Traffic Stops And Assertive Policing

“What’s up, my man? You on probation or parole?” 

Officer Dorin Buchanan to Victor Ramirez.

 

One of the major issues coming from the George Floyd riots was the obstruction of aggressive law enforcement. Effective policing must, by its nature, be assertive. Cops must go out, find the bad guys before they commit the crime and prevent it. When law enforcement officers believe (justifiably) they are targeted for politically motivated prosecution, they are not assertive. Then you have these two good police officers showing how it's done.

 

In June 2020, as Democrats were burning cities, two California cops observed a vehicle making multiple traffic violations. They initiated a traffic stop, and Officer Dorin Buchanan remembered the driver as a felon he had dealt with before. Approaching the car, he asked the driver, Mr. Victor Ramirz, “What’s up, my man? You on probation or parole?” Mr. Ramirz admitted he was on parole for weapons violations.

 

This immediately puts cops on edge. Besides using weapons in crime, the driver is a known gang member. Furthermore Officer Buchanan knew he was driving through a rival gang’s territory.  In the traffic investigation, Officer Buchanan asked if he had a “strap” (slang term for a firearm) on him. Ramirez admitted he had one in his glove compartment and he was detained for continued investigation.  Mr. Ramiriz was later charged with felon in possession of firearm and ammunition. 

 

Mr. Ramirz immediately appealed the weapons seizure to the federal district court. His lawyers claimed “asking about his parole status extended the investigation, leading to weapons unrelated to the traffic issues. Therefore the detention violated his 4^th Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.” The federal district court denied his appeal, and Ramirez pled guilty, then appealed. 

 

The US Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit affirmed the ruling. The 9^th Circuit concluded “asking about parole status during a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment as it reasonably relates to the officer's safety and imposes a negligible burden.” The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings, saying the delay was not excessive and the inquiry on parole status was linked to officer safety. 

 

A point I would like to make is something that is often attacked by liberal politicians today: policing. Again, good policing must be assertive. Officer Buchanan, had he not known Mr. Ramirez, may not have reasonable suspicion to ask about his parole status. Seeing their previous experience before, Officer Buchanan knew to ask and it led to a felon being convicted of another crime. 

 

What we can contemplate is did this prevent another offense Speculation, I agree, but if Mr. Ramirez was going to commit a crime in a rival gang’s area, the pistol likely would have been used. Or perhaps he wanted to use it for another offence unrelated to gangs. Either way, it was stopped by a cop knowing a bag guy and making a legitimate inquiry, i.e., investigating.   

 

The point of reviewing this incident. Too many politicians are actively hostile to law enforcement. One of Texas’s worst, Jasmine Crockett (soon to be former congressperson) made a complete fool of herself with her wisdom:

 

“I want to be clear that, like, law enforcement isn’t to prevent crime. Law enforcement solves crime, OK? That is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to solve crimes, not necessarily prevent them from happening per se.”

 

Scares me that this idiot is a lawyer. I thought even the bar had some (low mind you) standards. Then again she provided pro bono services to BLM terrorists. But no Ms. Crockett, allow me to enlighten you. Protect and Serve. Remember that phrase? We go out with patrol and other actions to deter criminal activity. If deterrence fails, we investigate and assist with charging a suspect for the crime. Got it? 

 

I’ve posted multiple times, beginning with the Michael Brown incident, police were often “joining the fire department.” By that I mean they would answer their calls for service but do nothing self-initiated. You only do what the department wants you do, less chance you can get into trouble. These cops have families to support, bills to pay, and want to make it to retirement. Seeing what happened to Darren Wilson, Sgt. James Crowley, the Baltimore Police with Freddy Grey, or Derek Chauvin makes us not want to go out and make things happen, 

 

Seeing a court actually support effective policing is a sign some intelligence and common sense is returning to the judicial system. Not a moment too soon.