• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HB1376: Would forbid Arrest & Summons Quotas

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
This would seem to be a good bill:

Arrest and summons quotas; prohibition.
Provides that the Department of State Police, a local police department, or a sheriff shall not establish a formal or informal quota that requires an officer or deputy to make a specific number of arrests or issue a specific number of summonses within a designated time period. The bill provides further that the number of arrests made or summonses issued by an officer or deputy cannot be used as the sole criterion for evaluating such officer's or deputy's job performance.

Question is, how to enforce it?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Does not the law already prohibit such thing? Oh well, legislators just gotta pass more laws !

And good point about no enforcement or penalties.

Seems to mean nothing after all.

Or worse, it could erase the common law that may have penalties allowed.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
a formal or informal quota[SUP]1[/SUP] that requires[SUP]2[/SUP] an officer or deputy to make[SUP]3[/SUP] a specific number of arrests or issue[SUP]4[/SUP] a specific number of summonses within a designated time period. The bill provides further that the number of arrests made or summonses issued by an officer or deputy cannot be used as the sole criterion[SUP]5[/SUP] for evaluating such officer's or deputy's job performance.

[SUP]1[/SUP] - Suggestions, guidelines, and encouragement to perform a specific minimum number of law enforcement activities have consistently been rules as not being a quota.

[SUP]2[/SUP] - It's that word "requires". In order to be a "requirement" there has to be a negative consequence directly related to not meeting the requirement.

[SUP]3[/SUP] - since any detention which restricts the individual's freedom to leave, as stated by SCOTUS, amounts to an arrest, this is poorly defined.

[SUP]4[/SUP] - see #3 above.

[SUP]5[/SUP] - If you cannot figure out how to evaluate performance as negative/not meeting expectations without tying it just, only, solely to arrests/citations then you do not deserve to be a supervisor.

Where are the teeth for this law? It is technically a misdemeanor to violate it but does anybody really believe any Commonwealth Attorney is going to prosecute a violation? Because of #5 above civil redress by an officer allegedly effected is also going to be nigh onto impossible.

stay safe.
 

willy1094

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
201
Location
Nothern KY
Question is, how to enforce it?

Ding, ding, ding! Basically unenforceable. This would only help lazy officers get away with doing NOTHING for 40hrs a week. The depart can/will always keep the pressure for number goals to be reached. The only "bite" this would have would be against a department going to officer Friday and saying "you have NO activity despite having a know issue with model city residents driving like they have their heads up their rears. Why do you have no traffic citations?"
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Ding, ding, ding! Basically unenforceable. This would only help lazy officers get away with doing NOTHING for 40hrs a week. The depart can/will always keep the pressure for number goals to be reached. The only "bite" this would have would be against a department going to officer Friday and saying "you have NO activity despite having a know issue with model city residents driving like they have their heads up their rears. Why do you have no traffic citations?"

Even if the model citizens were all as law-abiding as they would wish us to believe, a quota is a number that needs to be met. Officer Friday (when was he busted from Sergeant?) would have to make arrests and issue citations to meet any quota.

Now if there were no "quota" but merely a performance expectation, Officer Friday would still have to do some work or face performance standards review.

stay safe.
 

willy1094

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
201
Location
Nothern KY
Even if the model citizens were all as law-abiding as they would wish us to believe, a quota is a number that needs to be met. Officer Friday (when was he busted from Sergeant?) would have to make arrests and issue citations to meet any quota.

Now if there were no "quota" but merely a performance expectation, Officer Friday would still have to do some work or face performance standards review.

stay safe.

There will never be a shortage of people that are doing something they shouldn't (against the law). Officers typically don't HAVE to make things up to meet quota/goals/show they are active. We all know that officer fabricate charges but the guy/girl complaining about quotas because they got a ticket for going 10 over broke the law and knew he/she knows they were. It just sucks and we want to pass blame.

Sorry, it's Officer Friday Jr. His buddies just call him Junior. The Sgt. has been retired for some time now.
 
Last edited:

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
It doesn't exactly "forbid"; the operative language is "sole criterion". So they can have quotas, and that can be a criterion, as long as it's not the only one. BFD.

You know what bothers me more? Commonwealths' Attorneys' offices are funded on the basis of how many felonies they prosecute.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
It doesn't exactly "forbid"; the operative language is "sole criterion". So they can have quotas, and that can be a criterion, as long as it's not the only one. BFD.

You know what bothers me more? Commonwealths' Attorneys' offices are funded on the basis of how many felonies they prosecute.

User quick question for you, how would I find more out about that in my state? I'm assuming your Commonwealth attorney is the same as my DA (and the adas that work for him)? Next time I'm in court I'll ask around with the Adas but j was curious where to find that info in writing. Thank you sir appreciate it very much.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
It doesn't exactly "forbid"; the operative language is "sole criterion". So they can have quotas, and that can be a criterion, as long as it's not the only one. BFD.

You know what bothers me more? Commonwealths' Attorneys' offices are funded on the basis of how many felonies they prosecute.

Oh my! Wasn't aware of that.

Sounds like a de facto quota system coupled with a bonus program......and that not even based on conviction rate - which would seem to be some CA's most sought after claim to fame.
 
Top