A proper traffic stop

[BehindBlueI's]

Telling Jane that her headlight is out then demanding her license, registration and proof of insurance without nary another word is just you being an asshole because you're the authority figure.

You're not making a good case you aren't ego driven. No, it's not being an asshole. If you haven't read Verbal Judo, I recommend it.

Im also super curious as to how you've already made up your mind as to whether or not you are going to warn or cite prior to ever getting out of the car. You havent even identified the driver so driving history isnt even part of your decision making process. That just seems like short sighted, biased policing right there. "GUILTY, HE RAN THAT STOP SIGN!"

Pfft.

Easy. When I set up in a work zone with workers present, if you were 13+ over you got a ticket barring something like a bonfide medical emergency, and then you got an ambulance. 9-12, warning. 8 or under, didn't stop you for speed. I know when I stopped you what the risk you presented to other people was and that risk was what I based my use of discretion on. Nothing in your demeanor, driving history, etc. alters that.

[Magsz]

You're not making a good case you aren't ego driven. No, it's not being an asshole. If you haven't read Verbal Judo, I recommend it.



Easy. When I set up in a work zone with workers present, if you were 13+ over you got a ticket barring something like a bonfide medical emergency, and then you got an ambulance. 9-12, warning. 8 or under, didn't stop you for speed. I know when I stopped you what the risk you presented to other people was and that risk was what I based my use of discretion on. Nothing in your demeanor, driving history, etc. alters that.

Educate me. Please explain to me how I am making ego based decisions when I am clearly assessing multiple criteria and issuing based off of that. I don't react, I respond, there's a defined difference. Additionally, on a traffic stop, I am not reacting or responding to anything unless the situation becomes criminal. I much prefer to conduct myself in a fair, professional and impartial manner. I get paid just the same whether I issue a warning or a citation so the difference to me is null. I go out of my way to make a fair and impartial impact on everyone that I interact with as I remember what it felt like to be on the receiving end of less than fair and impartial policing.

Ill pick up the book.

[Trooper224]

What does that have to do with ego? As I said earlier, its not the sole determining factor, but it is one of the elements I use on a discretionary basis to issue a citation. I also take issue with you essentially saying I determine who does or does not receive a citation by their feelings and words. That is ridiculous and absolutely not the case. I enjoy human interaction and regardless of what anyone says, we are all biased, even though we shouldn't be. I believe, erroneously or not that people should be responsible when they are driving, which is why we have traffic laws like secondary offenses, ie while texting with a cell phone etc. If im not educating and merely penalizing, then im going against my own personal ethos when it comes to law enforcement. It doesn't cost me anything to asses an individual (along with the other criteria mentioned) and then cite or warn accordingly. If we weren't allowed to do this, we wouldn't be allowed to exercise discretion with misdemeanors. I'm all ears to hear about your definitions of discretion as ive already pretty plainly laid out my own.

I too have never received a complaint in regard to one of my traffic stops and I tend to do quite a few every night despite exceptionally high call volume and violent crime. I also perform my traffic stops expeditiously so as to not extend the stop beyond a reasonable time frame. My approach has never taken any significant amount of time versus telling someone what they did.

I also do my absolute best to make a traffic stop which is NOT a pleasurable experience as painless as possible. It will always be an inconvenience and can be very scary to some people for a multitude of reasons. I would much prefer that soccer mom not be scared out of her mind when I stop her to tell her that her headight is out on a particularly dark road. Telling Jane that her headlight is out then demanding her license, registration and proof of insurance without nary another word is just you being an asshole because you're the authority figure. That's absolutely absurd and totally not required. I treat EVERYONE the same, across the board and im not going to be any "nicer" nor change my professional approach to the woman that I am pulling over to tell her about an equipment violation versus the dude that just ran a stop sign at 50 miles per hour in a 35.

It has nothing to do with ego, none at all, just my attempt at engaging an individual to better assess them and whether or not I think a hit to the pocket is going to do more educational good or a simple talk about driving safely.

Im also super curious as to how you've already made up your mind as to whether or not you are going to warn or cite prior to ever getting out of the car. You havent even identified the driver so driving history isnt even part of your decision making process. That just seems like short sighted, biased policing right there. "GUILTY, HE RAN THAT STOP SIGN!"

Pfft.

Whether or not you issue a ticket should be based upon the violation, not the subjects attitude or their history. If someone's having a bad day that shouldn't pertain to whether or not you cite them, because it isn't personal. Their past history shouldn't enter into it because life isn't run on a points system. The judgement should be made based upon the severity of the violation and the totality of the circumstances, not how Officer Nancy Boy feels about the experience.


You seemed to have jumped to the conclusion that I do nothing but write tickets, or I issue one on every stop I make no matter what. I would firmly suggest you pull your head out of your ass on that assumption brother. My standards on such things are, in fact, quite reasonable. So if you get a ticket from me you've damned well earned it. In years past I had an ongoing conflict with a lieutenant because he felt I didn't right enough tickets. I'll tell you what I told him: "Go fuck yourself." The number of complaints on officer does or doesn't receive aren't necessarily an indicator of how well they're doing their job. Lack of complaints could mean you never cite or arrest anyone for anything, so no one's unhappy. it could mean you patrol on a unicorn and issue rainbows, or it could simply mean you're a coward who's afraid to fight crime. I'm not saying you're any of those things, but that's not a singular barometer by which to measure police work.


My point is this: If you stop a vehicle based upon a minor traffic violation and you've decided you're probably going to issue a warning, don't change your mind because the drivers a douche. In my agency we call that an "attitude stop" and we have written policy against it. That's where the ego comes into play and that's something we should all leave at home when we go to work. You're supposed to be a professional who doesn't sink to that level. Likewise, being a professional doesn't mean giving credence and validity to every story and excuse you hear. You are there to enforce the law after all, not be a patsy. I never stated that tickets should always be written no matter what, or that an officer should be an enforcing robot. In fact, a check of past comments I've made on the subject should make that clear. The fact that you've interpreted my comments in that fashion says more about you than it does about me. Simply put, one shouldn't let themselves be dragged into an emotional byplay with a violator. I'll second the recommendation that you read Verbal Judo, because you're absolutely failing to pick up what I'm putting down. I suspect this is based entirely upon the ego lens you're viewing this conversation through. Being in command and having authority doesn't automatically equate to being a dick. If that's the only way you can see that, than I'd say you have a lot of growing to do both as a cop and a human being.


Bias based policing? That's offensive beyond words.

[Magsz]

lol!

Nice, very professional. All of that emotion stirred up over a post on the internet, let me take a turn and assume. You must be a real DOLL on the job... Thumbs up to you brother.

Lots of accusations, lots of assumptions, lots of generalizations. You apparently know me to a T! I'm definitely rolling my eyes behind the keyboard here. Most of the line items that you just responded to weren't even brought up by me, merely responded to.

I never, ever said that I change my mind. I'm merely stating that I don't agree with the institutional rhetoric of knowing whether or not you're going to issue a citation or warning prior to the vehicle stopping. There are always extenuating circumstances that can and sometimes, key word sometimes effect my decision which going back to my original statement is why I ask the question upon the initial encounter

The supreme court itself has said that we, police are humans as well. We aren't machines, we have thoughts, feelings and emotions regardless of what kind of bullshit institutional garbage the community likes to spew. Do we have to tamp much of that down 99% of the time? Absolutely as an emotional response is definitively not a solid basis for sound decision making.

You guy's do know that all of this heartache is over a stupid discussion about differing techniques on a traffic stop...right?

Also, regarding the statement about complaints. I can spew the institutional rhetoric bullshit about how if you're not getting complaints you're not doing your job. Does anyone really believe that or is that a relic of an age gone by? I know a ton of fantastic Deputies that make pretty awesome arrests, build amazing cases and do some seriously solid work that have never received a complaint. Complaints are arbitrary and usually have absolutely nothing to do with the conduct of the Deputy or Officer. I attribute them to bad luck. :P Lastly, I merely offered up that I have never received a complaint utilizing my technique as a counter point to the other fella who uses a different method. Just a data point, that's all.

[Magsz]

Trooper,

Why did you feel the need to take the "go fuck yourself" out of your post? The tone of your edit was a lot more educational than the original verbiage you used. I appreciate your thoughts in the second iteration of the post but if you really felt that way you probably should have left the original statements there...

Also, I never said that I issue citations if the driver is a "douche". I just wanted to clarify that point as most of you seem to think that is what I'm doing when that is pretty much the furthest thing from the truth.

[UNM1136]

I am also of the camp that I need to decide on whether I am writing a ticket or a warning before driver contact, so their demeanor does not sway my decision. I was also taught that this was an ego issue. I was trained in Verbal Judo from the Academy, so that is where I have been with it for now 20 years and two weeks. Seems to really short circuit problems on stops, because in the first thirty seconds of contact you have dealt with a large percentage of what people complain about, and given them a chance to explain any justifications they have for the violation. You have told them who you are, what agency you are with, two things may want to know, you have told them why they were stopped, what you require of them, and asked for their side of the story. It is not the only way to run a traffic stop, but I have known nothing else, and have had great success with it.

A co-worker of mine, who seemed definately smarter than me, but was my lateral trainee for OJT, had a more...in depth process of decision making on a stop. If I am reading Magsz correctly, he seemed to have a similar approach when explaining how he made a citing decision on a traffic stop. It worked for him, I am not aware of a complaint that he had generated during traffic stops for his approach. His traffic stop demeanor did not scream ego driven, but almost everything else he did with his co-workers sure did. People at first blush thought him kind, and funny, and smart, and personable. Once they got to know him they learned that he was in fact Ego on a stick, and everything he did on the job stemmed from that. I don't now Magsz from 1Adam12. If his approach works for him, Cool. I agree with Magsz there is more than one way to conduct a traffic stop, and typing on the interwebs is not the best way to analyze specific tactics and techniques to try to determine how or why someone does something. I just prefer the Verbal Judo approach, and coming from that direction I can at least partially agree with Trooper and BBI.

When I was released from OJT and reported to shift on my own, I made a seatbelt stop within 15 minutes of leaving briefing, just to enjoy being on my own without an FTO. You know, sitting on my asshole instead of next to it....The air was dead silent while I made my stop, then immediately after I cleared the other six newbies on patrol started looking for their own thing to start their own careers.

Back to topic, in today's world of entitled children, and mouthy people, and whatnot my agency issued us voice recorders, and promptly handed out an administrative order that any complaints without the officer providing a contradictory audio recording would be determined to be "founded". Now granted, it is rather difficult to shoe horn everything into such a blanket statement, and that a real investigation could determine the officer in the right vs. just demanding an officer clear themselves with the audio. But this agency has always decided that heavy handed discipline would stem liability...since they washed their hands of it by disciplining the officer that they were off the hook. We all know better than that, but that was the way this place ran.

Example 1: I was assisting the other officer at an event where he decided to arrest a loud, intoxicated female. When he decided to arrest her she tried to pull away, so I got one arm, and held her still as he took her purse off her shoulder, set it on the ground, and handcuffed her. He did the initial search and bent over to pick up her purse, and I moved her to the driver's side of his car (I know, the wrong side for transport, but I didn't know if she was getting booked or cited and released), and sat her down in the back set. I did not seatbelt his prisoner in the backseat of his car. She worked for a local attorney (I seem to recall she was a secretary, and that it may have been the local US Attorney) and immediately filed a complaint. Fearing a lawsuit, the agency investigated, and had a founded complaint in me for not seatbelting his prisoner in his car. He also got paper for driving off without her being seat belted.

Relevant Example 1: a co-worker (now my Sergeant) had one of my trainees for the final cycle of OJT. The went to an alarm call and bumped into the a very well connected political figure, who is at the top of the chain of command, but a politician, not a police officer. They were polite, professional, and safe. They had a brief firearm enhanced conversation that was quickly sorted out and resulted in laughs all around, and the local politician decided to call the department and complement these two very capable, dedicated, professional officers. The Admin Lt. took the call, from a man about four levels above his pay grade, and assured the politician that the officers would hear of his kind words. The Admin LT. called the officers in, told them of the compliment, and then asked them for their belt tapes (used real tapes back then), and when neither officer had audio evidence to support the compliment they were to receive they caught discipline for not running tape on a public contact.

Response to agency's heavy handed discipline: I record all public contacts, and when my recorder is not working I notify Dispatch to annotate that in the CAD for the contact. I also rarely give verbal warnings any more, because of complaints of harassment and lack of professionalism. If my area is jumping with calls for service, and I stop someone for driving HUA, and I seem to think they can immediately correct the HUA part of it, I will give a verbal warning. If we are slow, and I have the time I give written warnings. I still give a dozen or so warnings for each ticket I issue. I don't know why I convinced myself that writing a warning cuts down on harassment accusations, since writing a warning on someone you have stopped is almost as easy as not writing one, but I have seen serial violators try to get out of tickets by complaining about officers harassing them, but a pattern of several officers issuing warnings or tickets and having some audio to back it up really put that into perspective. I also now have thousands of traffic stops recorded that show a very definite pattern of how I conduct myself on stops. By sticking to the script a supervisor can generally tell how full of crap someone is by what they are claiming I told them on their traffic stop.

pat

[fixer]

I never ask them why they think I stopped them. I stop them; tell them my name and agency; tell them why they were stopped and ask a reason for the violation; get their license and registration; issue a citation; give them their property back; describe the ticket and how it can be paid. I then ask if they have any questions. If they do I answer them the best I can. I then tell them to drive safe and walk back to my car. If I issue a warning I almost never go back to my car. I warn them on the initial approach and let it go but I rarely give warnings. As far as a fishing expedition, when I ask the reason for their violation, say speeding, they either admit that they were speeding or they didn't see the sign...which means they were distracted.

You could watch the last 5 or 6 years of my traffic stops (I've only had a camera for 5 or 6 years) and they would be cookie cutter examples of what I just described. The only differences would be traffic stops where some kind of arrest was made.

I leave little room for conversation because I have learned that giving a violator that opportunity leads to unnecessary BS conversations about the ticket.

Yeah...this.

Just got stopped and cited by Texas DPS and this is how they handled it. It was quick, factual*, no drama, no arguments. Didn't give two shits about me carrying. Good experience aside from the citation lol.

*(Doing 70 in 60 zone on a county farm road because I thought I had reasonable and prudent on my side. Trooper disagreed. I respect that.)

[KeeFus]

From a LE perspective, using Verbal Judo is really the safest way to handle traffic stops...especially in todays environment. It should always be about the violation. If a traffic stop escalates when you are using Verbal Judo its always on the violator as using the Verbal Judo format eliminates any misunderstanding on the officers part.

It's always funny to watch on video when someone comes in to complain on an officer. We have had some in to watch the video and once its over they just get up and leave. We even arrested one who whipped her own ass in an attempt to get her boyfriend out of a DWI. ETA: I do not know the outcome of that case as it was from over 4 years ago. Posting it in the local paper put everyone else on notice that if they filed an obvious frivolous complaint it would be followed up by a trip to the jail.

ETA2: I became curious and looked. She was found Guilty and had to apologize to the officer.

[BehindBlueI's]

Educate me.

Sure. You're calling every officer who does it a different way an asshole who's wielding their authority like a club. That's your ego. You're getting worked up over other officers telling you that your approach is broadly condemned as no longer best practice, it's the Weaver stance of traffic stops. That's your ego. Keep using Weaver if you want, it can work...but it's not ideal. How you use you state you use your discretion and then portray others who use a different criteria is ego driven. That's ok, to a point. A level of ego is needed and desirable.


When you use the criteria of driving history, you're basing it on incomplete information. Has this person gotten a bunch of warnings before? Are they from a lightly patrolled area and just haven't been caught? Are they actually normally a careful driver and just screwed up this time? You've no idea. And none of it matters for this particular stop. The person did something that, by the objective criteria you or your department has established, warrants a cite or they didn't. That's your idea of fair and impartial. To others its basing your discretion on what those in the past did and on criteria that's irrelevant at the particular moment. That's not being Judge Dredd, that's having a different idea of what fair means.

[UNM1136]

I wrote my last post while on lunch break, undercaffinated and in a temp controlled station, so I was fighting dozing off. I am honored that I got 3 likes within 20 or so minutes of me posting, despite my rambling and assorted story telling. I wanted to address Magsz directly because I neglected his post for most of mine. Dr. Thompson lived just a few miles from where I type this, and between here and my parent's house when he was teaching Verbal Judo.

It doesn't cost me anything to asses an individual (along with the other criteria mentioned) and then cite or warn accordingly. If we weren't allowed to do this, we wouldn't be allowed to exercise discretion with misdemeanors. I'm all ears to hear about your definitions of discretion as ive already pretty plainly laid out my own.

I don't think you are going to get anyone here to disagree with you on this....In fact I have seen quite a bit of agreement in this thread. Using the Verbal Judo Traffic Stop formula does not limit my professionalism, courtesy, or compassion.

My approach has never taken any significant amount of time versus telling someone what they did.

Again, unless I missed, you are not going to get a lot of arguments on this. Having a scripted intro is not usually too effective at shaving time off of a traffic stop. What it does do, for the tape, accomplish several things that many people want to know, like who you are and why they were stopped. It can short cut some of the arguing and can put people more at ease with the contact. My standard over the years is that a traffic stop should take no more than 20 minutes whether I write 1 citation or 5, to include legal options at the end as people can ask some really silly questions.

I also do my absolute best to make a traffic stop which is NOT a pleasurable experience as painless as possible. It will always be an inconvenience and can be very scary to some people for a multitude of reasons.

Agreed, another reason that telling them the reason for the stop up front can be a positive thing. A traffic stop is inconvenient, and not usually a pleasurable experience, like you point out. But it also is an enforcement action, you are stopping someone to notify them and hopefully correct a violation of law...That they committed, knowingly or unknowingly. So yeah, it is uncomfortable, it is hopefully based on an objective observation of a violation of law on your part, and there is nothing that anyone has said here that means we can't be courteous, polite, and compassionate, whether we are issuing a warning, verbal or written, or a citation.

Telling Jane that her headlight is out then demanding her license, registration and proof of insurance without nary another word is just you being an asshole because you're the authority figure. That's absolutely absurd and totally not required.

BBI hit this pretty good, and I agree. The verbal judo approach has been the standard one in this state for the last couple of decades. You LOL'd people making assumptions about you and your policing based on what this thread. You don't know me either, and me and just about every cop I have worked with for the last 20 years can pull it off without being seen as an asshole. You actually start with a greeting, an introduction, the violation, then you ask them for their side of it. Then you get to what is required of the offender by you. One of the things that seems to get overlooked here is the HOW things are said and done, which is difficult to convey in internet post. You correctly observe that that Jane can perceive you as an asshole by how you present yourself, you can also be perceived as polite, professional and compassionate. I guess by just not being an asshole even when you do it "that way".

It has nothing to do with ego, none at all, just my attempt at engaging an individual to better assess them and whether or not I think a hit to the pocket is going to do more educational good or a simple talk about driving safely.

One of the quotes I left the academy with was "If you are citing, don't lecture, if you are lecturing, don't cite." I really don't wonder if a hit to the pocket will do more good....I made the stop because of an observed violation of law. Maybe I am cynical but I have seen enough serial violators (didn't you mention a bazillion tickets?) that I decided it is none of my business if I impact them financially, or if there is any educational benefit to a specific stop. I have always been taught that the reason for traffic enforcement is to get voluntary compliance. I don't know how much compliance I have achieved over the years, but I have to believe that on a bell curve I have effected just as many as I have not. I have seen several drivers, after getting stopped by me modify their behavior, and many that did not. I also don't know how many driver's saw my traffic stop of another violator and slowed down, or came to a complete stop at the stop sign, providing voluntary compliance.

I guess this is a good place to discuss my discretion decisions. I have been an FTO for 16 years, and I tell my rookies that they are expected to do at least one traffic stop a shift, and that they will take enforcement action. Citation or Warning, I don't care but enforcement action will be taken. During traffic stops, I ask my trainees what they are stopping the vehicle for. If they are 90% certain that a vehicle committed a specific violation, I don't let them make the stop. They either witnessed the violation or they did not. Once at that point the violation is committed and witnessed, so a citation is certainly appropriate. I then demand to know what enforcement action they will be taking. I will let my trainees go from Citation to Warning, but not bump a warning up to a citation. I usually want a reason, and the most common reason a rookie wants to go from warning someone to citing them, is because the "driver is a dick". That is not sufficient reasoning for me. If during the contact the trainee learns that the DL is suspended or revoked, or non existent, there is no insurance, or the driver is wanted or DUI, the situation has obviously changed, and I am good with either decision as now we are potentially taking people to jail. I have won DUIs with warning citations for the reason for stop, so I personally in those situations or during interdiction stops, I tend to still give written warnings for many initial violations for stop. STEP traffic enforcement grants or operations, there is no discretion, only cites. General enforcement on speed, BBI, hit it pretty good, with some minor variances. Driver's history has little impact here, as the database we have access is inaccurate and incomplete. We cannot use it in court, we have to go to a MVD and get a certified driving record for use to prove that someone was driving revoked or suspended. I tend not to use Driver's history in my decision making, for those reasons, and it has nothing to do with the violation I just witnessed. I will cite for lack of DL and insurance, even if I warn on the moving violation, but a citation there is still appropriate.

That said....All traffic stops with me start out as "Cite" stops. I, by the standard I was trained by and the standard I hold my trainees to can always reduce a citation to a warning, but not the other way around. There are some almost default reductions that I am entirely comfortable with after contacting the driver and learning that they are currently licensed and ensured.

Equipment violations I am great with warnings....Unless they hand me citations or warnings more than a month old for the same violation (happens more than you think).

In my state Careless driving requires inattentiveness or imprudence. Basic HUA. So if the violation I witness could be a lesser included offense for Careless, (simple speed, minor inattention lane drift, rolled stop sign) then I am good going with a warning. If it is closer to Reckless, which requires Carelessly or heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard for the safety and rights of others and without due caution and circumspection (major speed, serious lane violations, didn't even slow down for the stop sign, street racing, ect) then they are pretty much getting the ticket.

Notice that these are broad generalities, and not specifics. I try to learn something every day. The criterion that I would cite v. warn for has changed over the years, and may continue to do so.

Im also super curious as to how you've already made up your mind as to whether or not you are going to warn or cite prior to ever getting out of the car. You havent even identified the driver so driving history isnt even part of your decision making process. That just seems like short sighted, biased policing right there. "GUILTY, HE RAN THAT STOP SIGN!"

Pfft.

I hope I laid out just how easy that decision is to make. I also am a little put out by the biased based policing comment. They are not guilty because they ran the stop sign. I hope that was hyperbole, or tongue in cheek, but EVERYONE I stop has committed a violation, in my presence, that I am lawfully capable of issuing citation for. They have the right to see me in court and make me prove my case. People who defer to guilt during at traffic stop are self selecting. I don't find them guilty, I issue them a citation for a violation of law that I witnessed. It doesn't mean they are guilty, it means I believe I witnessed something that I can charge them for. They can plea guilty on the spot ( never recommended by anyone with any knowledge) or they can show up in court and either be found guilty or found not guilty. I don't stop people to "have conversations" with them, like in the youtube video traffic stop fail where the officer was trying to be super friendly to someone that I think was sovereign citizen, and knew what questions to ask to make the officer look like an idiot. Through my contact with people I can be calm, polite, professional, and compassionate, and still issue a citation, or interpret the overall situation to decide to exercise my discretion to the driver's benefit. I still issue about a dozen warnings for each actual citation I issue, and I think you would be hard pressed for a majority of my violators to call me an asshole. In fact, I would wager that if you and I were to solicit "customer service evaluations" from our respective violators, we would have similar ratings. I take this just from your postings, and how much we seem to agree on. Again, I don't know you any more than you know me, whom neither knows from Adam12, so both of us could be full of internet bluster and conjecture, or we may not be.

I hope I cleared things up. I love my job, and do my best to make every citizen contact a positive one, regardless of the circumstances. Even people that need to forcibly arrested, are to be treated with a base level of dignity and respect. I can always treat them with more, but I will not treat them with less.

pat