April 21, 2006

Officer Speaks Out on Traffic Enforcement Policies

There are some police officers who are stepping out and openly criticizing Police Chief Ronal Serpas over his traffic enforcement policy. Some are saying that it simply isn't working. Too much focus is being placed on traffic stops while crime rates continue to rise around the city.

One officer in particular is coming out publicly against Serpas' policies...Officer Dylan Kinney. I posed a series of questions to Officer Kinney regarding Serpas' policies and effectiveness from the viewpoint of someone who is out on the streets. Below are his answers...

--------
-Is it about money (the traffic stops)? If not, then why is Serpas using this method?

His theory is that if we're proactive enough, we'll stop the criminals before they can commit crimes. Of course, it won't stop a wide range of crimes, such as domestic assault, murder, robbery, etc. Robberies have skyrocketed in the past year or so here in Davidson County.

-What about Serpas' statistics saying that 13% or so of traffic stops have resulted in arrests? Is that taking criminals off the street before they can commit larger/bigger crimes as Serpas has asserted?

That 13% includes arrests for things like driving without a license, suspended/revoked license, etc. It doesn't mean we catch a hardened violent criminal 13% of the time. Even when someone has an outstanding warrant, it's often for a minor crime.

-Do you think that this method has resulted in higher crime around the city? If so, why?

Yes. Our focus has been taken away from other methods of fighting crime, such as serving outstanding warrants. Instead of trying to actively lock up criminals that we know are wanted, we're scouring the city at night for cars with a headlight out. And we're punished by our supervisors if we do anything else in our downtime.

-Is there a quota system? If not, how do they measure performance via traffic stops? If you get punished for not making as many stops, then how do they measure that?

Yes. We're expected to average two stops per night worked, usually calculated at the end of the month. No quota on tickets (yet), just stops. This is based on the daily activity log sheets and statistics we turn in at the start of the next day's shift.

-How are officers pressured to keep the traffic stop numbers up? Or, how have you personally been pressured?

In the past year, I've had my take-home squad car taken away for two weeks, been denied appointment to Field Training Officer (along with the 6% raise that accompanies the appointment), been threatened with the loss of my assigned zone, and had my regular days off changed from Sunday/Monday to Monday/Tuesday. None of these things are appealable or grievable.

-Is this a general feeling of the entire department or a minority? Why are you speaking out, and how do you think this will affect your job?

This is definitely the feeling of the majority of the department. Most officers will not speak out publicly on this topic out of fear of retribution from the administration. However, since I've already had everything taken from me, I have nothing else to lose.

-How do you think the department should be going about enforcing the laws and lowering crime in Nashville?

Every officer has his or her own individual gifts and talents for fighting crime. Some are good at serving outstanding warrants. Others write tickets. Some translate Spanish for the officers who cannot. What the department needs to realize is that officers work better as a team, with each officer helping each other out instead of competing for higher stats. Traffic stops are a valuable tool for fighting crime, but they are not the only tool. An officer's value should not be based on that one category alone.
--------

It has been discussed here in the past that there might be a quota system in traffic enforcement. According to Officer Kinney, there isn't a "ticket quota" per se, but there is a "traffic stop quota." Two stops a night might not sound like much, but I have ridden along with police officers before, and even in a larger city, many nights finding just one car to pull over (for a valid/real reason) may be a stretch.

Many people point out that Serpas' traffic enforcement tactics are aimed at stopping crime before it hits the streets, but that doesn't seem to be working. This type of policy is leading to higher crime rates around the city.

As with a business, you have a group of people with each person having different talents. As Kinney pointed out, it's the same with the police force. If you deploy your talent appropriately, you'll be more effective. However, Serpas is forcing officers to make traffic enforcement their main focus. This just doesn't work, and we are seeing the effects.

So, what would be the answer to fighting higher crime rates in the city? I think Officer Kinney's answer to the last question above is a good starting point.

Update: Roger Abramson provides his perspective.

Update II: Story coming in the Tennessean in the next couple of days. I'll link it up when it's published.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

Still defending your patioed ass and its right to bar hop free of traffic stops, I see. In our neighborhood we have had traffic stops of cars containing guns and drugs, leading to the arrest of the drivers and passengers for more than suspended licenses. As I've said before, Serpas is due criticism, but if even one car with guns and drugs is stopped in our neighborhood, thus protecting our children, then traffic stops are validated (even when they inconvenience your social calendar, Blake). You will of course excuse me if I place a premium on my family over your night life.

As I wrote in the link that you posted, the 13% of traffic stops lead to what Serpas called "more significant crimes committed." I remember being left with the distinct impression that those included warrants for more violent and harder crimes beyond suspended licenses. Just like you would have liked to see Serpas's exact numbers, I would like to see this Officer's exact numbers. What percentage of the 13% of traffic stops lead to arrests just for suspended licenses and what percentage lead to harder crimes? And how did Officer Kinney gather and parse those stats?

Central precinct officers meet with our neighborhood association on a regular basis showing monthly stats on crimes harder than just suspended licenses. And I haven't heard them complain that traffic stops in the North End are hampering their arrests of "real criminals." So, my guess is that there are some officers opposed to traffic stops and others who aren't. But no group of police officers is going to totally agree on police department policy.

Posted by: S-townMike at April 21, 2006 06:16 PM

Oh, I almost forgot. About a month and a half ago, S-townWife and I were about a block away from our home when one of Metro's finest stopped us, saying that we had our highbeams on (which we had). He took my license and ran it. At first S-townWife was miffed, but then the more she thought about it she realized that the traffic stop was probably due to increased police presence at our neighborhood's request after some gang activity back in January. Sure we were inconvenienced over a piddling infraction, but instead of seeing it as glass-half-empty, we were thankful to see that the police were stopping and running licenses in order to check to see that nothing criminal was passing through the neighborhood. I wasn't concerned, because I knew nothing would come from running my license and S-townWife also came to acknowledge that getting stopped was just as much a sign that the police were watching out for our safety as it was our inconvenience.

Posted by: S-townMike at April 21, 2006 06:28 PM

You would have had a nice reply and it would have been a good argument but you had to throw in a few personal jabs.

And...I don't "bar hop," dude. Nor have the higher amount of traffic stops inconvenienced me. I don't do things that would get me pulled over in the first place, so your personal attacks are misplaced (and completely bad form...which, I suppose is true to form). Real classy.

Now, to address the subject at hand. The main point is that too much effort and focus is being put on traffic enforcment. Sure, if you cast into the water constantly, you're bound to get something. However, you end up missing plenty of other things.

I think that what Officer Kinney is pointing out is a good idea. Stop putting so much focus on traffic enforcement for every officer and utilize them according to their strengths. It's true...some officers are good at doing traffic stops...others are good at serving warrants...others are good at getting out into the neighborhoods and stopping crime proactively. Traffic enforcement is necessary, but when you put too much focus on one thing and force the entire department do do so, you lose in the long run.

Also, read Roger Abramson's post.

Then, stop getting personal...you end up losing credibility based on your negativity. Your efforts would be much better served if you stuck to the issue. Just a friendly piece of advice. :) (again)

Posted by: Blake at April 21, 2006 10:50 PM

Mike--Maybe it's time to move to a better neighborhood.
Blake--Good story. I'd be mightily pissed if a cop stopped me to meet a quota while the little old lady down the street, actually, not on my street, but in Mike's neighborhood got mugged.

Posted by: Priorities at April 22, 2006 05:21 AM

Serpas seems obsessed with cracking down on traffic violations while serious criminals are practicing their "craft" with greater success. He should be ashamed.

Posted by: Reason at April 22, 2006 01:43 PM

I'd like to know where all these traffic stops are taking place. If I were a cop, I could give out about 10 tickets a day. There's a four way stop in front of my house, and maybe 10% of the people actually stop. There's a light I come to on my way to work that's got a "No turn on red" sign (because you can't see to the left well enough). Doesn't stop people from doing it. Last weekend I felt like I had a target on my truck: at least three people pulled out in front of me to the extent that I had to either brake hard or swerve to avoid a wreck. The speed limit on the section of I 40 going towards Briley Parkway is 45. Signs claim airplanes are enforcing the speed limit. If they are, then they must be stealth planes; you go 45 on that stretch and you're going to get run over by the idiots going 70. I440's new speed limit of 55 is a joke as well. In the year it's been in place, the only activity I've seen by police was when the limit first went into effect. Go 55 there and the idiiots going 80 will run over you.

Posted by: Glen at April 23, 2006 12:58 PM

The "move to a better neighborhood" argument is always so quaint. As if crime is excuseable in some neighborhoods and we shouldn't expect government to secure those neighborhoods.

Blake--you would do better to spend more time on your arguments and less time lecturing people on how others don't like them or their arguments because of the manner in which they argue.

In the end the conservative response to crime puts us in more danger. You advocate taking away tools (like traffic stops) that can deter crime; you advocate cutting crime-fighting government programs to local law enforcement; you excoriate sitting judges, who in turn become marked targets for violence; you advocate laxer assault-weapons laws. Conservatives are fresh out of ideas for adequate law enforcement and your failures are threats to local community security.

Your bankrupt plans to "help" the police only put my children at higher risk of vicimization, Blake. Maybe someday when you're a parent you'll understand that.

Posted by: S-townMike at April 24, 2006 12:11 AM

"you would do better to spend more time on your arguments"

Kettle, meet pot. lol

Posted by: Blake at April 24, 2006 12:28 AM

I second what Glen has to say about speed limits on I-440...what a joke!! If you want to put your life at risk, just try driving 55 (even in the RH lane) on the Nashille 440 Speedway.

Posted by: Wes at April 24, 2006 07:41 AM

You should also spend less time falling back on blogosphere clichés, Blake, lest you become one.

The conservative response to crime is both feeble and flaccid. Its limpness only generates more dangerous conditions in which to live, except for the smaller fractions who can afford to live in gated communities and hire private security. You like to project this tough-guy image, what with guns and weekend warrioring, but in reality there is nothing tough-minded about your generically conservative and weak-minded approach to local law enforcement.

It's also more of the conservative politics of playing on already acrimonious divisions in society (in this case between police officers) as a means of power brokering. I'm still waiting for you to step up and sing the praises of the Teamsters and their defense of the little man in the police department. Then I'll be the one laughing out loud.

Posted by: S-townMike at April 24, 2006 07:55 AM

Cliché or not...it's also a truism. :)

Anyway...just keep talking, Mike...which I'm sure isn't a problem. You spent any hope of making any valid points in your first comment.

I'll be putting up a satellite dish on the side of my house in my historic neighborhood if you need me. :)

Posted by: Blake at April 24, 2006 09:02 AM

*comment removed per link policy*

Posted by: S-townMike at April 24, 2006 10:59 AM

*Comment removed per link policy*

Posted by: S-townMike at April 24, 2006 11:01 AM

You can repost those comments by following the link policy (above in red). The links you posted were too long for the contraints of the page proportions.

Thanks! :)

Posted by: Blake at April 24, 2006 11:05 AM

Of course you removed the comments, Blake. I'm not surprised.

On April 17 your wrote, "The Truth Shall be Deleted." Never were truer words spoken about this instance 7 days later.

You do a much better job of carrying Bill Hobbs' water. Stick with that.

Posted by: S-townMike at April 24, 2006 02:20 PM

Dude, wow S-town. You are really really cool. Insult me for no reason! Insult me!! I know you can!

Posted by: Jakester at April 24, 2006 03:03 PM

OR.....

Just repost it in the correct format dipstick. I'm sure it's groundbreaking and cutting-edge information that we will all need to have.

Posted by: L-townJontheheasy at April 24, 2006 03:10 PM

Mike,

Just abide by my policy. The links you posted were too long and they messed up the proportions of the page. I have a policy (in red above) that tells you what to do.

If I wanted to delete them to silence you I would have deleted them and not said anything. I simply asked you to repost what you had written plus fix your links. I'm not in the business of reformatting everyone's links so that they fit the page proportions. I have a policy (plainly written above), and I nicely asked you to correct yourself despite the fact that you've been a total ass.

So...we're still waiting. :)

Posted by: Blake at April 24, 2006 04:19 PM

is that guy for real?

Posted by: ripper at April 24, 2006 06:36 PM

Mike uses the tired old line "thus protecting our children" in his opening paragraph. Yawn.

Posted by: at April 24, 2006 07:41 PM

When was it the state's responsibility to protect the children?

Is that the responsibility of the parents?

Posted by: Pink Kitty at April 25, 2006 02:07 PM