Category: For Discusssion

Ideas and concepts in the CJ field facilitated by reader discussion

Analysis of a Traffic Stop

https://www.valleynewslive.com/2020/08/18/moorhead-police-release-dash-cam-videos-of-interaction-with-blm-organizer/

On August 15th, 2020 Moorhead, MN police officers stopped local Black Lives Matter organizer Faith Dixon for a speeding violation. The dash cam videos of the encounter can be seen at the link above and analysis of the incident clearly shows that the encounter became needlessly confrontational, with both the officers and subject playing a part in the dysfunction. The following analysis examines how officers could have taken a different approach to the stop and how the driver could have adopted different attitudes and behaviors toward both the officers and the stop which would have resulted in a much more positive encounter. Society has seen instances of both officers making tactical and judgement errors in dealing with subjects and subjects being non-compliant and resisting arrest in their encounters with law enforcement and these scenarios inevitably lead to escalation in the incidents resulting in injury and death. Understanding the mistakes made by both parties is important so that an honest discussion can be had about what changes need to be made in law enforcement and public behavior to help reduce police/public encounters from resulting in injury and death.

Officer Analysis

After turning around on the subject, the subject was stopped, was instructed through the PA where to pull over and eventually pulled over correctly, two minutes into the dash cam video. When the subject was initially stopped, she stopped her vehicle in the middle of the road partially blocking lanes. The officer using the PA instructed the subject to move over to the right side of the road four times, and by the fourth time the annoyance is evident in his voice. However the officer should be aware that the subject does have to see behind the patrol car parked directly behind her and cross two lanes of traffic on a busy road which may slow the subject’s action and the officer should take this into account in his own situational awareness, the positioning of the squad car to assist in this movement, and in the tone of his verbal instructions.

Stopping in the middle of the road is unusual and this behavior might have suggested certain approaches and informed officer behavior. In this initial contact, and throughout the encounter, officers should try to keep in mind the components of procedural justice. Because it was unusual, it may indicate that the subject is unfamiliar with the rules of the road and traffic stops, intoxicated, or in some way incapacitated, perhaps from a medical condition, and an approaching officer could show concern for the subject by addressing this in their initial contact, which did not occur..

Two officers, a training officer and a newer officer approach the vehicle, each taking a position on opposite sides of the vehicle. Officer 1 (Oldham), the newer officer, at the driver’s side window introduces himself and asked if the subject knew why she as pulled over. When the subject denied that she was traveling 44 in a 30, the officer could have offered to have the subject step back to the squad to see the radar for herself, presenting an opportunity to reinforce the legitimacy of the stop.

Officer 1 requests the subject’s drivers license and proof of insurance and after a delay the subject produces only a drivers license. Officer 2 (Zimmel) the Field Training Officer, who has repositioned himself on the driver’s side, tells Officer 1 to request registration as well. The subject, already annoyed with Officer 2 and refusing to speak to him, begins to complain about harassment and states “black lives matter”. While understandably Officer 2 is also annoyed with the subject, his sarcastic response of “Good job Ma’am for making it racial” does nothing to deescalate the situation or employ procedural justice components. While difficult in these circumstances Officers 1 & 2 could take some time to inquire as to what specifically she felt was biased about the stop or why she believed race was an issue. This does give a voice to the citizen and lets her know that her concerns are being listened to but it also gives officers an opportunity to possibly correct misperceptions about how police work is conducted and address or counter any specific claims of bias during the incident.

At 4 minutes into the video and 2 minutes since officers unsuccessfully requested the subject’s documentation, Officer 2 pulls on the subject’s driver’s door handle, which doesn’t open, and demands “let’s go, grab your stuff, you’re not just going to sit there staring..”. While officers are within their right to open a driver’s door and demand they exit if they feel the subject is being problematic, considering the friction between Officer 2 and the subject, the attempt might have been done more surreptitiously to avoid drawing the subject’s attention to it and further antagonizing the subject. Wearing a tactical vest, Officer 2’s stance, demeanor, and tone is stern and rigid and in marked difference to Officer 1, who the subject referred to as the nice officer. Officer 2, however, also wisely disengaged from the situation and let Officer 1 continue to deal with the subject.

At 5 and half minutes since initial officer contact with the subject, the subject still hasn’t produced proof of insurance and tells the officer she has to look through her bag, produces an expired insurance card which the officer points out to her. It is also around this time a third officer, requested by the unit who took the call, showed up. While the presence of more police officers may escalate a situation and provide bad optics, it was a necessary call as the subject had been communicating with an individual believed to be her husband requesting he arrive at the scene, and an additional unit was necessary as officers were going to be having unknown individuals rolling up on them. Whether by design or happenstance, the third officer was a woman, and in a potentially volatile situation having an officer of the same sex or race as the subject may help ease tension in the situation and anxiety in the subject.

Officer 1 continues to grant the subject time until finally after 7 and half minutes since the initial contact, he states he’s returning to the squad to start righting the citations. The subject then produces another proof of insurance but this was one for the wrong vehicle. Both officers are at the driver’s side now stating she is delaying the process. However, officers themselves could have cut this portion of the stop short by informing the driver that, common in many jurisdictions, if the driver presents current proof of insurance to the court the charge is waived. This would have cut short the subject’s searching, would have allowed the officers to start citation processing earlier, and made leveling an accusation of delaying at the subject unnecessary.

After 9 minutes since the initial contact officers return to their vehicle to enter data for the citations. Computer problems delayed the citation processing and 12 minutes after the initial contact, the subject’s husband pulls up in front of the subject and is met by Officer 3 (Bischoff) and the initial responding unit is repeating an earlier request for an additional unit to help manage a potential situation. At over 15 and half minutes from the initial contact, Officer 4 (Kvam) arrives and takes a position on the passenger side of the subject’s vehicle to monitor the situation while Officer 3 is briefing Officers 1 & 2 on her contact with the subject’s husband. However, Officer 4, who ends up engaging in conversation with the subject didn’t appear to have received  an in-person briefing from the officers at the scene, leaving him somewhat unaware of the issues and friction going on. This leaves him lacking in his ability to communicate effectively with the subject on the issues or concerns the subject may have.

At almost 20 minutes after the initial contact, a sergeant arrives on scene. After addressing both subjects, he concludes the stop. Officer 1 attempts a few times to get the subject to take the citations until she finally accepts them. As the subject continues to complain and level accusations, one officer lingers. It’s unknown if this officer was trying to listen to the subject’s complaint or if he was intent on engaging the subject regarding her tirade but at this point further communication with the subject is a lost cause, and the supervisor wisely calls him back to the squads.

You can read Officer Oldham’s incident report and FTO Zimmel’s supplemental report here which provides more details about their interaction with Dixon and her behavior.

https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20384715-complaint-file_2

Click to access BLM-Dixon-Incident-reports.pdf

BLM Dixon Traffic Stop Reports

Subject Analysis

The driver in this encounter did virtually everything wrong in her traffic stop. This may stem from  a lack of understanding of police work and their authority and a pre-existing negative attitude about the police, which helped fuel the confrontation between the subject and law enforcement. Knowing how to behave in a traffic stop is key to avoiding needless confrontation. There are some very simple guidelines to follow in an encounter with the police, particularly in a traffic stop.

Know the rules of the road and your expected behavior when an officer is trying to pull you over. It should be common knowledge among drivers that when you are being pulled over by the police, you pull over to the right side of the road. This is standard practice and should be adhered to by all drivers. By not doing so suggests to the officers that there is something wrong with you; you lack knowledge of the rules of the road, or you are intoxicated or mentally incapacitated in some way. This increases both officer alertness and suspicion. This lack of following a simple proper procedure already sets the stage for tension in the encounter.

You should have your driving documents ready to be presented. This as well should be standard practice for drivers. Rolling down your window, and keeping it down, and having your correct and valid license, registration, and insurance ready to present to the officer when he approaches, or quickly accessible when he requests it signals to the officer that you understand and intend to be compliant with the process. In this instance, the subject’s disconnect from the situation, putting a barrier between herself and officers, and her delays in presenting driving documentation (9 minutes after initial verbal contact with the officer) draws the officers’ ire because delaying compliance suggests the subject wants to delay the process because they have something to hide or they intend to make the stop difficult for the officer. This is again going to make the officer suspicious or prompt the officer to view the subject as a ‘”problem person”, further introducing tension and suspicion into the encounter. Compliance with an officer’s directives is so often at the heart of whether an encounter with law enforcement escalates into use of force because officers have the legitimate legal backing and expectation that lawful commands and directives be obeyed. If they are faced with noncompliance they have the legal authority, the expectation of both the public and their employer, and their own work ethic and personal expectations, to gain that compliance by force if necessary. The public too often forgets, or doesn’t understand, that component of policing and that when noncompliance leads to resisting arrest, officers have the duty and obligation to effect those arrests, even if deadly force is needed. Subjects aren’t going to avoid arrest by noncompliance, which will lead to use of force, nor will resisting arrest prevent them from being arrested. By fighting with officers, subjects will likely be injured or killed.

Searching through your vehicle looking for documentation will heighten officer alertness, putting them on edge, as they have to be observant and wary in case the driver is trying to conceal contraband, or possibly draw a weapon. Dixon, correctly, informed officers that she was going to look through her bag for vehicle documentation. If a driver is going to digging for anything, reaching for anything, or pulling something out, they should inform the officer where they are going to look and for what, so that the officer is not surprised or alarmed by sudden or furtive movements and suggests you’re not a threat to officer safety. In Zimmel’s supplemental report, he notes Dixon’s other behavior and movements prompted him to use his flashlight to see in the vehicle and open the door to see more clearly in order to help ensure officer safety.

If you have a complaint about an officer’s behavior or attitude, it is best to address that issue through a formal complaint with the department or informally by speaking with the officer’s sergeant after the incident has concluded. Complaining during the traffic stop about how you perceived the stop to be unjust and generalizing police behavior as biased or discriminatory will only escalate the tension in the situation. It will certainly rub officers the wrong way as the overwhelming majority of officers operate without bias and are merely trying to do a difficult job in  ensuring public safety and investigating possible criminal conduct. Painting an officer as racist or suggesting that race was a factor in the stop will likely offend officers and they will definitely become less accommodating. This is seen in the dash cam video as Dixon needlessly plays the race card in a situation where there was no evidence of any racial bias or animosity. If a driver has questions about the stop, they should respectfully ask specific question of the officers rather than making claims and accusations. Name dropping to officers, for example, calling the mayor, or calling the police chief, will also not add any legitimacy to your concerns or complaints addressed to officers, as they have seen this “I’ll get you in trouble” tactic numerous times, and again, suggests to the officer you are a problem person who should not be afforded any accommodation. It may be unfair, but it is a fact, that disrespecting an officer, and impugning their integrity, will likely result in harsher treatment as they see themselves as a symbol and the authority of the law and when you disrespect on officer, you disrespect the law they are sworn to uphold.

If you are stopped by officers you are better served by putting down your phone and paying attention to, and interacting fully with, officers. You were stopped for some violation of the law or traffic code and as the driver you should be engaged in the encounter at hand, not concerned over filming it for social media fodder. Being distracted in the situation can cause you to not hear or misunderstand officer commands and can lead to tension and escalation. Calling someone else to the scene, “just in case” as Dixon did in this encounter is also ill advised. While she may have felt misplaced apprehension in dealing with the police officers, calling an unknown person or persons into a traffic or investigative stop will send up red flags for officers. This new arrival will also generate some apprehension as this new arrival is an unknown factor and will possibly escalate the situation or may attack the officers. For officers to manage this new possible threat, backup will need to be called and so Dixon, through her behavior again escalated the situation, requiring multiple officers to respond to help ensure officer safety and traffic stop management.

Dixon did Facebook the incident while on her phone as well as file a formal complaint with the Chief of Police, stating officers were aggressive and disrespectful and that one officer tried to open her door and had his hand on his gun, causing her to fear for her life. Dixon was also seeking to meet with the mayor. Moorhead police, in response to her claims, subsequently released the dash cam videos of the incident. Dixon has since taken down her Facebook post of the incident.

Conclusion

So in this situation we see both the officers and Dixon could have taken steps to ensure the traffic stop went more smoothly, however the negative encounter that occurred was mostly set in motion by Dixon through her atypical behavior during the stop, followed by her delays in providing documentation, her inattention to officers, her unfounded accusations and attitude pointed at officers, and introducing a possible threat into the situation. It are these actions that have occurred in other traffic and investigatory stops around the country that have contributed to injuries and deaths of individuals who have escalated the situation while officers struggle to obtain compliance. Undoubtedly there will be lost causes on both sides. Some officers will never adopt procedural justice guidelines and will introduce tension and escalation into a situation regardless of how polite and accommodating the subject is. Some citizens too will continue to assess officers not on their behavior in the situation, but as a stereotypical racist cop bent on harassing minorities and will do so regardless of how much procedural justice is employed by the officer. But besides the lost causes, there is work to be done on both sides. Officers must adopt and support procedural justice to ensure their authority is viewed as legitimate, which will help in gaining compliance, ease tension in citizen encounters, and foster a more positive view of policing. Citizens must also set aside the derisive and divisive narrative that the police are “out to get them”, and start to deal respectfully and compliantly with officers. This will reduce tension, de-escalate situations, and help eliminate the need for use of force in stops that shouldn’t have warranted it in the first place.

So watch the video and tell me what you think. Could officers have done better? How much did Dixon instigate the problems? Could this have been an encounter that might have turned out differently or was it set to fail from the get-go? Please comment below.

Can, or Should, Race or Ethnicity Ever be Used as a Factor in an Investigative or Policing Decision?

Profiling using race or ethnicity as a factor in making investigative decisions is typically viewed in the academic world as biased as it is usually associated with a disproportionate amount of traffic stops, searches, and arrests of minorities. However, what is often not addressed is that if policing activity is increased in disadvantaged minority areas due to community concerns about crime and disorder, then it is likely that the police will have a disproportionate number of minority contacts that does not suggest biased policing.

While the criminal justice field has no shortage of racial profiling articles ranging from experiments and other studies looking for its presence, or its effect on police legitimacy, inquiring why the police are biased, and how to eliminate the practice but there is only a limited amount of literature that focuses on the level of acceptance, practice, and justification by police officers of what is referred to as racial profiling. Some literature has tried to examine the prevalence with Ioimo, Tears, Meadows, Becton, and Charles (2007) finding in their surveys and interviews of Virginia officers that between 14 and 37% believe racial profiling occurs in their department, between 10-33% have witnessed racial profiling, and between 12-53% believe racial profiling is a somewhat serious or serious problem (percentages vary by urban/rural location, officer race, and officer rank). Glover (2007) in her interviews with Texas officers found that they used racial profiling in an out-of-place doctrine, which applies to both Blacks and Whites (as referenced by the radio call out of a “White Boy in a Non-White Boy Place”). An individual in a place not typically associated with their race, for example a White person in a Black neighborhood, or vice versa, cued officers to stop and investigate.

The inclusion of race or ethnicity as a means of narrowing investigative focus will likely only be just a portion of  profile or investigative focus but if that information is available, it likely will be important and should be included and accounted for in law enforcement actions. For example, if the police were dealing with a specific drug problem, and they know that a particular ethnic group typically controls or is involved in that illegal market, it would simply make no sense for officers to ignore that fact for the sake of political correctness or out of fear of bias accusations for focusing on a particular group. As an investigator, not using every bit of viable information available suggests being a substandard investigator. Conversely, race and ethnicity carry no real value if their perceived association with crime is so broad that it provides no differentiating power and become the prime reason for making investigative stops and queries. For example, we know that males exhibit a very large disparity in criminal offending compared to females. It would not be unusual to consider the default gender for crime as male, however, as an investigative tool, gender has a limited predictive power. Stopping every male seen on the street for field questioning on a particular type of crime or specific incident simply because they’re male is also suggestive of poor investigative technique as the net is simply cast too wide to be efficient or effective. However, in any type of criminal profiling, investigators are trying to determine who is the most likely person(s)  as a subject or investigative focus. Information they have, based on past experience and documentation, may suggest a greater likelihood that person or persons have particular characteristics (age, gender, race) that increase the odds they may be the ones being sought or focused on by law enforcement.

While the specific subject of profiling wasn’t part of the interview questions in my dissertation, the subject was referenced by seven percent of the patrol officers interviewed in the discussion of cues, and that portion, and the officers’ responses and rationalizations, are included in the section below:

While only mentioned by four officers, the results of profiling as a cue to problematic or suspicious situations bears some additional explanation. While mentioning it in response to cues that trigger suspicion or activity, the profiling and its results involve to a great degree officers’ beat knowledge and their use of intelligence. Officers did not refer specifically to racial profiling and in my observations, I did not see any officers exhibit any biased speech or actions nor did I observe them make any investigative decisions that appeared to be based on race or ethnicity. Rather, officers referenced profiling in the context of utilizing what is known about a geographical area, including the demographic makeup such as race and ethnicity, age, and SES, and what is known about residents and the most likely offenders that reside in a particular area. This information can serve as a cue that focuses and narrows their investigative efforts. The information officers use comes from both departmental and officer intelligence. The department provides the records and databases that allow officers to reference past similar incidents, and the individuals involved, as well as current criminal trends. Officers also rely on their beat knowledge and their time and experience patrolling, answering calls on the beat, knowing who their “problem people” are, knowing what kind of people on their beat that may be involved in certain crimes, and possessing information from investigating and gathering intelligence from past incidents on the beat. One officer said, “There’s a lot of ethnic people there, new Americans, and to be perfectly frank, there’s some profiling that goes on, it happens, but if we’re not doing that then we’re not doing our job the best we can because it’s no secret in some areas who the problem makers are. And people [in our society] feel differently about that, you can take it for what it’s worth.”

However, the inclusion of race and ethnicity may label such behavior as racial profiling (Ramirez, Farrell, and McDevitt, 2000). In the recent past, racial profiling was defined as using race  “as a key [emphasis added] factor in police decisions to stop and interrogate citizens” (Weitzer and Tuch, 2002, p.1), However, a more current academic viewpoint defines it simply as “the use of race or ethnicity, or proxies thereof, by law enforcement officials as a basis for judgement of criminal suspicion” (Glaser, 2014, p. 3) meaning that if officers consider race or ethnicity as one of the factors in making a decision to investigate, make a traffic stop, or conduct a field contact they have engaged in racial profiling.

Another officer explained,

“I mean there’s definitely profiling. I mean we profile on our job all the time, it’s not just based on race though some of it could be that, if it’s primarily– like this neighborhood here is a primarily white, well to do neighborhood. If I see a group of lower class people, just based on their dress, walking through this area, that to me is a pretty big cue. It’s not a guy in a suit walking a dog, and I should be focusing on them because they don’t really belong in that neighborhood and in this case we’re getting some backlash from the apartments over here, they know that’s where they’re coming from or they’re coming into the area to specifically target the area and so developing that profile, knowing your neighborhood and knowing what doesn’t fit is the biggest part of it.”

In this particular account, while the officer recognized that race may be a factor in developing a profile of what belongs in a neighborhood or area, other factors may come into play like SES in developing an investigative focus. Another officer saw profiling, despite the negative connotations, as the core of law enforcement. Knowing, or trying to determine, who the “problem people” are, or where the problem areas were, or what things did fit into an area, in order to focus your efforts, was effective policing in this officer’s view.

“It kinda gets into profiling, looking for certain kinds of vehicles, certain demographics, I mean I got all these nice neighborhoods I’m never called to and where we were just driving on Beat V, we get a lot of calls there. Profiling has such a negative connotation lately but I mean that’s really the basis of law enforcement is knowing what areas you’re going to be more successful and fruitful in finding crime. And it doesn’t mean that I don’t drive through some of these areas like X and Y [upscale neighborhoods], I will go through those areas but I don’t spend much time there ‘cause we get about one burglary a year or one unauthorized car entry theft a month. I just took a vandalism on [Beat] Z where three vehicles had their windows smashed out with rocks, it’s not uncommon in that area, it would be very uncommon in those upscale areas.”

The negative connotations, referred to by the officer, surrounding profiling suggest that profiling is an example of either overt or implicit bias towards a segment of the population, usually minorities (Tomaskovic-Devey, Mason, and Zingraff, 2004; Banks, Eberhardt, and Ross, 2006). The officers in this study tried to draw a distinction between this negative connotation of profiling and efficient and effective patrol work by indicating that race could be one of a number of factors in developing a profile. This may be more of a practitioners’ viewpoint in that they are trying to engage in what they believe, through experience, is effective and efficient police work. As Barlow and Barlow (2002) contend, “Many police officers view racial profiling as an appropriate form of law enforcement. Although they might not use the term racial profiling to describe what they do, police officers participate in this practice because they believe it is precisely what their supervisors and the majority public want them to do.” (p. 4). While officers in the study tried to downplay race as a factor in forming profiles, the content of some their statements also indicated they were cognizant that race may be a factor in their profiling.

If officers do not believe they are inappropriately focusing on segments of the population, they may perceive there is a lack of bias in their investigative work. For example, Harcourt (2004) stated that using race in policing is legitimate and constitutional if it is a narrowly tailored policing technique that reduces the profiled crime in an efficient use of police resources and does not including a ratcheting effect on the profiled population, that is, when a supervisory effect on the profiled population is disproportionate to the distribution of the offending of the racial group (p.6). If officers in this study were utilizing race or ethnicity, or other characteristics, like SES, age, or gender, in an effort to narrow their investigative focus they may consider it proper when its use constituted efficiency and effectiveness in policing while not disenfranchising the portion of the population that have those characteristics. However, the extent of officer action as it contributes to a perception of disenfranchisement, may be subjective. For example, a large police presence in a neighborhood or area or heavily focused investigative efforts directed toward the group in question may not be perceived as disenfranchisement by law enforcement but as a focused effort to address an incident or problem. However, this may be perceived as disenfranchising by neighborhood residents or the members of the targeted group (Maher and Dixon, 2001).

Despite such behavior being labeled racial profiling in the criminal justice literature, in an effort to engage in efficient and effective policing these officers expressed that they should consider all the characteristics that might be a factor in developing intelligence and narrowing their investigative focus, including race. In these officers’ view, considering race in developing an investigative focus or recognizing it as a factor associated with certain criminal activity doesn’t automatically mean that bias was involved. Rather, officers stated they are trying to utilize the information available to them to address criminal activity. As one officer said, “I think you can profile people and I’m not saying all black people commit crimes, that’s not what I’m talking about. I think that if somebody is doing something and they just happen to be like that [of a particular race or ethnicity] then that might be your problem and issue, but I’m just trying to stop a crime before it happens. I don’t really care what color you are, purple, black, or blue, whatever, you’re here in an area you probably shouldn’t be in and you’re doing something.”

So the questions become, can you conduct a thorough investigation if you ignore a relevant piece of demographic information about potential suspects? Is it possible to consider that profiling information and make use of it without being or exhibiting bias? Should we ignore reality for the sake of political correctness? How can we recognize and separate potentially biased investigative practices from legitimate use of a demographic to focus law enforcement efforts? Tell me your views on profiling use race and ethnicity as a factor; what have you experienced, utilized, or seen? Let’s start a discussion.

Beat Integrity-A Beat Management Philosophy

While I was gathering data from my dissertation (a qualitative analysis of patrol officer behavior and decision making), during the analysis coding of officer statements, I saw the formation of what could be best described as a beat management philosophy. Twenty-nine percent of the officers I interviewed mentioned the term “beat integrity” as an ideal of  how to manage your area of responsibility. That coding process teased out some of the details in how this philosophy is regarded and constructed as well as a related concept of “jumping calls”. Below, drawing on content from my dissertation, including quotes from officers, is a discussion of the characteristics of “beat integrity, and how it was viewed and used in the study department. Full of quotes from officers, it provides a sense of how patrol officers think beats can and should be managed to both the public benefit and in service to their fellow officers. Hopefully this will lead to future research and, in our current context and forum, to discussion on what other departments and officers experience and utilize.

Introduction

In asking patrol officers whether they held any particular philosophy regarding how patrol should be conducted or their beat managed, most officers expressed general ideas about conducting patrol but nothing really akin to a philosophy. However, a beat management philosophy became evident in the exploration and discussion of the beat integrity concept and in the practice of jumping calls. A review of the literature did not reference this term in the context of a beat management philosophy. However, some components of the concept have been discussed in the literature. Mazerolle, Adams, Budz, Cockerill, and Vance (2003) mentioned the concept of beat ownership as a component of beat policing and Paoline III, Myers, and Worden, (2000) stated that beat knowledge, generated from stable beat assignments, was a component of community oriented policing. In a similar vein, researchers have examined the use and adherence to informal work rules (Ricksheim and Chermak, 1993; Paulson, 2004; Cope, 2004; Stroshine, Alpert, and Dunham, 2008; Worrall, 2013), unwritten expectations of officer workplace behaviors dictated by the behaviors and expectations of co-workers as well as workplace conditions. Beat integrity incorporates some of these components into an articulable philosophy that guides officer attitude and behavior. It also provides an understanding of what officers value in their own, and other officers, work performance and provides a guide for further research in analyzing the way officers manage their beat.

Defining Beat Integrity

Two concepts regarding officers’ management of their area of responsibility emerged during the interviews that, while both could be considered positive, may also at times be at odds with one another; the concept of beat integrity, and the concept of being a team player by jumping calls, that is taking a dispatch call not specifically assigned to the officer. Neither of these concepts were known to me prior to data collection and the interview guide did not contain any questions pertaining to the concepts. Both concepts and their interrelatedness came about through the transcript analysis process; as the terms and definitions became apparent, additional coding and analysis was conducted to develop the concepts and their relationship.

While some officers referred to the concept that came to be defined as beat integrity as beat ownership, examination of the concept revealed that beat ownership is a dimension of beat integrity. Beat integrity is a mindset; a way of approaching and understanding your own beat that’s in concert with other officers in the department.

Seventeen officers (29%) made reference to the concept of beat integrity. From officers’ descriptions and mentions of beat integrity three characteristics of the concept were identified; beat knowledge, beat ownership, and beat work ethic. While they are distinct, these characteristics are also inter-related. If officers have a sense of ownership, then it should stand to reason they should have or want to develop knowledge about their beat and serve their beat through a good work ethic. Wanting to, and being able to, handle your calls effectively and efficiently (good work ethic) is driven by a sense of ownership and facilitated by beat knowledge. Developing beat knowledge is contingent on being involved with and having that sense of ownership and experiencing and handling the types of calls present on the officer’s beat.

The first characteristic, beat knowledge, was having knowledge of your beat and a focus—the geographic layout of the beat, who the “problem people” are and where the hotspot and high call volume (“problem”) areas are, and what activities the officer should be or can be engaging in. For example, Officer 66 spoke about the beat knowledge component relating to geographic layout, “For the most part I know the short cuts, that kind of stuff. It is one of the fastest growing beats, a lot on the edges I don’t know necessarily by the name or the address. You give me a name and address, if it’s a named street some of those I’m not real familiar with however we got the map system which is nice. Other than that, I’m comfortable with business and residential sections. But that’s part of beat integrity, you learn it and especially if you’re sent there once or twice you’re gonna remember it then.” Officer 72 spoke about the aspect of understanding the problems on the beat and what officers should focus on, “I think a lot of it is that beat ownership, beat integrity, beat ownership, all that kind of stuff. This is a problem and if I don’t find a way to take care of this problem or issue, I’ll have a supervisor telling me this is a problem, let’s fix it. So if I can nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem, or gets to the attention of my supervisor, I think I’ve accomplished my job.”

The second characteristic was having a sense of beat ownership—that the area “belongs” to the officer, they are responsible for what goes on within their beat and are responsible to the citizens and businesses on the beat, as well as wanting to be on their beat and not elsewhere. The concept of beat ownership was mentioned by Mazerolle, Adams, Budz, Cockerill, and Vance (2003) when they examined “beat policing” in Queensland, Australia. They defined “beat policing” as relying “on an intelligence-driven, proactive police response” where officers “are assigned to a defined geographical location and are encouraged to take ownership of that area by responding in a proactive manner to problems within their beat” (p. 1). Officers in the current study also had that sense of beat ownership. For example, Officer 57 said, “I drive my beat and try to keep an eye out for whatever I can and be around so if we do get a call I’m near usually. I usually don’t stray far from my beat, it’s kinda my responsibility to be around here.” Officer 34 also noted, “I try and stay within my district, I don’t usually go to other districts, I just try to work my beat the most, obviously, ‘cause it’s my beat and I take pride in my beat.” A couple officers said that having assigned beats increased the sense of beat ownership. For example, Officer 66 said, “Talking about beat integrity, it used to be when you didn’t know what beat you were gonna be on, you didn’t really care about your beat. You’d come to work, take your calls, and that was it. Now you try and be more pro-active, being visible…” This accords with Kane’s (2000) study of permanent beats within the context of community oriented policing; he found that officers with permanent beats engaged in more proactive activity, suggesting a sense of increased beat ownership. Some officers also felt that the sense of ownership in beat integrity should extend to district integrity. For example, Officer 50 said,

This isn’t my beat but it sure the hell is my district. So talking about responsibility, I’m responsible to my beat and then I’m responsible to my district. I’m not responsible for this other district… I think efficiency for patrol and effectiveness comes down to district ownership. I own my district. We have a lieutenant, three sergeants, and nine police officers. We own that district. Yes, I will go off my district for a short duty, for an assault, something that’s a type one call or activity, that’s not what I’m talking about. Ninety-five percent of the day to day we cover, I don’t go off my district, I stay within my district, it’s my responsibility to make sure—you can call it power shift, power-aid for officers, call it whatever you want but we’re meeting the requirement for whatever happens in that district. So we can handle all our calls, all our traffic. The way I see it, we should be a police department within our district.

The third characteristic, beat work ethic, was being able to handle your calls for service— being able to finish your calls and move on to the next without getting overwhelmed with calls and requiring other officers to come over to your beat and take some of your calls. Officer 33 explained, “Also having that beat integrity, having some ownership of what’s going on in your area, your calls are your calls, make sure you resolve them, don’t push them off on other people. So having that ownership and work ethic.”. Officer 62 also mentioned that desire to handle their own calls, “… at Fargo PD every officer is good at beat integrity. If it’s a call on your beat, you might not be the first one there but it’s your report, you’re taking it. And everybody cares about their beat. If I was busy on something and someone on [Beat] X gets sent to a shoplifter on [officer’s beat] Y, I’m like ‘crap, crap, crap’, I wanna take that, it’s my responsibility.” Officer 34 also addressed the importance of handling calls on beat and in your district, “Other officers do this as well, if you hear on the radio when people from other districts are getting sent to your district, you try to cancel them because when you start crossing like that, and we’re traveling further distances, and then it backs up everybody, ‘cause then our response time is slower, so now you clear that up and you try to go to a call in your district where now you’re way out in another district, so that slows us down. So that’s an inefficiency issue also.”

Beat integrity acts as a set of informal work rules for officers as to how they should manage their area of responsibility. It is an expectation for officers themselves that they feel a sense of ownership and have knowledge of their beat, and are determined to “work” their beat the best way they can. It is the way they believe a patrol officer should manage their work environment. It requires them to be self-sufficient, motivated, and knowledgeable and officers have that expectation of themselves as well as expecting it from other officers.

Challenges to Beat Integrity

 While the concept of beat integrity seemed important and useful to officers, they also faced challenges to that beat integrity. Situations and circumstances could make keeping and establishing beat integrity difficult, including having to engage in assigned tasks, changing beat assignments (exacerbated by short staffing on the shift), and heavy call volume.

While one officer mentioned that assigned tasks, for example CSI (crime scene investigation), take away from officers’ beat integrity, eight of the 17 officers that spoke of beat integrity mentioned feeling a loss of beat integrity when being called to or assigned to a different beat. Officer 50 mentioned how during a time in the department without assigned beats, beat integrity suffered, “When I first got here we weren’t doing COPs and you got assigned a different beat every day, you were all over the place. They had no ownership, no real knowledge of that beat, or that area ‘cause they’re all over hell. It’s totally ineffective but because I work in the same area every day, it’s nice to have those communications, it’s nice to have the crime reporting statistics thing but the biggest thing is I’m out here.”

Situations, however, would arise where officers are assigned or dispatched off their normal beat. Some officers noted the rotating shift structure allowed for officers to occasionally be assigned to other beats. Beats that are not assigned an officer must be covered by other officers and officers can be moved off their beat to cover an open one. Officer 36 explained, “Generally speaking, on each shift there’s two officers assigned to each beat but you’re generally opposite of each other so on my Monday and Friday [Officer Y] and I work [our same beat], so if were short, I’m gonna get bumped [moved] off my beat [to cover an open beat] so you lose that sense of ownership. It’s like that’s my area, that’s where I work, I don’t wanna go over there, I wanna be over here.” As one officer noted, “[Officer X] and I are responsible for taking calls on our beats as well as [Beat Y]. And there’s also no [Beat X] car so that’s left open, and that’s the beat we’re close to, so it’s going to be—dispatch will…the right answer would be is to send us. The problem is it’s not our district and it’s not our area of responsibility, it’s not an area we focus patrol on, things like that so when we get sent over there to work it frustrates us when we have to go over to focus on issues that aren’t related to our area.”. While noting that staffing problems contributed to a loss of beat integrity, this officer recognized that having to assign or dispatch officers to a different beat was necessary to serve the public need, “And the whole idea of patrolling your own beat and your own sector just goes out the window ‘cause you’re just getting pulled over to help other people on their beats. But, that’s what you gotta do when you don’t have enough people. You can’t keep people waiting forever. I know if I call the cops I don’t wanna wait an hour and a half for them to get there. And I see that happens pretty frequently.”

Calls for service volume may also dictate that officers are pulled away from their beats to assist other officers or to focus on problem areas on other beats. One officer explained,

Beat X is a humongous beat. Beat X is on the [direction] edge of town and I’m constantly getting sucked downtown, they need staffing downtown, they got problems downtown. Last night I spent—I think I did one traffic stop on my beat last night and the rest I was pretty much downtown… my former lieutenant, you could say he was pretty much willing to take a hit on crime increase on Beat X if by me spending all my time during the first half of the shift, on Friday nights and Saturday nights downtown, to help them reduce crime on Beat 11 which is downtown. Sooo, that’s what he wanted, so that’s what we did. I don’t always feel an obligation that my beat is my beat and (inaudible) than downtown.

While officers had to contend with assigned tasks, short staffing, and call volume as a challenge to establishing and keeping beat integrity, another factor existed, the desire to engage in, and practice of, jumping calls, which could influence officers’ perception and understanding of beat integrity.

Jumping Calls

The underlying concept of beat integrity is beat and, in some instances, district management. The desire and ability to manage an area of responsibility, both for their own benefit, and for the benefit of other officers, can prompt officers to “jump calls”. Officers, based on their own awareness, or the dispatch screen in the car terminal, identify that an officer, usually on a different beat in their district, is falling behind in answering calls. Officers referred to falling behind in your calls for service with terms such as calls are “stacked”, “getting buried”, or “getting slammed”. The observing officer would then “jump” a call, that is take the call themselves, that was dispatched to the officer falling behind. The observing officer would radio in and request dispatch to assign the call to them. This officer then leaves their beat and proceeds to the location of the jumped call.

I witnessed a strong sense of solidarity amongst officers and they try to demonstrate this support by being a “team player’ and helping out other officers. For example, Officer 45 related this during the interview process:

Participant: …a lot if you’re gonna have two beats to patrol. Just remember that you’re gonna want guys to help you.

Interviewer: So you gotta show, in a sense, that you’re a team player…

Participant: Oh it’s about being a team, absolutely. You don’t wanna be the guy that’s not helping out, you don’t wanna let a district partner have three reports holding and you not help him out, it’s just not ok as a district partner. You’ll see guys who check the call logs, we got a District 2 guy down in (inaudible), we just got one call but he’s a District 2 guy so I wanna make sure he doesn’t get dogged with reports. He helps me out a lot, we go on a lot of calls together, so I try and be mindful if he’s out of the district.

Jumping calls sometimes occurs when officers are looking for action or trying to gain experience with different types of calls, though it more typically occurs because officers are trying to help their busy beat and district partners manage an area of responsibility. For example, Officer 16 said, “Basically I jump a lot of runs, might not get assigned a lot, but I jump a lot just ‘cause it’s not fair the guy downtown gets 30 calls and I get two, you know, so if I can I’ll jump calls. I probably jumped five or six yesterday.”  Another officer expressed a similar view of trying to make a fair distribution of work, “On day shift, anyway, there’s a group of us who are pretty good if people are busy and getting blasted, you jump calls for service to get things done or help ‘em out or you end up with five reports and nobody [else] was doing anything all day. Maybe you take some of the reports or calls for service for them, ‘cause you know they’re working on reports.” Officers typically get behind in answering their calls because of call volume, or the complexity of calls and the time involved in handling them. One officer explained,

And it’s not just calls for service on my beat. [adjoining beat] has one of the highest calls for service, you have complex calls, a lot of domestics, fights, thefts, tons of shoplifters ‘cause of [a local mall]. Call volume kinda puts you out there. If there’s a night where he’s getting multiple shoplifters, he gets bogged down, and I’ll go and back him up just ‘cause we take care of each other in my sector [district]. If he’s getting his butt slammed, I’m gonna go up there and help him out and try to alleviate some of his work load. And he does the same thing for me.”

Conflict Between Beat Integrity and Jumping Calls

There were indications that the concept of beat integrity and the practice of jumping calls did not always mesh smoothly. Some of the responses indicated that a few officers felt certain officers exhibited what might be characterized as low beat integrity and took advantage of other officers’ willingness to jump calls. Though I did not observe this behavior, it was reported that these officers may be slow in doing their work, or slow to respond to calls they do not like, knowing that if they get too swamped with calls, other officers will help them out. Therefore, they allow other officers to jump calls on their beat, thus avoiding their own work. One officer explained,

Now on the flip side of that not every patrol officer is willing to put that effort in [establishing beat integrity]. You need to have buy-in from the patrol officers, the patrol officer has to take ownership of the problem or trying to solve the problem. And sometimes that takes a lot of effort to get that, sometimes it doesn’t, sometimes you have officers who’re ‘Great, I want to do my job, I wanna work hard, I wanna do this’ and sometimes you have officers who are lazy, I’m not going to sugarcoat it. I mean there’s people who don’t wanna do this job, they wanna come here, sit and drive around in their car all day and then go home and not take a report, not take a call, and the people—and sometimes the crime statistics in their beat show because of that.

Another officer expressed a similar sentiment noting how officers with low beat integrity negatively affected the other officers working, “I think taking the calls, doing what you need for the call and clearing the scene for the next call to help your—otherwise you end up screwing your beat partners. And there’s people that will milk a call, they’ll take forever and it’s like, really? You got like five calls stacked up on your beat and we’re gonna get sent to them. I’m right in the middle of [Beat X] and [Beat Y]. So if something happens on Y and I’m not doing something, and they need two cars, I’m going. If something is happening on X and they need two cars, I’ll go. So I get pulled both ways so if you milk those calls out people get pissed off at you.”

It was more common, however, for officers to state that certain officers may have very high beat integrity. These officers were characterized as tending to refrain from jumping calls on the other beats because it detracted from their beat integrity by leaving their beat open; nor did they appreciate other officers jumping calls on their beat as it suggested they were losing beat integrity. For example, one officer said, “Usually I jump around beats, when we’re busy I like to go to other districts and help out. I get bored real easy. Some people frown on that, they don’t like you going into their beats which I can understand why but I guess it’s good and bad.” Officer 66 elaborated further, “Like we were talking earlier about helping other officers out in your district. There are people that are so beat oriented that they won’t help another person in their district unless they’re dispatched to do it or (inaudible) come help. Which I can understand the beat integrity but if you’re getting your butt handed to you, you want someone to come and help. If you’re not busy on your beat you should kinda turn that beat integrity into district integrity.”

One problem mentioned by officers, and one that can occur in the dispatch process when staffing levels are low as well, is a cascading effect from jumping calls. When officers took calls on other beats, their assigned beat is then left open, which may require a different officer to cover that beat. Officer 54 commented on this cascading effect, ‘Cause inevitably what seems to happen is it creates a domino effect because they’ll pull officers from another district and then they get a call out there that needs attention right away so they’re pulling officers from other districts, it’s almost comical ‘cause you’ll see officers from other districts all over town ‘cause of this cascading effect.”

Cascading can occur on occasions where call volume is heavy or officers engage in injudicious call jumping, leaving officers engaged in activities or answering calls on unfamiliar beats, and a lack of beat integrity on this new beat reduces their effectiveness in their activities. I witnessed this cascading effect on a few occasions where officers were dispatched off their district and while engaged in the call, another call comes into the beat the officer just left, requiring someone else from a different beat to take that call. This can become frustrating for officers as not only did they feel the loss of beat integrity but it gave a sense of disorganization to their activities. This frustration was especially evident when officers were dispatched to drive a lengthy distance to a call in an unfamiliar district. The extra time involved answering that call by dispatching a distant officer, especially on a busy night, suggested to the officer that the dispatch process was unorganized and inefficient, and that it would likely result in some other officer now having to take a call on their beat. One officer half-jokingly predicted that as soon as we arrived at the call destination on the other side of town, a call would come in on his beat, and he was correct.

To ensure they do not become entangled in a jumped call that prevents them from attending to the calls on their own beat, officers must be able to negotiate and balance the expectation of being a team player with that of beat integrity, take into account other officers’ feelings regarding their beat integrity, and account for call volume. This balancing act affects how officers patrol and what activities they engage in while on patrol, to insure they are open to assist other officers quickly if need be, or whether they may even jump a call. Officers might not invest themselves too heavily in any particular activity when the potential and need for jumping calls, or being dispatched on some occasions, might require the officer to break away from that activity.

A District 2 officer noted the practicality of being available and geographically close to areas they may be called to, “Really we’re a North car, so a lot of our calls we spend on District 1. I take a lot of calls on District 1 so I’ll rarely go down to District 2, I spend a lot of time helping these guys. It would leave them short if I spent a lot of time down there, so my patrol is kinda beat specific and I won’t roam as much as probably other beats do, down south, other parts of the district [2] like [Beat X] or [Beat Y]. I won’t roam down there ‘cause downtown’s pretty busy and like you said when you get a two-car run, two cars go there and it’s too busy of a district for me to be all the way down in 21 when he needs help up north.”

Officer 36 mentioned this practicality aspect as well as the expectations of other officers, “I think patrol feeds off of what everyone else is doing now, so we have a lot of cars tied up on stuff right now so I’ll stay closer to downtown ‘cause it doesn’t make sense for me to go all the way up in my beat just to get sent all the way back down again. Especially when you’re down to just two or three [officers], you’re not all looking for traffic stops, you’re staying available. ‘Cause you don’t be that guy, who’s out busting T-stops while everybody else is humping calls.”

Officer 44 also referenced the expectation of other officers, and the public, that officers be available to help answer calls, “If every beat is busy, and I’m not getting a single call and I’m out running traffic, that’s probably not-it’s going to be frowned upon, if I’m running traffic and everybody’s getting slammed with reports, ‘cause I should be helping them out. ‘Cause those are priorities, helping other community members who are calling for our help. We have to help them.”  Negotiating this balance may be difficult at times and for some officers there might be a steep learning curve which can change their view or approach to patrol. Officer 67 related how negotiating this balance affected his outlook.

Some officers have extreme beat integrity, extreme district integrity. I’m not really one of those officers where no matter what I’m not letting another officer take a call on my beat if I can help it. Or if a call comes out to my area or district and I’m free, I’ll help out as I can but I have more of a team wide mentality and the districts and beats have more of a district mentality which is department wide for the most part. I was reassigned to District 2 one night and I’m used to my beat where I patrol and a call came out on the next district over but only a couple blocks away so I went and helped out. Well another call came on my beat and I was asked to clear that call [I was on] in the middle of an interview and afterwards I took a little bit of flak for that. Someone drove past that call [on my beat] to take that [call], the one I was on, because it was their beat and I didn’t really understand all that, so it changed a little how I patrol, help out less in different districts in the areas so I can be available for calls that come out on mine. I don’t really agree with that; I would rather work more team wide but officers from different districts are coming across to help me take calls so I understand why they feel the way they do. But I don’t necessarily agree with it so that changed a little bit of how I approach it.

Officers incorporate the concept of beat integrity, and its three characteristics, beat knowledge, beat ownership and beat work ethic, into how they believe proper management of their area of responsibility should be performed. Officers expressed wanting to have beat integrity, and an understanding that officers expect it of them and they expected it of other officers. However, the degree that officers invest in the concept of beat integrity could vary and beat integrity may run afoul of another concept, the shared responsibility and teamwork that prompts officers to jump calls. Both of these concepts take on the form of informal work rules, which influence officer behavior and are viewed as effective and meaningful, as suggested by Stroshine and colleagues (2008); there was an expectation among the patrol officers that the concepts were accepted and engaged in, and officers who failed to understand or participate in these work concepts were viewed negatively, as they did not demonstrate self-reliance or a desire to be a team player.

Conclusion

The definition and adherence to the concept of beat integrity forms a set of personal and inter-officer informal work rules that dictate how beats should be managed and how officers should behave. Beat integrity, and the inter-related practice of jumping calls, sets out the desirable qualities of officers and beat management in that officers are responsible for their beat, have good beat knowledge, incorporate a good work ethic by handling their calls independently, and willing to function as a team player in the process of managing their beat. While informal work rules are meant to guide behaviors, especially in situations without official mandates or direction, officers in the study indicated that adherence and acceptance of beat integrity were not universal. However, officers who failed to abide by the beat management philosophy were perceived negatively.

When asked specifically, most officers had no articulable beat management philosophy. However, the results of the current study indicate that officers do in fact operate under a beat management philosophy in the form of informal work rules. These results revealed beat integrity, as a beat management philosophy, a concept which was derived from officers’ behavior and statements, may be a unique discovery in policing literature. It is possible that, given the description and utility of the components, that officers in other police departments may use a similar beat management philosophy that takes the form of informal work rules, and may not be recognizable to officers, police departments, or researchers as a specific beat management philosophy.

Given that, lets have some discussion. Have you noticed in your department or agency, a “catch-word” or an overall adherence to a philosophy, regarding the way a district, sector, or beat should be managed or patrolled, one that was developed, practiced, and accepted by officers? Do you, or other officers you know, have an articulable set of informal work rules or guidelines that are followed as a sort of “best practices” in terms of beat management? Let me know your thoughts and send me some feedback.