37 ms·

I completely agree with you, but I don't think this will happen until we end the war on drugs and civil asset forfeiture. If traffic stops were really just abou

by learc83 10y ago

I completely agree with you, but I don't think this will happen until we end the war on drugs and civil asset forfeiture. If traffic stops were really just about public safety then you wouldn't need armed officers to execute them.

modoc 10y ago
That makes almost no sense to me. Routine traffic stops often bring LEOs and "bad guys" or folks with open warrants out for them, etc... in close contact with short notice and little planning. Bad guys often panic and shoot, or drive off dangerously, etc...
- learc83 10y ago
  > Bad guys often panic and shoot, or drive off dangerously, etc. The problem is, what is you're definition of often? And how effective is a (likely holstered handgun) in these situations? Is an armed officer more or less likely to be shot at? Does the presence of an armed officer in all routine traffic stop increase safety overall (not just for the officer, but for non-violent civilians as well). If you look at it from a cost benefit analysis, giving all traffic cops firearms may result in a small decrease in total deaths of officers during traffic stops [1], but a small increase in the total number of deaths of civilians (both innocent bystanders, and belligerent civilians who had no intention to seriously harm anyone). That's probably not enough to justify arming all traffic cops. However if you add in the benefit of a firearm as a tool of compliance to aid in traffic cop's abilities to confiscate drugs and cash, you tip the balance towards arming them. 1. Even this is a big assumption, because we don't know if criminals are more or less likely to fire at armed vs. unarmed traffic cops.
- JeffL 10y ago
  But without the war on drugs, the number of bad guys goes way down, doesn't it?
  - learc83 10y ago
    That's an excellent point. Some percentage of the criminals who shoot at cops during traffic stops are doing so because they don't want to get caught with the drugs they are carrying.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Probably not. Contrary to popular perception, the drug war is not a major factor in incarceration in the US. We do incarcerate thousands of people for drug crimes, and we do need to radically reform drug prohibition, but "ending the drug war" will have only a marginal impact.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Contrary to popular perception, the drug war is not a major factor in incarceration in the US. 46.3% of federal prisoners (nearly 85,000) are imprisoned for drug offenses -- not quite an absolute majority, but nearly triple the next highest category (Weapons, Explosives, and Arson.) [0] Fairly recently, it was only 17% for state prisons [1], which is still quite significant -- about 1 in 6. But both of those understate the degree to which the drug war drives imprisonment, because drug crimes (which tend to have a shorter sentence than violent crimes) account for nearly 1/3 of prison admissions, despite accounting for a lower share of total prison population. [1] [0] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen... [1] http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/11/25-drug-offenders-stock-flow-prisons-rothwell http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2...
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Federal prison inmates make up less than 8% of all incarcerated persons in the US. The overwhelming majority of all prisoners in the US are in state prisons, and they aren't imprisoned for drug crimes. The Pfaff survey study shows that most of them haven't ever been imprisoned for a drug crime.
        10y ago
mindslight 10y ago
Why is a traffic violation even de facto probable cause [0] to search someone for completely orthogonal concerns? That has been a massive end-run around the fourth amendment! Creating a class of disarmed traffic officers could be a great way to help restore the concept of privacy - make them powerless to enforce or provide testimony on anything besides traffic laws. This would have similar effects to deillegalizing personal possession of substances, including the non-politically-favored ones. Then, prevent the armed group from doing any traffic enforcement - they're solely reserved for already-escalated situations. Furthermore, this could reduce the perverse incentive of a highly paid position doing overtime traffic duty. (And furthermore while we're exploring this fantasy of defascizing automobile transport, let's change license plates to e-ink with a privacy-preserving blinded number that changes every hour) [0] By mandating that the person stop, open their window, etc, with any non-compliance escalating to legal probable cause.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Traffic violations aren't probable cause for searches. The police cannot search your car at a traffic stop simply because you've violated traffic law.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    That's the reason I said "de facto". Read my footnote. If I were to communicate with an officer by written messages shown through the glass (to avoid a search of my cabin air), do you think it would go well?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      "Non-compliance" doesn't "escalate to probable cause". What you're probably trying to say is that arrest generates cause for search, under the rules for "search incident to arrest". But arrest is a big deal, far bigger than traffic stop or even roadside detention. As for trying to communicate with officers through glass: I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, but there are tens of videos of people rolling their windows down minimally to respond to traffic stops, so that police can't put their heads in the car. ACLU even publishes one of them.

by learc83 10y ago

modoc 10y ago

That makes almost no sense to me. Routine traffic stops often bring LEOs and "bad guys" or folks with open warrants out for them, etc... in close contact with short notice and little planning. Bad guys often panic and shoot, or drive off dangerously, etc...

learc83 10y ago
> Bad guys often panic and shoot, or drive off dangerously, etc. The problem is, what is you're definition of often? And how effective is a (likely holstered handgun) in these situations? Is an armed officer more or less likely to be shot at? Does the presence of an armed officer in all routine traffic stop increase safety overall (not just for the officer, but for non-violent civilians as well). If you look at it from a cost benefit analysis, giving all traffic cops firearms may result in a small decrease in total deaths of officers during traffic stops [1], but a small increase in the total number of deaths of civilians (both innocent bystanders, and belligerent civilians who had no intention to seriously harm anyone). That's probably not enough to justify arming all traffic cops. However if you add in the benefit of a firearm as a tool of compliance to aid in traffic cop's abilities to confiscate drugs and cash, you tip the balance towards arming them. 1. Even this is a big assumption, because we don't know if criminals are more or less likely to fire at armed vs. unarmed traffic cops.
JeffL 10y ago
But without the war on drugs, the number of bad guys goes way down, doesn't it?
- learc83 10y ago
  That's an excellent point. Some percentage of the criminals who shoot at cops during traffic stops are doing so because they don't want to get caught with the drugs they are carrying.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Probably not. Contrary to popular perception, the drug war is not a major factor in incarceration in the US. We do incarcerate thousands of people for drug crimes, and we do need to radically reform drug prohibition, but "ending the drug war" will have only a marginal impact.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Contrary to popular perception, the drug war is not a major factor in incarceration in the US. 46.3% of federal prisoners (nearly 85,000) are imprisoned for drug offenses -- not quite an absolute majority, but nearly triple the next highest category (Weapons, Explosives, and Arson.) [0] Fairly recently, it was only 17% for state prisons [1], which is still quite significant -- about 1 in 6. But both of those understate the degree to which the drug war drives imprisonment, because drug crimes (which tend to have a shorter sentence than violent crimes) account for nearly 1/3 of prison admissions, despite accounting for a lower share of total prison population. [1] [0] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen... [1] http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/11/25-drug-offenders-stock-flow-prisons-rothwell http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2...
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Federal prison inmates make up less than 8% of all incarcerated persons in the US. The overwhelming majority of all prisoners in the US are in state prisons, and they aren't imprisoned for drug crimes. The Pfaff survey study shows that most of them haven't ever been imprisoned for a drug crime.
      - 10y ago

mindslight 10y ago

Why is a traffic violation even de facto probable cause [0] to search someone for completely orthogonal concerns? That has been a massive end-run around the fourth amendment! Creating a class of disarmed traffic officers could be a great way to help restore the concept of privacy - make them powerless to enforce or provide testimony on anything besides traffic laws. This would have similar effects to deillegalizing personal possession of substances, including the non-politically-favored ones. Then, prevent the armed group from doing any traffic enforcement - they're solely reserved for already-escalated situations. Furthermore, this could reduce the perverse incentive of a highly paid position doing overtime traffic duty. (And furthermore while we're exploring this fantasy of defascizing automobile transport, let's change license plates to e-ink with a privacy-preserving blinded number that changes every hour) [0] By mandating that the person stop, open their window, etc, with any non-compliance escalating to legal probable cause.

tptacek 10y ago
Traffic violations aren't probable cause for searches. The police cannot search your car at a traffic stop simply because you've violated traffic law.
- mindslight 10y ago
  That's the reason I said "de facto". Read my footnote. If I were to communicate with an officer by written messages shown through the glass (to avoid a search of my cabin air), do you think it would go well?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    "Non-compliance" doesn't "escalate to probable cause". What you're probably trying to say is that arrest generates cause for search, under the rules for "search incident to arrest". But arrest is a big deal, far bigger than traffic stop or even roadside detention. As for trying to communicate with officers through glass: I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, but there are tens of videos of people rolling their windows down minimally to respond to traffic stops, so that police can't put their heads in the car. ACLU even publishes one of them.