‘I Clocked You Going 50 In a 25’: A Discourse-Based Critique Of Police Procedural Justice Research Through A Sequential Exploration Of ‘Voice’ And Excuses In Traffic Encounters

Abstract The police in the United States typically pull over about 19 million drivers a year for routine violations such as speeding and running a stop sign. The verbal exchanges that occur during traffic encounters embody one of the ideal principles of procedural justice: giving citizens an opportunity to speak (voice) before a decision is made. The accounts and excuses that drivers articulate represent the logical outcome of opportunities provided to drivers to explain the reason for their legal violations. This paper examines the accounts and excuses that drivers proffer during routine traffic encounters. The findings indicate that drivers’ responses to police solicitation of accounts fall into three types: remaining ‘silent’ during encounters and forgoing an opportunity to voice their concerns; crafting excuses and apologies in response to the announcement of an infraction; and denial of knowledge. The implications for police procedural justice are discussed.