By Steven B. Epstein
Breathalyzer tests may get drunk drivers off the road—but can they stand up in court?
Read full entry »
By Alexa Capeloto
In our increasingly virtual world many, including NYPD officers, feel free to voice unedited opinions online. John Jay professor Alexa Capeloto looks at episode that provided uncensored glimpse of opinions that might shape how NYPD officers conduct the crucial job of patrolling New York City neighborhoods.
Read full entry »Read more of Mark's work at his blog D.A. Confidential.
This falls under the heading of "storm in a teacup" — or I hope it does.
On June 1 the New York Post reported that a bill has been proposed in the New York State Assembly requiring cops to shoot to stop, not shoot to kill, and police officers and their backers have said stuff like. . . . Well, they can say it better than me:
"It's moronic and would create two sets of rules in the streets if there is a gunfight. This legislation would require officers to literally shoot the gun out of someone's hand or shoot to wound them in the leg or arm. I don't know of any criminal who doesn't shoot to kill. They are not bound by any restrictions."
Here's a sample of the language from the bill, Section of Assembly Bill A02952:
“A police officer or peace officer . . . uses such force with the intent to stop, rather than kill . . . and uses only the minimal amount of force necessary to effect such stop.”
I can't seriously think that this will be made law. According to the story, even Joe Biden scoffed at it, calling it the "John Wayne Bill" because it "demands sharp-shooting skills of the kind only seen in movies."
What's interesting is that the legislation was proposed at all. It shows a remarkably poor understanding of the real-life situations cops face sometimes, as well as a disturbing lack of concern for the lives of the officers. Not to mention the bystanders shot when the cop aims for a perp's gun-hand and misses.
If there's a problem with cops shooting to kill too much (which I did not see reported in the story) then surely the solution is threefold: 1. Clear, simple policies and procedures for officers to follow in gun-fight situations; 2. Intensive training consistent with those policies and procedures, and 3. Accountability should an officer intentionally not follow them.
And may I suggest a week long ride-along for the well-intentioned folks who proposed the original legislation?
Read full entry »Read more of Mark’s work at his blog D.A. Confidential.
I read a story earlier this week about the Dallas police considering a new policy when it comes to DWI cases: blood tests in every case. Here's the story.
So I guess show it works is: you get pulled over and the cop suspects you have been drinking. He does the usual tests and if you fail, you are arrested. He then asks if you would consent to a blood test, and if you refuse he goes in search of a warrant to draw blood.
I sat and thought for a while before writing this, because I know that the forced taking of people's blood is a little draconian, even dracula-onian, to many. But I think I like the policy, and here's why:
-- it offers certainty. Experienced drunks can get through the SFSTs (Standardized Field Sobriety Tests) just well enough to raise reasonable doubt, and anyway juries often seem hesitant to base a conviction, certainly at the felony level, on these tests alone. But there's no fooling a blood test. And, remember, the man who has a bum leg and insists he's not drunk, that he just has no balance, runs no risk of a DWI conviction if he is, in fact, sober and is given a blood test.
-- it will be a deterrent. I have always thought that DWI is one of those crimes that can be deterred, mostly because it's a compound crime that requires both drinking and driving - and most people are more interested in the first half, so can possibly be persuaded against the second. And if you know that a flashing light in your rear view mirror means a certain conviction, then you will be more careful.
-- if I'm right that it's a deterrent, then it will save lives. Enough said.
Now, there's the case against, which I'll try to address:
-- it's a violation of civil rights. I agree that it seems invasive, at first blush. But we already do it and I don't see any successful legal challenges (and if it were truly a violation of the Constitution, you can bet they'd be flying). And unless someone consents the officer will need probable cause for a warrant, in other words before he can have blood drawn he'll need some other evidence that the person is intoxicated. So, it's not like we'll be randomly jabbing innocent people along the road side. Really this is just evidence collection, something we do in every criminal case. We take DNA, fingerprints, blood, hair samples, etc in all different types of cases. Why should DWI be excepted? (I am assuming here that the person drawing the blood is a properly trained individual, of course.)
-- it's expensive. At first, maybe. According to the Dallas Morning News it'll cost at least an additional $360,000 a year. But I think those costs will be offset. First, the story mentions that there will be fewer trials which means less overtime for testifying cops. It also means less time (and therefore money) lost by judges, court admin, prosecutors, jurors etc when one of these cases go to trial. And, in my experience, these cases get tried more than any other (two of my five last years were DWIs). This would free up the court system to try other cases, speed dockets along, and provide more sure justice to those accused of DWI.
What do you think? Did I miss anything?
Read full entry »Philosophical Cop is a serving police officer in an urban city. Read his blog here.
When I read about a career like Officer Justin Barrett’s ending the way it did, it always makes me angry. And not for the reasons you might imagine. These cases of racial “running the mouth” make me want to punch someone – usually the officer involved. His comment makes it harder for me to get a fair trial with internal affairs.
Follow my reasoning on this:
So Officer Barrett has ruined his own career by making racist comments by email (maybe he is a racist, maybe he is terminally stupid – either way he shouldn’t be a cop). Moreover, he has potentially ruined more careers by forcing one more small fracture in the due process wall that protects all of our nation’s cops. Thanks a lot.
Philosophical Cop is a serving police officer in an urban city. Read his blog here.
The US Justice Department recently accused New Jersey of using a discriminatory civil service test. The test in question is multiple choice, covering laws and regulations and other dry, memorization – based trivia. Candidates just fill in the bubbles.
Now, I could forcefully argue that this is not the best way to evaluate cops (I find them mind-numbing and useless), but to say it is racist is a cheap side step of the true issue at play here. More on that true issue later.
The Department of Justice complaint identifies two primary problems with the test:
What is really going on here? It is much worse and in fact more insidiously racist than a 4-hour test. Follow my logic here…
Here is the timeline as I see it:
The civil servant candidates decide they want to become police officers. Then they go take a test. Go figure, the folks who got better primary, secondary, and college educations do a better job on these silly memorization exercises. It says something racist, but not about the test, and not about the Police Departments.
Now, the more meaningful search into school disparities would force the federal government to admit our failing schools are having a disparate impact on minorities. That would be the ultimate confession and is politically untenable for any administration.
But suing the police for being racist? That is just too easy…
Read philosophical cop's blog here.
The blogger is a serving police officer in a large urban city, and has requested anonymity in order to preserve his ability to comment freely on law enforcement issues. The views of our independent bloggers do not reflect the editorial opinions or policy preferences of The Crime Report. Blogs are only edited for taste, accuracy and grammar, in keeping with our role as a non-partisan platform for a broad range of perspectives on the criminal justice system.
Read full entry »I noticed with pride that over 20,000 peace officers from all over the world attended the recent police officer funerals in the Tacoma, Washington area. It reminded me of one of my four steadfast guidelines for law enforcement professionals. Number 3: “Attend all law enforcement funerals when practical.”
I assure you I am not this macabre in general, and I don’t even like funerals much at all. But there is a bigger mission here. I attend these funerals for two very specific and calculated reasons. First, I want the officers’ families, and the public, to see that their death means something to all of us cops. Not just something – it means morethan other deaths. Second, I want to help make the funeral a bigger story.
Given the focus of the Crime Report, I thought I would discuss my second rationale. If it sounds like a superiority complex or some sort of gallows ego, so be it. I believe that the news needs to show thousands of cops mourning together. I believe that the motorcade should be so long that it snarls rush hour traffic and closes thruways all over the state. I believe the service should be as large and inconvenient for the general public as possible.
Because that makes it news.
Here is my bigger philosophical point: Much like the death of a soldier or Marine, the local paper generally gets intimately involved in an officer dying in the line of duty. But only one county away the death is usually a page-two short.
The media outlets are not alone, however. Good folks everywhere hear about a cop dying and say, “what a shame…” as they move swiftly from Starbucks to Target and back home for dinner. Most cannot even tell you the name of the fallen officer. Worse yet are our elected leaders. Again, if it was their police officer they might come to the funeral (wearing the obligatory American flag pin). But ask them the name of that officer two weeks later and see what they say. I know I sound cynical, but elected leaders should really be as involved in these events as the law enforcement folks they manage.
So out of respect for their loved ones and friends – and yes, to make the funeral a bigger story – I implore all of us to attend all the law enforcement funerals we can.
Read more Philosophical Cop at his blog.
Read full entry »The Crime Report welcomes our newest blogger: Philosophical Cop . As an officer in one of America’s largest cities for over a decade, he has spent time in various police assignments, from patrol to the fight against terrorism. For the purposes of this blog, TheCrimeReport has allowed this cop to remain anonymous, so readers can get a true and honest view of policing. This blog will appear ever other Monday.
It’s moving day!
I truly enjoy the thrill of a new place, and I am pleased and honored to be contributing to the Crime Report. Before we start our law enforcement conversation, though, I think it is appropriate that I introduce myself and orient you to my mission.
I am a cop. At my core that is what I am, what I do, and how I feel. As we converse in this space, I bring an irrefutable bias to the table. Try as I might to temper this lens to a degree, I will not apologize for it or attempt to eliminate it completely. In fact, it is my police perspective, and the fact that very few are willing to consider our view, that keep me inspired to write.
Fifteen years into my career, I also fancy myself an amateur philosopher. Not in the academic sense, although that stuff is interesting too, but more in the “real life” sort of way. I realized early on that my uniform was a front row seat to the human condition and an all-access pass to the raw human animal. I have spent most of my career patrolling the varied neighborhoods of a large city. In the slums and in paradise, I have served welfare recipients and millionaires, responding to their 9-1-1 calls, and investigating their murders. Mostly, I have watched and learned.
If this all sounds like I am going to tell tales of violence and victimization, you will be sorely disappointed. To be sure I have tragedies to spare. And there are tenfold more tales of compassion, charity, and caring – each of them equally unfiltered and pure. Many excellent sites tell, “cop stories,” and I do not endeavor to compete. I am here to talk to you about a philosophical cop’s view of police work and people.
My mission is delightfully simple, yet seems to be a grail unattainable; I want to have an honest, open, fair conversation about police work. That is it. Nothing more!
I hope you will join me in this pursuit of equilibrium between the uneducated anti-police noise on the one hand, and the blind allegiance to the uniform on the other. Both are useless to our quest, and equally harmful to the rule of law. Most of all, I plead with you to read with an open mind, participate in the conversation, and always let me know what you are thinking.
Read more from Philosophical Cop at his blog.
Read full entry »President Obama called the arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates in his own home a “teachable moment,” but what does it teach us about news media coverage? For one thing, it was the media that uncovered the story and gave it wide play. The Harvard Crimson, the university’s student newspaper, provided the first report on the case four days after it occurred, and it was Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet who asked Obama about it at the end of a prime-time news conference. Obama's response that the Cambridge police department had acted "stupidly" kept the story going for days.
One poster on this Web site complained that the media were too quick to accept the police report as the definitive word on the case. That often is the case in initial media reports of any crime, when the police report is all that is available. The Crimson tried to talk to Gates, but he was unavailable. The Crimson quoted colleague Charles Ogletree in his defense.
In any case, there seems little dispute about the essential facts of the dispute. There was some misreporting about some of the details. For example, because the police report noted that Gates and his driver were black, some reporters and commentators jumped to the wrong conclusion that the person who had reported the possible break-in had identified the men breaking in the door as black. Only on July 27, a week after the original media report, was it clear that she did not use racial identifiers.
Given the initial inaccessibility to the media of the key players in the case, Gates and arresting officer James Crowley, media reports seem have been largely accurate to date about what happened in Cambridge.
Coverage of broader issues of police and race is another matter. Some of the major media, including the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and New York Times, as well as national tv networks, have explored in some detail the fear and misunderstandings involving race that come up daily in police interaction with citizens.
The coverage has all pointed out in one way or another that the type of encounter that involved Gates and Crowley--a homeowner suspected of burglary--occurs frequently, with different results depending on the facts, personalities of those involved, and local customs.
So far, however, most of the media have not chosen to use the case as a “teachable moment” when it comes to racial profiling in general.
Some jurisdictions whose police have been under fire for biased policing, such as New Jersey and North Carolina, have taken strong steps against the practice. The national picture is murky, partly because of a lack of definitive research, as was noted in an article in the journal Criminology & Public Policy quoted on this site on July 24.
It may turn out that the Gates-Crowley affair had little or nothing to do with racial profiling, although that was Gates' initial charge. Still, now that heavy media coverage has led to scheduling of a White House session with Gates and Crowley, it would be appropriate for more journalists to take a close look at racial issues involving the police in their areas. This should not be just a one-day feature story quoting a few anecdotes, but a search also for any statistical material that would illuminate whether law enforcement, and the justice system as a whole, treat minorities fairly.
The debate will go on indefinitely over who overreacted more in Cambridge, Gates or Crowley. Both men apparently were traumatized by the incident itself and the intense media coverage. More significant are the unknown number of other racial episodes that occur around the nation. Journalists can perform a civic function by telling the public about how their law enforcement officers are trained and how they actually peform in situations when race is an issue or is perceived to be one.
Read full entry »It might be a good time to think about Tasers and the agencies you cover. New
studies will fuel the debate over the widely-used “conducted electrical
weapons.” If the agencies you cover aren’t using them, you might want to ask around to see
if either the rank-or-file or the commanders want to change that.
Most of what the public knows about Tasers is, to say the least, anecdotal.
“Don’t tase me, bro!” might be the catchphrase to sum up a host of viral
videos in which the “conducted electrical weapon” is the star.
Far less exciting is the scientific work going on to find out what happens
when Tasers are used over and over in the workaday world of law enforcement.
In recent weeks, two medical journals have published articles on Tasers. And
Amnesty International issued a thick report of its own.
Journal articles usually aren’t available free online, but authors often will
share them and some journal publishers will email an article to a working
journalist.
You can immediately read an Orlando Sentinel story on a medical study of
1,201 Taser cases in six agencies at
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-taser1509jan15,0,5189520.story]
The authors of the Annals of Emergency Medicine article attributed
only three serious injuries to Tasers, although they excluded the deaths of
two suspects who did not suffer immediate effects but collapsed later. The
authors say there is no evidence that an electrical shock could cause such
delayed effects. They attributed no heart problems to Tasers but called for
more study.
An Amnesty International report issued in December:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/tasers-potentially-lethal-and-easy-abuse-20081216
reflects the doubts of Taser critics about those cases in which suspects died
minutes or hours after being stunned. The organization lists 334 deaths
after Taser use from 2001 to August 2008.
And, most recently, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on a 50-agency study
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/24/BARC15G532.DTL
finding in-custody deaths jumped sharply in the first year Tasers were used.
The deaths returned to normal levels subsequently, according to the article
in the American Journal of Cardiology. The Chronicle quotes a researcher as
speculating that inexperienced officers may be administering repeated shocks.
I cover an agency that shelved Tasers in 2005 but now is seeking
to buy more than 1,000 to put one in the hands of every field officer and
sergeant. When I post a story on Tasers, the comments from readers make it
clear that the biggest question about Tasers is how they really are used.
Does the weapon help subdue a suspect who might otherwise be shot and killed?
Or is it wielded indiscriminately to intimidate rowdy – but not dangerous –
civilians?
Examples of the latter are of course available on YouTube. The classic case
of the former is when multiple officers are confronted by someone with a
knife. You might want to find out how often that scenario has played out
locally – and what happened.
