This post has the shortest title I think I have ever used. This site is pro-legal (constitutional) law enforcement and pro-police. If you read my posts on and analyses of automated for-profit law enforcement* a/k/a red light cameras, you?ll see I oppose them. Instead, I favor our police officers enforcing the law as we have paid and trained them to do. On occasion, someone says, ?Well, it is just their word you ran the light. Wouldn?t you rather have video evidence??
The short answer is No.
IF that video evidence went straight to the police department and not to a for-profit company that had a financial interest in the outcome, maybe I would think differently.
IF the for-profit company was not the one responsible for accuracy checks for their own equipment, maybe I would think differently.
I?ve always held that if police officers are repeatedly perjuring themselves in court or engaging in other misconduct, it catches up to them. A deputy sheriff where I worked was stopping cars and stealing from illegal aliens. A great plan, as the victims would not report him, right? Well one did, and he was not only fired but charged criminally.
Why do I think police officers should be doing the enforcement? One big reason is trust.
The fact is, we spend a lot of time screening and then training those whom we give the authority to enforce our laws. I know from firsthand experience, just like any election, decisions made will not always be popular. The questions must be are they legal and fair? Can we trust our police officers? No doubt the anarchist faction will say no way! For everyone else, please keep reading.
The balance of this post will deal with some information I found while performing an analysis of the traffic crashes in Gulf Breeze, FL (click for PDF). Gulf Breeze touts itself as the first city in Florida to use automated for-profit law enforcement devices. My lengthy analysis showed they only had one crash involving red light running in the 12 months prior to using automated for-profit enforcement (the crash involved a DUI driver), and none during or after the discontinuance of the device. What they did have were ten rear end crashes during device use when they had none in the year prior or the year after the automated for-profit device was used.
At this intersection, there were only 16 crashes from March 2005 through August 2009. That is not very many for about 4.5 years; less than four per year. Where I worked in Florida, we would often have four in one hour in one patrol zone of one county. I?ll gloss over the fact that the Mayor in the January 2011 city newsletter (click for PDF) made misleading statements about crashes due to device use. She?s a politician, so we likely don?t trust her as much as we do the police chief. The same could be said for American Traffic Solutions (ATS) Vice President Bill Kroske that engaged in deceptive practices to make it appear people in local communities wanted the devices. He has a bottom line to look out for. More devices=more revenue.
However, when then-Chief Peter Paulding (depicted above) was interviewed in this pro-device publication (click for PDF) the following was attributed to him, his words were more political than truthful:
?We know that over 90 percent of all the crashes that occur in our city occur on Highway 98 where the cameras are installed,? Paulding says. ?We?ve employed a number of strategies to reduce crashes and cameras are one of those, but our data shows a correlation between when the cameras are operating with a reduction in the number of accidents.?
The department?s data shows a 23 percent decrease in crashes between 2006 and 2008 in Gulf Breeze. Crashes began to increase when the cameras were removed, then stabilized when they became operational again in 2011.
Like a politician, he parsed the words to make someone think the device was a wonderful crash-reduction tool. What he failed to disclose was that according to Florida DOT crash data, in 2008 while the device was in operation, the crashes skyrocketed, going from one for March 2007-February 2008 to seven for March 2008-February 2009. The same DOT crash data shows after the device was removed, crashes dropped to three for the following year. Remember, from March 2005 through August 2010, there was only one crash at this intersection caused by red light running, and it involved a DUI driver. Drunk drivers can?t always see red lights due to impairment, so they likewise can?t see automated devices.
If that was all he had done, I wouldn?t be writing this post. I?d chalk it up to yet another local official that went astray due to dollar signs in trying to use the smokescreen of safety to justify revenue for their city. There is a big difference between doing so for the city and doing so to line up profit for yourself.
I?m not writing about statistics today. I?m writing about trust. Specifically, the trust we place in our rank and file officers that enforce the law, and more specifically the trust we place on those that command them. I support our police officers when their actions are legal, ethical, and proper. I support them when they make a mistake in good faith- maybe they drove too fast (but not recklessly) to get to a call. Maybe they went out of their patrol zone by a couple of miles to eat dinner with their family who they don?t see too much of due to shift work.
I do not support them when they act in an unethical manner, specifically steering the city to create a program that would line their pockets in retirement.
In Gulf Breeze, then-Chief Paulding suggested the city begin using automated for-profit law enforcement at one intersection. They did so starting in March 2006. The program was discontinued due to problems with the for-profit company in August 2009. The Florida Legislature acted in 2010 to make it automated for-profit enforcement legal only after passage of the 2010 Wandall traffic law (HB 325).
Gulf Breeze began using the automated for-profit device again in March of 2011 with a different company, ATS, who you?ll recall employed Mr. Kroske, the local resident impersonator.
On April 5, 2011, then-Chief Paulding wrote a letter (click for PDF) to the city manager suggesting the city use a ?back office? company to administer the program. In his letter, he wrote:
?We are at a point where we seek to expand our efforts and begin conducting back office operations for other customers with whom Sensys contracts.?
and
?In the future, there is significant revenue to be generated by this venture.?
He closed the letter with this:
On January 12, 2012, a little over nine months later, Chief Paulding retired. What happened next troubles me, and it creates the perception of unethical behavior.
In the Gulf Breeze News January 5, 2012 edition (click for PDF), it states former Chief Paulding would not be going far away.
?Gulf Breeze City Chief of Police Peter Paulding will be retiring at the end of January after 10 years of service to the city and more than 40 years of policing.
Paulding, however, will remain on the scene, according to City Manager Edwin ?Buz? Eddy, running the city?s Red Light Camera Program as Administrator.?
You may recall Mr. Eddy is the City Manager to whom former Chief Paulding wrote his April 5, 2011 letter. The story continues:
?Paulding initiated the redlight camera at the intersection of U.S. Highway 98 and Daniel Drive in 2005 (sic- it was 2006), and it was the first of its kind in Florida.
As Administrator for the Red Light Camera Program, Paulding will be responsible for the back-office work involved. He will start with the city?s redlight cameras, but having an administrator could grow the program into brokering that kind of service for others, according to the 10-page contract.
Council voted unanimously Tuesday to hiring Paulding as a contractor for $2,000 per month for the administrative services.?
So the ?back office? company the former chief suggested was such a good idea he decided to form a company and operate it.
According to the Florida Division of Corporations, on August 22, 2011, Peter Paulding of Gulf Breeze, FL filed incorporation papers (click for PDF) with the State of Florida to start a business called ?Roadwatch Management Inc.? Keep in mind he had written the ?back office? letter only 4 months earlier, and he was still the police chief at this time.
I do not believe I am interpreting this incorrectly to sum this up as him using his official position to get the city to use a private enterprise to administer the automated for-profit device, and then while still in the employ of the city forming said private enterprise and then reaping a financial benefit upon retirement.
Was this wrong or just him finding a favorable situation and making use of it? I lean towards wrong. Here is why:
We have laws against politicians doing things such as this. Ray Sanom was the Florida? District 4 State Representative and House Speaker- this area is just to the east of Gulf Breeze. He was indicted in 2009 for using his office to ?steer? $6 million to Northwest Florida State College for an aircraft hangar for a friend while serving in the legislature, and then taking a $110,000/year job there. The charges of official misconduct (theft and conspiracy) were dismissed as part of a deal for repayment during trial in 2011,? and he ended up resigning from the college. Read more here. Incidentally, this Sansom situation is yet another example of failure when government gets involved in the free market.
Is what happened in Gulf Breeze really that different? Sure, it wasn?t millions, and it was $24,000/year vs. $110,000, but the principle is the same. Principle is something we should expect from our law enforcement officers. If they are not principled, then how can we trust them?
* Just as you won?t find the word ?camera? in Florida?s camera law, the devices are called ?traffic infraction detectors?, I have likewise stopped using the word camera. Instead, I am using a more accurate term: ?Automated for-profit law enforcement device?. Note that the word ?safety? appears in neither phrase.
Source: http://retiredpublicsafety.com/wp/trust/
what time does the super bowl start ben gazzara nfl hall of fame 2012 ufc diaz vs condit josephine baker super bowl start time target jason wu
No comments:
Post a Comment