What's the Job of Police?

Here in Albuquerque, bail bondsmen have arrest powers. One, Alvino Contreras, was trying to apprehend a suspect who had jumped bail and had an outstanding warrant. Because the suspect was in a park surrounded by several other individuals, the bail bondsman called for police backup. He was informed by the dispatcher that he was on his own and the suspect escaped.

Deputy Chief Paul Chavez said because bail bondsman [sic] can make arrests themselves, it is APD policy not to help them.

That’s true even with an outstanding warrant partly because it's a civil employer-employee situation, he said. In addition, with more than 60,000 active warrants in Bernalillo County, sending officers to arrest every wanted person would take too much manpower, he added.

“We simply had to draw the line somewhere otherwise we'd be doing nothing but taking people to jail,” Chavez said. [emphasis mine]

krqe.com

Now, I ask you. If putting people in jail is not the job of the police, just what is their job?



[edit on 2006/7/21 by GradyPhilpott]

posted by GradyPhilpott

“ . . bail bondsmen have arrest powers. One, Alvino Contreras, was trying to apprehend a suspect who had jumped bail . . the bail bondsman called for police backup.

Deputy Chief Chavez said because bail bondsmen can make arrests, it is APD policy not to help them. “We simply had to draw the line somewhere otherwise we'd be doing nothing but taking people to jail,” Chavez said.

Now, I ask you. If putting people in jail is not the job of the police, just what is their job?
[Edited by Don W]

Bail Bonds. I hate bail bonds. The bail bond system is a crime waiting to happen. Traditionally a bond was required by a court to bail an accused person. The bond is to insure the accused appears in court as required. It saves a lot of time, taxpayer’s money and sheriff’s energy chasing down people who have failed to appear as ordered. If the bonded person fails to appear, the bond is forfeited. A warrant is issued for the person’s arrest - and a new bond is often set in the same order.

The bail bond process charges a fee based on the amount of the bond. A typical fee is 10% of the bond. A $50,000 bond requires a $5,000 fee. Not refundable. Not pro-rated. Bail bonds are a part of our common law heritage. Under the common law, the person who goes the bond - posts or pledges - can bring the bonded person to court in any way short of killing him. The person holding the bond can cross state lines with impunity. Or the bondsman may decide to go off the bond. There are almost no rules respecting the operation of the bail bond business. Never a good idea in any business, especially in a business so close to criminals.

Abuse of the bonded person, while in itself reprehensible, is not the biggest harm or damage caused by this system. Statistically, it was noted over 90% of bonded subjects come to court on time. Kentucky was one of those states with bail bonds. One governor became disenchanted with the system. It was abolished. Ky adopted the ABA Model Law, Pre-Trial Release Program. The theory is that almost all people show up in court as required. Why not release them on their own recognizance? Their personal promise. Or let them post their own bond? The public saves money and the system works just as well as before.

There have been instances where judges would defer a bond forfeiture hearings for a “friendly” bondsman. There are reported instances where the hearing was held but the ruling was delayed. In other cases, the decision was made to forfeit the bond, but the order was never entered. Many bondsmen in Ky had 1000s of dollars of outstanding bonds never acted on or never collected by the state. This is the function of the judges, clerks and the prosecutor. You can see how tempting it would be to help a bondsman who was helping you?

There have been instances where known criminals would be bonded out by their regular and “friendly” bondsman, and would immediately engage in their criminal specialty to raise the money for the bond fee. The system has no merit, serves no public function and is replete with a history of corruption. Abolish the bail bond system.



[edit on 7/21/2006 by donwhite]

In New Mexico, the suspect can post ten percent of the bond to the state, county, or city government and be released, which is refunded when the suspect appears, unless under certain conditions, the judge orders a cash bond for which the entire amount is required. Cash bonds are reserved for the most heinous crimes and for those who have a history of jumping bond.

posted by GradyPhilpott

In New Mexico, the suspect can post ten percent of the bond to the state, county, or city government and be released, which is refunded when the suspect appears, unless under certain conditions, the judge orders a cash bond for which the entire amount is required. Cash bonds are reserved for the most heinous crimes and for those who have a history of jumping bond.

In Ky, the customary deposit is also 10%, however, the judge may raise that number to any percent he can justify legally. The US Con Amendment VIII says “excessive bail shall not be required.” So, you ask, what is “excessive?” Ky's definition says all offenses including the charge of murder, are bailable except in the case of murder, where the "guilt is evident or the proof is great." Still no help. So it comes down to judgment. Where experience is the best teacher. I’d expect old judges to do better than new judges in setting bail amounts.



[edit on 7/21/2006 by donwhite]

Please Remove - after seeing Grady's second post my entry is pointless and irrelevant.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by AlphaHumana]

Maybe the police were to busy looking for seat belt violators? You know, " we here to protect you even if it means protecting you from you"

Roper

They should have helped the bounty hunter!

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Because the suspect was in a park surrounded by several other individuals, the bail bondsman called for police backup. He was informed by the dispatcher that he was on his own and the suspect escaped.

Now, I ask you. If putting people in jail is not the job of the police, just what is their job?

The bail bond company is getting paid 10% of the bond, so I would think that they should have to pay for police support or send enough of their own people to get the job done. Why should they get free police support?

I would like to point out that those who jump bond are already suspects in a crime or crimes for which they have been charged and arrested and who have failed to appear in court as ordered by the courts under penalty of law. Just because they have used the services of a bail bondsman does not absolve the government of the responsibility to bring them to justice.

I'm a little surprised that no one has commented on the irony of this statement:

In addition, with more than 60,000 active warrants in Bernalillo County, sending officers to arrest every wanted person would take too much manpower, he added.

“We simply had to draw the line somewhere otherwise we'd be doing nothing but taking people to jail,” Chavez said.

krqe.com...

[edit on 2006/7/21 by GradyPhilpott]

posted by GradyPhilpott

I would point out those who jump bond are already suspects in a crime or crimes . . Just because they have used the services of a bail bondsman does not absolve the government of the responsibility to bring them to justice. I'm surprised no one has commented on the irony of this statement:

“ . . In addition, with more than 60,000 active warrants in Bernalillo County, sending officers to arrest every wanted person would take too much manpower. “We had to draw the line somewhere otherwise we'd be doing nothing but taking people to jail,” Chavez said. [Edited by Don W]

Comment: It is not an unexpected statement. It is rational. It is sensible. Surprise is not indicated. Here’s the litany . You hire a 20 year old to be a cop. He retires at half pay at 40. You hire another 20 year old to take his place. He retires at 40 at half pay. You hire another 20 year old to take his place. You are now paying 2 retirees half pay each, and 1 active duty policeman full pay. This was tolerable when we paid cops next to nothing. But that is no longer the case. Because there are 168 hours in a week and 40 hours is the standard workweek, you need 4 1/5th men to get one man on the street. Upwards of 15% of cops are in court, in school, on vacation, sick or just goofing off. OK, you see my point. There has to be an end somewhere before we go to Chapter 11 court.



[edit on 7/21/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

Comment: It is not an unexpected statement. It is rational. It is sensible. Surprise is not indicated.

Okay. But what then is the purpose of the police, if not to bring criminals to justice?

By the way, in New Mexico, public employees and government contribute to a retirement fund which is invested to provide for retirees.

I was always taught to respect the police authorities as they were there to serve and protect the victims of crime.

Now I don't really know what their objective is-the criminals seem to get a free hand.

I am not saying all police forces are bad, but the rising crime figures leave one wondering to the cause.

posted by GradyPhilpott

Okay. But what is the purpose of the police, if not to bring criminals to justice? In NM, public employees and government contribute to a retirement fund which is invested to provide for retirees. [Edited by Don W]

Ah, back when I was young, the same practice was done in my city of Louisville. It - currently funded retirements - was part of the city budget. I’d bet there was a state law denying cities the right - or privilege - to incur debt.

Nowadays, all you get for your hard work is a promise. I know a NYC retired cop who moved to Ky to be near his family - about age 50 + - who draws more - $53,000 - than most Ky cops make for working - high 40s, low 50s. But NYC is too large to go bankrupt. Not Louisville. I’m talking 2001, 2002 numbers. I moved to FL in ‘o3.

Yup! No doubt, one purpose of the PD is to lock up wrong-doers. OTOH, how many times do the cops owe the city? I mean, if you’re knocked down on the street, the assailant is beating you, and you later learn the neighborhood cop is off locking up a bond skip so the bondsman won’t have to pay off maybe you’re not so happy with the chief’s choices. I’m sorry to be maybe too flippant, but I do feel empathy with the chief. There is no easy answer to every situation. I’d like to say, add more cops, but we can’t afford that. Not with our annual and well received $455 billion to defend us against the embarrassing enemies of the likes of NK or Iran.

Ah, Sweet Jesus, if you would just give us respectable enemies worthy of our righteous animus! If the Ruskies would just get mad at us, or the Chinese move about 1 million PLA to the coast opposite Taiwan. Now that would be an enemy worthy of $455 billion! Instead of this Axis of Evil dog and pony show.



[edit on 7/21/2006 by donwhite]

Okay. We've discussed the specific issues of the example I provided.

Would it be possible for the extraordinary intellects we have here at Social Issues to take this discussion to a higher level and discuss the matter of police powers and responsibilities from the societal level?

I'm betting that we can.

posted by GradyPhilpott

Okay. Would it be possible here at Social Issues to take this discussion to a higher level and discuss the matter of police powers and responsibilities from the societal level? I'm betting that we can.

Police power. This is a noun, not an adjective. There is a legal concept labeled “police power.” It is described as being the inherent power in any political subdivision to preserve itself. It was usually exercised in the matter of a dangerous contagion such as the old small pox. It gives the cop on the beat or other representative of civil authority on the scene the instant power to quarantine the infected person. Maybe to order his clothes and other belongs burned. And etc.

This power was exercised in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 which was later blamed on Ms. O’Leary. The mayor of Chicago ordered the dynamiting of a fire break. Upwards of 200 homes and buildings in the fire’s apparent path were blown to stop the fire. I say apparent because the wind moved the fire into another direction. After it was over, the owner’s sued the city. The court’s held the mayor was in his authority and the fact the fire did not take the buildings after the fact was not dispositive*. (*Archaic legal word for final.)

A similar incident occurred in San Francisco in 1906 with a similar outcome. Police power is not sharply defined, but it must be exercised with diligence and reasonableness in view of totality of the circumstances. A legal way of saying, if we agree, you’re off the hook, if we don’t you will pay. After the fact.

posted by GradyPhilpott

Okay. Would it be possible here at Social Issues to take this discussion to a higher level and discuss the matter of police powers and responsibilities from the societal level? I'm betting that we can.

Police power. The more mundane powers of the police are the familiar power to issue citations. To serve warrants. Or to make an arrest in flagrant situations. The power to restore order in a disorderly situation. The power to commandeer your car to chase a fleeing felon. The power in the “felony murder” rule in which the law breaker is held liable and responsible for the accidental injury or killing of an innocent bystander while the police are effecting a lawful arrest. The presumption of truthfulness when testifying in court, which is why when it is one on one in a traffic court case, the cop wins. The defendant has the burden of rebutting the presumption, which not many people who represent themselves are aware of. The system would not work without that presumption.

I think what you have there is what I call a f'd up state of affairs. Reading that there are 60.000 active warrants it sounds like the cops out there are busy arresting those knuckleheads the first time. But for Chavez to say that it could be changed, I read into that as saying they have the manpower, just havent' been challenged on it. Let me ask this. Are there a lot of cops working traffic and issuing traffic tickets? If there are, then you are facing a policy problem where the priority has been placed on revenue generation. This most likely is a hand-down from the city council, mayor, what have you, since they can hire/fire the police chief, and therefore set a lot of the policy. So, if I read this right, that's where part of the problem is.

As for what the job of police is, anyone who is wanted should be apprehended. In VA, if there is a stop made, and the person has an outstanding warrant somewheres else, off to jail they go. I'd say a lot of the cops in Albuquerque would prefer to make the bad guy go away to jail, but due to either policy or work load, aren't able to assist the bondsman. As you can see from above, you can tell what my guess is.

But the issue with the bondsman is a little different, and this may make some people mad, but its something to consider: Lets say the cops stopped McCullough, and saw that he had an outstanding warrant for his failure to appear. They know who he is, have reason to arrest him, problem solved. Now enter the bond agent. The bond agent calls dispatch, says he has McCullough, and the guy is wanted. Cops go, and by this time, McCullough and the bondsman are in a fight. The cops intervene, seperate them, and if they're smart cuff 'em both until this is sorted out. Ooops. It wasn't McCullough. The bond agent had the wrong guy, and he was lawfully resisting the bond agent. Now you've got a stink. Did the cops do anything wrong? No. They broke up a fight. Will that keep the guy from suing the cops. No.

So another element of the problem is, dealing with bond agents. I don't care for them much myself, and quite frankly I refuse to watch "Dog, The Bounty Hunter." Just a redneck with OC, imho. Anyway, the way bond works in VA is that the defendant can put up the whole ammount in cash or property, or can hire a bondsman, who takes %10 of the bond ammount from the defendant and puts up entire ammount to the court. The difference is, if the defendant puts up the whole ammount, they can get it back by showing up. The bondsman always keeps the 10, which is how they make their money, and completely feeds on the poor. But then they want the court to give it back to them anyway if thier "client" skips on them. So , if thier guy doesn't show up, its up to them to get them to court, or they loose the money. Its not the cops fault if they backed a bad horse. Anyway, a lot of bond agents really aren't the most ethical people, and getting mixed up with them can lead to trouble. One of them out this way is a cross dresser who shot his boyfriend, but somehow he beat the felony, and still gets to carry a gun, and has had incidents since (he actually made it on to Jerry Springer). If this guy were to call and say, I need help arresting a guy who jumped bail, I wouldn't touch it unless a law was being broken, right then (other than the failure to appear), especially on a DUI. Besides, if its a dangerous guy, most times the bond agents will just tell the cops where the guy is and let them do the whole shebang. The agents want their money, not to get really hurt. So that the bondsman called the cops to assist him in executing the arrest in the first place probably told them McCullough wasn't a heavy hitter.

Also consider that this policy was apparently new news to Contreras, which means, it was a recent change, flub up, or Contreras didn't usually try to aprehend folks himself. Not that any of that reall means anything...

I probably didn't clear anything up, but to answer the question directly, what, in my opinion the job of cops are is: to snatch up the bad guys, leave traffic tickets alone (except for offenses that really endanger the public), and just in general be around to help (community policing). If there is one thing I could change it would be to make law enforcement proactive, but you can't do that without seriously violating the Constitution.

Sorry if this comes out kind of jumbled. I'm trying to write in a hurry.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by hogtie]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Okay. We've discussed the specific issues of the example I provided.

Would it be possible for the extraordinary intellects we have here at Social Issues to take this discussion to a higher level and discuss the matter of police powers and responsibilities from the societal level?

I'm betting that we can.

Dang. You've moved on. Guess I'll work on that one next.

FSME Grady Philpott asks posters to discuss the matter of police powers and responsibilities from the societal level? So let me begin.

Q. What is the relationship between police power and police responsibilities to the societies it serves?

Consider America post the Nine Eleven Event. Primarily through the Patriot Act, the power of police has expanded. In this case the term “police” includes all the various agencies exercising various law enforcement powers. The power to arrest. The power to bring criminal charges or charges that carry criminal penalties.

The president claims power to arrest and detain a person including an American citizen inside the boundaries of the United States, who he has designated to be an enemy combatant. This power is based on the Constitution’s designation of the president as the Commander-in-Chief.

The underlying necessity is given as the safety of the community is best served by taking dangerous persons off the streets and putting him or her where they can be watched constantly. The duration of this confinement is indefinite - as long as is needed to protect the public and to give law enforcement agencies time to detect others who may be associated with the detained person. Secrecy is justified as necessary so as not to alert possible co-conspirators of the original arrestee thereby giving them the opportunity to go further underground or to carry out some dastardly mission.

The issue for the larger society is this: do we want or do we need to surrender, restrict or severely compromise several of our traditional protections found in the Bill of Rights for the greater good, albeit temporarily. See the following:
First Amendment: freedom of association.
Fourth Amendment: to be secure (safe) in his person, house, papers and effects. No arrest except on warrant issued by a judge and supported by allegations made under oath (which implies damages will attach for false swearing).
Fifth Amendment: No arrest (detention) except on a “presentment” - a charge in writing filed in a court of proper jurisdiction - or on the indictment of a Grand Jury; and not to be compelled (tortured) to give evidence against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without “due process of law” - a term of legal art.
Sixth Amendment. The right to a speedy and public trial by a jury of peers in the jurisdiction where the crime is alleged to have been committed; to confront witnesses against him and have compulsory process to get witnesses on his behalf; and to have assistance of counsel for his defense.
Eighth Amendment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor shall excessive fines be imposed or cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted.
Ninth Amendment. Laying out certain rights in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and unnamed rights abide with the people.
Tenth Amendment. Powers not given to the Federal government are reserved to the people.
All of the rights above add up to the Roe case's newly named "Right of Privacy."

Because the arrest and detention of people is being done in secret, we do not know if all or any of the rights above are being observed or denied by the captors to their captives or to what extent in either case.

What we do know we learned by accident, as where the fellow from Nepal was held nearly 2 years incognito in a secret prison in downtown Manhattan. He was mistaken for a wanted terrorist. He turned out to be a pizza maker here on an expired visa, with a name similar to a terrorist’s. And that “similarity” was only because of American’s lack of fluency in the foreign languages we were involved with. Mixing Nepalese into English and Arabic into English and then finding a “similarity?” Anyone “smell” a Torquemada-type of unbridled righteous enthusiasm here?

There are other examples of newly claimed police powers. The right to monitor our telephone calls without a warrant. The right to observe overseas transfers of money, again, without a warrant. I do neither. I call no one outside the US. I talk to no one inside or outside the US about acts of terror. I send no money outside America. Why should I care what the FBI or the NSA or other a dozen other agencies - some secret - do on my behalf?

The following great poem of pain and tragedy says it best: “First They Came for the Jews”

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. By Pastor Martin Niemöller

Either you believe this or you do not. There is no gray. There is no in-between.

PS. I have avoided the other major issue over the Federal government being a government of delegated powers whereas the state governments are of inherent power except as limited in their constitutions. American states claim to be successors in interest to King James II, who claimed to be a Divine Right monarch, and etc.
END



[edit on 7/22/2006 by donwhite]

What is the job of the police? Well I can tell you what is not the responsibility of the police, and that is to protect you.

The police have no constitutional obligation to protect you. Many court cases attest to that fact. Here's one example of what I mean:

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]
www.firearmsandliberty.com...

So, what is the responsibility of the police? I'd have to say, to preserve the peace.

How can you possibly hope to define the "job" of police when the word job itself has no clearly defined agreed meaning? You might have asked what is the duty of the police, or what are the responsibilities of the police instead, but I suspect all the responses would still be somewhat ambiguous. For that matter, just what, or who, are "police?"

Along that same line, what are "police powers" and how were they derived?

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Astronomer70]