POLICE DISCRETION

[ATF Consumer]

Just as B.O.R. indicated, when someone is sighted for speeding, what evidence does an officer have to submit in court to prove the perpetrator was in fact speeding?
And you can't tell me that officers (not saying all, but some) have used bias when issuing tickets to various members of the public. Some don't like the way the person looks, their hair is too long for a male, they are dressed like a punk so they issue a ticket or they find the driver quite attractive and choose to only give a warning instead.
I have a friend that told me he was drunk off his ass and had driven up into his neighbors yard and back out onto the street and then was pulled over by a LEO. Because he was just a few blocks from home, the officer let him continue home without ticketing/arresting him for DUI.
So there are cases where selective enforcement is shown as a positive for the offender while others are shown as a negative.
Not saying that I disagree with the discretion an officer uses, but when they use that power to punish one with a ticket when they might let another off with a warning based on some bias, that is where I think it is wrong. Again, I'm not slamming on LEO's here...just identifying what I call selective enforcement.

 

[Indy317]

Come to find out he had a open warrant for driving with a suspended license (not a big deal). If I had taken him on the warrant I would have had to take the baby to CPS since I can only release him to the mom or dad and mom does not have custody. I made a command decision and talked to dad about it. He promised to turn himself in the next day to the traffic judge and I would allow him to go home with his child. I checked the next day and he was a man of his word and it worked out best for the child (most important).

You know what, that guy you were so nice to an let go, five mins after you let him go, he T-boned me after running a red light. My car was totaled..oh, and I think I am getting some neck pain. If you had _done your job_ and arrested this violent criminal on the court order that commanded you to do so, I wouldn't have been in the crash. I am going to sue you!!

LEOs = Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

[Denny347]

You know what, that guy you were so nice to an let go, five mins after you let him go, he T-boned me after running a red light. My car was totaled..oh, and I think I am getting some neck pain. If you had _done your job_ and arrested this violent criminal on the court order that commanded you to do so, I wouldn't have been in the crash. I am going to sue you!!

LEOs = Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Don't stir the pot Ryan

 

[Annie Oakley]

Denny, an excellent response to the question of how an officer uses his/her discretion. Most LEO's have pretty big hearts and don't go out wanting to turn someone's life upside down if they don't have to.

 

[public servant]

Don't stir the pot Ryan

 

[No Time to Shoot]

Ahhh, I see. Sorry for my density . Well, this is only MY opinion but many of my coworkers follow along with me. I would say the biggest factor in my discretion is "What is the person's INTENT?" For DUI's, there is little wiggle room. I have arrested many a good people for making 1 bad choice. I will tell them that. I will tell them that they are NOT criminals, but merely a normal Joe that made a bad choice in driving. State law is pretty clear that if PC exists in a DUI, the officer SHALL arrest...not MAY but shall. Same with DV arrests. IF I have PC to make an arrest for DV, I better make it because if I do not and someone complains...it could be lots of unpaid vacation for me. Now, most of the time it have lots of room to wiggle.
One time I was called to a disturbance between male and female over a child. I get there and talk to the female. She is yelling, screaming, acting like a child. Come to find out she has mental issues and that the Dad has stepped up (even though he is young) and has been taking care of their child alone, without her. He works 2 jobs and seemed like he was really trying to be the dad his child needed. In fact he had gotten custody of the child (in Indiana that is no small feat) and was at work she she came up there trying to get him fired just because she was angry. He was maybe 19 but he seemed quite sincere. Come to find out he had a open warrant for driving with a suspended license (not a big deal). If I had taken him on the warrant I would have had to take the baby to CPS since I can only release him to the mom or dad and mom does not have custody. I made a command decision and talked to dad about it. He promised to turn himself in the next day to the traffic judge and I would allow him to go home with his child. I checked the next day and he was a man of his word and it worked out best for the child (most important).
I know several officers (myself included) that come across a person carrying a pistol. They forget their pinky at home but we confirm that the person has a valid license. Most of the time that person will go about the rest of their day as long as there was nothing else going on even though it is technically against the law. It comes back down to INTENT. It is an acquired talent to know the difference. Many rookies might not know that until they have a few years under their belt.
I stopped a carload of teens and up at the driver I could smell the cut weed coming from inside. I tell the driver if he is honest with me and gives it up, I will let them go. I just hate to be lied to my face when they know that they are caught. I knew it wasn't much since it was just a very faint odor and it took a few minutes to convince the kids I meant what I said. The driver gave up a small baggie of weed (maybe a joint). I took the driver over to the trash and he watched as I threw it away. I told him that he did the right thing, that I could not let him leave with it, and that his honesty allowed him to drive away. I used my discretion to weed out the "dumb kids" from real criminals. We all make mistakes and I could not ,in good conscience, arrest someone that had no intention in breaking a single law unless the law was worded that I had to. Thankfully those are few. We also may decide that something does not add up in a particular run. We will do a report and refer it to our detectives for further investigation to determining charges. Maybe we could have made an arrest on the spot but we were not able to get a hold of a witness. Instead of rushing in and making an arrest (even though we had PC for it) we will slow it down and give it over to a detective. The detective will follow up in the following days and ensure that all witnesses are heard before making any formal charges. That is another form of our discretion. Man that was a long response. I hope it helps.

Great post! This is why I love this forum!

 

[RogerB]

Great post! This is why I love this forum!

I agree! This thread makes me think about what it must be like to be a LEO.

Compassion or contempt...its a very grey area without a solid defining line.

My hats off to all LEO's, even the ones that are at times A-holes.

 

[Glock Lover]

I agree! This thread makes me think about what it must be like to be a LEO.

Compassion or contempt...its a very grey area without a solid defining line.

My hats off to all LEO's, even the ones that are at times A-holes.

 

[Denny347]

Thanks guys, the hardest part of the job is learning these kinds of things. They do not teach you how to make these kinds of choices. It is not until they are being trained by their FTO's (field training officers) they they learn some of these fine points of law enforcement. I have not worked with anyone that did not have SOME compassion. Some more than others of course but that is life.

 

[Roadie]

Ahhh, I see. Sorry for my density . Well, this is only MY opinion but many of my coworkers follow along with me. I would say the biggest factor in my discretion is "What is the person's INTENT?" For DUI's, there is little wiggle room. I have arrested many a good people for making 1 bad choice. I will tell them that. I will tell them that they are NOT criminals, but merely a normal Joe that made a bad choice in driving. State law is pretty clear that if PC exists in a DUI, the officer SHALL arrest...not MAY but shall. Same with DV arrests. IF I have PC to make an arrest for DV, I better make it because if I do not and someone complains...it could be lots of unpaid vacation for me. Now, most of the time it have lots of room to wiggle.
One time I was called to a disturbance between male and female over a child. I get there and talk to the female. She is yelling, screaming, acting like a child. Come to find out she has mental issues and that the Dad has stepped up (even though he is young) and has been taking care of their child alone, without her. He works 2 jobs and seemed like he was really trying to be the dad his child needed. In fact he had gotten custody of the child (in Indiana that is no small feat) and was at work she she came up there trying to get him fired just because she was angry. He was maybe 19 but he seemed quite sincere. Come to find out he had a open warrant for driving with a suspended license (not a big deal). If I had taken him on the warrant I would have had to take the baby to CPS since I can only release him to the mom or dad and mom does not have custody. I made a command decision and talked to dad about it. He promised to turn himself in the next day to the traffic judge and I would allow him to go home with his child. I checked the next day and he was a man of his word and it worked out best for the child (most important).
I know several officers (myself included) that come across a person carrying a pistol. They forget their pinky at home but we confirm that the person has a valid license. Most of the time that person will go about the rest of their day as long as there was nothing else going on even though it is technically against the law. It comes back down to INTENT. It is an acquired talent to know the difference. Many rookies might not know that until they have a few years under their belt.
I stopped a carload of teens and up at the driver I could smell the cut weed coming from inside. I tell the driver if he is honest with me and gives it up, I will let them go. I just hate to be lied to my face when they know that they are caught. I knew it wasn't much since it was just a very faint odor and it took a few minutes to convince the kids I meant what I said. The driver gave up a small baggie of weed (maybe a joint). I took the driver over to the trash and he watched as I threw it away. I told him that he did the right thing, that I could not let him leave with it, and that his honesty allowed him to drive away. I used my discretion to weed out the "dumb kids" from real criminals. We all make mistakes and I could not ,in good conscience, arrest someone that had no intention in breaking a single law unless the law was worded that I had to. Thankfully those are few. We also may decide that something does not add up in a particular run. We will do a report and refer it to our detectives for further investigation to determining charges. Maybe we could have made an arrest on the spot but we were not able to get a hold of a witness. Instead of rushing in and making an arrest (even though we had PC for it) we will slow it down and give it over to a detective. The detective will follow up in the following days and ensure that all witnesses are heard before making any formal charges. That is another form of our discretion. Man that was a long response. I hope it helps.

Fantastic post!

Some people may take advantage of your kindness and laugh it off "HA, I got away with it!", However, even if only a handful think to themselves "Wow, if that Officer hadn't been so nice, I would have been screwed!" then goes on to make it right, then you have changed someone for the better, AND possibly changed their image of LEOs.

I got out of a speeding ticket on my motorcycle once, for two reasons. One, I actually stopped for him even though he was sitting still when I blew past him over 85 miles an hour. Two, I made him laugh. He asked if I knew how fast I was going, I said "No". He asked why not. I replied "Because my speedo only reads to 85." He started to laugh, then composed himself and just walked away. Ran my plates and license, came back with a written warning and a very stern speech about speed, motorcycles, etc. Then grinned and said "Oh, by the way, the speedo on my Kawasaki only goes to 85 too"

Did I deserve a ticket? Yup, but I was polite, apologetic, honest, and I made him chuckle. He returned that with the kindness of just a warning.

Will this always be the case? Probably not. A friend of mine got a PI for taking a cab home, too drunk to drive while walking from the cab to his apartment. So basically he got punished for doing the right thing.

Bottom line is, you won't even stand a chance at an Officer exercising discretion, if you are not polite and respectful, eh?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but both are discretionary and thus, your choice to enforce or not. In the former case, "the girl has been through enough" is the likely reasoning, while in the latter, "I'm going to find SOMEthing to take this scumbag downtown!"

You may technically be correct, but in practice you are mistaken IMHO, see below for reasons.

Discretion is a powerful tool, useful for justice, by those who choose to do so or able to be misused by those who power-trip, and we both know guys who fit both descriptions. In the hands of the former, I have no issue with it, while in the hands of the latter, I think we probably both do (which should tell you into which category I think you fit.) Taken with the fact that LEOs' statements in court are taken as gospel in the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, I think we all have a responsibility to root out those who abuse that trust.



Blessings,
Bill

Agreed

I agree with all of this. For some reason I just see the term "selective enforcement" in a negative light. Officer discretion is a great tool. I could not be an effective officer without it. I am not sure if ATF meant the selective enforcement to be seen as a negative. To be honest, I not sure how to take this entire thread. Maybe I just got lost reading it

I see "selective enforcement" in a negative light also, and I hope you do not do so. Officer discretion is different IMHO. See below.

Police discretion = selective enforcement.

And you can't tell me that officers (not saying all, but some) have used bias when issuing tickets to various members of the public. Some don't like the way the person looks, their hair is too long for a male, they are dressed like a punk so they issue a ticket or they find the driver quite attractive and choose to only give a warning instead.
Not saying that I disagree with the discretion an officer uses, but when they use that power to punish one with a ticket when they might let another off with a warning based on some bias, that is where I think it is wrong. Again, I'm not slamming on LEO's here...just identifying what I call selective enforcement.

ATF I have to disagree selective enforcement is not equal to officer discretion, what you just described is selective enforcement/discrimination not officer discretion. In BoR's first example and Denny's post they both gave examples of officer discretion, which is the officer takes into consideration the facts regarding the situation and makes the best call he/she can with the information not just bias for or against a particular group of people.