By Chief Ralph L. Godbee, Jr. (retired)
Traffic enforcement at its inception and viewing it from a pristine point of view is at its essence a means by which this new phenomenon called the automobile could be operated in a manner on public and in some cases private thoroughfares that is safe and minimizes the chances of vehicle and pedestrian accidents, a public safety measure. When I say new phenomenon, it is from the perspective of world history; January 29, 1886, Carl Benz applied for a patent for his vehicle powered by a gas engine. Mass production of combustible engine vehicles in the iteration that is most familiar in American automobile history began circa 1908 when Henry Ford introduced the Model T and William Durant founded General Motors.
The traffic stop in the American lexicon has been described as one of the most dangerous yet routine tasks of the many enforcement options that an American police officer can engage in during one’s course of duty; in most if not all instances a discretionary stop that is left totally up to the officer as whether to initiate a traffic stop or opt not to initiate the stop of a motor vehicle driver. Although discretionary I would opine that any reasonable person would have an expectation or even believe that an officer was duty bound to intervene either by the officers’ personal observation or by a report of a driver operating a vehicle in a manner that is objectively reasonable to believe could cause serious injury or death; if there is not a concerted effort by law enforcement to interdict and mitigate the reckless operation of a motor vehicle by attempting a traffic stop.
There are ostensibly two types of traffic violations; first there is a moving violation, for example excessive speed or disregarding a traffic signal and secondly there are administrative violations that are codified in state law or city ordinance delineating qualifications for operating the vehicle and for specifications of vehicles that are to be licensed and permitted to operate on public thoroughfares; for example obtaining a driver’s license; or operating a vehicle with automobile insurance; or proper registration of the vehicle. In summation, there are some things codified in a state or local jurisdiction’s motor vehicle code that have no primary enforcement prioritization that directly speaks to if a motor vehicle in the moment that the officer engages the vehicle is being operated in a manner that is unsafe and presents any imminent danger on the roadway.
If one is to accept the inherent dangers of the traffic stop as espoused by law enforcement and universally agreed to; albeit the Bureau of Labor Statistics[1] may disabuse one of that accepted belief as law enforcement is not in the top 10 professions for on the job deaths per 100,000 employees; it would stand to reason that reducing traffic stops would be the goal of both law enforcement and the citizenry; particularly communities of color where there is a disproportionate amount of contact between police with black and brown residents. This would be for the mutual benefit of officers and the communities they serve.
With the advent of red-light cameras and automatic license plate readers it has been demonstrated and accepted that technology can aid in the area of traffic enforcement. After a trip to the NBA All-Star festivities in Phoenix, AZ in 2009 I was made acutely aware of the advances in traffic enforcement relative to cameras and their ability to police speeders, receiving a citation in the mail that was assessed to my rental vehicle. I was not assessed personally as the driver however the rental car company held me strictly liable for the vehicle that I rented. No traffic stop, no assessment of my race nor ethnicity, no criminal intent projected upon me because of implicit bias, no altercation that needed de-escalation; simply a fine assessed to me as the person responsible for the vehicle’s adherence to the speed limit. No potential of me reaching for my wallet and it being misinterpreted as me reaching for a weapon. No reason for an officer to misinterpret my intent and “fear for his life” because he had to make a quote unquote split-second decision. No belief by me that I am only being stopped because I am “driving while black”. Again, removing all the variables that could make a traffic stop for a civil infraction the recipe for a deadly encounter.
Is it an unreasonable premise to offer an alternate solution for officers to whom upon initiation of a traffic stop for a non-criminal offense; manufacture a scenario by which the officers’ own industry has pre-determined as unsafe before it even happens? It is counterintuitive to engage in an activity that is pre-determined to be unsafe by its very nature for a non-moving violation; that at best requires an administrative remedy; then articulate your fear for your life as a justification for deadly force. If in fact, the danger is that foreseeable then it is negligent that police leaders and politicians have not mitigated the inherent risks for frivolous yet potentially deadly encounters. This solution is only unreasonable if the reason for traffic enforcement, for other than moving violations, is not in fact for management of traffic in a safe manner on public and private thoroughfares; but it is in fact a ruse and these measures are a pretext for getting into the vehicles of black and brown motorist to further their intrusive tendencies to stretch the boundaries of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution in a very selective and unequitable manner?
My 2009 Phoenix All-Star weekend experience led me down a proverbial rabbit hole of wondering why are we subjecting officers and citizens, particularly black and brown citizens to such potentially deadly interactions when there is a safer and more objectively reasonable way to achieve traffic enforcement and compliance; once again, if that is truly the goal of traffic enforcement? Sometimes the most effective solutions are far less complicated than we tend to make them. Establish laws that require strict liability for vehicle owners so that the operation of the vehicle resides with the owner; regardless of who is driving the vehicle. Therefore, the vehicle is cited for the violation and the vehicle owner is liable for the penalties associated with the violation and any requisite redress associated with the infraction; thus, negating the obligatory back and forth between officer and driver as to “why are you stopping me”. Record the vehicle information to ascertain that the vehicle is not stolen; allow the vehicle to proceed and send the citation to the registered vehicle owner. If the vehicle reaches a threshold of non-compliance; by court order place a boot on the vehicle similar to the enforcement measures used in municipal parking. The camera in my Phoenix experience did not identify a “black driver” it identified a speeding vehicle. The camera did not unreasonably impede on my right as a free black man to move about unobstructed by implicit bias and in some instances outright racists beliefs relative to my full rights as an AMERICAN citizen in my God-given right to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Traffic stops must be ratcheted back to a standard of an absolute necessity of clearly articulable imminent public safety reasons or violent criminal activity.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
About Post Author
