Some Friendly Police Advice

In the latest installment of the Fullerton Police Department’s iWatch Alert System I noticed some friendly police advice: “Fullerton Police remind you to keep your valuables out of view in your vehicle. This includes purses, GPS devices, music players, cell phones, and other electronics. Either take them with you, or place the items in your trunk.”

Isn’t that the same thing as telling women to cover their bodies or they may become a victim of sexual violence?  The implication is that women who are dressed provocatively and who are assaulted could have prevented the attack. 

Is that really the advice we want our police department to give or should we be raising good children to be good adults?  Doesn't crime prevention begin with sound parenting?

How much crime goes unnoticed in Fullerton?

According to the Fullerton Police Departments July Council Update, in June the Department was dispatched to 3,529 calls for service and initiated 2,164 additional contacts. There were 1,055 criminal reports taken and 419 persons arrested for various criminal offenses.  Those statistics make "TheEducation Community" sound like the bad part of L.A.

According to the Fullerton Police iWatch Alert System, one garage (and the car inside), one home, a residential trailer, and on truck were all burglarized.  The iWatch statistics make Fullerton look safer than Irvine!

So where is the truth? 

The truth is that iWatch does not alert subscribers to all crimes, just those that a few people think you should know about. 

Does this practice of filtering mislead the public and give the community a false sense of security?  Yes. 

If the only intent of using the system is to alert subscribers to crime trends in their neighborhood, we have the beginning of something good.  The iWatch Alert System has a long way to go before becoming a real public alert tool.

To help put Fullerton's crime in perspective, we have to quantify the crimes.  Let's look at 2011.

In May, the Department was dispatched to 3,637 calls for service and initiated 2,609 additional contacts. There were 1,101 criminal reports taken and 458 persons arrested for various criminal offenses.

In April, the Department was dispatched to 3,616 calls for service and initiated 2,555 additional contacts. There were 1,190 criminal reports taken and 483 persons arrested for various criminal offenses.

In March, Officers responded to 3,406 calls for service and initiated 3,072 additional contacts. A total of 1,145 criminal reports were taken, and 574 persons were arrested for various criminal offenses.

There were 2,795 calls for service & 1,230 criminal reports taken in February.

January was a bit unusual.  The PD did not report any crimes to the council.  Instead, they noted the following:

  

"Community Policing and Crime Strategy project: In January the Police Department concluded its first six months of an expanded Community Policing and Crime Strategy partnership project. Designed to address crime trends as well as improve communication between the community and the department, this multi-pronged approach to community policing and problem solving has quickly galvanized crime reduction efforts. It places an importance on all Police divisions and City departments working collaboratively on community issues. Examples of this included projects with Habitat for Humanity residents, the Euclid Corridor project, Mercy House and training presented by the Community Development Department on crime prevention through environmental design. Since July, staff has been meeting monthly, placing an emphasis on analysis of crime data, expansion of our in-house crime tracking system, and an increased role for our Crime Analysis Unit. Policing sectors were created by the Watch Commanders to better respond to where most of the crime has been occurring and where most calls for service are generated. Initial focus was on responding to community issues spotlighting crime trends and offenders with a high recidivism rate. Additionally, Lieutenants now serve in geo-policing assignments resulting in better accountability for responding to calls within each of the six policing sectors. As staffing has allowed, we are also redeploying officers to smaller sector areas. An initial comparison of serious crime occurring in 2010 is encouraging. Overall, crime was down 7.9 percent for the six months of this project compared to the first six months of 2010. Significant reductions were in auto burglary, theft from vehicles and crimes of violence,."

Until significant improvements are made, I will consider Fullerton's iWatch to be a beta test.

The Case for Profiling

By Robert W. Poole, Jr.

Director of Transportation Studies

Reason Foundation

In recent years when discussing a risk-based airport screening system, I have avoided using the word profiling, even though it’s a legitimate concept. Since most people hear the word “profiling” and immediately think “racial,” “ethnic,” or “religious,” I decided that the term itself confused more than it clarified.

But recent online discussions, including an attack on me by two writers for The Nation as a “high-profile charlatan pushing racial profiling as the alternative to TSA pat-downs and body scans,” has led me to change my mind. In a blog post last week for Reason magazine’s “Hit & Run” blog, I explained the legitimate meaning of evidence-based profiling, both positive and negative. (http://reason .com/blog/2010/12/10/the-case -for -profiling-air-tra)

Rather than repeat that argument here (please read the blog post), I’d like to elaborate a bit on how I envision negative profiling (i.e., identifying the high-risk category of travelers) would work. The idea would be to make full use of the various databases the government already maintains, using various intelligence sources, to assign more people to the “selectee” category for which secondary screening is mandatory. Only high-risk travelers, so defined, would be required to face body scans or intrusive pat-downs. Stewart Baker, a former DHS official, points out in National Review (Dec. 20, 2010) that the TSA’s sister agency, Customs & Border Protection, “knows a lot about [people’s] travel plans and uses a database ten or twenty times larger than the selectee list to decide who will be screened closely. And yet for 99 travelers out of 100, border screening is far less hassle—and far less of a privacy invasion—than air security.


The original anti-skyjacking system developed by an FAA task force in 1969-70 used a characteristics-based profile that was not challenged by the ACLU and was ruled constitutional by a New York Federal court. It included 23 elements, of which only half of one percent of air travelers met as many as six, according to David Brown, one of the task force’s members. But according to Brown, all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers would have been flagged by that system—had it still been in use in 2001.
Shifting aviation security from looking for dangerous objects to looking for dangerous people should be high on the agenda of the new Congress.

Fox L.A. and Rep. Gary Miller, (R) 42nd Congressional District

Special thanks to Allen Wilson for bring this to my attention...

Racial Profiling vs. Criminal Profiling

We are taught at an early age that justice is, or at least should be, blind.  The scales of justice should not be tainted by anything immaterial- "just the facts, ma'am."  Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the court.

But when it comes to the events prior to court proceedings when the investigation is still in its infancy, profiling can be a tool worth implementing by investigators trying to understand "who, how, where, when, what, and why" as they relate to crimes.  Before an officer can lawfully detain a person, the officer must have "reasonable suspicion" to believe that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to be occur. The "reasonable suspicion" standard varies somewhat from one jurisdiction to another but it generally comes down to the officer's belief that some criminal activity has taken place and that the person be detained has information about the suspected crime.

A simple example of this is when an officer observes a driver drive past a STOP sign without stopping.  The officer believes a crime was committed and consequently stops and detains the driver so that a citation can be issued to the driver.  At the bottom of the citation is a place for the driver to sign.  The signature, if you read the citation, is not an admission of guilt.  It is simply a promise to appear in court so that a judge may make a determination if the citation issued was done so lawfully and whether there are any other mitigating circumstances the court should be aware of.  This would be the driver's opportunity to provide the court evidence.  With justice being blind and the ONLY evidence submitted by both the officer and the driver being verbal/written testimony of those two parties, the court will likely give greater weight to the officer's testimony because peace officers are generally considered to be credible expert witness. 

During that stop by the officer, he or she will ask the driver for their driver's license and registration. Depending on jurisdiction, the officer may also ask for proof of insurance. If the driver fails to provide a driver's license the officer will ask if they have any other form of identification. If the driver is unable to prove their identity in the field, the officer must take the driver into custody so that they can be identified, usually through finger prints. They will be held until a positive identification is made. If the law enforcement official or agency cannot determine the driver's identity, the driver may be turned over to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

In many jurisdictions, ALL suspects who are booked into the local jail have their residency/citizenship status determined by ICE agents. If they are not legal residents or do not hold a valid visa, they are queued for a deportation hearing pending the completion of the criminal court proceeding.

At no time has race been mentioned or considered. 

I recall as a child watching INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service, predecessor to ICE) agents driving around Santa Ana and Anaheim rounding up dark-skinned men who were standing in groups on street corners and in parks. That must have been about 1980, give or take a couple of years. I remember the stories of people being wrongfully deported simply because they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and had no identification. That was racial profiling. 

I listened to a young man tell his story of being profiled as a criminal because he is black. The program host asked him to give some examples. The man said he is stopped almost once a week and harassed by cops. The host pressed him for what the officer gave as the reason for the frequent stops. The man said the officer said his brake light was out. The host asked if his brake light was actually out and the man said YES. The host then asked why he didn't fix it so that they would stop harassing him. The young man then said they didn't give him a ticket to fix it. So, as it turns out from the young man's own account, the officers had cause to stop him and each time the officers were exceedingly nice by not issuing petty tickets for equipment violations.

I went on dozens, maybe hundreds, of ride-alongs with officers in numerous jurisdictions and I never saw anyone stopped based on their race. With each stop I would ask what the cause was and every single time the officer noted a vehicle code or penal code violation. When asked, one white officer said the reason he was stopping a car was because of a "KNAC" bumper sticker (KNAC was a 1980s-1990s hard rock and heavy-metal radio station). The driver was a white female and her passenger a white mail with long hair and no shirt. No violation noted until the officer walked up and smelled marijuana. Upon checking their identification, it was determined that the female driver had a warrant for failing to appear for another traffic violation. The male took the wrap for the dope and both were arrested. There was clearly substantial criminal profiling and assuming the officer didn't have cause to stop and detain the driver, a violation of the arrestee's constitutional rights with respect to the initial stop may have occurred. The officer said after the arrest that he was joking about the bumper sticker and the real reason was that the driver did not signal before changing lanes. 

Another time out with a different white officer, a 1985 Buick with low suspension and miniature wheels was stopped. I asked why he was stopping the driver and he said, "Look at it; It’s one giant rolling violation." Indeed it was. Upon approaching the vehicle the officer saw 6 shaved heads moving in the car which lent to the officer's concern that there was criminal activity which they were attempting to conceal. The officer upholstered his gun and yelled for them to put their hands up. Back up was called in and each person pulled out and cuffed. One person was out on parole for PC187 (Murder). Another person had a stolen loaded and concealed handgun. There were several knives and numerous small bags of marijuana and methamphetamine. All of them were Mexican gang members. They were all arrested and booked into the local jail. Was there racial profiling in this event? No; just a lot of good criminal profiling.  

To be fair, racial profiling happens all the time by law enforcement officers around the world. Al El Airlines looks for people who look middle-eastern, Muslim, and exhibit certain traits or heightened nervousness. Needless to say, El Al has one of the safest records with respect to security. Iranian police actively look for and detain westerners, especially Americans-looking English speakers. Are these two examples fair and reasonable uses of racial profiling? That depends on your perspective. What about the burglary and rape in a predominantly white neighborhood and the suspect is described as a black male, 25-years old. Every black male between the ages of 15 and 50 in the vicinity will likely be stopped while officers look for the suspect. Is that racial profiling? Yes. Is it fair? Is it reasonable? Yes.

There are times when racial profiling is used and it is acceptable. Then there are times when criminal profiling is used and confused by those who do not understand how law enforcement officers investigate crimes and suspected crimes. Ultimately, regardless of profiling, the courts will decide guilt and innocents.