Sunday, December 24, 2017

Police stops in era of self-driving cars

Over the past few months, there have been several articles about what might happen in an era of self-driving cars. Last year, the San Diego Union Tribune had an op-ed article by   titled: "Autonomous Vehicles Could Change Everything You Know About Traffic Stops"
I've thought about this a lot since I first heard about self-driving cars.  What will happen to our culture as we need fewer police due to self-driving cars?
As Adams & Rizer mentioned traffic stops for driving or vehicle problems are often pretenses for checking driver and passenger for other more serious offenses -- smuggling, drugs, kidnapping, weapons, immigration violations, car theft, escaped or wanted criminals etc.  Presumably the police have some success with these other arrests when stopping cars for these minor traffic offenses.  So if they can no longer do it, will there be more criminals getting away with crimes?  
What else might change in an era of self driving cars?


  • It seems that self-driving cars will probably be more expensive than the equivalent traditional car.  If those cars are more expensive, people may consider leasing or renting rather than buying cars.  They also might consider using services similar to Uber/Lyft to only use cars when they need them.  That will shift the capital cost to those companies and save users from those costs.  Citizens could then eliminate having parking garages.  They wouldn't need to hunt for parking spots or parking meters.  They would no longer need to register cars or buy insurance themselves. 
  • Police boredom -- Police will not have as many chores for traffic violations or helping with accidents -- will they be bored?  Or will governments consider reducing police budgets and the number of officers on duty?  With fewer highway patrol, and fewer infractions, we will need fewer courts, fewer judges, fewer court reporters, fewer balifs etc. 
  • Less Insurance, fewer car repairs - If there are fewer accidents, there will be fewer car repairs.  The cash flow through insurance companies and repair shops will be reduced.  
  • Parking enforcement -- If more people use self-driving services and not own their cars they won't need to find parking spots.  Uber-like services can park in large garages in last-in-first-out configurations, which will take up much less space than current parking arrangements.  Enforcement goes away as unneeded.
  • Fewer adversarial engagements - Now police seem to spend a lot of their time pulling people over for traffic infractions.  However with self-driving cars, we would think that most problems with speeding, illegal lane change, running stop signs or traffic lights will be eliminated.  If most of these adversarial situations are eliminated, will the public image of police improve?  
  • No DUIs --If we don't drive, but depend upon our self-driving cars, we can drink alcohol and "ride" without worrying about DUIs.  Police will no longer need to perform DUI checkpoints, or do sobriety tests for passengers in self-driving cars.  That will reduce their workload, for sure.  It will also help make for safer highways.  But, in some ways, the concern about DUIs may have a moderating effect on drinking.  If people no longer are worried about DUIs,  will that lead to more alcohol/drug abuse?
  • Market for Entertainment --If we don't have to drive cars, we will have more idle time in cars.  We can engage in more involved entertainment, such as video games, watching videos, texting, or studying.  The need for pure "audio-based" entertainment such as listening to music or talk radio might go away.    


The Transition to self-driving cars may take many years --while people.  Nostalgia lovers may keep current design cars forever.  Will they be banned from some roads?  Will they be required to install a chip?  

Police Violence Against Blacks

There was an article in today's LA Times  (by Makeda Easter and Richard Winton) about a 21 yr old black man, Christopher Ballew,  being beaten violently by two Pasadena police officers at an Alta Dena gas station on November 9th..  There were multiple videos of the police action and it sounds like the man was generally cooperating with the police.  But the police beat him with night sticks, broke his leg, and slammed his head onto the concrete.  The police claimed they stopped him because he was missing a front license plate and his tinted windows were too dark.
I have driven a car for 60 years, as has my wife.  My 3 kids have driven cars for about 20 years.  I  have never been pulled over for such infractions, nor has my wife.  I don't believe my three kids have ever experienced it and I really don't think I know anyone who has been treated by police that way.  Of course, we are white!  Even though I have always driven older cars with headlights or tail lights that fail from time-to-time or have other problems such as cracked windshields etc -- we have never been stopped!  On the other hand, it seems that many Blacks are stopped for "driving while black" --
I would expect that if I would have been pulled over for a broken tail light, the police would simply have handed me a ticket.  I may have complained about the stop and the ticket.  I may even curse the police --but I would expect they would be respectful anyway and write the ticket.  Why would they ever want to put me in handcuffs? 
In this case, the police claim that Christopher Ballew tried to grab their weapon (the night stick they were beating him with) -- and charge him with resisting arrest?  Are we, as citizens supposed to not defend ourselves when police are beating us?  Grabbing the stick seems to be the only defense we would have! 
The article says that the two police officers Lerry Esparza and Zachary Lujan remain on duty.  It seems to me that if anyone else did that violence they would be instantly locked up.  Why are these officers still free?  And why are they on duty?  I suspect that if they are charged with a crime, the DA will assign a very weak or inexperienced prosecutor to the case, and the prosecutor will be encouraged to go through the motions of prosecuting --but not try to win the case.  Prosecutors all have a serious conflict of interest in such a task, because if they might happen to win a case against an officer, they will never get cooperation from anyone in the police department again and their career would be ruined.  I believe that is why so many of the flagrant examples of police violence and killing seem to go unpunished.
I can see how neighborhoods can feel "under siege" by the police.  Some police departments are so well funded and heavily staffed (like Pasadena's?) that the officers have to search for excuses or pretenses to pull people over to arrest them.  Over the past few years there have been many police killings of citizens that started with seemingly trivial pretenses such as jaywalking (when there is no traffic in the street) or  riding a bicycle on a sidewalk as approaching home (when no people were on the sidewalk).  All of these seem to be occasions when police are looking for something to do --and they seem to pick on minorities when doing it.
I believe if the police worked to win the respect and gratitude of the citizens of these neighborhoods, they would get more cooperation and help to reduce crime.  I think if the police had pulled me over at any time for trivial pretenses, I might become angry with them.  I might, in fact, complain to the city police chief.  I would write to my City Council, and provide no support or help to my police force.  If I were repeatedly hassled by police as many black are, I just might consider organizing or participating in protests. 
  

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

New California Law Puts Restrictions on Asset Forfeiture But Police will find a way around it.

Jeff McDonald reported in the Union Tribune Oct 1, 2016 that Governor Brown signed SB443,  the law sponsored by Sen Holly Mitchell and pushed by the American Civil Liberties Union that requires a person to be convicted before the Government gets to keep "booty" captured by police.

It is clear to me that the asset seizure that state and Federal police agencies have participated in over many years is unconstitutional.  Although, it has never been fully tested in the Supreme Court.  This new law will make it illegal for State police agencies to steal property from citizens without a conviction.  However Federal agencies within the state will still do it.  I suspect that the city, county and state agencies will "partner" with Federal agencies in order to keep up their stream of ill-gotten gains.

It is clear that a criminal's ill-gotten gains should be taken.  A criminal has no right to keep, for example, stolen money or goods.  If a person is convicted of a crime, they should give up those assets and they should go for restitution or for the overall welfare of the public.  Why, however, should the police agency who made the "bust" get to keep the "booty" from the bust?

In addition to local police "partnering" with Federal agencies, the police can simply make it difficult for a citizen to get their assets back through bureaucratic complications.  If police take $10,000 in cash from me when I'm on my way to buy a car, would I then want to put up another $5000 to hire a lawyer to get my money back?

This new law helps in avoiding the "guilty until proven innocent" aspect of asset forfeiture.  However until Federal law also changes, and the attitude of the police changes, the problem will continue.  

Saturday, April 16, 2016

We Need to End This Form of Robbery by Cop

This is unbelievable.  The police now steal more from citizens using "asset forfeiture" than thieves steal from citizens.   See this link on "The Influence:"  We Need to End This Form of Robbery by Cop | TheInfluence.  When thieves steal something from someone, and are caught, they get due process of law, and are required to return stolen property pay restitution.  However when the police steal our property, and claim it was "ill gotten gains" --without needing proof--the owner of the property is forced to spend a small fortune in legal costs to try to get it back --even if never convicted of a crime.  Absolutely crazy!  It is hard to believe that it could ever be legal and within our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I can understand "freezing assets" when a criminal is arrested.  But if not charged and convicted the police should be required to give us our stuff back within a minimum amount of time -- 30 days?  And if there were losses or damage to the property, the police should be liable for that as well.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Police Disciplinary Secrecy

Steven Greenhut column in today's Union Tribune pointed out a difficult situation in maintaining police discipline while also keeping the public informed.



LEGISLATURE REVISITS POLICE DISCIPLINARY SECRE... | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com



Apparently in 2006 Senate Bill (SB) 1019 was proposed to open up police department discipline records to the public.  At that time, it was "dead on arrival."  Now, Assemblyman Mark Leno has introduced another bill:  SB1286 to allow the public to learn more about discipline against police officers.



Greenhut seems to imply that we absolutely need to find out the names and discipline history of police officers.  However there is another side.  Taxpayers invest a LOT of money in training officers.  We also pay fairly high salaries to these officers who daily risk their lives to protect us.  Exposing those officers to unfair public criticism can discourage people from wanting to be officers and hurt recruiting, which, in turn, can sharply increase the cost to everyone.  Sometimes what could be perceived as a police officer making an error, could also be due to inadequate training, equipment, or management.  Police management should be the first level under fire from the public.  Management should have good statistics at their fingertips that identify the numbers and types of problems encountered and the numbers and types of discipline that has been handed out.   Only in cases when police have, in fact, been charged with a possible criminal offense should the individual police officer's name be made public.

I hope that the new SB1286 takes all of that into account.

Monday, December 28, 2015

Use of Students as Confidential Informers -- Dangerous and should be illegal!

On December 7 2015, CBS "60 Minutes" show reported on the unbelievable amount of use of college students as confidential informers (CIs).  Police apparently set up extortion-like situations to persuade students to serve as confidential informers.  Then they require the students to make a fixed number (like 10) drug buys with "wires" to help make arrests.  Because of this pressure, CI recruits may set up friends or associates as patsys in order to meet their quota.  Working as a CI is incredibly dangerous, and student CIs have been murdered when their police role was discovered.

The police claim that the informers are critical to their operation. By using a CI, the police are able to dramatically increase the number of arrests while using much less police labor.   It is clear from the interviews, that the police are most concerned about making "drug busts."  They admit that the use of CIs help them increase the statistics on the number of arrests, which, in turn, helps them obtain more "grants" from Federal or State agencies.  With more money from grants, they can increase pay, hire more police and increase their "status" within the police hierarchy. Because of this, the police, and police organizations lobby to try to prevent any restrictions on recruitment of CIs.  They appear to hide behind an argument that they feel they are protecting their community and the country from the "evil of drugs."   In another breath they say that all they are doing is enforcing laws that are on the books, and that they don't need to justify the laws.

There are possibly as many as 100,000 confidential informers in the US.  Most of them are students and most are "recruited" with charges related to marijuana, rarely any of the "harder" drugs.  In most states there are no laws to protect or control the use of CIs.  To recruit a CI, the police don't have to formally charge the student.  They don't have to "Mirandize" the student by explaining they  have the right to obtain a lawyer.  They apparently can also lie to the students by telling them that they would go to jail if they don't cooperate and become a CI.  The recruited CIs are also told they are not allowed to tell anyone, including their parents, that they are working as a CI.   The CI is given no training, and even though the police may promise to provide protection for the CI in dangerous situations, they don't always follow up and provide that protection.  So the CI role can be extremely dangerous.

I think the use of students as CIs in college or high schools "stinks," is un-American, and may even be unconstitutional. Other organizations, such as Drug Policy Organization, have the same opinion: http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/sickening-use-young-people-confidential-informants-drug-war.   However the police love to do it, because, as was stated on 60 minutes, the police are addicted to the money involved in the drug war as much as the actual addicts are addicted to their drugs.

I believe that we do need some laws, probably at the Federal level to put some reasonable controls on the use of CIs.  Some of the reasonable controls should include:

  1. Police should be required to tell the "truth" when recruiting CIs.  In particular they need to be required to tell the truth about the likely penalties that the recruit might encounter if convicted. I was astounded when I learned that people can be charged with a crime of "lying to police" -- but police can lie to citizens as much as they want! 
  2. Use of a CI is something very close to entrapment, and similar to use of a wiretap, since the CI is "wired" when meeting with the dealer.  Therefore, it seems that a judge should be required to sign off on both the recruitment of a CI and each use of the CI.  For each "assignment" for the CI, the judge should also be provided the police plan to make sure that the CI will be protected. 
  3. If the CI being recruited is under the age of 21, they should be required to tell the person that they should obtain a lawyer, or get their parents involved in making the decision to become a CI. 


  

Friday, October 23, 2015

US Prison Population and Drug Offenses

I saw an editorial in the Union Tribune, which was apparently originally written on October 14 2015 in the Washington Post by Charles Lane. His position is that if we ended the war on drugs, and let all of the previous drug offenders out of prison, we still wouldn't significantly reduce the prison population.

Charles Lane pointed out some possible exaggerations in statements recently made by politicians, such as Carly Fiorina's claim that “two-thirds of the people in our prisons are there for nonviolent offenses, mostly drug-related.” He then stated that 46 percent of all state and federal prisoners are there for violent crimes. That clearly conflicts with Fiorina's claim of 66% in prison for non-violent crimes. He also says that only 19.5% of the prisoners are there for drug offenses. It amazes me that the statistics can be so different! The drugwarfacts.org website says 50% of federal prisoners are there for drug violations.  The Huffington Post agrees with that number.  I think the problem is that we don't have standard definitions of what a "drug-related" offense is, nor can we easily tease out the "violent" offenses that are drug related from all other violent offenses.  A lot of burglary, robbery, car theft, weapon offenses, could be caused by drug addicts trying to obtain money to feed their habit of drugs that are only expensive because of our prohibition laws.  Many non-violent crimes, such as income tax evasion, money laundering, credit card fraud etc are also possibly drug-related.  Remember Al Capone was finally convicted for income tax evasion.  That probably would have been called a non-violent, and "non-alcohol" related crime, while his "empire" was all about alcohol, and one of the most violent crime organizations.  

The statistic that is currently being touted by many, including Bernie Sanders and President Obama is that the US has 5% of the world population but 25% of the world's prisoners.  I get the impression that Charles Lane does, somehow agree this is a problem.  But his arguments against relaxation of drug laws makes him appear to be a strong supporter of the drug war.  At the end of his column he wrote of the US incarceration rate: "The only way to lower it dramatically would be to reduce the frequency and duration of imprisonment for violent crimes, while continuing to reduce violent crime itself. If any of the candidates has a plan to do that, he or she should speak up."    So it is clear that Charles Lane doesn't have a real solution to the problem. If he does, he probably wouldn't want to advocate it because it could alienate his readership.  As soon as anyone proposes reducing the frequency and duration of imprisonment for violent crimes, his fellow right-wingers scream "soft on crime" and complain that releasing prisoners will unleash a huge rash of crime in the US,  There are now so very many people making so much easy money as part of the "war on drugs" that they will certainly push the politicians to continue the war.  In the 1960's many Americans complained about the Military-Industrial complex that caused us to buy weapon systems we maybe didn't need.  Now we have a "Drug-war-Industrial Complex" that advocates for continuation of the drug war.   This complex may be larger and much more powerful than the military-industrial complex.  They include high tech companies who make spy and surveillance equipment, border patrol, FBI, NSA, CIA, DEA, Police, prison guard unions, builders of prisons, judges, prosecutors, and even defense attorneys.  They all enjoy relatively high paying positions and are willing to put money into politics to advocate for increasing the war on drugs. 

There could be some changes in the laws that will help reduce the US prison population.  See this article:   However, it would seem that the various organizations that keep statistics on prison populations do need to get together and come up with better definitions and better ways of maintaining the statistics.  If we are going to make any progress on reducing the incarceration rate, we need to be able to have a way of measuring our progress.  It will also be interesting to see if state prison populations change in states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana, like Colorado.  If so, that might prove, or disprove the assumption that relaxing laws on drugs could reduce the incarceration rate.  

One way of trying to figure out why we have such a high incarceration rate is to ask: "What makes the US so different from the rest of the world?"  Is it our drug laws?  We aren't much tougher on drugs than any other nation.  Some, like Indonesia have the death penalty for drug law violations.  Is it our "second amendment" that allows everyone to have unfettered access to guns?  That doesn't seem to be the case from prison population counts. Is it our education level?  We aren't the best or the worst educated country in the world.  Is it our racial and cultural mix?  It is hard to see how that would be connected.   Is it our freedom of religion?  Or our lack of a strong religious "moral compass?" is it our TV & Movies that glamorize drugs and violence?  Our movies and TV are shown all over the world, so how could it be unique to the US?   Somehow, I'd think that the many sociologists, criminologists, political scientists,  and other similar professionals would, by now have some solid, scientific-based recommendations to resolve this problem.