In an effort to maximize the return on fines paid by drunken drivers, Assistant County Manager Matt Landers is proposing using some of that money to fund the addition of a deputy to the Sheriff's Office with the position being dedicated solely to DWI enforcement.
If a dedicated DWI deputy could make just one more DWI arrest per week over the course of a year above the current arrest rate, the position would be fund itself in future years, Landers said.
Landers is proposing using $60,000 from STOP-DWI cash reserves to fund the $100,000 position for the first year.
The County Legislature must consider whether to budget the balance of the $40,000 cost to get the new position started. The additional $40,000 will cover the cost of fringe benefits for the new deputy.
The STOP-DWI plan was recommended for approval by the Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, but not without some concerns and skepticism raised.
Legislators asked whether other deputies not assigned to the STOP-DWI detail might be less inclined to enforce DWI, thinking, "That's the other guy's job," but Landers expressed confidence that the other deputies' professionalism would prevent that mindset.
Legislator Ray Cianfrini, an attorney, raised concerns that a dedicated DWI patrolman might feel the pressure to make quota and engage in practices courts have determined to constitute entrapment, but Landers said he believes there's enough DWI activity that isn't being thwarted now to keep a full-time DWI deputy busy.
In fact, Landers thinks a dedicated patrol might actually arrest more than just one extra drunken driver per week, but his budget numbers remain conservative at one per week.
After the meeting, Landers said DWI arrests have dropped off the past couple of years, either because more deputy hours are being tied up with prisoner transports, or because staffing has been constrained both in the Sheriff's Office and Batavia PD.
"I don't necessarily believe it was due to fewer drunks on the road," Landers said. "I think they're out there. I'm trying to give the resources to the local law enforcement agencies to go after the drunks who are out there."
The Sheriff's Office has typically received STOP-DWI funds to provide overtime pay to deputies to engage in extra anti-DWI enforcement patrols. Under the new plan, that OT amount will be cut from $30,000 to $25,000, so there will still be dedicated part-time patrols in addition to the full-time, dedicated DWI deputy.
Batavia PD and Le Roy PD would receive their usual amount of STOP-DWI funding for overtime pay for dedicated DWI patrols.
"I figure this is a better way to spend STOP-DWI money and a better way and more efficient way to get more drunks off the road," Landers said.
Cianfrini is right on, there
Cianfrini is right on, there is tons of anti DWI police activity already. how about dedicate an officer to stopping the strings of thefts to our vehicles or the drug problems causing the thefts and crime, This DWI enforcement is nothing but an tool to get federal welfare and a reason harass people mostly just minding their own business
Entrapment ? How ? What
Entrapment ? How ? What would the officer do --- give a guy a couple of beers, and then tell him give the officer a ride home ?
Good point Irene! A LOT of
Good point Irene! A LOT of people misunderstand what "entrapment" really is. It's not an officer sitting behind some trees trying to hide and catch a drunk driver, or sneaking up on someone commitin a crime . That's perfectly legal. And happens all the time. What it means is a police coercing someone into doing something illegal ,or engaging in the conduct with them, and then arresting them for it.
You brought up a good point!!
"... a deputy to the Sheriff
"... a deputy to the Sheriff's Office with the position being dedicated solely to DWI enforcement."
I guess I'm not quite understanding what the duties of such a deputy's "job" is.
So, he observes a driver weaving over the line a couple times. Aha! One of the well-known actions of a person under the influence. OK. He has reasonable suspicion to pull him over.
When he gets to the vehicle, the driver blurts out, "I'm sorry, officer. I was texting on my phone and wasn't paying attention to my driving."
The deputy looks closely at the driver. No outward appearance of being under the influence. His speech isn't impaired. No bloodshot eyes - actually, they're clearer than the deputy's, due to the countless hours he's spent that day driving around. No smell of alcohol.
So, what's the deputy to do? After all, he's been hired to be solely dedicated to DWI enforcement.
Sounds to me like:
a) he is, in reality, just another deputy, doing the job that deputies do
OR,
b) he's gonna be letting a lot of people go for breaking the law, but not his 'specialty'
Sorry, but I don't get it.
There goes Ed again being
There goes Ed again being pedantic. Think real hard Ed it's not that complicated at all.
"I guess I'm not quite
"I guess I'm not quite understanding what the duties of such a deputy's "job" is."
It means he will perform regular patrol duties, but other deputies who encounter suspected drunk, or impaired by drugs, drivers he will be dispatched to do the roadside, and breathalyzer tests.
Many Sheriff's Departments nationwide have deputies who are dedicated for drunk and/or impaired by drugs driving, and perform regular patrol duties.
Make it DWI cases ... and
Make it DWI cases ... and ANYONE using their mobile devices (along with speeding and other laws). If I see it being done CONSTANTLY, then an observant patrolman should too.
You are correct, Kyle. It
You are correct, Kyle. It really isn't that hard.
Guess I should've stuck in my 'sarcasm' label.
Such a deputy will be JUST that - a deputy.
I suppose if, say, he's just lollygagging around, not doing ANY other 'deputy stuff', then he can run across the county to help some un-trained deputy with a "What I want you to do is stand on one foot, hop up & down, and count backwards in Swedish" type maneuver.
But, face it. If he's in Bergen, in the middle of a domestic dispute, they're not gonna have him rush 2 or 3 towns away for a suspected drunk. ALL of the deputies are trained in DUI/DWI recognition. To say ONE guy is dedicated SOLELY for that purpose is crap - pure & simple!
Richard, not quite.
Raymond, not quite.
The deputy will patrol looking for traffic violations indicative of a potential drunken driver.
All of the deputies are qualified to handle DWI cases with minimal assistance, if any. The DWI patrol's highest and best us would be to remain on patrol looking for additional drunken drivers rather than assisting another deputy's stop. There are other deputies who can assist if needed.
However, the DWI would respond to other types of calls as circumstances required.
At least that's my understanding.
Every deputy is always on DWI
Every deputy is always on DWI patrol. Every traffic stop comes with a string of questions by the officer designed to see if the driver has been drinking or something else - daytime, night time, overtime, every time. Deputies don't drive around looking for DWI indicative infractions. They just look for infractions and then initiate their "roadside interview." So let's just call this what it is okay? This is an attempt to hire another full time deputy who's first year salary will be paid for out of STOP DWI reserve funds. Of course the only way to use those funds on a full time deputy is to label him a DWI Deputy. But what happens after that? Where does the money come from for his next 20-30 years? And if it doesn't come from a STOP DWI fund is he still labeled a DWI Deputy? Or will that just sort of disappear? If the legislature wants to hire another full time deputy, please go about it in the proper manner. Don't disguise it as something it's not. Thank you.
Thank you, Howard & Matt.
Thank you, Howard & Matt. Exactly what I was trying to point out.
And, while I'm thinking about it, I had a (slight) chuckle when I came across this little snippet, from the news article:
"?.. but Landers said he believes there's enough DWI activity that isn't being thwarted now to keep a full-time DWI deputy busy."
Really, Mr. Landers? Not to seem facetious - well, actually, TO seem facetious - how many brain-cells did you use to figure THAT out?
Of course, I have no 'hard evidence' to back up what I'm about to write, but, I'm guessing ANY night of the week, of ANY week, there's probably enough DUI/DWI drivers in Genesee County to keep a dozen deputies busy. No, they might not be trippin' over their own feet, falling-down sh#$- faced, but, they're drunk nonetheless. LEO's probably catch 1% of them, nightly - if that. We read, weekly, about the ones that are caught going, say, 76 in a 40mph zone, or the ones driving thru someone's yard, thinking the sprinkler system is the car wash. Those are the ones you're constantly catching. And, that's fine. They're a menace to themselves and others. But, don't try to convince the people that 1 "dedicated, DWI deputy"is the answer to (the majority) of the problem. 'Cause it ain't!
Dumb as dumb can be . So the
Dumb as dumb can be . So the currant patrol isn't doing the job it is supposed to . Hire more. Waste once again. How about some more pressure on the crack and heroin epidemic in this county. or the abuse of DSS applicants and its workers. Genesee County breeds entitlement based programs . Get to work , stop smoking Heroin , and put some patrols in the drug haven hot spots .
If a cop parks within sight
If a cop parks within sight of a bar and pulls the patrons over as they leave the premises is this considered entrapment?
I remember hearing about this happening many years ago at a bar just outside of Batavia and the owner of the establishment raised quite a ruckus claiming that was entrapment but I never did hear the "legal" outcome. I don't see how that could be considered entrapment myself unless the cops sent the people in there which makes no sense at all, but I do remember hearing that they stopped doing it.
Seems like a pretty easy way to fulfill those DWI quotas... there must be some reason they don't do it.
No, Ed. It is not considered
No, Ed. It is not considered entrapment. And, basically, it is legal for the police to park their vehicle anywhere they can (legally) do so.
There are several reasons it's not (usually) done:
a) it could be a poor use of resources (ie. How can the LEO know when, or even IF, someone might walk out drunk & drive away
b) should the practice become known by the establishment owner, it will (probably) be a source of contention between the owner, his patrons (ie. the townspeople - comprised of ALL walks of life, from the ne'er-do-wells to business owners to lawyers, doctors, mechanics, etc)
c) it could, possibly, end up in court as a harassment case
d) it's just a nightmare PR practice for LEO (and/or their employers - city, county, village gov't) to get into - Which is the "ruckus" you alluded to
Besides, it's hard to 'hide' a cop car. If anyone notices it sitting around, they're more than likely to notify the bar personnel. Also, there's the possibilty that some non-drinking patron might 'stagger' out (as a diversion), get in his vehicle and drive off. Should the cop 'think' he's got a live one, he better be damn sure he has a legal reason to pull him over (especially with today's cell phone cameras). People are now able to live-stream their encounters with LEO. Even if an unscrupulous officer decides to destroy your phone (trying to dispose of incriminating evidence of any of his/her wrongdoing), the encounter, up to that point, has been posted to whichever website you've chosen ( facebook, google cloud, qik, bambuser, etc.)
Don't know what I'm talking about? Go to Youtube, type in any of the following:
police misconduct
police harassment
bad cop
honoryouroath
pinac
The list is endless - There's literally thousands and thousands and thousands of them on there.
I'm not saying there aren't good cops. I have LEO's in my extended family. Far as I know, they're good, and fair, people - both on and off the job.
But, I'm well aware that there are some bad apples out there, too. Those are the ones we need to hold accountable.