The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters

[Guest Boomhower]

What are you guys talking about. We all know that there is no "quota" to be meet.

[Marswolf]

A friend who used to be on the Johnson City force told me about the quotas there. I think it was 4 moving and 4 non-moving tickets per shift. So the first part of your shift, you would go watch your favorite stop sign that no one stopped for. Those counted as your non-moving ones. Or you could find four people parked illegally. You then had the rest of your shift to pick your moving victims - errr, I mean speeding criminals.

When I lived in Raleigh, they were a bit less blatant about it. On the State Patrol force, the new guys had it explained to them by the veterans. You would go in for a review once a month. Your supervisor would write down a number on his desk pad and keep circling it. Nothing was ever said about it. But when you came in the next month, it would not be good if you hadn't issued at least that many tickets.

[DaveTN]

Most all Police Departments have quotas and very few of them have to do with revenue generation. (Although writing 3 MPH unless it is the PC ticket for a DUI or a criminal arrest tells me that is probably what it is.)

<O:p</O:p

My department called them “acceptable standards”. They were 100 tickets a month for a Traffic car and 10 tickets a month for a district patrol car. That’s five tickets per shift for a traffic car and a ticket every two shifts for a district car. If an Officer couldn’t meet that he wasn’t doing anything.

<O:p</O:p

I think that a Chief or Sheriff saying that his department doesn’t have quotas is bad. If a cop doesn’t write any tickets he is going to be called in and ask about what he does for 8 hours.

<O:p</O:p

This is why I said earlier that you don’t want an Officers discretion taken away. In district patrol I would stop several cars per night. I almost always had a traffic violation for PC for the stop, but would generally not write a ticket unless I was arresting someone. If required I could have ticketed everyone I stopped… but that would not have been good for anyone.

<O:p</O:p

“Revenue Generation” is usually the out cry and rarely the truth. (although it does happen)

But is revenue generation really a bad thing? Our industries are leaving, and our economy is failing. The more jobs we lose and the lower wages go… the more cops we need.

Neither of the two parties are going to reduce the size of government; it just keeps getting bigger. So as a homeowner my property taxes will increase as the economy decreases.

I’m more than willing to shift that burden to traffic offenders. If you can’t drive right and don’t know how to stay out of the way of cops….. pay up.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

My used to be lawyer is now a circuit court judge. I was to meet him at a local golf course, and he was running late. He was doing 48 in a 45 and the good old Dover police pulled him over. Yup he got a ticket and he was livid. Just before we teed off I asked him why he was so pissed, Had it been me or anyone else we would have got the same ticket. He responded that he was a judge that there is professional courtesy. I smiled and said sorry you are flat wrong. Happy ending I won 75.00 from him. Dover takes no prisoners, everyone gets a ticket. Hate driving through town but at least they are fair.

but the question is would this same cop give a ticket to one of his fellow cops on his forces for speeding

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

Remember that in many (most?) departments officers have their quota of traffic tickets they are expected to issue on their shift. It's more revenue enhancement than making the streets safe.

this is so true. i have a friend that use to work for the Dayton police dept. he said that they do have a quota. they have to wright so many ticket a month. he said they lay back the first two weeks of the month and hit it hard at the end of the month to make their quota

[Guest darkstar]

Most all Police Departments have quotas and very few of them have to do with revenue generation. (Although writing 3 MPH unless it is the PC ticket for a DUI or a criminal arrest tells me that is probably what it is.)

<O:p</O:p

My department called them “acceptable standardsâ€. They were 100 tickets a month for a Traffic car and 10 tickets a month for a district patrol car. That’s five tickets per shift for a traffic car and a ticket every two shifts for a district car. If an Officer couldn’t meet that he wasn’t doing anything.

<O:p</O:p

I think that a Chief or Sheriff saying that his department doesn’t have quotas is bad. If a cop doesn’t write any tickets he is going to be called in and ask about what he does for 8 hours.

<O:p</O:p

This is why I said earlier that you don’t want an Officers discretion taken away. In district patrol I would stop several cars per night. I almost always had a traffic violation for PC for the stop, but would generally not write a ticket unless I was arresting someone. If required I could have ticketed everyone I stopped… but that would not have been good for anyone.

<O:p</O:p

“Revenue Generation†is usually the out cry and rarely the truth. (although it does happen)

But is revenue generation really a bad thing? Our industries are leaving, and our economy is failing. The more jobs we lose and the lower wages go… the more cops we need.

Neither of the two parties are going to reduce the size of government; it just keeps getting bigger. So as a homeowner my property taxes will increase as the economy decreases.

I’m more than willing to shift that burden to traffic offenders. If you can’t drive right and don’t know how to stay out of the way of cops….. pay up.

"But is revenue generation really a bad thing?"

Ummmm....yeah. I guess I'm kind of dumb I thought the duty of law enforcement was to enforce laws, you want to generate revenue become an assessor or tax collector. Hey some idiot going speeding through a clearly marked zone, fine give 'em a ticket....but to use the police as a means to generate revenue for a community...well then every cop wonders why people don't like dealing with them hmmmmmmm, wonder why. You guys want to generate revenue hold a bake sale. Personally I would rather have cops prowling around looking for crime. Like I said if some idiot is speeding, fine but to have a concentrated effort to issue a certain amount of tickets and have speed traps, specifically to generate revenue does nothing but increase rancor towards the police. I know, I know traffic stops catch a lot of people with warrants etc, etc, Serpas spouts that crap all the time here in Nashville. It may very well be true but we are talking about perception here and I'd bet a good percentage of people don't consider that when they consider "revenue generating" activities. Revenue generation is not what cops are supposed to be responsible for.

[The Rabbi]

You guys want to generate revenue hold a bake sale

Line of the week.

[DaveTN]

Personally I would rather have cops prowling around looking for crime.

Take a look at your community. If your chances of being killed or injured by a “criminal†are greater than being killed or injured by a traffic offender; that is where your Police Department should be directing its manpower.

you want to generate revenue become an assessor or tax collector.

You guys want to generate revenue hold a bake sale.

They don’t need to hold a bake sale; they don’t even need to write tickets for revenue generation. The costs are paid by home owner’s property taxes and sales taxes. Historically business and industry has paid a huge share of these taxes through their own taxes and the high wages they were paying. Well things are changing. Industry is being given a pass on taxes to either stay in the state or to move into the state, and wages are dropping (in comparison to the cost of living). As jobs and wages decrease; crime increases....Someone has to pay the bills.

well then every cop wonders why people don't like dealing with them hmmmmmmm, wonder why.

I don’t know any cops that are confused as to why some people don’t want to deal with them. People that don’t like dealing with cops have a reason. You would have to ask each person what that reason is. As a former cop I don’t want to call the cops for anything.

A big part of some people’s problem is that they don’t understand the law or the Constitution. They want to have a trial on the street to determine if the stop or a search was lawful. It doesn’t work that way and hopefully never will. Our founding fathers intent was to protect innocent people, not criminals. That is why they used words like “unreasonableâ€. We have a system in place to deal with those questions and problems as they come up.

Ummmm....yeah. I guess I'm kind of dumb I thought the duty of law enforcement was to enforce laws

I know, I know traffic stops catch a lot of people with warrants etc, etc, Serpas spouts that crap all the time here in Nashville. It may very well be true but we are talking about perception here and I'd bet a good percentage of people don't consider that when they consider "revenue generating" activities.

Most people’s perception would not change if cops stopped writing tickets. If Serpas (or any top cop) was to put any kind restriction on his Officers that are legally and legitimately stopping cars he would be derelict in his duties and crime would rise.

<O:p</O:p

Unfortunately cops are generally reactive not proactive. Vehicles are usually the biggest identifier in crimes and they are what is used to transport the drugs; that is where you will find the criminals.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

A big part of some people’s problem is that they don’t understand the law or the Constitution. They want to have a trial on the street to determine if the stop or a search was lawful. It doesn’t work that way and hopefully never will. Our founding fathers intent was to protect innocent people, not criminals. That is why they used words like “unreasonable”. We have a system in place to deal with those questions and problems as they come up.

There are equally as many cops who have a terrible understanding of the law. They, however, are afforded qualified immunity, so they get to make mistakes without facing serious sanction. Cops are often allowed to use ignorance of the law as an excuse. Private citizens aren't afforded this luxury. I don't get to say "oops," shrug my shoulders, and turn my palms to the sky. Cops often do.

I agree that it's not appropriate to hold court on the side of the road. I disagree, however, that it's the best system. How much does it cost to defend yourself? How long does it take to restore your reputation against a charge that was unfounded or outright wrong? Will the state or it's agents actually receive any real punishment for their mistake that affected you? Perhaps if it weren't so easy to be wrong, more police would ensure that they were right before taking action.

Our founding fathers' intent was to protect ALL people from unreasonable action on the part of the state. It becomes necessary, then, to allow some criminals to go free. Never did any of the people who designed this nation ever intend for our government to get every criminal, every time. Their only intent was to ensure that not one single law-abiding citizen would ever be subject to unreasonable action on the part of the state--even if it meant that the proverbial thousand guilty men go free. The FF's wanted the state to fear the people, not the other way around.

Dave, I appreciate your responses to this thread. While I disagree with you, I'm not trying to be a jerk to you.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Abominable_Hillbilly

[DaveTN]

There are equally as many cops who have a terrible understanding of the law. They, however, are afforded qualified immunity, so they get to make mistakes without facing serious sanction. Cops are often allowed to use ignorance of the law as an excuse. Private citizens aren't afforded this luxury. I don't get to say "oops," shrug my shoulders, and turn my palms to the sky. Cops often do.

I agree that cops make mistakes, but I don’t agree that it is necessarily ignorance of the law. (Although sometimes it surely is, especially with new cops.)

Cops are not college graduates that have went on to law school and passed the bar. That certainly could become a requirement but I don’t think you would have many people applying with what cops make.

I agree that it's not appropriate to hold court on the side of the road. I disagree, however, that it's the best system.

I have never said it is the best system that it could be. I have always said that we have a legal system not a justice system.

How much does it cost to defend yourself? How long does it take to restore your reputation against a charge that was unfounded or outright wrong? Will the state or it's agents actually receive any real punishment for their mistake that affected you? Perhaps if it weren't so easy to be wrong, more police would ensure that they were right before taking action.

You are correct. I have tried to give advice that might keep some people from incurring legal costs that could be financially devastating to them. But hey… this is an internet forum and statements like “Always refuse a request to search†“always invoke your 5<SUP>th</SUP> amendment rights†“the cops have to have a warrant to search your car.†or “Never submit to a BAC test.†will be met with applause. Those statements show as much ignorance about the law and the Constitution as someone that would say “Always agree to a request to search†“Never invoke your 5<SUP>th</SUP> amendment rights†“the cops never need a warrant to search your car.†or “Never submit to a BAC testâ€

I have tried to explain to my kids and family how to know what decisions to make when faced with those decisions. But like everything else in life it depends on the circumstances. If you are going to teach your kids how to “Survive a traffic stop†don’t you think they deserve to have the best information available to them? Factual information based on the law; not emotions, not what someone thinks the law should be and certainly not based on a parents hatred for cops. It’s not fair to them; a conviction for a minor drug charge, DUI, or even domestic violence could destroy their career plans.

Our founding fathers' intent was to protect ALL people from unreasonable action on the part of the state. It becomes necessary, then, to allow some criminals to go free. Never did any of the people who designed this nation ever intend for our government to get every criminal, every time. Their only intent was to ensure that not one single law-abiding citizen would ever be subject to unreasonable action on the part of the state--even if it meant that the proverbial thousand guilty men go free. The FF's wanted the state to fear the people, not the other way around.

I believe that our founding fathers meant to protect the innocent people from unreasonable intrusions by the government; not to tie the hands of the police or keep them from putting criminals in jail. That is why they use the term “unreasonableâ€.

Unfortunately not all of us agree what is unreasonable and what is not; so the courts decide. The fact that a Judge rules a search inadmissible does not necessarily mean that the cop did anything wrong; and he should not be punished for it unless there was evidence it did it intentionally. I have never met anyone that has never made a mistake on their job; cops included.

Dave, I appreciate your responses to this thread. While I disagree with you, I'm not trying to be a jerk to you.

I enjoy discussing criminal law and the Constitution as it applies to us. I can offer a view from someone that has stopped countless cars, conducted many searches (all of them legal and most without a warrant) arrested many people and let many go, and impacted the lives of people both for the good and bad. My opinions will not be popular with many but my target is the young. They don’t get a fair shake because they don’t have any experience and their parents are sometimes not much help. If I can make them understand that there are no pat answers and they need to be armed with information and not hate; I have accomplished something.

<O:p</O:p

I don’t see anyone that can make an intelligent argument or add something of value to the discussion as a jerk.

[Fallguy]

Great post Abominable_Hillbilly!!