The effect of formal de‐policing on police traffic stop behavior and crime: Early evidence from LAPD's policy to restrict discretionary traffic stops

Research Summary On March 1, 2022, correspondence from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) headquarters stated that officers can no longer use minor infractions (e.g., equipment violations) as a pretextual reason to further investigate drivers for criminal behavior. If LAPD officers are to exec...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Criminology & public policy 2024-08, Vol.23 (3), p.517-542
Hauptverfasser: Boehme, Hunter M., Mourtgos, Scott M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 542
container_issue 3
container_start_page 517
container_title Criminology & public policy
container_volume 23
creator Boehme, Hunter M.
Mourtgos, Scott M.
description Research Summary On March 1, 2022, correspondence from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) headquarters stated that officers can no longer use minor infractions (e.g., equipment violations) as a pretextual reason to further investigate drivers for criminal behavior. If LAPD officers are to execute a discretionary stop, they must activate their body‐worn cameras and reasonably articulate to the civilian why they are being investigated. The intent is to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in stops and build trust of the police within the community. Critics of the policy argue that elevated crime rates will result due to the crime suppression effect of such stops. This study examines racial differences in stops before and after the policy change, as well as whether Part 1 violent and property crimes increased. Descriptive findings show that while the counts of stops, arrests, and contraband seizures during stops decreased, the percentage of non‐White civilians stopped decreased only minimally following the intervention. Results from using Bayesian synthetic control methods indicate an increase in both violent and property crimes post‐intervention compared with the synthetic counterfactual. The increase in violent crimes has a low probability of being different from the counterfactual, whereas the increase in property crimes has a high probability, suggesting that the intervention led to a real change in property crimes compared with what would have been expected under the counterfactual. Policy Implications This study provides preliminary evidence that emerging policies intended to restrict discretionary stops may not have the intended effect on racial disparities in police traffic stops. Instead, agencies passing similar policies may expect to see the potential unintended consequence of a spike in jurisdictional property crimes. We argue that such types of stops across a jurisdiction may have a general deterrent effect on more common and calculative crimes such as property crimes. To combat violent crimes, agencies should consider focusing discretionary stops in known hot spots. Further, our findings offer implications for research on the effects of de‐policing on crime. Police agencies should monitor potential unintended impacts of these policies if enacted and be prepared to deal with such consequences.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/1745-9133.12673
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3090930102</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3090930102</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2003-d64c3a1a33fc00ca9be49adc6392db98acb7a1213717abf7ee1fa75a32a9e29b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUL1OwzAQjhBIlMLMaomBKa0dN0nNVpXyI1WiQ5mti3OmrtK42GlRNx6BjffjSXAbhMTELXc6fT93XxRdMtpjofosH6SxYJz3WJLl_Cjq_G6Ow5zyYZwNcn4anXm_pJSlKUs70ed8gQS1RtUQq4m2bgUVKfHr_WNtK6NM_UJsTQ4zksaB1kYR39g1KXABW2MdgbokypkV3pAJuGpHcGtKrANeO7si09Hs9tq3EjvSWOLQN84Ew9J45bAxtga3-yPuz6MTDZXHi5_ejZ7vJvPxQzx9un8cj6axSijlcZkNFAcGnGtFqQJR4EBAqTIukrIQQ1BFDixhPGc5FDpHZBryFHgCAhNR8G501equnX3dhMPk0m5cHSwlp4IKThlNAqrfopSz3jvUch3-DUdLRuU-fbnPWu6zlof0AyNrGW-mwt1_cDkezWYt8RueQYqB</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3090930102</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The effect of formal de‐policing on police traffic stop behavior and crime: Early evidence from LAPD's policy to restrict discretionary traffic stops</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Boehme, Hunter M. ; Mourtgos, Scott M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Boehme, Hunter M. ; Mourtgos, Scott M.</creatorcontrib><description>Research Summary On March 1, 2022, correspondence from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) headquarters stated that officers can no longer use minor infractions (e.g., equipment violations) as a pretextual reason to further investigate drivers for criminal behavior. If LAPD officers are to execute a discretionary stop, they must activate their body‐worn cameras and reasonably articulate to the civilian why they are being investigated. The intent is to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in stops and build trust of the police within the community. Critics of the policy argue that elevated crime rates will result due to the crime suppression effect of such stops. This study examines racial differences in stops before and after the policy change, as well as whether Part 1 violent and property crimes increased. Descriptive findings show that while the counts of stops, arrests, and contraband seizures during stops decreased, the percentage of non‐White civilians stopped decreased only minimally following the intervention. Results from using Bayesian synthetic control methods indicate an increase in both violent and property crimes post‐intervention compared with the synthetic counterfactual. The increase in violent crimes has a low probability of being different from the counterfactual, whereas the increase in property crimes has a high probability, suggesting that the intervention led to a real change in property crimes compared with what would have been expected under the counterfactual. Policy Implications This study provides preliminary evidence that emerging policies intended to restrict discretionary stops may not have the intended effect on racial disparities in police traffic stops. Instead, agencies passing similar policies may expect to see the potential unintended consequence of a spike in jurisdictional property crimes. We argue that such types of stops across a jurisdiction may have a general deterrent effect on more common and calculative crimes such as property crimes. To combat violent crimes, agencies should consider focusing discretionary stops in known hot spots. Further, our findings offer implications for research on the effects of de‐policing on crime. Police agencies should monitor potential unintended impacts of these policies if enacted and be prepared to deal with such consequences.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1538-6473</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1745-9133</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12673</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: American Society of Criminology</publisher><subject>Bayesian synthetic control ; Body cameras ; Common lands ; crime ; Criminal statistics ; Criminality ; Criminology ; de‐policing ; discretionary stops ; Intervention ; Jurisdiction ; Offenses ; Police ; proactive stops ; Property ; Racial differences ; Racial discrimination ; Racial inequality ; Traffic ; traffic stops ; Violent crime</subject><ispartof>Criminology &amp; public policy, 2024-08, Vol.23 (3), p.517-542</ispartof><rights>2024 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society of Criminology.</rights><rights>2024. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2003-d64c3a1a33fc00ca9be49adc6392db98acb7a1213717abf7ee1fa75a32a9e29b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3231-0428</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1745-9133.12673$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1745-9133.12673$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27845,27903,27904,33753,45552,45553</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Boehme, Hunter M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mourtgos, Scott M.</creatorcontrib><title>The effect of formal de‐policing on police traffic stop behavior and crime: Early evidence from LAPD's policy to restrict discretionary traffic stops</title><title>Criminology &amp; public policy</title><description>Research Summary On March 1, 2022, correspondence from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) headquarters stated that officers can no longer use minor infractions (e.g., equipment violations) as a pretextual reason to further investigate drivers for criminal behavior. If LAPD officers are to execute a discretionary stop, they must activate their body‐worn cameras and reasonably articulate to the civilian why they are being investigated. The intent is to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in stops and build trust of the police within the community. Critics of the policy argue that elevated crime rates will result due to the crime suppression effect of such stops. This study examines racial differences in stops before and after the policy change, as well as whether Part 1 violent and property crimes increased. Descriptive findings show that while the counts of stops, arrests, and contraband seizures during stops decreased, the percentage of non‐White civilians stopped decreased only minimally following the intervention. Results from using Bayesian synthetic control methods indicate an increase in both violent and property crimes post‐intervention compared with the synthetic counterfactual. The increase in violent crimes has a low probability of being different from the counterfactual, whereas the increase in property crimes has a high probability, suggesting that the intervention led to a real change in property crimes compared with what would have been expected under the counterfactual. Policy Implications This study provides preliminary evidence that emerging policies intended to restrict discretionary stops may not have the intended effect on racial disparities in police traffic stops. Instead, agencies passing similar policies may expect to see the potential unintended consequence of a spike in jurisdictional property crimes. We argue that such types of stops across a jurisdiction may have a general deterrent effect on more common and calculative crimes such as property crimes. To combat violent crimes, agencies should consider focusing discretionary stops in known hot spots. Further, our findings offer implications for research on the effects of de‐policing on crime. Police agencies should monitor potential unintended impacts of these policies if enacted and be prepared to deal with such consequences.</description><subject>Bayesian synthetic control</subject><subject>Body cameras</subject><subject>Common lands</subject><subject>crime</subject><subject>Criminal statistics</subject><subject>Criminality</subject><subject>Criminology</subject><subject>de‐policing</subject><subject>discretionary stops</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Offenses</subject><subject>Police</subject><subject>proactive stops</subject><subject>Property</subject><subject>Racial differences</subject><subject>Racial discrimination</subject><subject>Racial inequality</subject><subject>Traffic</subject><subject>traffic stops</subject><subject>Violent crime</subject><issn>1538-6473</issn><issn>1745-9133</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUL1OwzAQjhBIlMLMaomBKa0dN0nNVpXyI1WiQ5mti3OmrtK42GlRNx6BjffjSXAbhMTELXc6fT93XxRdMtpjofosH6SxYJz3WJLl_Cjq_G6Ow5zyYZwNcn4anXm_pJSlKUs70ed8gQS1RtUQq4m2bgUVKfHr_WNtK6NM_UJsTQ4zksaB1kYR39g1KXABW2MdgbokypkV3pAJuGpHcGtKrANeO7si09Hs9tq3EjvSWOLQN84Ew9J45bAxtga3-yPuz6MTDZXHi5_ejZ7vJvPxQzx9un8cj6axSijlcZkNFAcGnGtFqQJR4EBAqTIukrIQQ1BFDixhPGc5FDpHZBryFHgCAhNR8G501equnX3dhMPk0m5cHSwlp4IKThlNAqrfopSz3jvUch3-DUdLRuU-fbnPWu6zlof0AyNrGW-mwt1_cDkezWYt8RueQYqB</recordid><startdate>202408</startdate><enddate>202408</enddate><creator>Boehme, Hunter M.</creator><creator>Mourtgos, Scott M.</creator><general>American Society of Criminology</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>WZK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3231-0428</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202408</creationdate><title>The effect of formal de‐policing on police traffic stop behavior and crime: Early evidence from LAPD's policy to restrict discretionary traffic stops</title><author>Boehme, Hunter M. ; Mourtgos, Scott M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2003-d64c3a1a33fc00ca9be49adc6392db98acb7a1213717abf7ee1fa75a32a9e29b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Bayesian synthetic control</topic><topic>Body cameras</topic><topic>Common lands</topic><topic>crime</topic><topic>Criminal statistics</topic><topic>Criminality</topic><topic>Criminology</topic><topic>de‐policing</topic><topic>discretionary stops</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Offenses</topic><topic>Police</topic><topic>proactive stops</topic><topic>Property</topic><topic>Racial differences</topic><topic>Racial discrimination</topic><topic>Racial inequality</topic><topic>Traffic</topic><topic>traffic stops</topic><topic>Violent crime</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Boehme, Hunter M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mourtgos, Scott M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Criminology &amp; public policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Boehme, Hunter M.</au><au>Mourtgos, Scott M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The effect of formal de‐policing on police traffic stop behavior and crime: Early evidence from LAPD's policy to restrict discretionary traffic stops</atitle><jtitle>Criminology &amp; public policy</jtitle><date>2024-08</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>517</spage><epage>542</epage><pages>517-542</pages><issn>1538-6473</issn><eissn>1745-9133</eissn><abstract>Research Summary On March 1, 2022, correspondence from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) headquarters stated that officers can no longer use minor infractions (e.g., equipment violations) as a pretextual reason to further investigate drivers for criminal behavior. If LAPD officers are to execute a discretionary stop, they must activate their body‐worn cameras and reasonably articulate to the civilian why they are being investigated. The intent is to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in stops and build trust of the police within the community. Critics of the policy argue that elevated crime rates will result due to the crime suppression effect of such stops. This study examines racial differences in stops before and after the policy change, as well as whether Part 1 violent and property crimes increased. Descriptive findings show that while the counts of stops, arrests, and contraband seizures during stops decreased, the percentage of non‐White civilians stopped decreased only minimally following the intervention. Results from using Bayesian synthetic control methods indicate an increase in both violent and property crimes post‐intervention compared with the synthetic counterfactual. The increase in violent crimes has a low probability of being different from the counterfactual, whereas the increase in property crimes has a high probability, suggesting that the intervention led to a real change in property crimes compared with what would have been expected under the counterfactual. Policy Implications This study provides preliminary evidence that emerging policies intended to restrict discretionary stops may not have the intended effect on racial disparities in police traffic stops. Instead, agencies passing similar policies may expect to see the potential unintended consequence of a spike in jurisdictional property crimes. We argue that such types of stops across a jurisdiction may have a general deterrent effect on more common and calculative crimes such as property crimes. To combat violent crimes, agencies should consider focusing discretionary stops in known hot spots. Further, our findings offer implications for research on the effects of de‐policing on crime. Police agencies should monitor potential unintended impacts of these policies if enacted and be prepared to deal with such consequences.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>American Society of Criminology</pub><doi>10.1111/1745-9133.12673</doi><tpages>26</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3231-0428</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1538-6473
ispartof Criminology & public policy, 2024-08, Vol.23 (3), p.517-542
issn 1538-6473
1745-9133
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_3090930102
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; PAIS Index; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Bayesian synthetic control
Body cameras
Common lands
crime
Criminal statistics
Criminality
Criminology
de‐policing
discretionary stops
Intervention
Jurisdiction
Offenses
Police
proactive stops
Property
Racial differences
Racial discrimination
Racial inequality
Traffic
traffic stops
Violent crime
title The effect of formal de‐policing on police traffic stop behavior and crime: Early evidence from LAPD's policy to restrict discretionary traffic stops
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T10%3A02%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20effect%20of%20formal%20de%E2%80%90policing%20on%20police%20traffic%20stop%20behavior%20and%20crime:%20Early%20evidence%20from%20LAPD's%20policy%20to%20restrict%20discretionary%20traffic%20stops&rft.jtitle=Criminology%20&%20public%20policy&rft.au=Boehme,%20Hunter%20M.&rft.date=2024-08&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=517&rft.epage=542&rft.pages=517-542&rft.issn=1538-6473&rft.eissn=1745-9133&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12673&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3090930102%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3090930102&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true