home

Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 12:38:07 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

A professor who has been under contract since 2000 to study traffic stop data in Riverside, California has never concluded that Riverside police engage in racial profiling. Some question his methodology, which he admits to be flawed, and others find evidence of racial profiling in data about vehicle searches.

One area that is easier to study, [Prof. David] Harris said, is vehicle searches. "It's a very good measure of how police officers decide to use their discretion," he said. If the search data show hit rates that are low for blacks and high for whites, he explained, that could mean that racial profiling is happening. The "hit rate" refers to the percentage of searches that uncover illegal activity. Gaines' report shows a 10.8 percent hit rate for whites and a 7.9 percent hit rate for blacks.

Whether or not the data signifies racial profiling, it's revealing to learn that 9 out of 10 times the Riverside police invade a motorist's privacy by searching a vehicle, they find nothing to support their suspicion of criminal behavior.

< Biden Calls for Closure of Guantanamo | Guantanamo: After Acquittal, More Detention >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside | 47 comments (47 topical)
    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#46)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    Well, it looks like a cop's hunch is a better indicator of innocence than of guilt. So, Patrick, next time you have a hunch about somebody you should just relax because there's a 90% chance that they're OK. It's the people you don't have a hunch about you have to worry about.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#1)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    “... it's revealing to learn that 9 out of 10 times the Riverside police invade a motorist's privacy by searching a vehicle ... ” I’m curious how many of these were conducted with consent and how many were conducted with probable cause. If this is simple ‘trial and error’ detective work 1 out of 10 isn’t bad, given that they were consensual. However, if they weren’t consensual this would certainly indicate the officers were incompetent or the threshold for probable cause too low.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#2)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    What? black cops also do Profiling of poor whites and hispanic ( mexican ) cops also do profiling of Americans in mexico, so is this about race hate of only white cops? "political".

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    The fascist racist cops have turned the old saw upon its head: Instead of "Is is better that 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned," they've gone for the more public-friendy "We'll lock up 100 innocent men if we have to find the 1 guilty man in the bunch..." How nice...To Serve and Protect?...or To Observe and Disrespect? Why the hell is the public standing for their employees harrassing them on the streets?

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#4)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    No,No Blaghdaddy, its really just about the show and making people hate this system for the total dismantling of this country for mass murder in the streets, its what the Rats want, mass killing.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    Why the hell is the public standing for their employees harrassing them on the streets?
    Because the majority of the public are a bunch of cowards with an irrational fear of violent crime. They are under the mistaken impression (thanks in part to a morbid, sensationalized mainstream media) that there are violent hordes of murderers and rapists ready to kill them and their families. So they let the police trample the rights of people at will.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#6)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    Why the hell is the public standing for their employees harrassing them on the streets?
    Umm, becuase it's not happening as frequently as you or most here want to believe it's happening. I love it. Here's a study that doesn't prove or disprove anything. I heard a lot of, "Could indicate," and,"possibly," type statements, then T-Chris tops is off with this gem,
    Whether or not the data signifies racial profiling, it's revealing to learn that 9 out of 10 times......
    And of course Blagh and crew sign right on. If it weren't so funny, because it's so blatantly obvious, it would be sad.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#7)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    Blag - The cops are doing it either with permission, or with probable cause. Either way, if they find something the courts are going to decide if it can be used as evidence. So, outside of wanting to rant about something, what's your point?

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    Point being that the police have no business pulling over people who haven't done anything overtly illegal...at least, that's the way it works in Canada...funny, Blaghdaddy thought America espoused the same fundamental respect for privacy...guess not...

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    And Patrick, the only sad thing is that you think you live in a fee society...come up here and see how it's really done...

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    "Typo" alert...make that "free," 'cause you certainly do live in a "fee" society, the price being blood, sweat and money down the drain in Iraq, the price being police harrassment of citizens being yawned at... Is Blaghdaddy at the wrong site today? Or have the chatterers taken over again?

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#11)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    Blagh,
    Point being that the police have no business pulling over people who haven't done anything overtly illegal...at least, that's the way it works in Canada.
    Once again with the statements coming out of left field. NO ONE, except you, is claiming there was no justification for the traffic stops. That would be illegal. Having grown up on the Canadian border, I can assure you that you're less free in some areas and perhaps more free in others. Try drinking a can of beer in your front yard in Ontario eh Blaghbaddy? Care to share with the rest of the crew what happens to you if the cops catch you?

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    Are you talking about traffic stops or random stops? If they're traffic stops, what's the 9 out of 19 figure refer to? Explain, please... If they're random stops, then you can have your bloody country and its "freedom" hypocrisy...the only free people in America are the ones standing on everyone else's necks... But if they aren't random checks, Blagh takes his comment back...he was referring to random stops where the driver hasn't broken any law to be pulled over for...

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    9 out of 10, that is...Blagh's been up all night with Baby Blagh and isn't quite himself today...

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    You know what, Patrick, you're right...the study, upon a more careful reading, is about police searches of cars they've pulled over...point conceded... But... 1. If you pull Blagh over for speeding, how does that give you the right to search his trunk for contraband? 2. If 9 out of 10 drivers aren't found to be doing anything, aren't you making society feel like they're criminals if the police keep searching traffic-stop vehicles just because they can? 3. When did so many Americans become supportive of such invasion of one's privacy? The government is the people's tool to ensure cohesion in society...why is the government calling the shots here? Because no one cares? Then why is anyone complaining? You whiners need to shut up and get off your duffs and do something if you feel the government is stepping on your rights...

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#15)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    OK, Blagh, ONly becuase it's fun... 1...It doesn't 2...10 out of 10 were most likely committing a traffic violation, and 9 out of 10 were doing nothing more. Knowing whether the searches were consensual or based upon probable cause would go a long way in answering your question. Assuming, for the purpose of this discussion, they were all consensual searches, the answer to your questions is, not necessarily. I've been thanked by motorists for doing that very thing, especially when I deal with them truthfully. 3....That's a three parter... Part A..It's not an invasion of privacy if you give me your permission to search your car right? Can you answer your own question now? Part B...The Gov't is not calling the shots, the motorists themselves, giving permission, are the ones in charge. Part C...No, because done when they do their jobs properly and legally, the public support will law enforcement and their efforts.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#16)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    “If you pull Blagh over for speeding, how does that give you the right to search his trunk for contraband?” It doesn’t. I’m sure Patrick can verify, but the cops will ask to search if they think you are holding and most of these morons will consent to the search. I can’t feel bad about someone waiving rights they don’t know they have. If your rights aren’t important enough to you to find out what they are, well …

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#17)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    Oops, a bit late.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#18)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    PW, I think we about covered it no?

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#19)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    whoa....Part C should have read... No, because when they do their jobs properly and legally, the public supports law enforcement and their efforts. Sorry!

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Patrick, you've got a point there...if people don't know they can refuse to a search, they should learn...Blaghaddy's had his own "profiling" experience and many more, and that's why he salutes honest cops every day and tells nosy, "mind if I look in your trunk" cops to "Fozad..." So Patrick, perhaps we're both right...or wrong...who cares?

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#21)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    I care, because idiots shoot of their mouths about issues they don't understand (Or understand all to well and deliberately do it) and undermine public confidence in law enforcement. As I've said in the past, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticise cops, we don't need people with agendas and axes to grind. Call me sily but I think it's important to know what your talking about in a public forum where you have the opportunity to influence the thinking of others. And yes, I've done enough foot in mouth to know.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#22)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    The ‘if you have nothing to hide then you won’t mind me looking’ tack seems to work exceptionally well, which baffles me. As a youth I had it used on me several times, and more often than not I was holding. My response, ‘I don’t feel comfortable with strangers looking through my personal belongings’. That usually ended it; but if I wasn’t holding just for fun I would offer a trade, they could look through my car in exchange for me looking through their home. Never had any takers.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#23)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    PW, Yes that way works well. I've asked people why they gave me consent when they knew they were holding and they said they thought I would think they were guilty. Who cares what I think. But it isn't just about drugs. I've done consent searches for child porn, rapes, stolen property, etc. The only type of case where I won't at least try is homicide. No sense mucking up a case if you lose a motion on a consent. Newsflash, people who give consent sometimes change or embelish their story after they talk to a lawyer. Hmmmmmm

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    The "Who Cares" was rhetorical, Patrick...you're going to hurt yourself...you only care when the law is on your side...when it ain't, you'll be the first one screaming "I have rights..."

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#25)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Blagh, Yes of course, you're right. And I imagine your less boisterous when the law is on your side too. P.S. The first sentence was sarcasm.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Blagh is an obnoxious muhfuh every day of the week, Patrick...that's the diffence between him and hypocrites who change their tune depending on what side of the law they're on... So, you weren't around when Blagh spoke of being arrested and charged with mischief when he had a bi-polar melt-down and kicked out a car window. Did Blagh cry and scream? Nope- he went to court, told them what he had to say and they said, "Get lost- you're no criminal." Point is, Blagh walked into court like a man and said, "Here I am, let's rock..." So Patrick, Blagh talks the talk and walks the walk...unlike jack-asses who just talk a good game...

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Right...

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#28)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    To all, its for the show and its a joke, the system wants you to fear in all things and by using fear it come control you, also the public stand for nothing because we have only race groups ruuning this show with the oligarchies as the ring masters, and in the end people will pay for this madness with mass death. the report is part of the control and the show.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#29)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Blag - My comment assumed the police had a valid reason for making the stop. The question is about searches after the stop.
    "One area that is easier to study, [Prof. David] Harris said, is vehicle searches."
    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#30)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Patrick- Believe it or not, we also have cops who "embellash". One guy was so bad, the Judges threw out any of his cases just for the asking. I've had cases where one cop lies, only to be followed by an honest cop. Our local appellate court actually ruled that a judge needs extra "objective" facts to not believe a cop. The old role of judging the facts because the testimony was given in front of you, has been thrown out. No one has a monopoly on lies in this business

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#31)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Roger,
    No one has a monopoly on lies in this business
    Agreed, however, I think it more likely to find a criminal defendant than a criminal cop, but hey, that's me. I just take exception to people who somehow don't have to put their pants on one leg at a time, and I think we have one such person here.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    10%, what a great statistic. Gave consent or not is irrelevant UNLESS every motorist who is stopped is asked. Consent is sought because the officer has a "hunch" or what they deem is pc, and 10% of the time they are right? Embarassing...

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#33)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    More accurately 10% of the time they confirm their hunch. I personally know locating something illegal in a person's vehicle is not always as easy as it sounds. It doesn't mean they were wrong. I'm sure JL knows that based on his past experience. Why he choses to ignore it now is beyond me.
    Consent is sought because the officer has a "hunch" or what they deem is pc,
    Uh, no. Consent may be requested for any number of reasons, hunches being but one. "PC" or probable cause is a whole different ball game and requires nothing more for a lawful vehicle search. I believe these results exclude cases where there is PC based on the nature of the study, but if you want to include that to make your comment look more valid, have at it.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    10% is a good number? It is profiling. If a lie detector test were correct 10% of the time, would you ever advocate their usage? They have PC and find something 10% of the time and you consider this a compelling stat? They ASKED if they can search their vehicle, why? Did they have PC or a hunch?

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Patrick, you are an officer, certainly you realize that some cops will lie to get consent? I have been told that if I do not give consent that they will tow and search my vehicle anyway. Not true of course, but he was fishing for a chance to search without pc.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#36)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    I don't know if it's a good number, it's the quote from the study.
    They have PC and find something 10% of the time and you consider this a compelling stat?
    I don't believe this is an accurate statement. I believe, based on the type of study, that they excluded cases where there was PC. If I told you that you could have a free chance at winning money, but you'd only win it 1 out of 10 times would you still try?
    They ASKED if they can search their vehicle, why? Did they have PC or a hunch?
    With PC, they don't need to ask. With a hunch that's all they can do. Sometimes I ask when I have PC, but that's a tactical consideration, and again I think they excluded cases where there was probable cause. As far as the lie detector, I believe they are 100% inaccurate and don't advocate their use. The interview in the beginning and subsequent interviews are where the truth is discovered, and that's what I advocate.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#37)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    V2marty, That is coerced consent and is not valid. I suggest you immediately report any officer who does such a thing, I'll even help you. If you don't, you only have yourself to blame. Will anything happen? Depends on the officer. If he's really doing it and enough people complain he'll be rooted out.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    Ok, thanks Patrick. It still boils down to profiling. If the "hunches" are producing at a 10% clip, again that is more than embarassing. Relative to PC, there is a ton of leeway in what constitutes "PC": Most of the sources can be categorized into four (4) groups: Observation -- These are things that the police officer obtains knowledge of via the senses: sight, smell, hearing; but this category would also include the kinds of inferences to be made when the experienced police officer is able to detect a familiar pattern (of criminal activity) that contains a series of suspicious behaviors (e.g., circling the block twice around an armored car unloading at a bank). Expertise -- These are the kinds of things that a police officer is specially trained at; such things as gang awareness and identification, recognition of burglar tools, the ability to read graffitti and tatoos, and various other techniques in the general direction of knowing when certain gestures, movements, or preparations tend to indicate impending criminal activity. Circumstantial Evidence -- This is evidence that points the finger away from other suspects or an alibi, and by a process of elimination, the only probable conclusion to be drawn is that the person or things left behind is involved in crime. Information -- This is a broad category which includes informants, statements by witnesses and victims, and announcements via police bulletins, broadcasts, and at roll call. One can collapse these categories down to two (2) into direct and indirect: I. Direct Sources of Probable Cause (Officer sources of knowledge) FLIGHT -- Attempting to flee, evade or elude, is in evidence law a presumption of guilt. It's not by itself sufficient for probable cause, but it's surely going to result in a chase situation and custodial detention of some sort. The case of Wong Sun v. U.S. (1963) covered suspects who run out the side or back door as sufficient for probable cause, however, and there have been other cases in which suspicious behavior like dropping packages or using phones but not talking have held up. FURTIVE MOVEMENTS -- "Furtive" means secretive or concealing, and the law requires a totality of circumstances here. The movement cannot possibly be construed as an innocent gesture (looking both ways before crossing the street). Nervousness alone is not sufficient as the law recognizes the right of people to be nervous or fearful around police. The movement cannot also be possibly the sign of a mental condition. There must be something secretive given the time, setting, weather, and audience. It would be best if the furtive movements were identifiable with a particular type of crime. OBSERVATION OF REAL EVIDENCE -- "Real" evidence is demonstrative evidence (Exhibit A) that speaks for itself. Most of the time, these kinds of things are in plain view (binoculars and cameras are allowed as well as normal extensions of the senses, but you can't use a portable microscope to analyze the grass for fibers, e.g.). Fresh footprints is a good example, and the list includes: imprints, impressions, models, diagrams, sketches, photographs, video, and computer animation. ADMITTED OWNERSHIP -- This involves, for example, a type of consent in which a person, say, accidentally empties the contents of their purse or pockets, and the police ask them if they own something, and they say "yes", and then the police look inside it and find contraband, they are said to have had probable cause for the search and seizure. FALSE OR IMPROBABLE ANSWERS -- This is not normally a basis of probable cause alone, but it tends to trigger subsequent police inquiry or action. Examples might include a person being asked who the car belongs to, and they say "my cousin" but they don't know their cousin's name. Or, a girlfriend answers the door and says the apartment is rented under her boyfriend's name, but she doesn't know what kind of car her boyfriend drives. PRESENCE AT A CRIME SCENE or IN A HIGH-CRIME AREA -- The two of these are actually somewhat different. Police have more powers at crime scenes to commandeer something, but in high-crime areas, this source of probable cause is definitely not sufficient by itself, and would probably be an example of nullification under the void-for-vagueness doctrine applicable to loitering. There are a couple of rules, however. The "joint possession" rule means that everyone in the house is subject to search and seizure if the drugs and/or contraband are in a prominent location. The totality of circumstances test applies in high-crime areas where (a) the neighborhood has to have a notorious reputation; (b) there's a typical sequence of events; (c) there's flight or attempted flight; and (d) furtive movements are present. ASSOCIATION WITH KNOWN CRIMINALS -- This is not sufficient by itself for probable cause, except with some crimes, like conspiracies, counterfeiting, food stamp fraud, etc., where it's probable that others are involved or benefitting from the criminal activity. Association with a known drug dealer can also be incriminating in some cases. The most common case would involve somebody acting as security or a lookout for another, and this would be part of the experienced police officer standard. PAST CRIMINAL CONDUCT -- An officer's personal knowledge of a suspect's past would be considered more likely to establish probable cause than just knowing they had a rap sheet. The officer would most likely have to know fairly intimate details of the person's life (perhaps by having previously arrested or interrogated them). In most cases, however, knowledge of this information is considered by the law to be relevant, but not sufficient. FAILURE TO PROTEST -- This is, again, a presumption. Innocent people would react more strongly to various police actions that are incriminating. It definitely cannot be used alone as a basis of probable cause, but the interesting thing about it is that the police have it both ways. A person who is acting extremely submissive or extra "nice" might also be someone who has something to hide.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#39)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    Marty, Also lying to get consent may not be illegal in some cases. Threats like the one you described above are clearly beyond the boundary.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#40)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    It still boils down to profiling. If the "hunches" are producing at a 10% clip, again that is more than embarassing.
    We just disagree. I don't think 10% is bad when you consider that it's the average of all the cases they studied. Nor do I think it proves racial profiling. What I think it does prove is that hunches or anything less than probable cause should not be a lawful justification to search someone's vehicle.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    you are correct, Patrick, and as soon as I called his bluff he backed off. The point is that there are more than a few with an "ends-justify-the-means" approach to searches. I am sure that 95% or more of the police are just trying to do the right thing, but the bad 5% are enough to make me real nervous.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    I did not say "racial profiling" just profiling. It seems to me that one could guess better than 10% creative hiding nothwithstanding......

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#43)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    What type of profiling are you referring to?
    It seems to me that one could guess better than 10% creative hiding nothwithstanding.
    You would think, but apparently you'd be wrong according to this study. I always thought I was better than 1 in 10, but I never kept track. Of course I imagine it's the average and that some officers had a better track and others a worse.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    I use profiling loosely (with caution). Hunches are based on the bias of the officer, whether it is loud music, race, bad music, attitude, clothes etc. I think our argument falls into whether or not 10% is acceptable or even "good". No other profession would accept a 10% success ratio although the argument can be made that no other profession is charged with protecting the public so to speak. So the greater question is what would an acceptable percentage be? I believe 80% would be acceptable to me.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#45)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    No other profession would accept a 10% success ratio although the argument can be made that no other profession is charged with protecting the public so to speak.
    If that is the framing of our discussion, I would argue that a 10% success rate is not a fair representation of LE as a whole. 10% success on mere hunches is good enough for me as long as it's done legally. Or you consider it in this light, 90% of motorists stopped for traffic violations are otherwise obeying the law at that particular time and place. (Or at least weren't caught) In Riverside County of course.

    Re: Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside (none / 0) (#47)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    Roy, Yeah, sounds about right depending on our perspective. I didn't know I wasn't relaxed, but thanks for the advice.

    Vehicle Stop Data in Riverside | 47 comments (47 topical)