing.
tl:dr = Blame the government, not the people that enforce the governments policy.
Something to keep in mind, it was policemen doing their job that almost foiled the 9/11 attacks, not our global intelligence apparatus that completely missed the plot, not our fleets of aircraft carriers and airplanes, not our thousands upon thousands of troops and our hundreds of bases throughout the world to protect our interests. Unfortunately due to agency/department miscomunication or complete lack thereof, they slipped through the cracks. It was policemen that pulled over 3 or 4 of the suspects days prior to the plot that could've saved thousands of lives and avoided billions of dollars in military misadventure.
It's all very well saying 'you've nothing to hide' when expanding police powers and putting up cameras and eroding your rights. What happens when the law changes and suddenly you find you do start having things to hide? Or you find yourself on the wrong side of the law through no fault if your own, a false allegation perhaps? Then you find you're not in any position to do anything about it but go through the wringer and hope they don't pin something on you.
Still, people may think there's nothing to hide. But institutionalised racism and the like is present in a number of police forces worldwide even in supposedly civilised countries. It's pretty well known that black people are more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, on virtue of being black. They might not find anything, unless they are determined to come up with something, but it's intimidation and harassment and the 'you've got nothing to hide' believers are putting a system in place to allow police to do this.
I've never had a 'chat' with police in any circumstance when I wasn't the victim of a crime. Never been pulled over in my car and certainly never been searched. I've never heard of a policeman just wanting a 'friendly chat' with someone unknown to them beyond a simple 'hello' or general question like directions somewhere. If they start asking personal questions for no reason at all, that's very odd indeed.
LordofHats wrote: And just because I'm white doesn't mean the police hop up to help me. I was mugged years ago knew who did it and the police did nothing. Didn't even investigate. But then the police there were poor as dirt and overworked like crazy. Social problems like poverty, funding, ongoing institutional discrimination, what have you make it very messy. Is that the fault of the police, or is the fault of larger broader social problems?
This is also what happens. One of my co-workers had his house broken into by people he knew (friends of his sister). They let themselves him, helped themselves to his hunting rifles and pistols, a ps3, and a bunch of his stuff. He reported all of it stolen, told the cops who it was that did it, and since then has been doing more on the case than the detectives. He still doesn't have his stuff back, and only 1 of the three involved has been arrested, but on a separate crime. The cops aren't every effective at their jobs some times, and plenty of times they are overworked and underpaid.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It's all very well saying 'you've nothing to hide' when expanding police powers and putting up cameras and eroding your rights.
Still waiting on someone to tell me what civil right street cameras violate.
EDIT: I'll actually follow this with another question I never got an answer to: Is it unconstitutional for a patrol car to be parked on a street corner while the officers look around?
What happens when the law changes and suddenly you find you do start having things to hide?
Unless we suddenly allow ex post facto laws (which I don't see happening... ever...) no one can be charged for doing something that was legal when they did. If they continue to do it... That's their problem? I suppose not all countries have an expressed prohibition against ex post facto laws (UK?) but is that a problem with police powers or a problem with the state in general?
Or you find yourself on the wrong side of the law through no fault if your own, a false allegation perhaps?
Like that can't happen already? Any law will produce such incidents. That people will be falsely accused of crimes, or stumble into accidental violation, is the nature of law enforcement. It probably happened under Hammurabi's code it's probably happening somewhere right now. Its not something that can be fixed, especially not with the hugely complex legal codes of today that might as well be gibberish to the common man. It's not a valid reason to oppose expanded police powers as much as to oppose certain laws. Like banning alcohol, cause that's totally going to work in any country that's had alcohol for... ever...
But institutionalised racism and the like is present in a number of police forces worldwide even in supposedly civilised countries. It's pretty well known that black people are more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, on virtue of being black. They might not find anything, unless they are determined to come up with something, but it's intimidation and harassment and the 'you've got nothing to hide' believers are putting a system in place to allow police to do this.
But that isn't a problem per se with police powers. And as you aptly point out, if the police are really determined to violate someone's rights they will. If the police want to violate someone's rights, they'll just do it whether their power is limited or expanded. They can do it right now. Being constantly afraid of it is... kind of pointless. EDIT: We don't even have to pretend. It's already happened and it's called the FBI from Day 1 till 1971. Instead of constantly thinking how horrible things can go, cause they can go horrible whenever, balance the value of expanded powers and whether or not they're beneficial to society (EDIT: Which is of course a subjective standard but I hear there's this cool thing called 'healthy debate' that helps with that) and if the decision to expand powers is made, be ready to throw down the beat stick is law enforcement tries to go beyond what they've been given.
If they start asking personal questions for no reason at all, that's very odd indeed.
I will say I've never seen a cop just come along and talk to me. Not even to ask how nice my day has been. Except for campus cops but I'm not really sure they're actually cops
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alfndrate wrote: This is also what happens. One of my co-workers had his house broken into by people he knew (friends of his sister). They let themselves him, helped themselves to his hunting rifles and pistols, a ps3, and a bunch of his stuff. He reported all of it stolen, told the cops who it was that did it, and since then has been doing more on the case than the detectives. He still doesn't have his stuff back, and only 1 of the three involved has been arrested, but on a separate crime. The cops aren't every effective at their jobs some times, and plenty of times they are overworked and underpaid.
On the one hand, I honestly get it if I had no idea who the guy was. "What's that sir? You were assaulted by some random stranger and you have no idea why?" I mean, unless it's a major problem in the area, and it wasn't, it's just not something they're going to spend time on cause the chances of actually finding the person who did it is... probably close to nil.
What annoyed me was I knew who did it, but idk. Maybe they didn't think my word vs his would amount to anything or maybe they just had too much on their plate. Annoying but when the department is getting its budget slashed and is laying off officers it's not really helping. EDIT: That and all I got was the crap kicked out of me, which I guess isn't technically a mugging but w/e. Maybe they'd have cared more if something was stolen.
LordofHats wrote: Still waiting on someone to tell me what civil right street cameras violate.
EDIT: I'll actually follow this with another question I never got an answer to: Is it unconstitutional for a patrol car to be parked on a street corner while the officers look around?
Actually, this is kind of a grey area right now. Wander along with me on this.
First, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while out on the public streets. We can agree to this.
Additionally, there is nothing keeping the police from simply following you around, under the same doctrine. I'm sure we all agree on this.
So, can the police follow you around all the time, every time you leave the house? What if they do it for weeks at a time? probably not.
What if we extend that to just slapping a GPS transponder under your car? Saves the police all the gas money, and again, we still follow the first principle - you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public anyway, right? This is the argument that came before the SCOTUS, and they voted that no, you need a warrant for that.
Alito contended the attachment of the device was not itself an illegal "search." Rather, he said, what matters is a driver's expectation of privacy. "We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark," Alito wrote, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.
So, at some point, once the state is able to surveil the totality of your public life, it's no longer lawful. If the state hypothetically completely blanketed an American city with cameras to the point you literally could not go out in public without being tracked, London-style, I suspect the court would strike it down, even though the cameras in and of themselves are lawful.
Ouze wrote: Additionally, there is nothing keeping the police from simply following you around, under the same doctrine. I'm sure we all agree on this.
So so agreement. If the cops are following a specific person, I think there's very valid grounds for a suit of harassment.
So, can the police follow you around all the time, every time you leave the house? What if they do it for weeks at a time? probably not.
Who says that's the form the system has to take?
Meander with me for a bit
Set up the cameras, but no one watches them 24/7. Frankly that's just inefficient. The manpower is wasted, time is wasted, money is wasted. Set the cameras up and record them (save the recordings for whatever time is deemed necessary). The police many only access the system with reason and have to go to a special oversight court or board for approval. I would want the system to be quick to be approved or else the whole thing becomes a little pointless.
Limit use to (examples):
Crime scene investigation (limit use of recordings to some area around the scene of the incident)
Confirm alibi (not really necessary, but it is quicker than doing all that leg work)
Tracking individuals with warrants from the courts
Adjust oversights as necessary.
There is no cop at a monitor watching ever move you make for no reason. Just because the cameras get put there doesn't mean they have to have eyes glued to them 24/7 to be useful. I'll mention the case of Treyvon Martin again. Would we have had all the drama and BS, if street cameras had been present to record the entire incident? Eh, probably, but at least we'd have a record of what happened and not just the word of the accused.
EDIT: An interesting note here is that stalking (where it is against the law) goes from being nearly unprovable in a court, to being a pretty simple thing to prove. There is also potential value for civil courts.
So, at some point, once the state is able to surveil the totality of your public life, it's no longer lawful. If the state hypothetically completely blanketed an American city with cameras to the point you literally could not go out in public without being tracked, London-style, I suspect the court would strike it down, even though the cameras in and of themselves are lawful.
I'm agree the current court would strike it down, but future courts? SCOTUS has always been fickle with privacy. They used to allow unwarranted wire taps you know. In the 30's.
oh god! i have a trip to Khaosarn street next week (yep. to try my luck on a romance with white blonde girl ) , my friends and parents scared me of thugs pick pocketing or reverse pickpocketing narcotics, the latter usually followed by being sniffed off by cops. I never have a bad relationships with the Law before, I always on a good side of it, an honest citizen, a loyal supporter of the now-current government (and opposition to the former ones). that is.
Having worked, both formerly and currently, in the criminal justice field, let me just say this:
So long as you are well aquainted with your rights and acting inside the normal boundries of the law, you have little to lose from casual conversations with the police.
They are people. They also have a job to do. Remember both of these facts during any encounter, and you will be just fine.
I had an encounter with a cop Friday. I was standing, waiting to use the crosswalk, and he pedaled up to me, daggers in his eyes, looking like I had just mutilated a puppy and fed it to an orphanage. He slowly got off his bike, stepping down first with his left, then swinging his right over the back. I was starting to sweat, as I'm a model citizen, and in fact had just done a noble duty and bought Spiderman #700 for my boss, because he wanted a copy of the death of Spidey. I clutched the copy tightly, knowing that this man in an officer's uniform probably intended to rob me of my boss's comic. Well, that wasn't going to happen. I'd defend the book to the death, noble as I am. Never taking his eyes off me, he let out a single syllable. 'Hi.' I asked how his day was, he said good, and pedaled off. I thought Dakka could use some suspense.
Spoiler:
real story: I bought my boss the comic, walked to the crosswalk, cop and I exchanged pleasantries and went about our business.
timetowaste85 wrote: I had an encounter with a cop Friday. I was standing, waiting to use the crosswalk, and he pedaled up to me, daggers in his eyes, looking like I had just mutilated a puppy and fed it to an orphanage. He slowly got off his bike, stepping down first with his left, then swinging his right over the back. I was starting to sweat, as I'm a model citizen, and in fact had just done a noble duty and bought Spiderman #700 for my boss, because he wanted a copy of the death of Spidey. I clutched the copy tightly, knowing that this man in an officer's uniform probably intended to rob me of my boss's comic. Well, that wasn't going to happen. I'd defend the book to the death, noble as I am. Never taking his eyes off me, he let out a single syllable. 'Hi.' I asked how his day was, he said good, and pedaled off. I thought Dakka could use some suspense.
Spoiler:
real story: I bought my boss the comic, walked to the crosswalk, cop and I exchanged pleasantries and went about our business.
Just another example of the rampant police intimidation that happens in this country!
In 1990 the NZ Police changed the name from "New Zealand Police Force" to simply "New Zealand Police"
The removal of the word 'force' tied in with a change of image for the NZP. Even now more than 20 years later our frontline police do not carry firearms on their hips. I've been stopped various times (a younger me was very into modified 4-cyl cars) with and without contraband on my person. They will investigate suspicious behaviour of course, including what is claimed to be 'harrassing the Maori and Pacific populations' but the fact is these demographics are overrepresented in negative social statistics - in spite of Billions in reparations from the Crown- so I can see why they do it. The Police here are almost always reasonable and will respond to politeness in kind. I have never been formally charged with anything and I chalk that up to being cooperative, not confrontational.
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on the topic, though, I just wonder why this speculative stop and search is such a widespread problem in "the land of the free".
Well, I can only speculate, but my speculation is that US law enforcement has been increasingly militarized over the last 10 years, often due to federal grants. When you have local Sheriff's offices buying APC's, eventually I imagine you start to take on an occupying force type mentaility.
It goes back much further then 10 years, and has nothing to do with equipment. Cops have had a military culture, weapons and equipment for decades. A good example of a truly militarized police force is Mexico.
The "occupying force" mentality is exactly what they called it in my Criminal Justice courses, oddly enough. Really the mindset comes from the explosion in violence against police officers around the sixties and seventies that hasn't really let up, although its decreasing, due to better training, equipment and returns to community policing. The number of fatalities back then was almost double the rates of today. It coincides pretty closely to Richard Nixons declaration of a "War on Drugs".
In response to the upsurge in violence, policy and training changed to reflect the increased risk of violence and old style community policing ( cops walking their beat, establishing relations and rapport with their fellow citizens, etc.) went out the window. Cops sitting in their cars waiting for crime to happen or something suspicious to pass by became the norm. The lack of interaction with community members, arrest/citation quotas, coupled with historic disenfranchisement of minority communities, exacerbated by flawed local and federal policies/spending led to the Police that we have today.
The excellent show The Wire (recommend it to everyone, its so much more than a "Cop Show") had a segment in the third season where a main character becomes disenfranchised with his law enforcement career and he flat out rebels against his leadership. The crux of his story arc is how the "War on Drugs" destroyed policing and left us with what we have today and it needs to change.
Things are changing, thankfully, as critics of the drug war become more vocal, legalization gathers steam, and police departments shift back to actual community policing.
tl:dr = Blame the government, not the people that enforce the governments policy.
Something to keep in mind, it was policemen doing their job that almost foiled the 9/11 attacks, not our global intelligence apparatus that completely missed the plot, not our fleets of aircraft carriers and airplanes, not our thousands upon thousands of troops and our hundreds of bases throughout the world to protect our interests. Unfortunately due to agency/department miscomunication or complete lack thereof, they slipped through the cracks. It was policemen that pulled over 3 or 4 of the suspects days prior to the plot that could've saved thousands of lives and avoided billions of dollars in military misadventure.
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on the topic, though, I just wonder why this speculative stop and search is such a widespread problem in "the land of the free".
Well, I can only speculate, but my speculation is that US law enforcement has been increasingly militarized over the last 10 years, often due to federal grants. When you have local Sheriff's offices buying APC's, eventually I imagine you start to take on an occupying force type mentaility.
It goes back much further then 10 years, and has nothing to do with equipment. Cops have had a military culture, weapons and equipment for decades. A good example of a truly militarized police force is Mexico.
The "occupying force" mentality is exactly what they called it in my Criminal Justice courses, oddly enough. Really the mindset comes from the explosion in violence against police officers around the sixties and seventies that hasn't really let up, although its decreasing, due to better training, equipment and returns to community policing. The number of fatalities back then was almost double the rates of today. It coincides pretty closely to Richard Nixons declaration of a "War on Drugs".
In response to the upsurge in violence, policy and training changed to reflect the increased risk of violence and old style community policing ( cops walking their beat, establishing relations and rapport with their fellow citizens, etc.) went out the window. Cops sitting in their cars waiting for crime to happen or something suspicious to pass by became the norm. The lack of interaction with community members, arrest/citation quotas, coupled with historic disenfranchisement of minority communities, exacerbated by flawed local and federal policies/spending led to the Police that we have today.
The excellent show The Wire (recommend it to everyone, its so much more than a "Cop Show") had a segment in the third season where a main character becomes disenfranchised with his law enforcement career and he flat out rebels against his leadership. The crux of his story arc is how the "War on Drugs" destroyed policing and left us with what we have today and it needs to change.
Things are changing, thankfully, as critics of the drug war become more vocal, legalization gathers steam, and police departments shift back to actual community policing.
tl:dr = Blame the government, not the people that enforce the governments policy.
Something to keep in mind, it was policemen doing their job that almost foiled the 9/11 attacks, not our global intelligence apparatus that completely missed the plot, not our fleets of aircraft carriers and airplanes, not our thousands upon thousands of troops and our hundreds of bases throughout the world to protect our interests. Unfortunately due to agency/department miscomunication or complete lack thereof, they slipped through the cracks. It was policemen that pulled over 3 or 4 of the suspects days prior to the plot that could've saved thousands of lives and avoided billions of dollars in military misadventure.
This guy has read his textbooks. Listen to him.
More then a decade ago, yes.
But no textbook will say the War on Drugs destroyed policing.
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on the topic, though, I just wonder why this speculative stop and search is such a widespread problem in "the land of the free".
Well, I can only speculate, but my speculation is that US law enforcement has been increasingly militarized over the last 10 years, often due to federal grants. When you have local Sheriff's offices buying APC's, eventually I imagine you start to take on an occupying force type mentaility.
It goes back much further then 10 years, and has nothing to do with equipment. Cops have had a military culture, weapons and equipment for decades. A good example of a truly militarized police force is Mexico.
The "occupying force" mentality is exactly what they called it in my Criminal Justice courses, oddly enough. Really the mindset comes from the explosion in violence against police officers around the sixties and seventies that hasn't really let up, although its decreasing, due to better training, equipment and returns to community policing. The number of fatalities back then was almost double the rates of today. It coincides pretty closely to Richard Nixons declaration of a "War on Drugs".
In response to the upsurge in violence, policy and training changed to reflect the increased risk of violence and old style community policing ( cops walking their beat, establishing relations and rapport with their fellow citizens, etc.) went out the window. Cops sitting in their cars waiting for crime to happen or something suspicious to pass by became the norm. The lack of interaction with community members, arrest/citation quotas, coupled with historic disenfranchisement of minority communities, exacerbated by flawed local and federal policies/spending led to the Police that we have today.
The excellent show The Wire (recommend it to everyone, its so much more than a "Cop Show") had a segment in the third season where a main character becomes disenfranchised with his law enforcement career and he flat out rebels against his leadership. The crux of his story arc is how the "War on Drugs" destroyed policing and left us with what we have today and it needs to change.
Things are changing, thankfully, as critics of the drug war become more vocal, legalization gathers steam, and police departments shift back to actual community policing.
tl:dr = Blame the government, not the people that enforce the governments policy.
Something to keep in mind, it was policemen doing their job that almost foiled the 9/11 attacks, not our global intelligence apparatus that completely missed the plot, not our fleets of aircraft carriers and airplanes, not our thousands upon thousands of troops and our hundreds of bases throughout the world to protect our interests. Unfortunately due to agency/department miscomunication or complete lack thereof, they slipped through the cracks. It was policemen that pulled over 3 or 4 of the suspects days prior to the plot that could've saved thousands of lives and avoided billions of dollars in military misadventure.
This guy has read his textbooks. Listen to him.
More then a decade ago, yes.
But no textbook will say the War on Drugs destroyed policing.
The following is an excerpt from The Org: The Underlying Logic of the Office, by Ray Fisman and Tim Sullivan, out this week from Twelve.
On Oct. 29, 1999, Peter Moskos sat in the office of the acting commissioner of the Baltimore City Police Department facing a life-altering choice: sign up for training with Baltimore City Police recruit class 99-5 or return to the Harvard sociology department a failure.
Moskos was a sociologist, born and bred. His father, Charles, a renowned military sociologist, was best known as the originator of President Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. After graduating magna cum laude from Princeton with a degree in sociology, Peter Moskos enrolled in Harvard’s prestigious Ph.D. program (rejection rate: 95 percent) and planned to study policing. Moskos wanted to follow in the footsteps of other sociologists by immersing himself in the lives of his subjects—in his case, the police officers who fought the war on drugs.
Police departments routinely let Boy Scouts, Junior Police Rangers, and Hollywood stars ride along. But Moskos is no Boy Scout, and he’s certainly no Matt Damon. No one Moskos approached with his proposal would give him the time of day. And why would they have? What commissioner would let some potentially uber-liberal Ivy League do-gooder sociologist into his department to pick at old scabs, dig up trash, and document well-hidden skeletons in the department’s closet?
A ranking police officer, a friend of Peter’s father, whispered in the ear of Baltimore’s police commissioner, Thomas Frazier, who knew he was on his way out. A mayoral election was just around the corner, and all the leading candidates save one were on the record saying that the police department needed new leadership. A commissioner who knew he’d be gone in a matter of months didn’t need to give much thought to the wreckage Moskos’s visit might leave behind. Frazier allowed Moskos to observe recruit class 99-5 during their time at the police academy and then to follow them out onto the streets.
Still, Frazier’s replacement, Ronald L. Daniel—who would be stuck with any fallout from Moskos’ work—didn’t have quite so laissez-faire an attitude. (Daniel resigned after just a few months, but as Moskos notes in his book Cop in the Hood—on which, together with interviews of Moskos, we base much of this account—Moskos' ulterior motives were lost in the shuffle when Daniel's replacement came in.) Once informed of the situation, Daniel ordered Moskos into his office but didn’t send him packing outright. Instead, he offered Moskos a choice. He could stay, Daniel said, only if he passed the hiring requirements of the department and was willing to become a real police officer. No ride-alongs, no observer status, no sitting back while others did the work. Moskos would get an almost unprecedented look inside the department if he took the full-time job, but he’d also have to put his life at risk policing the city’s crime-ridden Eastern District.
The Baltimore City Police Department has the unenviable charge of cleaning up the streets of a city that’s a perennial front-runner for top spot in virtually every class of violent crime statistic—it’s affectionately nicknamed “Bodymore, Murdaland,” and is the setting for HBO’s celebrated crime drama The Wire—and to do so amid the larger municipal dysfunction of failed schools, a failed economy, and the worst drug problem in America. That makes it a great model for explaining the difficulties that orgs face in getting employees to do their jobs, and for allowing one to appreciate the near-miracle that anything ever gets done there at all. To get a view into the logic and workings of cubicle nation, we consider the particularly messy job of policing the Eastern District on the midnight-to-8:00-a.m. shift. The lessons from Moskos’ experience on the Baltimore City police force—from his hiring, to his job assignments, to how his sergeant monitored and evaluated his performance—can teach us a lot about the decidedly imperfect workplaces where most of us spend our lives.
The Multitasking Police Officer
Most people think of multitasking as a symptom of the information age, the irresistible distractions of smartphones, email, real-time stock quotes, and the Web being such that we can’t stay on task for more than seconds at a time. But when economists speak of multitasking, they’re talking about jobs that have multiple components to them—that is, just about any job at all. This presents a challenge to motivating and evaluating employees. Those on the receiving end of performance evaluations will devote themselves to the tasks that are evaluated while ignoring those that aren’t. If what gets measured is what gets managed, then what gets managed is what gets done.
Pay customer service reps for the number of calls handled rather than an hourly rate, and queries will be dispatched with efficiency. Compensate snowplow drivers for inches of snow cleared instead of by the hour—as Boston began doing in 2009—and they’ll miraculously start plowing faster. Unfortunately, however, performance in customer service and snowplowing aren’t about just speed; they also have an element of quality.
The Org: The Underlying Logic of the Office
By Ray Fisman and Tim Sullivan
Twelve
Service reps paid per call may leave behind legions of angry customers whose complaints were received with abrupt (if speedy) indifference. And plowmen motivated by pay-per-inch contracts may speed their trucks through slick, snow-covered streets with rash abandon, ignoring black ice and other hard-to-clear road hazards.
Still, it’s pretty easy to come up with controls to regulate quality through random spot-checks and audits with customer service reps or even plowmen. That’s why so many customer service calls start with the notice “This call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance and training purposes.”
Yet, like police officers, most of us juggle many more balls than do snowplow drivers or customer service reps—which is what makes it so hard for the police department to figure out what to tell policemen to do, let alone motivate them to do it.
Suppose you want to pay cops to solve crimes—or, even better, to prevent crimes from happening in the first place. You could stick with crimes that really mattered. If police were paid to get homicide rates down, there would surely be fewer murders in Charm City—you almost always get what you pay for. The unfortunate corollary to this, however, is that you don’t get what you don’t pay for. If low-value burglary were left off the list of remunerated felony arrests, burglars would make out like bandits. If the chosen threshold for a burglary to make it onto the list were $1,000, thieves would soon figure out that the cops won’t bother coming after them if they limit their loot to $999.
Burglary need not even be omitted to create incentive mayhem. If different crimes warranted different rewards, finding the “right” mix of compensation rates for catching thieves versus murderers versus loiterers would be impossible. If all crimes are rewarded equally, police will go after the low-hanging fruit such as parking violations and shoplifters, despite the much higher social cost of murders and billion-dollar frauds. Getting incentives wrong could literally be deadly. And who gets rewarded if the job’s well done? The individual detective who breaks the case? The beat cop who noticed something suspicious? The forensic technician who dug up the critical piece of DNA evidence?
Despite its precision, or maybe because of it, this is not a good way of figuring out what the typical police officer should do, or how to pay him.
Keeping It Simple
These complications might go some way toward explaining the reward structure that filtered down for Baltimore’s patrolmen, summarized by one of the officers in Moskos’ district: “Sarge really likes arrests, and I give them to him… If I see a white junkie coming here to cop [buy drugs], I’ll stop them. Conspiracy to possess. Loitering.” That’s straightforward: Sarge likes arrests; cops arrest people. End of story.
Keeping things simple has its own set of deficiencies. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with making arrests for loitering (except a potential violation of civil liberties and damaging relations with the public). As Moskos notes, it’s a good way of clearing the streets of dealers and junkies, at least temporarily. But it also means that lots of cops will look for the lowest-cost way of boosting arrest stats, regardless of whether it’s the best way of making the Eastern District a better, safer place to live. Sarge never said that he likes only good arrests, after all, and the Baltimore officers aren’t rewarded for successful prosecutions, just the arrest itself. So, as with telemarketers paid by the call, if Sarge likes arrests, he risks getting quantity at the expense of quality.
That said, at least cops in the Eastern District are arresting somebody. And so the police force may be best off keeping it simple—it’s a trade-off. The same goes for a sales force paid for generating revenues. They may be tempted to give their customers discounts to make sales without concern for the impact on the company’s bottom line.
To illustrate the double-edged sword of arrest incentives, Moskos recounts the example of a fellow officer who decided to set a record for monthly arrests. His plan: lock people up for violating bicycle regulations. At night, all bikes need a light. The officer would stop cyclists in breach of the bike light rule (which was most of them), ask for ID, and pull out his pad to write a citation. Most riders, though, were biking without ID, and since all offenses become arrestable without identification, the officer’s little scheme netted 26 arrests in a single month. A record. His sergeant was thrilled, telling Moskos, “Look, I don’t know what his motivations are. But I think it’s good. He’s locking people
up, which is more than half the people in this squad.” Why was the sergeant so happy? His boss, the lieutenant, also got kudos for arrests on his shift, and in the sergeant’s words, “As long as the lieutenant likes them, I’m all for it.” And why did the lieutenant like them? Probably because the major did. And so on. Ultimately, we can surmise, the mayor could then say, “We arrested lots of people in the Eastern District. We’re doing our jobs to keep the streets safe,” which, when the streets aren’t particularly safe, also helps to deflect the blame.
Police officers in the Eastern District certainly got the message. Moskos wrote, “There are 70,000 arrests a year in the city of Baltimore. When I policed, 20,000 of those happened in the district I policed. The population of the Eastern District is less than
45,000. That’s a lot of lockups.” Nearly one for every two residents. The department paid for arrests, and it got them.
This may seem nonsensical, even counterproductive, yet arresting light-less bikers had its purpose. While it might not seem among the Eastern District’s most pressing problems, many cyclists out in the middle of the night without identification were up to no good. By locking up 26 cyclists, the record-setting officer also took some drugs off the street.
The pitfalls of arrest quotas come into sharper relief with Moskos’ account of the trade-offs faced by a cop chasing down a drug suspect. During Moskos’ time in uniform, drug charges in Baltimore couldn’t be prosecuted unless an officer maintained constant sight of the drugs, a fact well-known to suspects, who will often throw down their drugs when fleeing. The pursuing officer will have to choose between keeping an eye on the drugs and actually arresting the suspect. While found drugs are critical to prosecution, police are judged on arrest statistics, not conviction rates. Officers generally follow the suspect rather than pausing to scoop up the evidence, all the while knowing that the prosecution will fail as a result. But the arrest will still be good.
Eventually, at least in Baltimore, the misalignment of arrest quotas with the overall goal of keeping the peace caused the arrangement to break down. When the Baltimore murder count reached new heights in June 2007, then-commissioner Leonard Hamm was held accountable for the lack of progress in lowering crime rates—despite the astronomical arrest rate—and forced to resign.
Hidden Policing
The objectives of policing are a lot murkier than those of a for-profit company, which are, at least to a first approximation, to make money. The stated mission of the Baltimore City police force is to “protect and preserve life, protect property, understand and serve the needs of the city’s neighborhoods, and to improve the quality of life of our community.”
There’s a lot involved in keeping the peace. Lowering the murder rate, clearing 911 calls, and reducing the supply of crack cocaine may contribute to the broader objectives of policing, but so do many other, hard-to-observe and harder-to-quantify aspects of the job. For instance, after politely settling down a group of young men sitting on a front stoop drinking malt liquor and blasting a boom box (only one of them carrying ID) Moskos’ partner commented that it “pisses me off … now they respect me more … because I wasn’t a dick. Would I be doing a better job if I locked them up? But I don’t get any credit for good policing.”
Moskos’ partner’s idea of “good policing” highlights once again the problem of motivating a multitasking police officer, but with a twist. The officer himself is aggravated by the fact that so much of what police do can’t be measured at all. Moskos’ partner was clearly doing his job, but in no quantifiable way. It’s hard to measure something that never happens. From the perspective of a commissioner guided by monthly crime reports, the lack of criminal activity might be the result of good policing as defined by the patrolman. After all, clearing the corner probably meant one less call to 911—but fewer emergency calls to 911 might also be a consequence of a rainy night, or a cold snap that kept would be criminals indoors, or improved economic conditions in the district. Who’s to say the cop didn’t sit in his warm patrol car under a bridge somewhere, as even Moskos admits that he himself occasionally did?
The fact that so much of policing is invisible to a desk-bound sergeant leaves each individual officer with enormous discretion that can be used in lots of ways: to slack off, to boost his stats, or to keep the peace. Even in the high-crime Eastern District, most cops patrol solo, so there isn’t even another officer to bear witness to good (or bad) behavior. On any given shift, an officer can decide to focus on traffic citations, bike arrests, or busting drug corners. He can let off minor offenders with a warning, or place them under arrest.
One of Moskos’ fellow officers described the way he flaunted this power in dealing with loiterers: “Sometimes I’ll flip a quarter. Tails, he goes to jail, and heads, he doesn’t. They’ll be going, ‘Heads! Yeeeah!’ ” Does anyone ever complain when the coin comes up tails? Apparently not—everyone knows that for minor arrests, they’re at the policeman’s mercy, and better not to endanger a system where you have at least a 50-50 chance of going free rather than none at all.
Whereas arrests for minor crimes are all a matter of discretion, catching violent felons also involves a lot of luck. An officer can’t set out on a shift with the intention of bringing in an armed robber or a murderer. He has to stumble upon one. And absent an obvious suspect, the case then just gets handed over to a detective.
If so much of good policing is invisible—such as defusing a potentially dangerous confrontation—and making arrests involves a mixture of luck and stretching police discretion to stop and frisk errant cyclists and loiterers, why build a system based on arrest quotas? Because it’s still the best you’ve got. Given the teamwork involved in peacekeeping, you can’t reward individual officers for the dog that fails to bark. It encourages them to push criminals and crimes onto someone else’s shift or into another precinct. It may be better to have a lot of bad arrests than no arrests at all.
What saves the system from complete collapse is that many police care about more than just juking, or inflating, their stats. After a few years, many officers get tired of policing “cowboy style” and come to see arrests as a sign of failed policing. If they were doing the job right, there wouldn’t be so much crime in the first place. Among the cops who don’t put up decent arrest stats, some are surely lazy and others burned out, but many are probably excellent police. You just can’t see it in the numbers.
Good thing, then, that while arrests are encouraged and rewarded via promotion and overtime pay, the incentives are pretty weak. If you just stay out of trouble and make an arrest now and then, no one gives you too hard a time. The older cops who have left their cowboy policing days behind them do just fine. If this weren’t the case, there might not be any excellent police in Baltimore at all.
From the book The Org: The Underlying Logic of the Office. Copyright 2013 by Ray Fisman and Tim Sullivan. Reprinted by permission of Twelve/Hachette Book Group, New York, NY. All rights reserved.
NELS1031 wrote: It goes back much further then 10 years, and has nothing to do with equipment. Cops have had a military culture, weapons and equipment for decades. A good example of a truly militarized police force is Mexico.
Great post, thanks for that information.
One question though - you note police casualties as falling. How much do you think this is due to changes in police methods? That is, instead of beat police executing search warrants on suspected drug labs, leaving them vulnerable to attack, now they use tactical squads in night time raids on a fairly regular basis.
NELS1031 wrote: It goes back much further then 10 years, and has nothing to do with equipment. Cops have had a military culture, weapons and equipment for decades. A good example of a truly militarized police force is Mexico.
Great post, thanks for that information.
One question though - you note police casualties as falling. How much do you think this is due to changes in police methods? That is, instead of beat police executing search warrants on suspected drug labs, leaving them vulnerable to attack, now they use tactical squads in night time raids on a fairly regular basis.
I saw somewhere that its exactly that... lemme see if I can google-fu that.
whembly wrote: I saw somewhere that its exactly that... lemme see if I can google-fu that.
Yeah, there's been a fair discussions on the use of tactical teams in raids. Seems a pretty tough issue to decide one way or another - less police vulnerability is good, and ultimately those guys have the right to be as safe as sensibly possible when doing their jobs, but on the other hand armed guys kicking down doors as a matter of course is going to produce some ugly feth ups.
BTW: Welcome back!
Cheers! Took a self imposed break from Dakka over the Christmas break to get some painting done, and finally break the back of my Empire army. Didn't work
Yeah, there's been a fair discussions on the use of tactical teams in raids. Seems a pretty tough issue to decide one way or another - less police vulnerability is good, and ultimately those guys have the right to be as safe as sensibly possible when doing their jobs, but on the other hand armed guys kicking down doors as a matter of course is going to produce some ugly feth ups.
The no knock warrants are particularly dangerous.
I think there was a case around these parts (Bmore/DC area) where a no knock warrant was served, the team breached the doors and the perp defended himself with his hand gun, which led to SWAt killing him. When the other occupant was apprehended, and the dust settled, they realized they were in the wrong apartment. One civilian dead.
Yeah, there's been a fair discussions on the use of tactical teams in raids. Seems a pretty tough issue to decide one way or another - less police vulnerability is good, and ultimately those guys have the right to be as safe as sensibly possible when doing their jobs, but on the other hand armed guys kicking down doors as a matter of course is going to produce some ugly feth ups.
The no knock warrants are particularly dangerous.
I think there was a case around these parts (Bmore/DC area) where a no knock warrant was served, the team breached the doors and the perp defended himself with his hand gun, which led to SWAt killing him. When the other occupant was apprehended, and the dust settled, they realized they were in the wrong apartment. One civilian dead.
Happens quite a lot it seems. Gives one decent reason to question the true effectiveness of said tactical teams.
Maybe ending the ridiculous and ineffective war on drugs would help reduce officer, perp and civilian casualties.
One time A cop pulled me over and ask me how I was doing. It was kind of funny because he was himself acting quite odd bouncing up and down like he had too much coffee.
Happens quite a lot it seems. Gives one decent reason to question the true effectiveness of said tactical teams.
Exept thats not a problem with Tactical Teams, thats a problem with getting reliable information and double checking that you are indeed in the right place.
NELS1031 wrote: The no knock warrants are particularly dangerous.
I think there was a case around these parts (Bmore/DC area) where a no knock warrant was served, the team breached the doors and the perp defended himself with his hand gun, which led to SWAt killing him. When the other occupant was apprehended, and the dust settled, they realized they were in the wrong apartment. One civilian dead.
It was posted on dakka, wasn't it?
If that's the case you're thinking of, I think it was a bad tip-off, not a wrong address.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Happens quite a lot it seems. Gives one decent reason to question the true effectiveness of said tactical teams.
I'm not really sure what you mean. I mean, in terms of entering a house which may contain armed aggressors, then officers with the right arms and armour, and (perhaps more importantly) training in co-ordinated entry is just plain more effective at keeping the situation under control and officers safe.
Maybe ending the ridiculous and ineffective war on drugs would help reduce officer, perp and civilian casualties.
That does seem like something of a win-win. It'd save a gak load of cash as well, which could be put to use reducing demand for drugs, rather than attacking supply.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Happens quite a lot it seems. Gives one decent reason to question the true effectiveness of said tactical teams.
I'm not really sure what you mean. I mean, in terms of entering a house which may contain armed aggressors, then officers with the right arms and armour, and (perhaps more importantly) training in co-ordinated entry is just plain more effective at keeping the situation under control and officers safe.
Maybe ending the ridiculous and ineffective war on drugs would help reduce officer, perp and civilian casualties.
That does seem like something of a win-win. It'd save a gak load of cash as well, which could be put to use reducing demand for drugs, rather than attacking supply.
I mean in the sense that said tactical teams end up murdering civilians and kicking the wrong door in quite often despite their "training". Seems like a no knock warrant gone bad gets an innocent killed at least a half dozen times a year. I personally can't see the militarization of the police force as a good thing no matter what.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Happens quite a lot it seems. Gives one decent reason to question the true effectiveness of said tactical teams.
I'm not really sure what you mean. I mean, in terms of entering a house which may contain armed aggressors, then officers with the right arms and armour, and (perhaps more importantly) training in co-ordinated entry is just plain more effective at keeping the situation under control and officers safe.
Maybe ending the ridiculous and ineffective war on drugs would help reduce officer, perp and civilian casualties.
That does seem like something of a win-win. It'd save a gak load of cash as well, which could be put to use reducing demand for drugs, rather than attacking supply.
I mean in the sense that said tactical teams end up murdering civilians and kicking the wrong door in quite often despite their "training". Seems like a no knock warrant gone bad gets an innocent killed at least a half dozen times a year. I personally can't see the militarization of the police force as a good thing no matter what.
Which only happens because they were given incorrect information. If they kicked down the correct door we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The problem isn't with the tactical team or how the operation was carried out. Its that they had the wrong location.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Happens quite a lot it seems. Gives one decent reason to question the true effectiveness of said tactical teams.
I'm not really sure what you mean. I mean, in terms of entering a house which may contain armed aggressors, then officers with the right arms and armour, and (perhaps more importantly) training in co-ordinated entry is just plain more effective at keeping the situation under control and officers safe.
Maybe ending the ridiculous and ineffective war on drugs would help reduce officer, perp and civilian casualties.
That does seem like something of a win-win. It'd save a gak load of cash as well, which could be put to use reducing demand for drugs, rather than attacking supply.
I mean in the sense that said tactical teams end up murdering civilians and kicking the wrong door in quite often despite their "training". Seems like a no knock warrant gone bad gets an innocent killed at least a half dozen times a year. I personally can't see the militarization of the police force as a good thing no matter what.
Which only happens because they were given incorrect information. If they kicked down the correct door we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The problem isn't with the tactical team or how the operation was carried out. Its that they had the wrong location.
And a knock on the wrong location wouldn't have resulted in the lawful shooting of a police officer and the unlawful shooting of a civilian. The no-knock warrant is just as much to blame as the wrong information.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I mean in the sense that said tactical teams end up murdering civilians and kicking the wrong door in quite often despite their "training". Seems like a no knock warrant gone bad gets an innocent killed at least a half dozen times a year. I personally can't see the militarization of the police force as a good thing no matter what.
You can't train people to the point of perfection. Requiring a standard that allows them, on entering a room, to see a man with a pistol aimed at them, and have them be able to establish in a fraction of a second that the person might be armed but isn't actively hostile because it's the wrong address is just not possible.
On the militarisation of police it's more of a mixed issue, I think. I certainly agree that amping up the gear and aggression with which police will enter homes will inevitably lead to avoidable deaths. But I think the militarisation of police needs to be looked at not as an independant thing to be judged as good or bad, but more as a result of other parts of society. As long as you have as many guns among society as you do, and you have criminal networks running drug operations, then you're going to have places policemen will find it dangerous to enter with standard kit (and they aren't always going to know which places those are). The inevitable response is cops in more gear, trained in entry tactics.
Reducing either the guns, or the number of drug gangs will make it possible to reduce the regularity of raids undertaken in SWAT gear. But ignoring the first two and just worrying about house raids with SWAT gear doesn't really work.
sebster I believe you can train police officers to the point of being able to read addresses, and most of these accidental shootings are from officer error, not bad tips.
at least they were vigilant. I cannot say the same for the cops around here. They sit around and give speeding tickets
