On
Friday I attended the Ripon GRC (Government Relations Committee) where I heard a
report from our police chief concerning Assembly Bill 953 (AB-953). I was
alarmed and decided to check into this to find out more. Chief Ormande is not
given to being bombastic, so I was immediately concerned with his analysis of
this bit of legislative chicanery. As it turns out, this bill, now before the
California Assembly, is a direct assault on our personal freedom –
specifically, the 4th Amendment – addressing unreasonable searches
and seizures. Issued by Assembly Member Shirley Weber from San Diego, this
paragraph provides a peek into the problem with this bill. It reads, “This bill
would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that revises
the definition of ‘racial profiling’ and requires law enforcement departments
to collect, analyze, and report data on individual stops in order to identify
and eliminate unjustified racial disparities and bias.”
Okay, on the surface this all sounds really good. The tone in the country today toward law enforcement has been damaged due to Ferguson and Baltimore and other hot spots where clashes have occurred between police and the local citizenry. There are those who want to make sure there are no racist cops anywhere. So let’s pass another law!
I
chatted with Chief Ed Ormande of Ripon, discussing the various aspects of AB
953. I wanted to make sure I had understood his comments about this assembly bill.
He assured me that I had understood what he said just fine. Too bad. I was
hoping I had heard wrong.
The
Chief said that if this bill, which has already passed the Safety Committee,
winds up passing in the Assembly, police officers will be required to ask Joe
Citizen a litany of questions every time he is pulled over or simply questioned
on the street. There are four questions the officer must address during this
encounter. The answers may be determined by the process of talking to the
individual, or a question may need to be asked.
Here
are the four questions: the person’s sexual orientation; the person’s religious
affiliation; the person’s mental and/or physical adeptness; and the person’s
proficiency with the English language. Read these four again. What does this
have to do with anything?
Officers
will be required to ask and evaluate the person’s responses every single time
they are required to speak to an officer on official police business. So let’s
say you have a tail light out on your Chevy. The officer pulls you over. You go
through the license/registration/insurance drill. No problem, right? You’re
still wondering what you’ve been pulled over for. The officer tells you your
tail light is out. “Phew!” you sigh. A fix-it ticket. No problem. Oh, but we’re
not done! The officer must ask you some questions. It’ll just take a few
moments. You're thinking, I resent this intrusion into my life. I know the
officer is merely carrying out his duties, but something is wrong when my
government is asking questions like this.
One
of the issues the Chief told me is what the officer will be obligated to do if
Joe Citizen refuses to answer the questions. I’m pleased to report that the California
Police Chiefs Association has pushed back on this bill. I asked the Chief what
that means exactly. He said the chiefs are asking their members, the sworn
officers, to contact their state representatives to express their displeasure
with this intrusive questioning.
Ripon’s
Finest will be receiving “body cams” by the end of June. So even if an officer
might be inclined to ignore the questions, he can’t because he’s live on
camera. Every move and word is recorded.
If
you are as irritated as I am with this heavy-handed manner being forced on our
folks who are sworn to defend and protect the citizenry, then you need to
contact your elected officials and let them know your thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment