Lazy cops or not - clearly did not complain about quotas before they were disiplined

NORMAL — Three Normal Police Department patrol officers have filed a lawsuit against the town alleging they have been improperly disciplined for failing to meet arrest quotas.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/loca...m&utm_campaign=hot-topics-2&utm_medium=direct

davidmcbeth said:

NORMAL — Three Normal Police Department patrol officers have filed a lawsuit against the town alleging they have been improperly disciplined for failing to meet arrest quotas.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/loca...m&utm_campaign=hot-topics-2&utm_medium=direct

Click to expand...

Perhaps the reason they "didn't complain about the quotas until they were disciplined" is because until reprimanded, one could hardly claim it was truly a quota, nor could the really articulate any damages.


From what little evidence I have seen so far, these officers should be commended. I tip my hat to them.

END_THE_FED said:

Perhaps the reason they "didn't complain about the quotas until they were disciplined" is because until reprimanded, one could hardly claim it was truly a quota, nor could the really articulate any damages.

Click to expand...

I get the same impression from what I know so far. Many moons ago living in IL it was often rumored but never quite proved that such and such towns had these quotas. Obviously it was and did go on and was a problem as the article states " A law signed this year in Illinois makes such quota systems illegal".

END_THE_FED said:

Perhaps the reason they "didn't complain about the quotas until they were disciplined" is because until reprimanded, one could hardly claim it was truly a quota, nor could the really articulate any damages.
<snip>.

Click to expand...

You mean that they could not tell if quotas were actually present? They were likely warned more than once before being fired that they were not meeting their quotas. Hence, even if they were dumb, would have had notice of the quotas prior to their termination.

I don't think that they'll win their case ... IL does not like to expand the exceptions to at-will employment...and I don't see this as being within the world of wrongful discharges in existence to my knowledge.

davidmcbeth said:

--snipped--...and I don't see this as being within the world of wrongful discharges in existence to my knowledge.

Click to expand...

So all of your discharges/dismissals were for valid cause - not wrongful or improper?

Grapeshot said:

So all of your discharges/dismissals were for valid cause - not wrongful or improper?

Click to expand...

No.

davidmcbeth said:

You mean that they could not tell if quotas were actually present? They were likely warned more than once before being fired that they were not meeting their quotas. Hence, even if they were dumb, would have had notice of the quotas prior to their termination.

I don't think that they'll win their case.........

Click to expand...

What I meant was if officers complain about quotas before being punished for failing to meet them, it is much easier for the City to claim that they are not "quotas" but just "performance goals". Goals they are "encouraged" but not "required" to meet.

It appears that three officers are involved in the lawsuit. One officer got a letter of reprimand and then complained after being suspended, one officer complained after receiving a negative review, and one was given a warning. None of the officers involved in the case that is the main subject of the article were fired. They are still in the department. They are asking for an injunction against the quotas, and the one that was suspended is seeking 300 Federal Reserve Notes in damages.

Only one of the officers mentioned in the story, who is involved in a (pending) criminal case was fired, but that was not for violating the quota. It was for falsifying tickets.

I doubt that the city will say that they fired them over quotas ... any whistle-blower claim is gone.

If they were not fired, the quotas would have continued unabated.

How many other PDs have quotas where cops are not speaking out?

Who got the screw-job on these cops' PD's quota? You and me.

davidmcbeth said:

I doubt that the city will say that they fired them over quotas ..............

If they were not fired, the quotas would have continued unabated.

Click to expand...

(bold added)

Why do you insist on implying that the officers were fired? The three officers that were the subject of the article, and plaintiffs in the civil case were NOT fired. They are still with the department.

The story mentioned that an officer was fired, BUT that officer is NOT part of the lawsuit. He is involved in a SEPARATE (pending) criminal case and is apparently trying to use the existence of a quota system as part of his defense.

davidmcbeth said:

How many other PDs have quotas where cops are not speaking out?

Click to expand...

My guess, which is based mostly on speculation, would be several, I wouldn't be surprised if quotas are a relatively standard practice. However, that does not have much to do with this case.

Quotas are obviously a practice that is extremely dangerous to freedom, and should be eliminated. Any officers (or anyone else) who expose such systems at risk to themselves and their careers will receive my appreciation, gratitude, and respect. (unless and until other facts come to light to change that.)

As a child I was fortunate enough to be taught a valuable life lesson, one that all people should learn: Not all (individual) cops are your friends, not all of them want to help you, and not all (individual) cops are supporters of our freedom.

I was also taught the other part of that lesson, which is almost as important but not nearly as popular: Not all (individual) cops are your enemy either, and not all (individual) cops are the antithesis of freedom.

END_THE_FED said:

(bold added)

<snip>

I was also taught the other part of that lesson, which is almost as important but not nearly as popular: Not all (individual) cops are your enemy either, and not all (individual) cops are the antithesis of freedom.

Click to expand...

No cops or members of the military make you free or more free-er, they can only take your freedoms away.

END_THE_FED said:

.......I was fortunate enough to be taught a valuable life lesson, one that all people should learn: Not all (individual) cops are your friends, not all of them want to help you, and not all (individual) cops are supporters of our freedom.

I was also taught the other part of that lesson, which is almost as important but not nearly as popular: Not all (individual) cops are your enemy either, and not all (individual) cops are the antithesis of freedom.

Click to expand...

davidmcbeth said:

No cops or members of the military make you free or more free-er, they can only take your freedoms away.

Click to expand...

I prefer to make a distinction between the individual and the institution. The point I was attempting to make was that not all individuals within said institution have an aim to take freedoms away. There are individuals who aim to protect our freedoms, by exercising limited powers granted to them via a constitution.

Perhaps these individuals believe in a faulty system and no government is needed at all, perhaps they are right and some government is needed but "that government is best that governs least." Either way, I respect those individuals for their intention to protect freedom and consider them allies in the struggle against tyranny.

END_THE_FED said:

I prefer to make a distinction between the individual and the institution. The point I was attempting to make was that not all individuals within said institution have an aim to take freedoms away. There are individuals who aim to protect our freedoms, by exercising limited powers granted to them via a constitution.

Perhaps these individuals believe in a faulty system and no government is needed at all, perhaps they are right and some government is needed but "that government is best that governs least." Either way, I respect those individuals for their intention to protect freedom and consider them allies in the struggle against tyranny.

Click to expand...

But these guys intent is to get $$$ from a lawsuit .... they were part of a system of quotas, if they fully participated or not, and said nothing.

davidmcbeth said:

But these guys intent is to get $$$ from a lawsuit .... they were part of a system of quotas, if they fully participated or not, and said nothing.

Click to expand...

They (apparently) are not looking for a big monetary settlement.

Actually only one officer is seeking monetary damages in the amount of 300 federal reserve notes, hardly a big payday. All three officers are seeking an injunction that would end the quota system. Seems to me that their intent is to end the quota system, not profit from a lawsuit.

They didn't "say nothing"...... After being punished and thus having proof and being able to demonstrate standing they filled a lawsuit to end the quotas, that is not "saying nothing" that is saying a lot.

Quoted from the article you posted: "All three officers ask through their Peoria lawyer, Ryan McCracken, that an injunction be ordered to end the town's policy on arrest minimums. Weir asks that she be reimbursed the $300 in lost pay for her suspension."

I'm on the fence about quotas. Personally I don't have to do deal with them so I can't speak from experience.

I can see both sides of the equation. Some say it motivates guys to make up citations or false arrests. On the other side its just a measure to make sure your actually doing what your paid to do.

For example if that one arrest a month (miniscule numbers in a city) is used to grab one rapist a month or one violent criminal a month then that's a good thing. If its used in a small town and the only people to arrest to meet the quota is Grandma for an expired drivers licenses then thats horrible.

Good idea but potential for serious abuse which is bad.

The one thing there should be a quota for is how many people you help a month/day/week. So how many guys have you pulled behind and helped change a tire? How many lost kids have you brought home? How many times have you stopped to talk and hang out with local kids or citizens.

Good policing isn't always about grabbing the bad guy. Thats one thing my LT had to damn near beat into me.

Primus said:

I'm on the fence about quotas.........

I can see both sides of the equation............

For example if that one arrest a month (miniscule numbers in a city) is used to grab one rapist a month or one violent criminal a month then that's a good thing. If its used in a small town and the only people to arrest to meet the quota is Grandma for an expired drivers licenses then thats horrible......

Click to expand...

The question that I would encourage you to ask yourself is: Of all the officers you know, how many need quotas or a threat of punishment to arrest a rapist or violent criminal?

I presume that the intent and desire to catch rapists and other violent criminals is a top reason for becoming a LEO for many or most of those who choose to do so.

An officer (generally) needs no punishment or threat thereof to motivate them to arrest someone for a violent crime. Their conscience, morality, and desire to help people are motivation enough. I feel the only arrests that quotas can motivate are those that the officer would otherwise be in doubt about, and absent a quota system probably wouldn't make.

If an officer needs punishment or threats thereof to motivate them to arrest a violent criminal, are they really the right person for the job?

Primus said:

The one thing there should be a quota for is how many people you help a month/day/week. So how many guys have you pulled behind and helped change a tire? How many lost kids have you brought home? How many times have you stopped to talk and hang out with local kids or citizens.

Good policing isn't always about grabbing the bad guy. Thats one thing my LT had to damn near beat into me.

Click to expand...

I tip my hat to your LT.
Unfortunately, (according to the article) those actions you described, and other ways of helping folks was not "credited" in the quota system therefore (potentially) creating a system where such activities are somewhat discouraged.

END_THE_FED said:

The question that I would encourage you to ask yourself is: Of all the officers you know, how many need quotas or a threat of punishment to arrest a rapist or violent criminal?

I presume that the intent and desire to catch rapists and other violent criminals is a top reason for becoming a LEO for many or most of those who choose to do so.

An officer (generally) needs no punishment or threat thereof to motivate them to arrest someone for a violent crime. Their conscience, morality, and desire to help people are motivation enough. I feel the only arrests that quotas can motivate are those that the officer would otherwise be in doubt about, and absent a quota system probably wouldn't make.

If an officer needs punishment or threats thereof to motivate them to arrest a violent criminal, are they really the right person for the job?



I tip my hat to your LT.
Unfortunately, (according to the article) those actions you described, and other ways of helping folks was not "credited" in the quota system therefore (potentially) creating a system where such activities are somewhat discouraged.

Click to expand...

Actually I do know some that would require motivation to go get said violent criminals. Some would prefer to just park somewhere or stay in the station or some other nonsense. Just like any other job. Like the OP said. There are plenty of lazy cops.

Primus said:

Actually I do know some that would require motivation to go get said violent criminals. Some would prefer to just park somewhere or stay in the station or some other nonsense. Just like any other job. Like the OP said. There are plenty of lazy cops.

Click to expand...

I know cops who when the radio calls out for a cop to go to location XYZ, they head in the opposite direction...

davidmcbeth said:

I know cops who when the radio calls out for a cop to go to location XYZ, they head in the opposite direction...

Click to expand...

Correct. I've seen that also. I'm lucky to have good guys in my relief but I have seen similar things happen. Lucky they are balances out by other guys who go to every call as back up regardless if they were dispatched.

Primus said:

Correct. I've seen that also. I'm lucky to have good guys in my relief but I have seen similar things happen. Lucky they are balances out by other guys who go to every call as back up regardless if they were dispatched.

Click to expand...

I just figured that the guys who show up have a terrible sense of direction..

davidmcbeth said:

I just figured that the guys who show up have a terrible sense of direction..

Click to expand...

Nah lines too long at donut shop.