Police Chief McMahon: 'We Do Not Use Quotas'
The Howard County police chief says he's disappointed at a judge's ruling stating the department uses quotas in issuing DUI citations.
A traffic stop in a case in which a judge declared that Howard County Police used illegal quotas in issuing DUIs was justified and based on probable cause, Police Chief William McMahon said.
“I’m surprised and disappointed and I think it’s a bad ruling,” he told Patch Friday afternoon.
A Howard County judge Thursday threw out a citation given to Katie Quackenbush, 22, of Ellicott City, saying that it was linked to an illegal quota system. The action came after a prosecutor presented an internal police email that he said indicated police had quotas for 2 - 4 DUIs to issue per hour to meet grant money requirements, the Baltimore Sun reported.
McMahon said Quackenbush was pulled over in April after an officer observed her driving 38 mph on Main Street, where the speed limit is 25 mph. She failed a sobriety test after conceding she had been drinking, McMahon said, and had a blood alcohol level of more than twice the legal limit.
McMahon said the wording in the email presented in court was taken from language in the grant, which mandated a certain numbers of citations. "Grants have to expect we use the money wisely," McMahon said. Quantifying citations is one way to determine whether or not the money is being effective.
Funding for special supplemental DUI details, he said, would not be disrupted if those numbers were not met.
Quackenbush’s attorney, Mark Muffoletto, told the Sun the language represented the use of quotas -- that is, a requirement that officers write a certain number of citations in a certain time period.
"Just because they were caught … doesn't change the fact that it was a quota," Muffoletto was quoted as saying.
The email, McMahon said, was not an official communication. “It was sent from one employee” to a limited number of officers involved in the detail, he said.
McMahon said he knew the wording of the email, which was sent in January, might be misconstrued. The department stopped using that language in May, he said. Quackenbush was arrested in April of 2011.
“We do not use quotas,” McMahon said, “One, because they’re illegal … and two because they’re not good management policy.”
He said quotas were unnecessary. The officers assigned to supplemental DUI patrols “sign up because they’re passionate about the work.”
H.R. Pufnstuf
1:04 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
McMahon, your department messed up. Man up and own your mistakes for once. Don't blame the judge for making the right call on this one.
Rules exist for a reason, I'm not sure why police officers- of all people- have such a hard time accepting that. I am amazed when I drive on I-70 and get passed by police officers (usually state troopers, not HCPD). They can't even be bothered to obey the very rules they are tasked with enforcing. Really.
william bittner
2:35 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
no man is above the law....exception noted: those most observed not obeying the speed laws are police, mta drivers,and school bus drivers. do as I say not as I do.
Adam R
7:47 am on Sunday, January 8, 2012
The Police Chief needs to do his job and figure out a legal way to catch the drunk drivers. The fact that William McMahon complained about the Judges ruling shows his lack of class and and probably his lack of attention to detail that he should have as Chief of Police. The Police enforce the laws of the Howard County and the Courts rule on legality of the laws and the actions of the police to protect all citizens.
Sean Colin
8:18 am on Sunday, January 8, 2012
The memo states " officers assigned to this task force were not to back up other officers nor assist stranded motorists". Why would the Chief allow the federal government to contract out Howard County police officers for special duties at the expense of other officers and the public's safety? Shouldn't the police our taxes pay for being doing this no matter what? Why does it take a grant to make them work harder???????
Elena
9:56 am on Sunday, January 8, 2012
Wondering how the Prosecutor came up with an INTERNAL email from the POLICE Department??
Wendy Woods
3:57 pm on Sunday, January 8, 2012
The attorney says "just because they were caught doesn't change the fact that it was a quota" - but conversely, just because he says there is a quota system does not change the fact that the driver was DUI... she was caught, cited, and should abide by the penalty ... period
Jason Keyes
9:11 pm on Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The only evidence she was DUI is the word of an officer under pressure by the quota to make these kinds of arrests/citations.
That damages his credibility considerably.
McMahon simply isn't believable on this, and he should be fired.
Jake
11:26 am on Thursday, January 12, 2012
I guess you missed the paragraph where it said she "had a blood alcohol level of more than twice the legal limit."
I suppose her blood alcohol level was effected by what Jason calls "pressure by the quota to make these kinds of arrests/citations."
Please get your facts straight before you make these silly comments!
Jason Keyes
9:49 pm on Sunday, January 15, 2012
My facts are straight. The only evidence of what her BAC was is the word of the officer. There is no independent, verifiable record. The judge threw the case out *because* the officer's credibility was compromised by the quota policy.
Please quit being such a tool for the police state.
Jake
12:50 am on Monday, January 16, 2012
Not quite...
A DEVICE reads a person's BAC- it has nothing to do with an officer's credibility. And the "verifiable record" of this, is a readout from the device!
Please quit judging situations and people based on your erroneous beliefs.
Jason Keyes
4:25 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
The device is read by the officer. The only record of what the readout says is the officer. There's no independently verifiable record of what the device said. The officer's credibility is an issue, because it's based on his word that the device wasn't tampered with since its last certification. It's based on his word that the readout showed the person was over the limit. The reasonableness of the stop is based on his word if there isn't a dash cam recording (which could provide some corroboration of the readout, I suppose).
I haven't made any judgements. I've only commented on the FACTS presented in this article, the primary one being that the judge threw out the DUI charges because the defense had raised the reasonable doubt that the officer was pressured by a quota at the time.
You, OTOH, have made a judgement. You've decided she's guilty despite the strong evidence creating reasonable doubt and the ruling by the judge. So, I think you should take your own advice and "quit judging situations and people based on your erroneous beliefs."
perry
8:36 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
the other guy thinks that oj and the forida mom are innocent too!
perry
8:34 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
i am a liitle slow so, the women broke the law by speeding, then she was twice the legal limit for dwi, yet she is free cause someone mentioned a quota?
huh?
Jake
11:12 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
It's a little hard to get through to Mr. Keyes since he obviously knows what he's talking about...
Unfortunately, he is incorrect about his statements regarding the "words of the officer" being the only evidence. The device that reads BAC is a calibrated machine that prints a readout- it is not AT ALL based on an officer's credibility.
When it comes to Mr. Keyes earlier comments, it is not the ruling by the judge that bothers me the most (although I do not agree with it), it is the ill-informed judgement that "The only evidence she was DUI is the word of an officer under pressure by the quota to make these kinds of arrests/citations."
Jason Keyes
11:56 pm on Monday, January 16, 2012
Care to tell us where this machine has its printer?
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/automotive/breathalyzer.htm
I guess you're not up-to-date on the Houston BAT van scandals: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/More-BAT-van-cases-questioned-2160150.php
If they had independently verifiable records of what those BAC tests recorded in Houston they wouldn't be having nearly the trouble they are.
Few BAC machines have a printout, and none of the portable ones. You know what the portable ones are: those are the ones the police use in the field. They have a digital display that shows the results.
The judge threw the case out because the quota created a credibility problem for the police. It's not the cop's fault, but that's why. If there *were* an independently verifiable record of the test to support the cop's testimony, the credibility problem would have been greatly diminished if not eliminated. So your belief that there was such corroboration seems unfounded.
James Smith
9:53 pm on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Yeah Jake, I would tend to agree with you. You see, Once Jason Keyez starts to question the officer's word, then he crossing lines with regard to presumption that officers are SWORN to up hold the law and abide in integrity. I mean, just look at the police department's logo.... you'll see the words integrity, pride, community. So just lay off on the argument of the officer's reliability. If that is the only basis you have for your argument, then your argument is invalid effective immediately.
Jake
8:25 am on Tuesday, January 17, 2012
I see where you are being misled...
These "portable" breath testers are not the ones that are used to determine the official BAC.
http://www.intox.com/p-562-intox-ecir-ii.aspx
The above units are used to determine BAC.
The portable breath testers are NOT admissible in court, so those results could not have even been mentioned in the courtroom.
The woman was intoxicated "per se." No ifs, ands, or buts about it. The fact that she got off, IMO, is ridiculous based on that fact alone. But I am no judge. That is my opinion.
The problem is people who make ill-informed comments that are not based on facts.
Jason Keyes
4:48 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
You're one of those people, Jake. The article doesn't mention what was submitted into evidence. The claim that she was over the limit is from the Chief- whose integrity and honesty are already questionable given his denial of the quota.
@ James- Right. A logo on the side of a police car settles everything. I've got a bridge to sell you. Cheap. Let me know if you're interested.
Jake
10:44 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
Now you're changing the basis of your argument???
Make up your mind Jason...I've made MY point.
James Smith
11:07 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
@ the honorable Mr. Keyes. Regardless of the logo on the side of the car, it still stands that one thing they pride themselves on is integrity. Because of that, we can have faith in our law enforcement department knowing that they are upholding the truth in all of their dealings. It's no gain for them to lie, so they tell it straight like it is.
As I said before, just lay off on the argument of the officer's reliability. He is telling the truth. No further question about that. Its like asking if a kid likes candy, of course they do. Now ask if howard officers tell the truth? OF COURSE THEY DO!
Jason Keyes
6:03 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
I haven't changed anything. If your point was that you have trouble with reading comprehension, you're right. You've made it in spades.
perry
11:32 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
stop arguing!
oldmantroy
1:53 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
What Is the matter with you Perry?!?!? I was enjoying this informative dialogue.
Please, disregard the senseless comment by Perrryyyy. pish?!?!
Jason Keyes
6:07 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
@ James: buy a clue. I haven't questioned that officers integrity, but if you paid any attention to the news you'd know that there are some officers who don't give a crap for their integrity. There's a scandal ongoing in New York City now about officers who planted evidence in order to fill quotas. If your attitude is to blindly accept the word of an officer simply because he's an officer, you're woefully misguided. While the majority are good people doing a tough job, there are those who aren't good people. And even good people can have a bad day. I invite you to start following http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/. I think you'll benefit from it.
Moreover, it's not *my* argument about the officer's integrity. Perhaps you and Jake could sign up for reading comprehension courses.
Jake
9:06 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
Or you could scroll up and see your previous comments, "The only evidence she was DUI is the word of an officer under pressure by the quota to make these kinds of arrests/citations. That damages his credibility considerably." AND "The officer's credibility is an issue, because it's based on his word that the device wasn't tampered with since its last certification. It's based on his word that the readout showed the person was over the limit."
Hmmmm.... sounds like Jason was questioning something, and in his own words, they seem to indicate he's questioning the credibility of the officer!
You don't know the facts, you have not read the police report, and I highly doubt you were there.
Jason Keyes
5:46 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
You're right. I didn't read the police report. I read the article. I read that the judge threw the case out, and I read the reason given in the article. If you read my comments as directed at the officer, you are in error.
I'm sorry you lack the reading comprehension skills necessary to understand.
James Smith
9:45 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
Ahhh thank you Jake, I was wondering if I would have to answer Mr. Keyes, but you did quite a good job of it =D.
@ Jason Keyes, you mentioned New York..... well, I regret to inform you, this is wonderful Maryland, and more specifically, beautiful Howard County. Our police are nationally accredited. That is do to quality participation by all of the officers, not just a few select star officers. There is going to be a big difference in a big city PD than there would be in a smaller county PD. Back to the point, even if an officer has a bad day, he may be grumpy and issue more citations/tickets than if he had an OK day. But, he would never put his potentially life time career on the line by breaching his integrity.
As i said before, what benefit do they have from lying? Nothing. If anything, they have far more to lose if they do lie.
You say, and I quote, "there are some officers who don't give a crap for their integrity," Apparently you possibly do not understand what being a cop is all about. I am dreadfully sorry Mr. Keyes, I know many officers, and wearing a badge is a thing of great honor to them. Most people in society look up to them because of that.
I do not see any need to pick at Jake and I saying that we need reading comprehension classes. Come on man, keep this a nice discussion, not a war trying to put each other down.
Jason Keyes
5:51 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
What a bunch of mindless, senseless, irrational gibberish. Did you really type that with a straight face? Do you really expect anyone to believe that officers in New York are somehow different than officers here in Maryland, or that the police are immune from the same human failings that afflict all of us?
In every group of people there are good ones and bad ones, and police are no different. You aren't the only person who knows police officers.
As for picking on you: quit misrepresenting what I wrote and there won't be a need to question your reading skills. If you want a nice discussion, don't misrepresent what other people have written.
It's not the officer's fault his credibility is in question in this case. I didn't claim it was. It was the policy decision of the police chief (who is also a cop and whose credibility is shot with his denial this was a quota- so much for you "integrity" pap) that diminished the credibility of the officer. As with Jake, I'm sorry you have difficulty comprehending that.
Jason Keyes
6:08 am on Thursday, February 9, 2012
http://www.duiblog.com/2011/11/20/dui-task-force-cop-admits-falsifying-breath-test-readings/