Police Ride-Along Experience - Assignment Example

Police Ride-Along Experience: Summary and Application of Procedural Precedent Abstract I completed a police ride-along experience on March 3, 2012 as per class instructions. I was assigned to a patrol officer named Officer Brian Franz for a four-hour shift. During this period of time there were three incidents, two traffic violations and an alleged gang-rape of two young girls. The last incident caused my shift to be extended by an hour while procedure was followed, and as Officer Franz had to wait for clearance to leave the scene, I had to remain with him. During the ride-along I questioned Officer Franz about various aspects of being a police officer as well as police procedures from questions I had prepared beforehand. Officer Franz was open, honest, and very professional with his answers. The three incidents that I observed during the ride-along were an opportunity to observe and relate real-life police procedure to procedural precedent that had been shared and studied in class, and I found that there was not much difference between the two. Police Ride-Along Experience I completed my police ride-along on March 3, 2012, being assigned a shift from 4:00PM to 8:00PM. I was assigned to Officer Brian Franz, a 3½ year veteran of the police department. My first questions to him were personal questions, which he answered with a level of openness, honesty, and professionalism that would soon become the trademark of our time spent together. Officer Franz indicated that he had no problems with me asking him questions as long as I did not interrupt police proceedings to do so, so I began with personal questions. Question 1: When did you join the police force? Officer Franz indicated that he joined the force at the age of thirty, and that this was not his first job, unlike others to enter the academy as soon as they are able or after gaining a degree. Prior to being a police officer, he had spent eight years in a job that involved sales. He did not elaborate further on this point, and I did not feel that it was polite to press him. Question 2: Do you like being a police officer? Officer Franz explained to me that he loved his job and that he loved people, and that he planned to stay with the police force for as long as possible. His career choice was to gain about 3-4 more years of experience on patrol. After that, he would take the civil exam and hopefully move up the ladder in rank. Officer Franz then took a break from answering my questions to explain the numerous safety rules for me to follow, which in all honesty I did not mind, as he truly did seem to have my best interest and safety at heart. I had to wear a standard-issue bulletproof vest, which brought home the reality of the ride-along immediately due to the heaviness of the garment. Officer Franz also explained that I would not be allowed to get out of the car at any time during the ride-along, and again stressed safety above everything else. The area he would be patrolling (with me along) was known as Zone 104, which was primarily a college area, with burglary and robberies being somewhat common calls received. He explained that though anything could come up, most often other than those two types of incidents were calls in which adults were possibly taking advantage of college students, college students throwing loud parties and breaking the local noise ordinances, and local juveniles making mischief. Since it was not a high-crime area, he explained that he would be patrolling alone, as was department procedure, though he did emphasize that two officers patrolled together in the high-crime areas. The shift then began with a roll call for all officers, which lasted about 15 minutes. Most of this involved a report from the previous shift, letting the officers know what to be on the lookout for. Areas of interest, including any to watch closely, are passed on from one shift to another for continuity and continuance in investigations. In accordance with what Officer Franz had told me, I did not ask questions during this time, as important information that was essential to their job was being passed on and I felt it would have been deeply disrespectful and rude to do anything other than observe during this juncture. After this, when we were in the patrol car and there were no calls coming in, Officer Franz graciously took the time to answer some more of the questions that I had prepared. Question 3: Can Anyone Be a Police Officer? Officer Franz explained that not everyone is cut out to be a police officer, and the department expected to see progression after the police academy during a four-month supervised field training period. He stated that during that time, supervisors rotate to provide different training and points of view to each new officer, and should a new officer not be showing any progression, they would be asked to resign. Question 4: How long does it take to get a “feel” for things on the Street? Officer Franz answered this question by saying that there really was not a set time, as a great deal depended on common sense and experience. He added that he learned something new every day. Officer Franz also explained that the ideal candidate for the job would be someone that is able to stay calm, someone who is able to relate to and talk to people, and someone who is able to keep a level head when it comes to emergencies. His personal philosophy and “motto” for the job was that as long as things were kept on calm and professional levels, no matter what came up, it was a win-win situation for everyone. Question 5: Have Things Changed as far as Training, Even Since You went to the Academy? Officer Franz stated that when he was in the academy it was a requirement for all officers to experience both the taser and the pepper spray in order to become certified in using them and pass their courses; however, this has been discontinued. He was blunt in telling me that both are quite painful, though he found the taser more so even taking into account the fact that the effects of pepper spray linger for 1-2 days after application. He also remembered at least one person having an allergic reaction to it, requiring medical attention. He did not say whether this was the reason why it was discontinued, and I did not pursue the matter further. Question 6: Do You Receive Training on the Subject of Dealing with Mentally Ill Persons? Officer Franz stated that they do receive training where mentally ill persons were concerned, in fact on a yearly basis. However, he feels that much of it stems “from the womb”, such as when pregnant mothers drink alcohol and take drugs. He also said that their home environment often works against them, and believes honestly that there is no hope for the mentally ill as far as rehabilitation; the best the police can do is respond professionally and try to sort things out when they are called in. Officer Franz took this opportunity to also talk about other programs which he feels have a more lasting effect on the community, such as the Neighborhood Engagement Program. In this program, police officers patrol on bicycles and interact with members of the community, including children, to increase their comfort level with the police. He stated that the perspective towards the police is often very jaded, depending on experiences that people have had with them and also if they were told negative things about them by their parents when they were growing up. Question 7: How Do You Deal with the Stress of Being a Police Officer? Officer Franz responded to this by telling me that there is indeed a great deal of stress with the job at times, as well as a great deal of paperwork; however, he did not mind the paperwork that much. He stated that he dealt with the stress by running and going to the gym, either alone or with fellow officers, and has found a “great outlet” in being able to talk to his fiancé at home, but acknowledged that one had to become “immune” to a certain things so that the job, quite literally, did not eat them alive with stress, which could affect not only the officer but also their family and home life. Question 8: Do you Have Confidence in Your Fellow Officers and/or the Department to Come to Your Aid, Should You Need It? Officer Franz was quite verbal in expressing complete confidence in his fellow officers, stating that they checked on each other throughout their shifts, and felt that any one of them would come to his aid if he needed it. As far as the department was concerned, Officer Franz stated that as long as everything was handled according to the law, provided that it was the right thing to do, should a question arise the department would back up any officer. Question 9: What is the Scariest Situation You Have Experienced as a Police Officer? Officer Franz answered that there was one experience that he had, that while he did not consider it that “scary”, it did impact him greatly. He related that he had come upon an accident scene where a stolen car had been driven 90mph and had crossed the intersection of Western Avenue, slamming into another car head-on which held a father that had just picked up his ten-year-old son from basketball practice. When Officer Franz came upon the scene he found that the father, who had been the driver, was dead and had had his head cut almost in half by the accident, with blood everywhere. The son was unharmed; however, what impacted Officer Franz the most was riding to the hospital with the boy and being with him when he was told about his father being dead, as they had managed to extract the boy from the car and away from the scene without him knowing about it. Question 10: Has This Job Changed You in Any Way? Officer Franz did not feel that this job had changed him. He stated that he was the same person that he had been at the start of being a police officer, minus the emotional immunity that he had built up in dealing with certain situations. This was one question that he did not give me much information about, and again, I did not press him for more, both out of politeness and the fact that it was a somewhat personal question. Question 11: Do you Agree with Department Procedures? Is There Anything that You Would Change? Officer Franz was quite blunt in answering this question. He stated that he agreed with all procedures and policies of the department, and further stated that he would not change a thing. Question 12: How Do You Feel About Profiling? Officer Franz answered that he felt profiling was “situational”. He stated expressly that he does not like to prejudge people, and believes that giving them the benefit of the doubt can work out extremely well in some cases; however, there are times when profiling, especially in high-crime areas, can be just as necessary. I engaged him in some discussion about procedural material studied in class with profiling, such as the video where a group of gentlemen were doing nothing but talking in a group and the police pulled over and wanted to question them for no reason or cause whatsoever. Officer Franz stated specifically that he would not engage in this; that there would have to be a strong tip from an informant or other cause to believe that something illegal was going on, or some other form of suspicious behavior, such as it being 2:00AM and the group being rowdy, or if one or more gentlemen were acting delusional, or if one or more appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He was quite firm on the fact that just standing and talking in a group is not a reason to want to search people. Police Procedure: Textbook versus the Ride-Along During the ride-along, I had the opportunity to see police procedure in action three times. Two of the incidents that occurred were minor traffic violations, yet they gave me an opportunity to ask questions about procedures behind them. The third incident of alleged gang-rape was not minor and in fact caused me to have to remain with Officer Franz an hour longer than my shift was originally scheduled due to its nature, however upon explanation I believe you will agree with me that there was no way to avoid this happening. Incident Number One: Traffic Accident The first incident was a traffic accident involving two vehicles. Officer Franz handled this quite speedily and professionally. He took the car information and licenses of both drivers and ran it through his computer, which turned up nothing in the way of background information that would cause either of them to be placed under arrest. Given this information, Officer Franz then gave both drivers their information back along with a police report number and an incident number, and sent both on their way. I found it interesting to learn that there was a keyboard printer in the patrol car. Officer Franz explained its uses, which the main use is for printing out tickets and citations. He also explained that there was a central computer program used by the police force, Intel, which kept them informed about data available from crimes in the surrounding area. For example, there was a car stolen in Colony and had he pulled over a car with the same make or model, or license plate number it would have immediately flashed on the computer, letting him be aware of the situation and giving him more information with which to do his job. Incident Number One: Application of Procedural Precedent As discussed in Scheb & Scheb II (2011), this is normal police practice and procedure. The officer takes down the license plate of the vehicles as well as registration of the vehicle and license of the driver, and runs a computer check to make sure that there are no outstanding warrants and/or other violations that he needs to be aware of before issuing any kind of citation (Scheb & Scheb II, 2011). Officer Franz could have performed a search of either of the vehicles involved under Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769; 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), which held that any traffic stop is a legitimate reason to search a vehicle. However, Officer Franz did not feel the need to search the vehicles, and therefore we were soon on our way from this incident. Incident Number Two: Minor Traffic Offense Another traffic incident that occurred during my ride-along was that of a motorist that had gone the wrong way down a one-way street. This time, Officer Franz witnessed the incident and pulled the driver over. After Officer Franz asked for his license, registration, and other information, which was given willingly, he issued a warning ticket to the driver so that should the same thing happen again, he could be cited more seriously the next time. I was interested to learn something that I had not known previously, which was that there was a computer log that would be kept of the incident, along with a picture taken of the car and license plate which was then entered into the Intel program used, so that other officers in the surrounding area would have the same information in the event that the driver went the wrong way down any more one-way streets. Incident Number Two: Application of Procedural Precedent This incident, as well as the first, clarified some procedures that I have read in the textbook. According to Scheb and Scheb II (2011), “a police officer is vested with discretion to make an arrest or issue a citation to a person that commits a minor traffic violation.” In either the first or the second incidents, Officer Franz could have placed any and/or all drivers under arrest, particularly in the second incident with the driver going the wrong way down a one-way street, which in my opinion is not only foolish but dangerous. However, according to State v. Hehman, 578 P.2d 257 (1978), if a person stopped in a traffic violation signs a promise to appear in court on a certain date, then officers have no right to place a person under arrest. As this was just a warning citation that was issued, and not even a citation that would require a signature, and given the fact that if officers went around arresting everyone for minor violations, jails would be exceedingly crowded, it is easier to understand why the driver was not placed under arrest, even if their actions were negligent. It should be noted that, should the driver have displayed other, more reckless behavior, such as not wearing a seat belt, or had the car been missing a license plate, it is my opinion that they would have indeed been placed under arrest, as in the case of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001) in which the driver was arrested for not wearing her seat belt. The Booking Process of the Police Department Officer Franz, when asked, did take the time to explain about the booking process. He explained that the rule was “safety first” in all cases, particularly when searching a suspect. They check each person placed under arrest three times for weapons and other dangerous objects. This is not only for safety, but in keeping with Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), in which it was ruled that while police had the right to search a person that was placed under arrest, the search must be kept to the body of the person being arrested and the area that the person had immediate access to. When they are brought into the station they are shackled to a wall, and then their arrest record is checked and/or formed, information is entered into record about the charges and reasoning, as well as photographs taken of the person themselves, scars, marks, tattoos, and all other identifiers. This information is also entered into the record in writing. He stated that then formal charges are filed, and after that it is up to the sergeant if they are released on their own recognizance or if they are held pending their arraignment; however, if they are arrested on a parole violation or a domestic violence charge, then that option does not exist, and they are placed in a holding cell for the night. According to Scheb and Scheb II (2011), “recognizance” is synonymous with “promise”, meaning that someone released under these circumstances acknowledges that they must appear in court, promises to do so, and is then free to go, but in some cases may have to agree to certain restrictions. Officer Franz did not state whether persons that were released under their own recognizance were subject to any restrictions, and I did not ask. The Booking Process: Application of Procedural Precedent This is consistent with procedures that have been studied in class. As Scheb & Scheb II (2011) notes, arrests are by far the most serious interactions with police and citizens, and measures are in place to protect the rights of citizens that are placed under arrest. Most notably is the Fifth Amendment, which states in part that “no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” There is a process involved in arresting someone, and it is apparent that this police department follows that procedure to be consistent with protecting the rights of the citizen. Also helping to protect the rights of a citizen placed under arrest is the process of filing formal charges, which again is adhered to in this department. According to Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201, 68 S.Ct. 514, 517, 92 L.Ed. 644, 647 (1948) as well as the United States Constitution, this is an area of great importance, as any person placed under arrest has the right to know the charges that have been filed against them, as well as an opportunity to contradict those charges and given evidence on their own behalf at trial. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948) specifically stated that “It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following a conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made.” Incident Number Three: Alleged Gang Rape The third incident that took place during the ride-along was the most serious, and the one that caused my shift to be extended for an hour. Officer Franz was called to the scene where a gang-rape initiation had occurred for two young girls. Once the girls had able to escape from the house where the incident had occurred, they had run to the nearest corner store and telephoned the police; we, along with other officers, arrived at the corner store after they had already been transported to the hospital by ambulance. We then proceeded to the house where the alleged event occurred, and Officer Franz again directed me that under no circumstances should I get out of the vehicle. Along with a sergeant and five other police officers, Officer Franz took part in questioning all of the suspects that were first brought out of the house in a group and then allowed to go back in but brought back out one by one for further questioning. After this, it was a matter of waiting for a lab report from the hospital and an arrest warrant. The suspects were allowed to remain inside the home due to the cold weather, but officers were inside the house with them making sure that the crime scene was not tampered with, as well as an officer outside continuously going around the house with a flashlight to make sure no evidence was thrown out of any windows. Officer Franz was not cleared to leave the scene until about 9:00PM, for which he apologized, but given the circumstances, he stated that he had no choice but to remain on the scene until cleared by his sergeant to leave. I indicated to him that I completely understood, and had absolutely no issues with staying past the scheduled time. Incident Number Three: Application of Procedural Precedent This incident stands out for more than one reason. First, the police officers remaining on the scene while waiting for the arrest warrant was significant. Usually, persons that are under suspicion of a crime are not aware that they are facing such scrutiny, and therefore there is time to prepare an arrest warrant without wondering if the suspects will still be available when it is delivered (Scheb & Scheb II, 2011). Unfortunately, that was not the case in this particular instance, as all suspects had been brought outside and questioned. It is my belief that they knew that they were under suspicion, particularly since an officer remained inside the house with them. Therefore, the officers were right to remain on the scene, so that the suspects did not flee. What I find interesting in this case is that a warrantless arrest was not made. Warrantless arrests do have a bit of history behind them, particularly the case of Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979), in which a man was handcuffed, not told that he was under arrest, and then transported to a police station and interrogated without a warrant. Though they are generally upheld in public places, under the ruling of United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), things can get trickier when it is a house or dwelling, as the Fourth Amendment then comes into play regarding protections against searches and seizures. The case of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 659 (1980) proved this, in which a defendant was arrested in their home without a warrant and the Supreme Court ruled that it was indeed an illegal arrest, stating that “the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” It was also cited in their footnotes, however, that New York Criminal Procedure, Article 140 § 140.15 was a viable factor, which stated that a warrantless arrest may have been made had the officer informed the person of his position and authority to do so. Today there are definitive and concrete criteria behind warrantless arrests, which I believe that this case fit. According to Scheb & Scheb II (2011), courts are generally inclined to uphold a warrantless arrest if there is probable cause for the arrest, the police believe that the suspect is on the premises and/or armed and dangerous, the suspect will escape or evidence will be destroyed if the arrest is not carried out, entry can be affected peacefully and the crime in question is a serious felony. Given that all of these criteria, in my opinion, were met during this incident, again, it is interesting to note that a warrantless arrest did not take place. However, I was not privy to any information that was given to police by the girls in question, and being unable to leave the car, I had to rely on my own observations. Without a doubt, I believe that procedure was being followed in this case according to the police department I was riding along with, given the number of officers that remained on the scene and the length of time in which they remained. Conclusion I learned from my ride-along experience that there is not that much difference in the textbook procedures that have been explained and that which took place in real police work, at least during the time of my ride-along. Given that things can widely differ from a classroom to the real world, it was not surprising but gratifying to know that this was the case in this subject. Law enforcement is not an area which I would want to see a wide range of options available, given the fact that rights of citizens are at issue. I learned much from the short time that I spent with Officer Brian Franz, and will be grateful both for his honesty in answering my questions, the fact that procedures were followed, and quite possibly above all the fact that nothing more serious occurred during the five hours that we spent together. Overall, I felt that this was an extremely positive experience, and encourage others to take the opportunity to observe police officers in action, in order to gain a better understanding of how laws are enforced. References Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001) Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201, 68 S.Ct. 514, 517, 92 L.Ed. 644, 647 (1948) Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979) Payton v. New York, 445 U.S 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 659 (1980) Scheb, J. M., & Scheb II, J. M. (2011). Criminal procedure. (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. State v. Hehman, 578 P.2d 257 (1978) United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769; 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) Read More