Police ‘profiling’ is the issue du jour in legal circles
these days. Oregon State’s Legislators,
knowing little or nothing about the subject of ‘profiling’ – as it relates to
the law enforcement mission – have decided a law is required – HB 2002.
We should understand that ‘profiling’ is something that each
of us do, almost daily. It’s a human
trait. You walk down the street. You size up someone coming toward you, and
adjust your behavior accordingly. That’s
‘profiling.’ For police, ‘profiling’ can
become an effective deterrent to crime – not to mention a survival skill that
will carry them through their shift.
Now, our Oregon Legislators feel, in a vague sort of way, that
‘profiling’ is probably a naughty thing for police to be doing. And, in some instances I agree that police
can abuse it. However, when those abuses
do occur, they need to be corrected by administrators within the
department. If supervisory personnel are
unable to correct the problem, they should be held accountable.
However, our Legislators feel they should codify the ‘profiling’
issue. And, as they might opine in
describing the urgency, ‘Something is better than nothing even if nothing is
the result of our attempt at something.’
OK, yes, of course, why didn’t I think of that?
I don’t want your eyes to glaze over, but you really ought
to read the following; and attempt to imagine explaining this recently enacted
law (without smirking you understand) to a new recruit at the police academy.
This is how our legislators (in their infinite, superior
wisdom and expensive, nonetheless questionable, legal training) define
profiling and what our law enforcement officers are supposed to comply with:
“Profiling means that a law enforcement agency or a law
enforcement officer:
In conducting a
routine or spontaneous investigatory activity or in determining the
scope, substance or duration of the routine or spontaneous
investigatory activity, relies on
age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language,
gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation,
religion, homelessness or mental disability to select an
individual for or subject the
individual to the routine or spontaneous investigatory
activity, except that using a specific
suspect description related to a criminal incident or
suspected criminal activity is not profiling;
Or
In conducting an
investigatory activity in connection with an investigation, relies on
age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language,
gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation,
religion, homelessness or mental disability as an
identifying characteristic or circumstance
of an individual, unless credible information relevant to
the locality or time frame
links the individual to an identified criminal incident or
criminal activity.
And
Routine or spontaneous investigatory activity includes an
interview, a detention, a
traffic stop, a pedestrian stop, a frisk or other type of
bodily search and a search of personal
or real property.”
As you can see by the above wording, the Law does not clearly
define what ‘profiling,’ actually is – only painting with a broad brush, hoping
to impart the general gist of the idea.
Seems to me that a police officer won’t be able to talk to practically
anyone while on duty – at least no one actually needing to be talked to.
In other words, as I read the law, a police officer
interviewing an obviously mentally deranged individual, or a wandering homeless
person, is involved in ‘profiling’ and should therefore be disciplined for this
professional transgression. Gee, and I always thought that used to be called good police
work.
Oh, I suppose the law enforcement officer is free to chit
chat with a passing young attractive woman, or in some instances a young
attractive man, as long as the person is of an equivalent race and ethnic origin;
and, of course, has the same sexual orientation as the officer - and providing
said officer’s intentions are strictly social.
So, what does this all mean?
Well, basically, it means that any experienced, savvy cop will not be
doing much of anything proactive to protect the public. Why should they?
PS: Oh yes, one other
thing: The Oregon Association Chiefs of
Police (OACP) actually have endorsed and support the new law on ‘profiling.’ So, what am I to make of that? Actually, I expect the Chiefs recognize the
inanity of the new law – and consider it little more than ‘eye wash’ for the
public.
True Nelson
No comments:
Post a Comment