How's this going to work? So many questions...

[peterhively]

Dying to hear the thoughts of BARF LEO re: the latest brainstorm from Berzerkely.

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/07/09/berkeley-cops-may-be-stripped-of-traffic-stopping-duties/

Will BARTPD, UCPD, ACSO, CHP, etc also be prohibited from performing traffic stops? How about on I-80? When can I go out and pin it on the Eastshore Autobahn?

Seriously though, is this legal? Do I have to pull over for a BDOT civilian? What if I don't?

 

[metalmaster]

good luck with that

 

[bojangle]

Dying to hear the thoughts of BARF LEO re: the latest brainstorm from Berzerkely.

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/07/09/berkeley-cops-may-be-stripped-of-traffic-stopping-duties/

Will BARTPD, UCPD, ACSO, CHP, etc also be prohibited from performing traffic stops? How about on I-80? When can I go out and pin it on the Eastshore Autobahn?

Seriously though, is this legal? Do I have to pull over for a BDOT civilian? What if I don't?

*LEO Mod hat on*

Wow, that's a lot to unpack. I will start off by stating that this topic has a high potential to become political, and if that happens, we will have to move it to the political forum. Another rule specific to the LEO forum is that there is no LEO "bashing" allowed in here, which could limit the way some might comment. But exposure here is not nearly as high as in the sink. So if everyone can keep politics and LEO bashing out, we can try to keep this discussion here. I will post some thoughts in another post.

 

[bojangle]

For starters, anything done by the city of Berkeley would have no effect on the operations of any other surrounding local police department.

 

[augustiron]

After reading the article, my general sense is that the safety and quality of life of residents of Berkeley is going to decline under this change for numerous reasons.

 

[bojangle]

I'm going to try to dive in to the multitude of problems this Berkeley proposal will create. For starters, under normal circumstances, a civilian cannot detain someone based on reasonable suspicion. They can only "arrest" on probable cause of an offense committed in their presence. While many on view traffic stops will satisfy probable cause for a violation, there could be big liability issues if the civilian employee was incorrect, or mistaken about the violation occurring. Civilians also have no right to detain people, only to arrest per private person arrest laws. One also has to wonder if they could even lawfully give warnings. Since an stop would only be lawful for an arrest based on probable cause, and in order for that to happen, a citation would have to be issued (better be no mistakes) then I don't see lawful grounds for a detention and release with a warning. They could get around this by changing the law. Certain civilian government, or non-governmental, position have been granted "peace officer powers of arrest" while working. That could be one way. Another way is similar to a law allowing for shop owners, or their representatives, to stop and detain suspected shoplifters in circumstances less than probable cause to make an arrest. So these issues would need those types of law changes.

It is a crime to impersonate a peace officer. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=538d But since these would be authorized government employees, with presumably different uniforms not resembling police, this might not be an issue.

Their vehicles would have to be equipped with at least one red light to the front and a siren, per the vehicle code. If the vehicles did not have those things, drivers would not know, nor be required, to yield to them. Since they are not peace officers, the vehicles they used would need a specific approval from the CHP. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=165

Finally, there are no laws requiring someone to stop for a civilian during enforcement situations. 2800 CVC only applies to peace officers. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=2800. And same with 2800.1 CVC. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=2800.1

There was a comment in the article by one of their city council persons stating to the effect that civilians employees have successfully issued parking tickets and they liken traffic stops could be done in a similar manner. The problem is, these two things are very different, and operate under entirely different laws. One does not need powers of arrest, a detention, or a red light and siren to enforce parking violations. Parking violations mostly don't involve dealing with people or giving warnings either.

I am sure I am overlooking some additional issues as well. My final thoughts for this post have to do who they might find to fill those positions, and what kind of training they will have. Will they have a pursuit policy? Will they be calling police for help? My thoughts are that training will be minimal. Who would want to take those unarmed enforcement positions? Those who couldn't make it as a police officer? IMO, this has disaster written all over it.

And I also doubt BPD will have a policy prohibiting traffic stops either.

 

[bojangle]

Then there are the legal issues with a civilian issuing a citation. 40500 CVC refers to an officer, or arresting officer, in the issuance of a citation. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=2800.1

What about DUI enforcement? Would they be trained in this? Would they have to call the police to deal with this traffic enforcement offense? Vehicle code arrest laws generally apply only to peace officers. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...ivision=17.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=1. And http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=40500.

 

[peterhively]

Thank you bojangle!

 

[Alan_Hepburn]

My first thought is that armed police are ambushed all too often during "routine" traffic stops - if the thugs KNOW that the person attempting to stop them is unarmed it'll be "open season"...

 

[bojangle]

My first thought is that armed police are ambushed all too often during "routine" traffic stops - if the thugs KNOW that the person attempting to stop them is unarmed it'll be "open season"...

Sure. I haven't even touched on the safety aspects. Well, I guess I hinted at it without outright stating it by asking who would want to work in a position like that? I then suggested it would most likely be those who wanted to, but were unable to, become police officers.

I can't imagine that the hiring standards or training standards would be higher than that of a police officer. Most likely they'd be much lower. This will likely have the exact opposite effect from what promoters of this idea would like to accomplish. It possibly might decrease the amount of so called racial inequality stops since these transportation employees would not be stopping vehicles in response to crimes in progress. They would only be doing traffic enforcement.

I wonder what happens when they stop a stolen vehicle.

 

[novaks47]

If any of that were to come into existence, I'd wager it would become one the most epic examples of "be careful what you wish for". I doubt it will gain any real traction, as it would be a giant mess of sorting out existing laws and whatever they propose. Just look at Bojangle's post for examples, and that's just the tip of the legal iceberg. Completely unworkable.

 

[Shaggy]

I’d rather see radar/lidar cameras than put unarmed civilian employees in harm’s way. SCOTUS has continually recognized that traffic stops are some of the most dangerous contacts that police participate in. Putting an unarmed and lesser trained employee in that position is a terrible idea.

This policy would be limited to Berkeley PD and like Bo explained... I’m not even sure how it could be legally implemented.

Some cities give cite/arrest authorities to employees for administrative violations (Animal Control, Code Enforcement, etc...). Maybe they plan to circumvent the vehicle code by labeling them Code Enforcement Officers and using municipal code sections for violations instead of vehicle code.

The problem there is that about 10y ago, there was a case that prohibited officers from citing for local municipal codes when the same violation is covered by state vehicle code. California wants their cut of the fine.....

 

[NorCalBusa]

I'd love to see what the Risk Manager for the City, Alco (or is that getting into CoCo?) county and each their insurance underwriting companies think about the entire notion- and the resulting rate increases to cover the inevitable. Methinks that will kill the notion toot-sweet.

 

[NorCalBusa]

The problem there is that about 10y ago, there was a case that prohibited officers from citing for local municipal codes when the same violation is covered by state vehicle code. California wants their cut of the fine.....

Recall that was AlcoSO that started (and enjoyed) that practice for years, other agencies up and down the state copied it- was a great idea at the time, but don't be messing with Uncle Sam's money.

 

[peterhively]

Alameda was one of those wasn't it, that was using the muni codes?

And yeah this could be used as a way to get people to accept speed cameras, as this article says the civilian enforcer can still have bias, so we need methods "devoid of discretion".

But as I understand it, the pictures from the red light cameras now in use need to be reviewed by a human, who needs to identify the driver...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Berkeley-could-ban-police-from-traffic-15399680.php

 

[Shaggy]

Another unintended consequence of this is that it will create confusion with the general public about the legality of a Berkeley cop’s authority to make all car stops.

A cop may be lawfully allowed to stop a car related to a crime, but the driver is not aware of that fact, which could lead to unnecessary and dangerous pursuits.

 

[peterhively]

Yep I thought of that too.

Or, I didn't stop for that CHP because I thought he was BPD and he couldn't stop me!

Like I said, so many questions...

 

[bojangle]

I’d rather see radar/lidar cameras than put unarmed civilian employees in harm’s way. SCOTUS has continually recognized that traffic stops are some of the most dangerous contacts that police participate in. Putting an unarmed and lesser trained employee in that position is a terrible idea.

This policy would be limited to Berkeley PD and like Bo explained... I’m not even sure how it could be legally implemented.

Some cities give cite/arrest authorities to employees for administrative violations (Animal Control, Code Enforcement, etc...). Maybe they plan to circumvent the vehicle code by labeling them Code Enforcement Officers and using municipal code sections for violations instead of vehicle code.

The problem there is that about 10y ago, there was a case that prohibited officers from citing for local municipal codes when the same violation is covered by state vehicle code. California wants their cut of the fine.....

I recall that as well. I think part of the issue is that if cities enforced muni codes instead of vehicle code, the employing entity gets all that money. Whereas citations issued under the vehicle code help pay for the court system, and employing agencies get very little money from them. It costs a lot more to employ someone to write tickets, pay them to attend court, including overtime, compared to how much they bring in.

I think anyone looking at that objectively could see the inherent issues with enforcement for profit type systems.

Yes, proactive traffic stops are very dangerous, and it would be foolish to give that job assignment to unarmed civilians.

 

[ctwo]

Hey, this is like an idea I posted a while back, having a 3rd party traffic enforcement agency, but state-wide.

We're too anal about traffic violations anyway, but then it's really not about traffic enforcement. That is just an ancillary concern, a shoe-in...

And that is why stops end up being so dangerous. If all you're going to get is a traffic citation, criminals probably wouldn't be so reactive, especially when the stop becomes a life changing event. I don't see so much of a problem with parking tickets, even when the driver is present. People aren't ambushing meter maids.

And then, what if there is criminal activity or an arrest needs to be made (I'm not calling the stop an arrest, redefine the laws...), cops would be called to handle that. If they run, follow and advise police and it's then business as usual.

I'd expect the vast majority of people to just take their lumps, or just ignore or run, and then police can step in.

Some may get shot, cost of business if that's what you want to do.

I could never understand the urgency of having to resolve a situation immediately anyway. Most of the time the individual is identified, either by licence or plate, and can be contacted under better circumstances at some later time, or just covertly followed. Like if the officer sees a gun or drugs, just handle it cool and get your backup all in place and ambush the bad guy later. If he's really a bad guy, he can be put on a watch list and collect more data, etc...

But I think it's a bad idea for one city to do something like this.

 

[RRR70]

For starters, anything done by the city of Berkeley would have no effect on the operations of any other surrounding local police department.

Talked to two Berkeley guys. Any agency that deploys for whatever reason into city of Berkeley will have to abide by BPD operation manual. Using pepper spray, tazers, LTL, etc. which probably means that mutual aid isn’t coming.