« Why economics was late in starting | Main | Jeff Sachs on biodiversity »
Car patrol vs. foot patrol
Car patrol eliminated the neighborhood police officer. Police were pulled off neighborhood beats to fill cars. But motorized patrol -- the cornerstone of urban policing -- has no effect on crime rates, victimization, or public satisfaction. Lawrence Sherman was an early critic of telephone dispatch and motorized patrol, noted, "The rise of telephone dispatch transformed both the method and purpose of patrol. Instead of watching to prevent crime, motorized police patrol became a process of merely waiting to respond to crime."
That is from Peter Moskos's Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing Baltimore's Eastern District; here is my previous post on the book.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 5, 2008 at 02:29 PM in Law | Permalink
Comments
The basis of successful policing in Britain used to be described as "ground cover". Police in pairs in cars somehow do not "cover the ground". The odd thing is that the first British attempt at motorising the urban policeman seemed to work: it used small, almost silent motor cycles. Somewhere there should be data establishing whether the problem is motorisation as such, automobiles with their greater isolation from the surroundings, telephone despatch, patrol in pairs or some combination of these.
Posted by: David Heigham at Apr 5, 2008 2:35:13 PM
And then there is the Japanese urban system of police "posts" in neighborhoods.
Posted by: R. Richard Schweitzer at Apr 5, 2008 2:48:21 PM
We've known that preventive patrol does little or nothing to prevent crime since the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment in 1971. See http://www.policefoundation.org/docs/kansas.html
The reality is that the police largely react to crime and there is very little they can do to prevent it. Efforts in recent years to use community oriented policing, problem oriented policing, and other strategies to address the conditions that lead to crime are one way that police departments with the resources have responded. Putting more visible police cars out on the street is politically popular because it makes people feel safer but there's little reason to believe crime rates are affected.
Posted by: Kent Richards at Apr 5, 2008 3:14:10 PM
Does he say anything about the use of patrol cars to generate traffic ticket revenue? Police on foot cannot generally "make" as much money. I would imagine foot patrols declined primarily because of monetary incentives. In Britain they seem to use traffic cameras instead of real cops, which might explain the higher number of foot patrols? Most Americans wouldn't stand for UK-style surveillance, so IMO they get patrols instead.
Posted by: Grant at Apr 5, 2008 3:32:20 PM
Watch the Wire (season three?) for a dramatized version of this story -- cops on the street get to know the street and can see crime coming. It's not a romantic view but realistic. For a compromise, consider cops on bikes. They can cover ground, stop to meet people, are quiet and blend in. (Smaller guts on cops as well.)
Posted by: David Zetland at Apr 5, 2008 3:38:08 PM
I quote from a similar study I found in Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" here.
Posted by: TGGP at Apr 5, 2008 5:28:54 PM
Suburban sprawl makes foot patrol utterly impractical. Giving cops Segways or bicycles might help a little, but that's not really practical in inclement weather.
Posted by: at Apr 5, 2008 6:11:08 PM
Kent, the Kansas City Preventative Patrol experiment is the most amazingly ignored police study ever. For police and crime prevention, it’s one of the few scientific studies ever (meaning there was actually a control group). It showed that a post with no “randomly patrolling” cars has no more crime than a post with twice as many cars. Cars don’t matter. Cops only need to be in cars to backup other police officers. Almost everything else could be done by foot and bike.
And yet the Kansas City study changed nothing. It’s ignored because police officers like cars and the police department is tied to radio dispatch. Culturally, it’s almost impossible to get police out of cars. Policing on foot is hard work. It’s usually punishment. So even cops who liked foot patrol, like me, didn’t want to do it.
In cars you can stay dry and warm (or cool) and listen to the radio. You can also more easily avoid crazy and stinky people that want to talk to you. Why do you think police hang out in cars in the back of remote parking lots?
People don’t feel safer with more police cars driving around (or sitting in parking lots) Putting more cops on foot *does* make people safer. See the Newark Foot Patrol Experiment (Police Foundation 1981) and common sense. It’s very debatable if foot patrol reduces crime. I think it does. But I may be wrong. But if people want more foot patrol (and they do), why not give it to them?
When patrol cars first hit the street, cars were supposed to *save* money (and oh yeah, eliminate crime). That didn’t happen. More foot patrol is not a matter of needing resources; it’s a matter of priorities and will. It’s not the citizens or the politicians who want car patrol, it’s the police.
My idea to get cars out of cars is give patrol officer the gas money if they patrol on foot. Police model Crown Vics go through about 3/4 of a gas tank per shift. Cops don’t want to walk the beat, but $30 per shift could change that.
Grant, I don’t say anything about traffic patrol as a revenue stream. That wasn’t the case in Baltimore City. I’m sure it is in other places. But in Baltimore cops were under no formal or informal pressure to make money for the city.
David, I love bikes. I would have loved to patrol on bike had that been an option. Maybe bikes aren’t for all police officer (I mean, you don’t want cops falling down), but I think bikes are the perfect balance between quick, approachable, and quiet. There’s really no downside (except getting wet when it rains). Biking in summer heat with a bullet-proof vest, however, isn’t ideal.
Bikes are more practical in all but the most sprawled suburb and all but the most horrible weather. Segways, however, make no sense at all. Anytime a department pays any money for a Segway, they (and the taxpayer) are getting scammed.
See www.copinthehood.com for more.
Posted by: Peter Moskos at Apr 5, 2008 9:01:38 PM
I was told in a criminal justice class that patrol cars were used because they lowered the corruption in the police force. Once police were removed from walking their beat, they were less likely to shakedown all of the businesses on the beat, they were less likely to know enough about the neighborhood to pull off such extortion, more likely to field calls in various locations, and therefore, more likely to be an honest broker when responding to calls--because they didn't already have favorites.
Is there any truth to what I was told? Has any study been done on walking the beat and corruption, or how to stop corruption of street level police?
Posted by: mouse at Apr 5, 2008 11:10:15 PM
mouse - from what I've heard, cops in cars have found new and different ways to be corrupt. The problem of "playing favorites" can still exist, but in a different form. A crooked cop is going to be a crooked cop, in a car, on foot, or on horseback. An honest cop, ditto.
Posted by: Anthony at Apr 6, 2008 5:10:16 AM
Mouse,
So, you were told that some virtuous interests made the intentional move to patrol cars based on a marginal improvement in corruption for the good and welfare of all?
I'll keep it in mind to feel all warm and fuzzy the next time I see a checkpoint of black paramilitary garbed police. I'm beginning to think that if cops aren't going to be walking around, then they shouldn't even be let out of the building except to respond to crimes in progress. I think the common citizen is becoming something less than human in the eyes of the insular cop. This is why everyone is treated as a threat and subject to pre-emptive tazing and weapon confiscation, etc.
I'm not even making the "privatize protection" argument that will be dismissed out of hand. But, considering the only other times I see cops out of their cars is when they are protecting private events, we are inadvertantly well on our way.
Mine is a utility argument. The form fillers who have responded to my handful of victimizations have seemed entirely blase about their job. It's got to be a waste of resources to have a trained officer come around and fill out a form that a conscientious junior high kid could do. For that matter, we could all fill out our own forms on-line. Then the crime complaint statistics would be searchable.
I realize I'm in the vast minority. I get the sense that the "show of force" makes a lot of people feel like they are well protected.
I think the time has returned for the neighborhood cop. One solution to the corruption question would be to have overlapping jursidictions with STRONG incentives to expose corruption to overcome the thin blue line fraternity cliche.
Periodically, paradigms need to be revisited in the light of developments such as technology like the internet. Another development is the militarization and bellicosity of the cops partly due to the impersonal relationship between them and the public. With the internet and the ability to expose vast amounts of corruption with anonymity, the odd bad cop problem will be easily addressed.
Posted by: Andrew at Apr 6, 2008 8:46:07 AM
I also notice cops sitting in the remote areas of parking lots.
In fact, I feel menaced by cops more often than anything else I regulary come in contact with. And I'm a law-abiding white man!
I have fair to above average self-control, but I'm coming to terms with the likelihood that a logical argument will get me tazed some day.
Posted by: Andrew at Apr 6, 2008 8:54:23 AM
...perhaps it's my youth of mischief, but I still don't feel comfortable around cops; especially in cars. walking around, he's a citizen; in a car, he's a monster with a store of weapons in the trunk.
Posted by: shawn at Apr 6, 2008 10:49:26 AM
Mouse, if you want to be a cynic (and there are some very good reasons for being a cynic), you could look at all "advances" in police technology as an attempt by the police administration to control the line officer.
First there were call boxes (1980s) to keep track of police officers and make sure they were walking their beat.
Police radios (first they were only in cars) were again a way to control the line officer.
Now there are GPS tracking systems.
Between not knowing where foot officers were, and the fear that they were up to no good, radio cars have been seen as the answer.
The official party line, however, was that patrol cars would save money and eliminate crime.
"Progressives" of the turn of last century wanted to make police less corrupt, but they had some stupid ideas on how to do so. Many departments passed (rarely enforced) rules against even talking to citizens outside of an investigation. The public was seen as a corrupting influence on policing.
These "progressives" attitudes led to the Dragnet "just the facts" ideal and, arguably, the Rodney King riots.
A agree with Anthony, a crooked cop will find ways to be crooked. But I think given the kinds of corruption most common today (robbing drug dealers, unconstitutional searches for drugs), foot patrol plays a role in reducing corruption because it gives police officers a more balanced view of the people in a community.
Andrew, you're not a crazy as you think you are. Under a reactive form of policing, cops basically aren't let outside except to respond to calls.
If we want our police to prevent crime, then we have to ask ourselves what is the best way to do this. Paramilitary black-garbed police were never designed for crime prevention. But since we have them (often thanks to federal war on drug and now war on terrorism money), police departments feel they have to use them.
Andrew, I feel obliged to add, though I probably won't convince you, that police are less corrupt than you think. Integrity is higher in the average police department that it is in any other work force I've been in. Given the obvious temptations of cash money (and drugs), it’s amazing how little corruption there is. Mostly police officers don’t want to risk their pension. Besides criminals are quick to rat out dirty police officers. It’s the closest thing to a get-of-jail-free card there is.
I’m not saying there are no corrupt police. But I worry about too much emphasis on corruption. Not only isn’t it fair to honest police officers, but historically anti-corruption efforts have done more to paralyze police departments and increase crime than reduce corruption.
The best way to ensure honest police officers is hire well, treat officers with respect (internally, within the department), and make sure pension plans are generous. All that said, you also need a few random integrity stings just to keep everybody on their toes.
If this discussion interests you (and things I didn't get to, like why I think Tasers are for wimps), go to www.copinthehood.com. Even better, buy my book, Cop in the Hood. It’s a damn good read, if I do say so myself.
Posted by: Peter Moskos at Apr 6, 2008 12:02:18 PM
Andrew,
I'm not sure just what kind of "logical argument" you're planning to get into to get yourself tazed. You seem to be complaining that if cops can't be bothered to walk around then they shouldn't even be let out of the building... and yet if they were walking around and interacting with you, surely that would only increase your own anxiety? Thanks for sharing insights into your personal issues, but vague anecdotal feelings of unease are hardly a basis for setting public policy.
Posted by: at Apr 6, 2008 12:24:37 PM
Speaking in defense of cops (as a former cop), sometimes that officer "hiding" in a parking lot is simply trying to finish some of the absurd and excessive amount of paperwork police have.
Posted by: Peter Moskos at Apr 6, 2008 2:05:58 PM
Vague anecdotal feelings of unease may not be the best basis for setting public policy, but they have their place. I’ll take an amazing anecdote over a slippery statistic any day.
I’m always interested in why people--especially the non-criminal public--don’t like police. With Tasers specifically, there have been too many cases of police using tasers unnecessarily.
My following thoughts on tasers are from my blog (www.copinthehood.com). But they seem relevant here with regards to Andrew's fears.
The death I refer to took place in a Canadian airport.
Since Tasers can kill people (though very very rarely), Tasers (and other less-lethal weaponry) should only be used in situations where you're willing to use lethal force (or where there's no clearly less lethal force practical).
This man should not have died. Nor should he have been Tasered. There were four cops. Why the hell can't they take the guy down with muscle? Is the Taser emasculating police officers? Tackle the S.O.B.! You know the guy isn't armed (it was a secure area of the airport).
I don't like the idea of people, police included, being able to cause pain at the press of a button. It makes it too easy to torture. I’ve said it many times: policing is a hands-on job. If you need to hurt somebody, it is best to do it with hands (or stick). Hurting somebody with your hands is a natural check and balance to excessive force. Physical force takes effort, reminding you of the consequences. And being close to somebody means you might get hurt, which also is good to keep in mind. It’s just too easy to press a button.
I also don’t like that Taser is a private for-profit company. That’s not inherently a bad thing. But for makers of less-lethal munitions and prisons, it may be. They shouldn’t have P.R. and lobbyists. Or studies saying how great and safe their product is. At least for other forms of munitions, there’s healthy competition and generic products. Plus, Taser’s slick website looks like something out of the movie Starship Troopers. It’s just a red flag.
Posted by: Peter Moskos at Apr 6, 2008 2:08:14 PM
Peter,
Thanks for the answer to my question. Whether corruption was an issue in most places or not, I don't know, but I can see that the perception of corruption as the issue can lead one down many terrible rabbit holes.
I'm not afraid of police officers. But then again, I'm a 5'4 110 pound white woman who dresses normally and looks typically presentable. I'm not a threat to them, and they aren't a threat to me. In my late teens and 20s, when my hair was dyed and my combat boots and leather jacket were my uniform, nearly all of my male friends found police hostile to them, but we soon learned that that was because most people looking like us and at that age were probably hostile to the police...making friends with cops at that age was the smartest thing I ever did. I think more people who are hostile to cops need ridealongs to see what their job is like...
I'll be visiting your blog often, and checking your book out from the library. Sorry I can't afford it right now!
Posted by: mouse at Apr 6, 2008 10:12:36 PM
After reading Peter's comments, I think I'm definitely buying his book.
I’m always interested in why people--especially the non-criminal public--don’t like police. With Tasers specifically, there have been too many cases of police using tasers unnecessarily.Myself, and most of my friends (especially one who is a public defender in a rural county), tend to hate most cops. The reasons are varied but have a common thread: Most all of our contact with police involves getting harassed for so-called victimless crimes. It doesn't help that the police in my area (Gainesville FL) seem to generate a significant amount of revenue from traffic tickets (the AAA has put up a billboard or two warning people of speed traps near some towns not too far from me, Waldo, Stark and Lawtey FL).
I don't think anyone hates police when they catch rapists, murderers, thieves, drunk drivers, etc. Most even cheer when drugs and dealers are arrested (although I don't, I realize I'm in the minority here). The problem is that most normal citizens never see cops doing these things. Their contact with police is often, in my experience, nothing more than a shakedown. It doesn't help that there have been at least two police shootings in my (small) area over the past decade that were completely unjustified (one of the victims was a friend of a friend, but I hadn't met him), yet the cops got off relatively scot-free (it seems that in Florida, one must prove that a cop was not acting in his capacity as a police officer in order for his actions to be tried in normal court of law). The Justin Meyers tasering incident didn't help either.
There is just the general attitude that cops can use force and not be punished for it. Whatever their punishments may be, few people would believe they near anything which would be faced by a private individual using force (especially via a taser or gun) on another person. In my opinion, the results of giving someone power without the same accountability as everyone else is predictable. Of course the police themselves don't bear the blame for system as a whole, but they are the public face of it.
I've never felt safer because a police officer was around, and I've never had the need to call the police. I've definitely never been assisted by a cop in any concrete manner, nor has anyone that I know well. Given that we involuntarily pay their salaries, I think a general dislike of police by non-criminals is often pretty rational.
Posted by: Grant at Apr 6, 2008 11:00:39 PM
http://www.pegasusapps.com/
Posted by: peter at Apr 7, 2008 12:19:41 PM
http://www.pegasusapps.com/
Posted by: peter at Apr 7, 2008 12:21:15 PM
Grant, your words remind me of what a student in my class said last semester. We were talking about "stop snitching" and why people don't want to talk to police. He said, "It's simple. Police have never done anything for me. Why should I help them?"
If you think police do nothing but lock up you and your friends *and* crime doesn't go down, that perspective makes perfect sense. The single biggest problem for police/community relations is the war on drugs.
The job of police needs to be 1) stop locking up people who don't hurt others and 2) focus on crime prevention rather than arrest stats.
The problem is that on a person-to-person micro level, a lot of what police do will be "negative." Police tell you what you can't do. Police lock people up. Police harass criminals.
Police good often comes from the macro level that's harder to see, appreciate, or take credit for.
At a micro level, police need to do a better job at earning respect not through fear, but by treating non-criminals and crime victims as worthy human beings worthy of police services.
The public, meanwhile, needs to realize that some number of criminals will always hate the police. No smile-and-wave campaign is ever going to change this. Police need to protect themselves. And the job is occasionally hands-on, tough and physical.
If we regulated drug sales and put cops back walking the beat, everything else would slowly fall into place.
Posted by: Peter Moskos at Apr 7, 2008 1:28:41 PM
Peter, I have an issue with you comments about police use of force. Your argument that the use of "muscle," physical strength and holds, will lead to less excessive force issues in contrast to Tasers or other less lethal uses of force, needs to be substantiated. Officers who go over the line, in my experience prefer to use physical strength and intimidation. It gives them a better "high;" that feeling of control and power. It has been my experience with the modern Tasers, the ones that can record from a "weapon's eye POV," that trained Officers are more likely to stay within the bounds of Departmental policy and the Law. Additionally, do we as a society want to expose our law enforcement officers to MORE danger by not allowing them the advantage of distance? Officers and suspects are less likely to be injured if there is no physical force used. This has multiple "good" effects.
Posted by: H.Gee at Apr 8, 2008 1:09:30 AM
H.Gee, you very well might be right. What you say is certainly the modern and progressive thinking of the day. But I still disagree. I'm not talking about officers who *want* to use excessive force. I'm not talking about abuse by "bad" officers. I'm talking about torture by otherwise "good" officers.
I have three main problems with Tasers: 1) they’re used too readily, 2) the pain they cause isn’t geared toward the compliance I want, and 3) people die.
Nine times out of ten officers exercise *more* restraint that allowed by departmental policy and law (See Dave Klinger's book "Into the Kill Zone" for lots of examples of this). In Baltimore I didn't have a Taser, but the use-of-force guidelines for Tasers and mace (actually pepper spray) is generally the same--for compliance. That's too low a bar.
If I followed departmental policy, I could have maced about 3 people a shift. Instead, I maced one person in 14 months. Mace has a natural check and balance: it goes everywhere. No officer quick with the mace will be popular in the department for long.
Physical force can often be done without too much pain. And the pain caused is directly proportional to your resistance. For instance, I need you to put your hands behind your back. I use force. Force isn't the same as pain. It might hurt if you fight it. But as soon as you stop resisting, any pain is over.
Officers use Tasers quicker than they otherwise would apply hands-on force. "Comply or I Taze you." You don't comply so I Taze. Clean and legal. But wrong because it's not necessary.
We're talking about pain compliance... hurting somebody. Tasers cause pain as punishment. That's not right. We shouldn’t pretend that causing pain is clean process. It never is.
Force is part of the police job. No suspect puts handcuffs on himself.
Without a Taser, I just say "Comply." You don't. So I keep talking to you, cajoling you, ordering you, threatening you. But the point is I'll work harder trying to convince you to comply if my only alternative is hands-on force. Officers *should* be reluctant to use force. You don't want to use physical force because there is some danger... and also you break a sweat--something you always want to avoid while wearing body armor. Departmental regulation be damned! It’s too easy to press a button.
When I do use hands-on force, at least my force is geared toward getting you to do what I want (like getting your arms behind your back so I can cuff you). With a Taser, it's just about disabling pain. That's torture. And consider this, it's not easy to follow instructions after being in the greatest pain of your life. So you get tazed again.
I worked in a rough district. I want to police to be safe. But the danger police face isn't really from officers working to put handcuffs on one suspect or get that suspect out of a car. That's just part of the job.
Besides, I trusted my squadmates because I knew they could handle themselves in a fight. I don't care how hand-off people try and make policing in theory and in the academy, on the street, it's hands-on. I want to work with officers who aren't afraid to use their hands. Reluctant, yes. But afraid, no.
And oh yeah, Tasers kill people.
[I've excerpted part of these comments to www.copinthehood.com]
Posted by: Peter Moskos at Apr 8, 2008 9:12:49 PM
I Glen L.W. of baltimore city was sitting in a alley with 3 freinds.officer reed of baltimore city had approached me and my 3 freinds in his car we were smoking a blunt of marijuana.my three freinds took of and ran i was then placed into the back of officer reeds car then he had said that he had just got a call from a residence in the neighborhood about a auto theft in the area and stated were going to find out if we can find out were this crime has takin place.he then pulld around two corners more then 500ft away from were he had put me in the back of his car there was a car he seen with its lights on he then seen a individual exit the vehicle and run.the individual who exited and ran got away i was still in the back of his car through this whole process, then came back to his car and i heard him say damn that does't ever happen reffering to the individual who had gotten away .....he had asked me who was the individual in the car i had no clue and beings i didnt know who was in the car he had said its not ratten man jus give me the names and i said how am i going to give you the names of some1 i dont know and he then said on the way back to the southwestern district that i was being arrested for grand theft auto resisting arrest after i was taken to the southwestern facility i wasnt giving no charge paper from then i was sent to cbif facility it wasnt till 4 hours after i was locked up i was giving my charge papers and this is what my charge paper stated///ON
APRIL 23 2008 AT O155HRS, I RESPONDED TO THE 2100 BLOCK OF HARMEN AVE FOR A AUTO THEFT IN PROGRESS. UPON MY IRRIVAL, I OBSERVED A RED PLYMOTH NEON WITH ITS INTERIOR LIGHTS ON AND A UNKNOWN W/M IN THE PASSENGER SEAT.ONCE I APPROACHED THE VEHICLE,THE W/M EXITED AND RAN.AFTER A BREIF FOOT PURSUITE,THE W/M WAS DETAINED UNTIL I COUL DO FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON THE RED NEON HE THEN SAID UPON MY INVESTIGATION I OBSERVED THE IGNITION HAD BEEN TAMPERD WITH.AND THEN HE HAD RAN THE VEHICLES TAG NUMBER TO GET THE OWNERS INFORMATION. THE VEHICLE CAME BACK TO MS CRYSTAL P.MS P WAS NOTIFIED AND RESPONDED TO HER VEHICLE.MS P ADVISED THAT NO 1 HAD PERMISSION TO BE IN HER VEHICLE.SHE FURTHER ADVISED THAT HER IGNITION WAS NOT DAMAGED WHEN SHE HAD PARKED HER CAR AND THAT NOTHING ELSE WAS MISSING FROM HER VEHICLE. MS P STATED THAT SHE BELEIVES THAT SHE LOCKED AND SECURED HER VEHICLE.THE W/M,GLEN W WAS THEN PLACED UNDER ARREST AND TRANSPORTED TO CBIF FOR FURTHER PROCESSING.
CROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKEEEEDDDDDDD FFUUUUUKKKKKIIIING COOOOOPPPS GOOOO EAT ANOTHER FUUUUUUUUCKKKKKING DDDDOOOOOOONNNUTTT............
Posted by: GLEN WINDSOR at Apr 24, 2008 4:25:53 PM
I Glen L.W. of baltimore city was sitting in a alley with 3 freinds.officer reed of baltimore city had approached me and my 3 freinds in his car we were smoking a blunt of marijuana.my three freinds took of and ran i was then placed into the back of officer reeds car then he had said that he had just got a call from a residence in the neighborhood about a auto theft in the area and stated were going to find out if we can find out were this crime has takin place.he then pulld around two corners more then 500ft away from were he had put me in the back of his car there was a car he seen with its lights on he then seen a individual exit the vehicle and run.the individual who exited and ran got away i was still in the back of his car through this whole process, then came back to his car and i heard him say damn that does't ever happen reffering to the individual who had gotten away .....he had asked me who was the individual in the car i had no clue and beings i didnt know who was in the car he had said its not ratten man jus give me the names and i said how am i going to give you the names of some1 i dont know and he then said on the way back to the southwestern district that i was being arrested for grand theft auto resisting arrest after i was taken to the southwestern facility i wasnt giving no charge paper from then i was sent to cbif facility it wasnt till 4 hours after i was locked up i was giving my charge papers and this is what my charge paper stated///ON
APRIL 23 2008 AT O155HRS, I RESPONDED TO THE 2100 BLOCK OF HARMEN AVE FOR A AUTO THEFT IN PROGRESS. UPON MY IRRIVAL, I OBSERVED A RED PLYMOTH NEON WITH ITS INTERIOR LIGHTS ON AND A UNKNOWN W/M IN THE PASSENGER SEAT.ONCE I APPROACHED THE VEHICLE,THE W/M EXITED AND RAN.AFTER A BREIF FOOT PURSUITE,THE W/M WAS DETAINED UNTIL I COUL DO FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON THE RED NEON HE THEN SAID UPON MY INVESTIGATION I OBSERVED THE IGNITION HAD BEEN TAMPERD WITH.AND THEN HE HAD RAN THE VEHICLES TAG NUMBER TO GET THE OWNERS INFORMATION. THE VEHICLE CAME BACK TO MS CRYSTAL P.MS P WAS NOTIFIED AND RESPONDED TO HER VEHICLE.MS P ADVISED THAT NO 1 HAD PERMISSION TO BE IN HER VEHICLE.SHE FURTHER ADVISED THAT HER IGNITION WAS NOT DAMAGED WHEN SHE HAD PARKED HER CAR AND THAT NOTHING ELSE WAS MISSING FROM HER VEHICLE. MS P STATED THAT SHE BELEIVES THAT SHE LOCKED AND SECURED HER VEHICLE.THE W/M,GLEN W WAS THEN PLACED UNDER ARREST AND TRANSPORTED TO CBIF FOR FURTHER PROCESSING.
CROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKEEEEDDDDDDD FFUUUUUKKKKKIIIING COOOOOPPPS GOOOO EAT ANOTHER FUUUUUUUUCKKKKKING DDDDOOOOOOONNNUTTT............
Posted by: GLEN WINDSOR at Apr 24, 2008 4:27:44 PM
I Glen L.W. of baltimore city was sitting in a alley with 3 freinds.officer reed of baltimore city had approached me and my 3 freinds in his car we were smoking a blunt of marijuana.my three freinds took of and ran i was then placed into the back of officer reeds car then he had said that he had just got a call from a residence in the neighborhood about a auto theft in the area and stated were going to find out if we can find out were this crime has takin place.he then pulld around two corners more then 500ft away from were he had put me in the back of his car there was a car he seen with its lights on he then seen a individual exit the vehicle and run.the individual who exited and ran got away i was still in the back of his car through this whole process, then came back to his car and i heard him say damn that does't ever happen reffering to the individual who had gotten away .....he had asked me who was the individual in the car i had no clue and beings i didnt know who was in the car he had said its not ratten man jus give me the names and i said how am i going to give you the names of some1 i dont know and he then said on the way back to the southwestern district that i was being arrested for grand theft auto resisting arrest after i was taken to the southwestern facility i wasnt giving no charge paper from then i was sent to cbif facility it wasnt till 4 hours after i was locked up i was giving my charge papers and this is what my charge paper stated///ON
APRIL 23 2008 AT O155HRS, I RESPONDED TO THE 2100 BLOCK OF HARMEN AVE FOR A AUTO THEFT IN PROGRESS. UPON MY IRRIVAL, I OBSERVED A RED PLYMOTH NEON WITH ITS INTERIOR LIGHTS ON AND A UNKNOWN W/M IN THE PASSENGER SEAT.ONCE I APPROACHED THE VEHICLE,THE W/M EXITED AND RAN.AFTER A BREIF FOOT PURSUITE,THE W/M WAS DETAINED UNTIL I COUL DO FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON THE RED NEON HE THEN SAID UPON MY INVESTIGATION I OBSERVED THE IGNITION HAD BEEN TAMPERD WITH.AND THEN HE HAD RAN THE VEHICLES TAG NUMBER TO GET THE OWNERS INFORMATION. THE VEHICLE CAME BACK TO MS CRYSTAL P.MS P WAS NOTIFIED AND RESPONDED TO HER VEHICLE.MS P ADVISED THAT NO 1 HAD PERMISSION TO BE IN HER VEHICLE.SHE FURTHER ADVISED THAT HER IGNITION WAS NOT DAMAGED WHEN SHE HAD PARKED HER CAR AND THAT NOTHING ELSE WAS MISSING FROM HER VEHICLE. MS P STATED THAT SHE BELEIVES THAT SHE LOCKED AND SECURED HER VEHICLE.THE W/M,GLEN W WAS THEN PLACED UNDER ARREST AND TRANSPORTED TO CBIF FOR FURTHER PROCESSING.
CROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKEEEEDDDDDDD FFUUUUUKKKKKIIIING COOOOOPPPS GOOOO EAT ANOTHER FUUUUUUUUCKKKKKING DDDDOOOOOOONNNUTTT............
Posted by: GLEN WINDSOR at Apr 24, 2008 4:29:11 PM
I Glen L.W. of baltimore city was sitting in a alley with 3 freinds.officer reed of baltimore city had approached me and my 3 freinds in his car we were smoking a blunt of marijuana.my three freinds took of and ran i was then placed into the back of officer reeds car then he had said that he had just got a call from a residence in the neighborhood about a auto theft in the area and stated were going to find out if we can find out were this crime has takin place.he then pulld around two corners more then 500ft away from were he had put me in the back of his car there was a car he seen with its lights on he then seen a individual exit the vehicle and run.the individual who exited and ran got away i was still in the back of his car through this whole process, then came back to his car and i heard him say damn that does't ever happen reffering to the individual who had gotten away .....he had asked me who was the individual in the car i had no clue and beings i didnt know who was in the car he had said its not ratten man jus give me the names and i said how am i going to give you the names of some1 i dont know and he then said on the way back to the southwestern district that i was being arrested for grand theft auto resisting arrest after i was taken to the southwestern facility i wasnt giving no charge paper from then i was sent to cbif facility it wasnt till 4 hours after i was locked up i was giving my charge papers and this is what my charge paper stated///ON
APRIL 23 2008 AT O155HRS, I RESPONDED TO THE 2100 BLOCK OF HARMEN AVE FOR A AUTO THEFT IN PROGRESS. UPON MY IRRIVAL, I OBSERVED A RED PLYMOTH NEON WITH ITS INTERIOR LIGHTS ON AND A UNKNOWN W/M IN THE PASSENGER SEAT.ONCE I APPROACHED THE VEHICLE,THE W/M EXITED AND RAN.AFTER A BREIF FOOT PURSUITE,THE W/M WAS DETAINED UNTIL I COUL DO FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON THE RED NEON HE THEN SAID UPON MY INVESTIGATION I OBSERVED THE IGNITION HAD BEEN TAMPERD WITH.AND THEN HE HAD RAN THE VEHICLES TAG NUMBER TO GET THE OWNERS INFORMATION. THE VEHICLE CAME BACK TO MS CRYSTAL P.MS P WAS NOTIFIED AND RESPONDED TO HER VEHICLE.MS P ADVISED THAT NO 1 HAD PERMISSION TO BE IN HER VEHICLE.SHE FURTHER ADVISED THAT HER IGNITION WAS NOT DAMAGED WHEN SHE HAD PARKED HER CAR AND THAT NOTHING ELSE WAS MISSING FROM HER VEHICLE. MS P STATED THAT SHE BELEIVES THAT SHE LOCKED AND SECURED HER VEHICLE.THE W/M,GLEN W WAS THEN PLACED UNDER ARREST AND TRANSPORTED TO CBIF FOR FURTHER PROCESSING.
CROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKEEEEDDDDDDD FFUUUUUKKKKKIIIING COOOOOPPPS GOOOO EAT ANOTHER FUUUUUUUUCKKKKKING DDDDOOOOOOONNNUTTT............ any typa person who can help 410 710 3051
Posted by: GLEN WINDSOR at Apr 24, 2008 4:30:32 PM
