The notion of cash for convictions is the idea that fiscal incentives might drive the decisions made by prosecutors as to which cases to pursue. In the age of declining budgets, prosecutors increasingly are forced to rely on external grants which contain the incentive to arrest, prosecute and convict more people in the targeted category.That may sound benign, but when the need for funding trumps the need to protect the community or ensure that justice is done from the perspective of the community, the victim and the defendant, we have a potential problem.
Earlier this month, Michelle Alexander wrote an op-ed in the New York Times that this principle extends to police departments.
She wrote, “Police departments have been rewarded in recent years for the sheer numbers of stops, searches and arrests.”
She continued, “In the war on drugs, federal grant programs like the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program have encouraged state and local law enforcement agencies to boost drug arrests in order to compete for millions of dollars in funding. Agencies receive cash rewards for arresting high numbers of people for drug offenses, no matter how minor the offenses or how weak the evidence.”
“Law enforcement has increasingly become a numbers game,” she wrote. “And as it has, police officers’ tendency to regard procedural rules as optional and to lie and distort the facts has grown as well. Numerous scandals involving police officers lying or planting drugs – in Tulia, Tex. and Oakland, Calif., for example – have been linked to federally funded drug task forces eager to keep the cash rolling in.”
Now from Utah, we get the story of how the numbers game for the police drove arrests for DUIs. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this story is the fact that the prosecutor’s office knew there was a problem with many of these arrests, but failed to do anything about them.
As Fox News writes, Lisa Steed, a 10-year veteran Utah State Trooper made her reputation by arresting an inordinate number of people for DUIs – over 400 hundred arrests in a single year.
For this work, she was lauded by those in her department for having a sixth sense. She was Trooper of the Year in Utah, becoming the first woman to win that distinction.
Fox News reports, “Steed used the uncanny talent — as one supervisor once described it — to garner hundreds of arrests, setting records, earning praise as a rising star and becoming the first woman to become trooper of the year.”
That has now caught up to her as she and her department now face lawsuits for filing bogus DUI reports and she has been fired.
How flagrant were these arrests? In one lawsuit filed, she stopped the man “because he was wearing a Halloween costume and booked him even though three breathalyzers tests showed no alcohol in his system.” The plaintiff in that case said that he spent nearly $4000 and had to take off four days from work to get his DUI charge dismissed.
“If we don’t stand up to Lisa Steed or law enforcement, they just pull people over for whatever reason they want,” said attorney Michael Studebaker.
He argues, “Every one of her DUI stops back to at least 2006 should be under suspicion.” He added that could be up to 1500 people.
As George Washington Professor Jonathan Turley notes in a February 22, 2013 blog entry, “The lawsuit notes that Steed was off the charts in her raw number of arrests but the Utah Highway Patrol made no inquiry as she set a state record of 400 arrests. She made some of these arrests after drivers passed sobriety field tests.”
The official explanation was that “with her training and experience, it’s second nature for her to find these people who are driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.”
What the police apparently uncritically chalked up to second nature appears to be indiscriminate arrests.
Professor Turley notes: “In May 2010, a memo written by Utah Highway Patrol Sgt. Rob Nixon raised Steed’s ‘pattern’ of questionable DUI arrests. The memo noted that she relied on impressions that were unreliable and found flawed.”
However, despite this memo, the Utah Highway Patrol continued to allow Ms. Stead to remain on active duty and arrest citizens.
The most troubling note is that by April 2012, “prosecutors admitted that they would not rely on Steed due to her dubious arrests that often were thrown out in court.”
But despite this, she was allowed to continue to arrest citizens.
Not until April 2012, nearly two years after Sgt. Nixon’s memo, was she taken off patrol and it was not until November 2012 that she would be fired.
Writes Professor Turley, “The scandal shows how much of our enforcement efforts are driven by pressure to ‘get the numbers up’ on arrests. The UHP was obviously not particularly concerned about the abuse of citizens as it was rewarding officers for maximizing arrests. Steed is not the only officer who should be fired given this record.”
But actually it is a lot worse than that. This is almost total systemic failure.
First, the police failed to scrutinize her arrests. What should have been a red flag, was treated as a badge of honor. They explained away her “success” as a matter of a sixth sense rather seeing it as a reason for question.
Second, why did they fail to note the lack of convictions once the arrests were made?
Third, why did it take nearly two years from the time the alarm was sounded until Ms. Steed was removed from patrol?
Four, where were the prosecutors in this? They knew her arrests were unreliable and yet they did nothing to protect innocent citizens?
There is no doubt that this case is an extreme and egregious example of malfeasance. But the concern is that this was able to occur for years and the system was unable to put it to a stop soon enough.
Big deal, you say? For the man who had to spend $4000 and take off time from work when a breathalyzer showed he was innocent, it was a huge hassle. For others, it had the chance to ruin people’s lives.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“…when the need for funding trumps the need to protect the community or ensure that justice is done from the perspective of the community, the victim and the defendant, we have a potential problem.”
Well written, as usual. Thank you for continuing to educate the public about this atrocity.
Another article entitled “Cash for Convictions”? What connection do you see between financial incentives to the state police agency and arrests/prosecutions in the Utah case of the DUI arrests? Nothing here ties the two together.
Michelle Alexander’s numbers game is a different sport than Jonathan Turley’s numbers game. The first raises potential problems, as you note, if the need to finance law enforcement with grants targeting certain crimes or conditions results in justice denied. The second reveals a rogue whose personal ambition got improperly praised by the agency before it fired her.
Funding targeted to combat identified problems (gangs, drug sales, white collar crime, terrorism, etc.) obviously can help a community improve justice. Better technology, training, staffing can make a positive difference.
Let’s keep separate abuse from constructive use when judging grant funding impact. Tying individual improper, criminal behavior to a “cash for convictions” charge makes such judgments more difficult.
P.S. The M.C. Hammer news will be interesting to follow, as well. In a wealthy community like Dublin, I wonder how a wealthy white woman would have been treated, in the same circumstance. (expired registration)
This is a huge deal. Money incentives should not be a part of a legal system. When arrests, prosecutions, and convictions are tied to money, justice can become secondary. Then people become victims of the justice system that should protect them.
It is unfortunate that the people who design these grants with good intentions don’t always realize the negative consequences that can happen.
Funding doesn’t help a community when innocent citizens are caught in the crossfire.
Just Saying: Funding for grants is a great resource for communities. Funding should be for the programs you mentioned like technology, training for staff and building community awareness.
Funding should not be supplied for hitting a quota in arrests, prosecutions and convictions. This causes injustices to happen.
Just Saying: I just see it as the same side of a different coin. She had personal incentives to do the wrong thing, they had institutional incentives to look the other way until they could no more.
Different side of a different coin. I guess you’re correct that they’re both round (one of stone 12 feet in diameter with a hole in the middle) and one a square Australian silver kookaburra.
I understand the different incentives. But, why call something “Cash for Convictions” when it isn’t an illustration of the sometimes abused practice?
If you keep conflating unconnected phenomena in the Court Watch of Yolo County, people might start getting the impression you’re trying to build a case that the local justice system is somehow rife with “Cash for Convictions” abuse and injustices.
“…people might start getting the impression you’re trying to build a case that the local justice system is somehow rife with “Cash for Convictions” abuse and injustices.”
The system doesn’t have to be “rife”. Even a few wrongful convictions are just plain wrong. If it was a family member or a friend, most people would think even one life wasted, rotting behind bars for a mistake, is one life too many. Oe one person’s finances ruined, paying for lawyer fees. Or one person’s reputation ruined for a bogus DUI.
Wholeheartedly agree, JimmysDaughter, that every single wrongful conviction is bad. I’m also concerned that we’re accurate when we try to determine the causes of such injustices.
Sorry for goofing up my coin descriptions, but you get the point. Attributing motives and causal relationships is difficult in the case of law breakers as well as law enforcers. Innocent until proven, I always say.
FAI, agree with your points too. My problem with “Cash for Convictions” is that the slogan carries with it all sorts of unproven negative implications, probably intended. Better to point the finger at real abuse.
Just Saying, I see your point.
David, this is a big deal. You need an informant from that office who will discuss the internal policies.
Clinton Parish? He is a tainted witness, but I am sure he knows where the bodies are buried, so to speak. But you and everyone other media person went after him, so why should he stick his neck out for you? I wouldn’t.
JimmysDaughter wrote:
> P.S. The M.C. Hammer news will be interesting to
> follow, as well. In a wealthy community like Dublin,
> I wonder how a wealthy white woman would have been
> treated, in the same circumstance. (expired registration)
Cops will stop ANYONE with expired tags (If I recall the data shows that OVER 8 out of 10 stops for expired tags results in another citation or arrest since most people that don’t have stolen cars and are not breaking the law tend to pay their registration fees and keep a valid sticker on their car.
As a (wealthier than average) clean cut white man who knows a lot of clean cut “car guys” that often have challenges passing smog due to unusual cars or modified cars I can tell you that it is a miracle if we can drive for even 48 hours with expired tags without getting pulled over (and this is trying to avoid the cops).
About 10 years ago my SUV engine died (Google Rover V8 Slipped Liner if you want the expensive details) so I started driving my older car that had been sitting in the garage since I was having problems passing smog so I had paid up registration, but no sticker (Google M635csi if you want to see what the car looked like). just last week a friend told me that he had been pulled over three times driving his bone stock 2003 E46 M3 with Jan 2013 tags (he is waiting for a used set of catalytic converters to pass smog).
As a test why not put a white sticker over the 2013 sticker on your car and see how long you can drive in Davis without getting pulled over (or dress in your best “hip hop outfit” and drive to Dublin to see if the cops will also hassle whites without valid tags)?
“…most people that don’t have stolen cars and are not breaking the law tend to pay their registration fees and keep a valid sticker on their car.”
A few years ago I had to wait until payday to pay my registration. Other small stuff, like the high cost of renting a Davis duplex & buying groceries for 2 teenagers, took priority.I mailed in my DMV check at the last minute. I didn’t have any proof that I just mailed the check & was waiting for the tags. A Yolo Co. Sheriff pulled me over for stupidly doing 80 on I80, cause it was a beautiful morning with light traffic & Bruce Springsteen was on the radio, & I was feeling my oats. I was super nice to the Sheriff because he was just doing his job. He didn’t try to drag me out of my car. (Supposedly, this is what happened to Hammer.) In fact, he just gave me a warning & no speeding ticket, either. And no, I did not mention to him that my dad was a cop….So sometimes being a polite white woman will have a different outcome. That’s all I’m saying. I guess maybe on the streets of Davis I may have gotten a ticket, I don’t know. It’s a shame because that was years ago. Today, I probably would have been less friendly to the cop, and that kinda breaks my heart a little.
http://www.arounddublinblog.com/2013/02/dublin-ca-mc-hammer-arrest-police-services-refutes-racial-profiling-allegation/
This is one of the many website articles re: Mr. Hammer.
Popular saying: “Follow the money” when you want to get to the heart of the matter continues to be proven true! Money, a powerful motivator, has caused persons to act in ways they never thought they could. This is a very serious and troubling situation and effects each and every one of us whether we want to admit it or not. If there is one person who is in a prison that is innocent of the crime they were convicted, it is one too many! I have heard people try to justify that in the “big picture of things” having a few innocent persons in prison is acceptable, they view them as “casualties of war” in the fight against crime. I would like you to ask yourself, “What if I am that innocent person in prison, would I accept this misguided idea?” Of course you would not, so why should any of us?
This is how the DA’s, Judges, and police try to justify taking weak cases, even ones where the police have done no investigation, to trial. All for the purpose of helping their budget, keep jobs and allow their families to maintain a certain life style! What about the VICTIMS and the VICTIMS FAMILIES, the victims that the DA’s office creates? Those innocent persons are sitting in prison with no hope, their families have suffered and continue to suffer as they fight this “beast”. Remember that we, the families of the victims that Yolo County created, are not only fighting for ourselves and our loved ones but we are fighting for YOU as well.
The DA offered 10 years to someone with a past criminal record who admitted to killing a young 17 year old boy.
Remember that Ajay Dev got 378 years for a rape that hundreds believe he never did. In Ajay’s case the accuser was shown to be lying, the DA never even shown that a rape took place and did no investigation. Even the juror’s admitted that the accuser’s testimony was not credible.
The DA went out of his way to get the conviction. He didn’t care about justice. He knew the accuser was lying and had a criminal record of perjury. The DA chose instead to create his own story not based on facts…unfortunately, the jury believed that our DA wouldn’t lie to them.
These two cases illustrate clearly that the DA’s office doesn’t care about justice. They only want the conviction and will do whatever it takes to get it.
“Remember that we, the families of the victims that Yolo County created, are not only fighting for ourselves and our loved ones but we are fighting for YOU as well.”
Well written, bachha.
I wish David Greenwald could interview Kamela Harris.
Sorry, CA’s Attorney General’s name is spelled Kamala Harris.