While there was no posting for August, for September at CJ Access be sure to check out “Analysis of a Traffic Stop” under For Discussion, as I break down the recent traffic stop between Moorhead, MN police and a local BLM organizer. I examine what both parties did right and wrong and how adopting different behaviors and attitudes could make these encounters less confrontational. Links is provided to the dash cam videos and police reports as well.
Also under Editorials and Opinions in “A Free Cup of Coffee”, I briefly examine and critique a couple of prevalent theories regarding police corruption, the Rotten Apple Theory and the Structural (Rotten Barrel) Theory and suggest an interaction exists between the two as well as examining what remedies might exist to address police corruption.
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.
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.