On Thursday night, Donald Trump formally accepted the Republican nomination for president in Cleveland. In his acceptance speech Trump made one thing abundantly clear: he promises to be the law and order candidate. But with that promise came the need for justification: why do we need a law and order president? Trump sought to answer that question and more by painting a particularly bleak picture of America.

Let’s take a closer look at some of Trump’s claims and put them in some much-needed context. The quotes below are taken from his prepared remarks obtained by Politico Thursday afternoon. The transcript is nearly identical to the actual speech but may have some slight differences.

Where are our violent crime numbers?

Donald Trump started his speech with some stark claims about crime in the United States:

Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years.

The 17 percent claim appears to come from a Washington Post analysis that was published earlier this year. The Post looked at preliminary crime data from 50 of the largest American cities and found that murders increased by about 17 percent in 2015. So yes, it does appear that there is an increase in homicides and there may even be an uptick in violent crime–we’ll know for sure when the FBI releases its formal statistics this fall. But it’s also important to keep this development in context.

Even with a few years of a crime spike, America is much safer than it was a two decades ago. In fact, the violent crime rate has dropped precipitously over the last 25 years. As the chart below shows, the violent crime rate has dropped by about 43 percent between 1995 and 2014. While we don’t have more recent data, it is particularly unlikely that we have reversed many of those gains within the last year and a half. We may be experiencing a spike in violent crime right now, but we currently have no indication that it will lead to a multiyear trend of increasing crime rates.

The chart below shows how violent crime has dropped over the past several decades. Note that the Y-Axis does not start at zero, rather it starts at 300 to better illustrate the relationship between each point.

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report

Trump specifically spoke about murder rates, which have also fallen in a similar fashion. In 1995 there were 8.2 murders per 100,000 people. In 2014 the rate was 4.5. The uptick identified by the Washington Post is certainly troubling, but that too must be taken in context. Trump accurately characterized the 17 percent spike as the largest change in the past 25 years. But as the Post points out, last year’s homicide rate remains below where it was in 2008 and not every city saw an increase. Of the largest 50 cities, 36 saw an increase in murders while 14 experienced a decrease or no change.

What about Chicago?

Trump went on to note that the number of shootings in Chicago is particularly high this year:

In the President’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And more than 3,600 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office.

This statistic also appears to be true. According to the Chicago Tribune’s count, there have been 2,224 shooting victims between the beginning of the year and July 22. Last year there was 2,988 shootings in total, meaning that this year will likely surpass that final count.

There does appear to be a real problem with gun violence and homicides in many American cities. We do not have enough data to say whether this is a durable trend or just an uptick, but even accounting for an increase, violence remains near historic lows. We also don’t know what is responsible for the recent developments, as many competing theories have been thrown around. It is a complex and multifaceted problem that many local police departments will need to address.

Police in America

Trump also argued that law enforcement deaths are increasing:

The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50 percent compared to this point last year.

According to the Officer Down Memorial page, which tracks police deaths as they happen, there have been 68 police officers killed in the line of duty so far this year, a 1 percent decrease. The National Law Enforcement Memorials Fund also keeps an independent count of officer deaths. According to the NLEMF’s data, there were 63 officer deaths at this point last year and there are 67 this year–a 6 percent increase. Both of those total counts include accidental deaths, but they also note that firearm-related deaths are up in 2016. A large part of that increase came in two recent high-profile attacks on police in Dallas, Texas and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

After the Dallas attack, we noted that the resulting five officers deaths amounted to about 10 percent of the previous year’s total. According to preliminary numbers from the FBI, which specifically tracks felonious deaths, there were 42 officers killed in 2015. While the next round of FBI statistics on officer deaths and assaults in the line of duty will be particularly useful to inform these debates, the general trend has been going downward. For more, you can read our article titled, “What We Know About Officer Deaths in the Line of Duty”

Donald Trump went on to make several additional claims in his speech that have since been rigorously fact-checked. While Trump’s crime-related claims are directionally accurate, it is important to look at the surrounding context. Much of Trump’s speech seemed to hinge on whether or not the rule of law is breaking down in the United States. He argues that it has and that is why he is campaigning as the law and order candidate. However, despite a recent spike in murders and possibly violent crime, those rates remain near modern lows. Similarly, the number of police officers killed and assaulted has been declining over the past several years. While some of that progress may have been reversed temporarily, it’s important to ask whether that represents a durable trend or if it is simply a temporary uptick.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the World as Scary as Donald Trump Says it is? appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past couple days I’ve seen a post floating around on Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media. It shows a blue strip of paint on a curb and is accompanied with an explanation of something dubbed the “Safe Harbor Initiative.”

Safe Harbor Initiative – a blue line on your curb to show support to your local police #SafeHarborInitiativepic.twitter.com/3vYzByXz8G

— Caitlin Gold (@shaolinmomma) September 16, 2015

The original Facebook post, which appears to have originated from the account of a San Antonio man named Anthony Welichko, explained the purpose of the blue line, saying:

To all law enforcement who see this line, know that the residents of this home appreciate your service and dedication to keeping the peace. Know that when you enter the neighborhood and see these lines that you are not alone or without “back-up”. We do not need the media to make our voices of support for our police and emergency services heard ( though it would be nice). Lastly, if you are in my neighborhood and mean to harm a member of law enforcement, know that decision may be hazardous to you health as someone has that officers back!

Please share.

As of right now, the original post has over 80,000 shares, and will probably continue to grow.

It’s a nice gesture, in theory. But it’s also important to recognize that despite being well intentioned, this could actually end up being a really fantastically bad idea. Police officers aren’t just civilians who pick up guns and badges are suddenly equipped to deal with emergency scenarios. Instead they go through serious and intense training–much of which emphasizes the need to protect civilians and secure a particular area. Suddenly having civilians barge in as “backup” could potentially be a distraction, and way more harmful than helpful.

As Snopes, the famous online debunker of viral claims, put it:

Police departments across the United States are consistent and firm in their guidance on this matter: civilians should not intervene with crimes in progress, especially when police are already on the scene. Those who do may end up injured (potentially fatally), and untrained intervention poses severe risk to both other civilians and responding officers. This reason alone is enough to be extremely cautious about spreading the “blue strip” rumor, as the police require cooperation with the commands they’ve issued to bystanders more than they need encouragement for the public to act as crime scene cheerleaders.

The post is being lauded as a great way to show support for our nation’s police officers. But concerns that the social media campaign is misguided are incredibly valid. There’s a lot of ways to support police officers in the community, including donating time, money, or resources. But encouraging vigilante support is fundamentally a  bad idea–keep that in mind before painting a strip on your curb.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Viral “Safe Harbor Initiative” to Support Police Officers May Be a Bad Idea appeared first on Law Street.

After the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and several other high profile deaths at the hands of the police, people may ask whether an increasing trend is starting to emerge. Although it is nearly impossible to say for sure, most evidence suggests that police-involved shootings are not really increasing. Instead, these cases have started to garner much more attention among the media and the public.

The deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Gardner in New York, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in South Carolina, and now Freddie Gray in Baltimore are among a long list of recent deaths that have garnered a substantial amount of public discussion. There are several different explanations for this, notably the availability of video for these incidents and the growing sensitivity to police misconduct among the American public.

In a recent article, CNN interviewed executives at black newspapers who have been covering police shootings of black men for a long time. Tracey Williams Dillard, a publisher of the Minnesota Spokesman-Record told CNN, “It not only feels like there’s more coverage, there is more coverage. … It’s not a perception, it’s definitely real.”

Criminal justice advocates have long decried police officers’ disproportionate use of force against black men, but until recently such instances rarely received national attention. The growing availability of video recordings of police encounters has helped promote the importance of this issue in the public’s consciousness. This is particularly true in the case of Walter Scott, where in the absence of video evidence, media coverage could have been taken in a dramatically different direction. Instead of self defense as officer Slager and the attorney general stated, a video that came out after the fact revealed the murder of a defenseless man attempting to run away from a police officer.

One snapshot of the amount of public attention paid to these incidents can be found in Google search trends. The chart below illustrates the usage of the search term “police shootings” over time. While that is not a definitive example of the public’s interest, it does indicate that since last August police shootings have received more attention than usual.

What does the data say?

It’s clear that police misconduct and the use of force has become a hot button issue in the media and among the public, but do we really know police shootings haven’t increased? Unfortunately, there is no way to know for sure. Typically to answer questions about law enforcement and crime we rely on the wide range of available criminal justice data sources; however, there is a glaring lack of information when it comes to officer-involved deaths.

The FBI collects and publishes a wide range of crime and criminal justice statistics in its annual Crime in the United States publication. While these statistics are far from perfect, they are an extremely important measure of crime in America. Unfortunately, the FBI does not have an overall count of people who are killed by police officers. The only available data details the number of justifiable homicides, which involves “the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty.” This count does not include unlawful killings by police officers. For example, Michael Slager, the officer who shot Walter Scott, now faces murder charges. If he is convicted, Scott’s death would not be considered a justifiable homicide and as a result would not be counted in the FBI’s statistics.

A Wall Street Journal review of the Supplementary Homicide Report from the FBI found that the voluntary nature of submitting data has created significant holes, concluding that there are “hundreds of homicides by law-enforcement agencies between 2007 and 2012 that aren’t included in records kept by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” A recent Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report also cast doubt on the accuracy of various homicide measures. The BJS review found that the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report captured only 46 percent of police killings and the BJS’s Arrest Related Death Program captured only 49 percent. Even after combining these two measures, an estimated 28 percent of police homicides were not counted in 2011.

Congress passed a law last year that will require all law enforcement agencies to track the death of any person in police custody, which includes deaths that occur while being arrested. The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 is a significant step forward because it requires annual submissions of reports to the Justice Department detailing the name, race, gender, ethnicity, and age of the deceased. The report will also require the attorney general to report these findings to Congress; however, we may have to wait some time to see these statistics as the first report will come “not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney General Eric Holder recently called for better data on police officer-involved deaths. This issue is also going to be an important topic in the next CJIS Advisory Policy Board Meeting this summer, where changes to the FBI’s crime-reporting procedures are discussed. But sadly it took several high profile incidents to get the government to count these incidents accurately, and it will take some time before improved statistics are available.

So no, police officer-involved deaths are probably not on the rise; instead media coverage and public attention have increased dramatically. Some may question what caused this to become a national issue, but the more appropriate question seems to be: why wasn’t it an issue already?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Police Shootings on the Rise, and Why Isn’t the Government Counting? appeared first on Law Street.

Waze is a popular application that provides information to drivers about the best route to take, and utilizes user-generated information to alert drivers to where cops are located. Because of this feature, Waze has encountered criticism from various police forces and the government; however, that same technology is now enabling Waze to partner with the city of Los Angeles for the greater good.

Instead of just providing drivers with the fastest way to get from point A to point B or warning them to slow down because of speed traps, Waze will now also provide alerts to users about hit-and-run incidences as well as kidnappings, in order to try to crowd source aid. The app may also be used to provide other information to Los Angeles users, such as notifications about road closures or other delays. Additionally, Waze could create a way for users to interact with the city, such as features that allow reporting downed lights or other things that need to be taken care of by the government.

This partnership was announced by Mayor Eric Garcetti in his recent State of the City speech, and spokespeople working for Waze have said that they’re happy to be working with the city of Los Angeles. The company was purchased by Google in 2013 and has continued to grow rapidly. While Waze is working with other cities as well, such as Boston and Washington D.C., this new move to partner with L.A. seems to be very extensive, and is a big get for Waze. De-Ann Eisnor stated about the new partnership, “We are very, very excited that Los Angeles is doing this. It’s huge for us.”

It’s also a good move for the city. Overall, some ten percent of its residents use the application. Los Angeles actually has the highest population of Waze users in the United States, at around 13.1 million, and the second highest population in the world, after Sao Paolo. It’s important to keep in mind however, that Los Angles and Sao Paolo are very big cities–the city with the highest proportion of Waze users is Tel Aviv, where Waze was founded. Adding more public safety features to the app in L.A. may up the user count there even more.

This new partnership probably won’t go all the way toward assuaging concerns that police officers, or governments, have over the app. The fact that it can provide information about the whereabouts of police officers certainly can be viewed as concerning. That being said, with all the potential for public benefit, Waze seems like it can end up doing a lot more good than harm.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Waze App and Los Angeles Announce Partnership appeared first on Law Street.

Sports stadiums are great places for brawls to break out. Or fist fights, alcohol induced screaming matches, or a whole litany of other inappropriate behavior. So, in some cities with NFL teams, police are coming up with new ways to try to stem the violence. In Seattle, for example, members of the police force are going to go undercover as opposing teams’ fans. At last night’s game against Green Bay, Seattle officers planned to wander around in Packers’ garb.

Apparently this is not a new thing — officers have shown up to games a few times before dressed as opposing teams’ fans. In a post-season 49ers-Giants game last year, for example, there were undercover cops in Giants wear.

The move is an interesting and pragmatic one in a sport that has a history of fighting almost as old as the NFL itself. It’s not hard to find examples of two teams’ fans getting into it — take the nasty fight between fans of the San Diego Chargers and Dallas Cowboys last October, for example. Two groups, each wearing their teams’ jerseys, brawled in the stadium parking lot after one woman slapped a man for reasons still unknown but probably related to the game that had just let out. The fight escalated until people were hit over the head with beer bottles in a confrontation that lasted for a total of 25 minutes. In a follow up with the police after the fight, local news station NBC 7 learned that there are arrests after pretty much every Chargers home game.

The fights don’t even always happen during games that really matter. A few years ago, after a preseason game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders, two men were shot in an apparent sports-induced altercation.

It’s pretty easy to understand how football games, and other sports for that matter, can end in blows. In addition to freely flowing alcohol, there’s something about sports that can get people so completely riled up. Christian End, a professor of sports fan behavior at Xavier University, explains the phenomenon, pointing out that it’s easy to get swept up in a crowd. As End explains it, “the anonymity of large crowds can afford some fans the opportunity to act in a way that they typically wouldn’t because there’s less accountability and less fear of repercussion.”

There’s few solutions to the problem of fan violence at football games, and the ones that do exist seem entirely unlikely to be implemented. For example, given that alcohol is often fuel for these fights, it would make sense to ban alcohol at sporting events, or at the very least install some sort of drink limit. But given the huge profits made from selling alcohol at football games, I highly doubt any NFL team would ever comply.

So, here we are, with undercover cops dressed up as fans from incoming teams. Well, sort of. They’re undercover in the sense that they are not easily distinguishable as cops, but in Seattle the police are being very forthright about their plans. The operation is an attempt to deter violence in the first place — a message to Seahawks fans not to attack that jerk in the Packers shirt, because he may be able to turn around and arrest you. If it goes well, and the officers are able to respond accordingly to any violence that does break out, it’s a model that would be pretty easily implemented throughout the country at games that are high risk for confrontations. Fights will probably still happen, but hopefully some would-be brawlers will think twice.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jame and Jesse via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Undercover Cops Coming to an NFL Game Near You appeared first on Law Street.

Though I have spent the last few years living in the great state of New Jersey, in all reality I am a Southerner – as my dropped g’s and pronunciation of the number ten will attest. Next week, I will be getting’ over my homesickness with a quick trip below the Mason-Dixon Line – and hopefully when I return north I won’t have reverted back to my indecipherable twang – come on, ya’ll, I am to understandable.

As the North’s Southern representative, I’d like to start this post by answerin’ a few questions I’ve genuinely gotten over the years:

• No. I’ve never had road kill.
• Yes. Pen and pin are pronounced the exact same way – and don’t try to tellin’ me different.
• No. I’ve never been cow tippin’.
• Yes. SEC football is the best. Roll Tide!

Courtesy of Gifsoup.

Now that we have that all cleared up, I’ve got a doozy of a lawsuit for ya this week. In anticipation of my return to the Southland, I’m gonna get us all in a Dixie state of mind. Does what I’m about to say surprise anyone? Us Southerners get ourselves involved in some pretty weird situations. And what that leads to oft times is some pretty weird lawsuits. So sit back with a glass of tea (there ain’t no need to get more specific than “tea” – real tea is cold and contains a pound of sugar per gallon), and listen while I tell ya’ll about one of my favorites.

My college roommate was from Moultrie, Georgia. My mom has many a time had to go to Moultrie for work. Both my sisters went to college in a town not far from Moultrie. So believe me when I tell you that I have a real strong investment in keeping Moultrie safe. But if the local police force keeps spendin’ all their time firin’ people cause they’re white, then when’s any patrollin’ gonna get done?

When you go around suin’ your former employer because you say they forced you to resign cause you were white, you’d best have a real good case. So I’m sure Andrew Underwood came to court with a heap of a lot of evidence against the police department. On the other hand, maybe he didn’t respond to “specific record citations to the statement of undisputed material facts provided by the City of Moultrie and the MPD” thus allowing any of those facts the court thinks supported by evidence to be admissible.

Okay. Maybe the stuff claimed by the department wasn’t all that bad. Maybe they had such a bad claim, that Underwood didn’t even need to bother answerin’ them. Let’s just look at what the MPD said led up to the resignation, and then make up our minds.

Here is a list of things Moultrie claims make forced resignation justifiable:

•  Leavin’ your police car running, with the windows down, unattended;
• Exitin’ your police car before putting it in park;
• Runnin’ your police car through a red light;
• Forgettin’ to tell dispatch where you are;
• Causin’ an accident in your police car while talkin’ on a cell phone;
• Mysteriously damagin’ the rear bumper of your car and not being able to explain how it happened;
• Accidently shootin’ yourself with your police firearm;
• Losin’ a notebook full of incident reports, a pager, a gas card, and a $100 counterfeit bill;
• Leavin’ your shotgun on the steps of the police department;
• Not knowin’ how that knife in your trunk got there or if it was evidence; and
• Arrestin’ the wrong person.

Courtesy of GIPHY.

And let me tell you what, I left some of the claims out just for the sake of time. After readin’ all that, I guess I’d have to say that there is a good chance that Mr. Underwood simply forgot to respond to the department’s claims against him. But still, this doesn’t prove anythin’. They still coulda had a real problem with him bein’ white and just used all the above as an excuse.

After all, why did they do nothin’ about all this, which took place over a number of years, and then suddenly force him to resign? Oh…they had implemented a series of disciplinary tactics increasin’ in severity that ultimately led to the forced resignation? Huh. Mr. Underwood, I’m runnin’ out of ways to help you here.

Alright, I’ve got one more for you…would they have done the same thing if, say, Mr. Underwood had been African-American? Oh…they actually had an African-American female with a similar track record AND an African-American male with a substantially less embarrasin’ track record (who’s hirin’ the Moultrie police officers, by the way?) who were both treated in a like manner? I’m afraid you’re on your own on this one, Buddy.

The court and I agree: Mr. Underwood, you lose this one. But bless your heart for tryin’.

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured Image courtesy of [The Bees Knees Daly via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post White Cop, Bad Cop: Idiot Is Not a Protected Southern Class appeared first on Law Street.

Flashing red and blue lights in your rear-view mirror can cause the blood to drain from your face, your hands to become clammy, and your heart to do a gymnast-style somersault. After the immediate physical effects of dread set in, questions begin to catapult forth from your mind. “How much will this cost me? “Did the officer see me texting?” “Am I going to lose my license?” The questions become louder and more frequent during that dreaded time waiting for the officer to approach your window and request your license and registration.

This is a nerve-racking situation that many will encounter during their years as drivers, which is why it is important to know your rights when a cop pulls you over. The following tips teach you what to do when you get pulled over and will make the anxiety-ridden experience more pleasant for you and the officer.

When Can an Officer Legally Pull You Over?

A cop needs probable cause — that is, a legitimate reason to believe you broke the law — in order to stop you. Speeding or driving with a broken tail light are both common examples of probable cause. Once you are pulled over, however, if a police officer observes something illegal in your vehicle such as drugs or weapons, he or she can arrest you and would not have to prove that you were speeding in court — just his account of the story suffices.

How and Where Should You Pull Over?

Unfortunately, due to the presence of crooked cops and police impersonators, it is of paramount importance to pull over in a well-lit, populated area. This promotes better safety for both the officer and driver. If you cannot pull over immediately, give a hand signal to the officer indicating that you plan to and drive the speed limit until you find a safe place; however, do not coast or drive for too long before stopping, as this could make it seem like you are trying to hide something. Once you do stop, there is some dispute as to whether or not it is a good idea to get out of the car. While staying in the driver’s seat could lead to the suspicion that you are concealing a weapon, getting out of the car can also seem threatening to some officers. A retired State Trooper in Virginia told the AOL Autos section that he never wanted drivers to get out of the car, as to him this indicated that he or she had something to be afraid of.

I don’t care if you’re the baddest officer there is, there’s always someone out there who’s badder than you, and if we can keep them inside the car, that’s the best way to keep from being injured.

-Retired Virginia State Trooper

Be On Your Best Behavior

You’ve already been pulled over, and whether or not you think this action was justified, it is important to be courteous to the officer to avoid provoking him or her to slam you with a higher fine or charge. Take a few deep breaths, greet the officer kindly, and don’t make any snide remarks.

According to the same retired Virginia officer, a woman once harassed him while he was trying to write her ticket. “I had to roll my window up while she was yelling at me…Well, I guess she didn’t like that because she yanked my door open and said, ‘Don’t you ignore me, you m——- f——!’ Well, that was it, she crossed the line there, so I cuffed her and arrested her for disorderly conduct and took her in.” Had she kept her cool, the woman may have prevented an unnecessarily unpleasant experience for both her and the officer.

It’s important to remember that you have the right to remain silent. Choosing your words carefully can be beneficial, as officers often seek an admittance of guilt from the driver. The 5th Amendment protects individuals against self-incrimination. This means that you can answer “no” to an officer when he or she asks if you know why you were pulled over and to similar questions.

After the officer issues a ticket, warning, or other penalty, ask him or her if you may leave. This avoids the chance of leaving any loose ends or seeming like you are trying to make a getaway.

When Can a Cop Search Your Car or Cell Phone?

A police officer can legally search your vehicle under five circumstances:

1. If the officer asks and you consent to the search
2. If you have an illegal substance or object in plain sight
3. If you are arrested for a legitimate reason
4. If the officer has adequate reasoning to suspect a crime
5. If the officer believes crucial evidence could be destroyed without a search

These five criteria also dictate when an officer can do a search on a home. Minor traffic violations on their own do not constitute just cause for a search. The 4th Amendment provides the right to refuse a search, but officers do not need to inform drivers of this.

Recently, the Supreme Court heard a case regarding whether or not it is lawful for officers to search the contents of cell phones without a warrant. The justices determined that doing so is generally unlawful, except to physically examine the phone to ensure it cannot be used as a weapon. If a police officer asks to search your phone, you can refuse to consent to the search until he or she has a warrant.

Know Your State Laws

Being at least slightly familiar with the driving laws in your state can be immensely beneficial in the event that you are pulled over. These laws can vary immensely from state to state, especially with regard to the use of electronic devices while operating a vehicle. For example, in New York, it is unlawful to talk on a cell phone whereas other states permit the use of hands-free devices.

Knowing even your most basic rights as a driver can only serve as a benefit in the event that you are pulled over. Click here to see an infographic with a state by state overview of driving.

 —

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jace via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do You Know What to Do When You Get Pulled Over? appeared first on Law Street.

More police officers than ever before are being held accountable for misconduct as a result of increased public awareness, media pressure, and new technologies capable of documenting altercations in horrifyingly graphic detail. While the frequency of punishments has increased, however, victims and their families are starting to realize that the word “accountability” may not actually mean very much.

For many officers accountability can be considered little more than a slap on the wrist. Verbal or written reprimands, the loss of a few vacation days, or suspension are all standard fare punishments for police misconduct. In extreme cases involving excessive force, an officer may be put on paid leave, forced to retire (with full benefits), or fired.

For people like Mike Gomez, whose 22-year-old son was shot and killed by an Albuquerque police officer in 2012, these punishments are a far cry from justice. The officer who shot his unarmed, mentally ill son in the chest was put on paid leave and given $500 by the Albuquerque police union to cope with the stress of the shooting. Naturally this was very upsetting to the victim’s family; as Mike Gomez puts it, while officers get a bonus and a paid vacation for the killing, all the family gets is a funeral bill.

A report by the Cato Institute of Justice reveals that if excessive force complaints involving fatalities were prosecuted as murders, then “the murder rate for law enforcement officers would exceed the general population murder rate by 472%.” This statistic speaks for itself, but a part of the problem is that the consequences for unnecessarily ending someone’s life seem to fall on cities in the form of settlements rather than on the officers themselves.

For example, while the officer who shot Mike Gomez’s son was cleared of all charges, the city still decided to settle the wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Gomez family for $900,000 rather than go to trial, citing the move as the “best economic, legal and policy decision”.

To the Gomez family this is simply blood money and the only legal recognition that they will receive that the death of their son was unwarranted. The fact still remains that the man who shot him will never spend a day behind bars or face any legal consequences for the act.

Even having video documentation is no guarantee that officers will ever be brought to justice. A perfect example of this is an incident at UC Davis where Lieutenant John Pike was recorded using military-grade pepper spray at point-blank range on a line of seated protesters.

The iconic incident sparked international outrage and a cry for Lt. Pike and other members of UC Davis leadership to be removed immediately from the campus payroll. Two independent inquiries into the incident (summarized in a conjoined report) condemned Lt. Pike for needlessly assaulting the group of students, finding him culpable for other professional transgressions as well.

This report was the result of months of thorough investigation, based on intense review of video footage of the incident, interviews with multiple witnesses, and conducted by independent consultants and a panel of well-respected statesmen. Nonetheless, their findings did not bear any weight on whether or not Lt. Pike would keep his job or even if he would face any disciplinary measures. That was left solely to the determination of an internal affairs investigation conducted by the police department because in states like California, police officers’ rights are so extensive that they severely limit independent public review of police conduct.

What’s worse is the fact that their methods, findings, and any actions that resulted from the investigation are all secret. To this day we still don’t know if Lt. Pike was fired or able to retire with full benefits – all the university was allowed to disclose is that he is no longer employed at the school.

While it is no secret that being a police officer is a dangerous job, it is undoubtedly true that officers sometimes step outside the bounds of their authority, often at the expense of those in their care. While the majority of police officers conduct themselves in a way that befits their position of power, it is distressing that those who flagrantly disregard rules receive little more than a slap on the wrist for conduct that has ended lives, torn apart communities, and violated constitutional rights.

In most cases, even when the officer in question is found culpable, the only punishment he or she receives is the loss of employment. While some may argue that losing one’s livelihood is a sufficiently severe punishment for excessive force – and perhaps in certain instances it is – it is not an adequate response to the functional equivalent of murder.

From start to finish, the way that officers are investigated, prosecuted, and eventually punished needs to be reformed. If someone can go to jail for the rest of his life for stealing tools from a tool shed then it is absurd that most cases of police brutality do not even result in criminal charges. Police officers are meant to protect the law, not stand above it.

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes via Flickr]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Families of Victims of Police Brutality Question Officer Accountability appeared first on Law Street.