TOPS Instructor Manual

Document Sample
TOPS Instructor Manual Powered By Docstoc
					Traffic
  Occupant
       Protection
Strategies Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
  Instructor
Insert Instructor
  Name Here

            Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
  Course Overview
1. Occupant Protection Risk
         & Survival
2. Evaluating Crash Dynamics
3. Enforcement & Education
4. Looking Beyond the Ticket

                      Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
1. Occupant Protection
    Risk & Survival



              Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
    Occupant Protection -
     Risk and Survival
   General Driving Risks
   Special Driving Risks for LE
   The Police Vehicle & Equipment
   The Cost of Crashes


                          Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
         Topic Overview
   How our home away from home - our
    police vehicle - can be a risky place
   What can we do to be more effective in
    reporting traffic crashes?
   What are creative ways to enforce the
    occupant protection laws we have?


                            Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Indiana Safety Time Clock 2002

 One murder every                          One fatality every
 24.2 hours
                                           10.5 hours
 One violent crime                         One injury every
 every 23.9 minutes
                                           8.4 minutes

 One burglary every                        One crash every
 12.3 minutes                              3.1 minutes

                                           One property
 One property crime                        damage every 2.5
 every 2.5 minutes                         minutes
                      Source: Purdue Center for the Advancement of Traffic Safety

                                         Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
General Driving Risks
  •Hoosier Fatalities
  Year      Traffic Deaths
    2004             947
    2005             938
    2006             897
   2007              ???

                  Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
General Driving Risks
• Seat Belts Save Lives!
• A seat belt increases your chance
  of survival by 50%
• Motor vehicle crashes are the
  leading cause of death for every
  Hoosier from 5-27 years of age


                        Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
  Special Driving Risks
   for Law Enforcement
•What are some of the things
 that make our driving
 conditions a higher risk?


                  Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
   Frequency of Police
Injury Crashes – National
      (per million miles traveled)

 • State Police/Highway Patrol
   – 13.2 injuries MVMT
 • Municipal Agencies
   – 36.46 injuries MVMT


                           Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Special Driving Risks
 for Law Enforcement

•List excuses why police
 officers will not wear
 seatbelts…


                Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Police Vehicle & Equipment




                Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
 Cost of Crashes

•When an officer is
 injured or dies in a
 crash…

               Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
2. Evaluating Crash
     Dynamics


            Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Evaluating Crash Dynamics
 •   What Happens in a Crash
 •   Six Types of Crashes
 •   Room to Live
 •   Why Report Occupant Protection
     Use
 •   Correct Use of Seat Belts
 •   Detecting Seat Belt Use and Misuse
 •   Evaluating Child Safety Seat Use
     and Misuse
 •   Air Bags
                        Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
  What is actually
happening in a crash?




              Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Three Collisions in a Crash



                  1 The vehicle collision




    2 The human collision
                            3 The internal
                                      collision
                        Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
  A 35-mph barrier crash exerts
    about 20 G’s to the vehicle

Mass x Acceleration = Force
(Weight    (Deceleration in G’s)
of body)


   180 lbs. x 20 G’s = 3600 lbs.
   30 lbs. x 20 G’s = 600 lbs.

                                   Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
                    Kinematics
  Frontal Impact                 Rear Impact
Vehicle Direction                        Vehicle Direction


                    Impact    Impact
                     Force     Force


                     Side Impact
                     Impact
                      Force


                                 Vehicle Direction


                                  Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Partial Ejection




                     Evaluating Crash Dynamics
            Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Total Ejection




           Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Down and Under   Up and Over




                 Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Rear Impact Movement




                 Evaluating Crash Dynamics
Side Impact Movement




              Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
    Why Report Occupant
Protection Use? Two Reasons…
 1    Help determine if a law has been
     broken and a case can be made…


 2    Show the public that occupant
     protection works!

                          Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
   To Determine Use
       or Misuse
What is the correct way to use a
 seat belt or child safety seat?
What does it look like after a
 crash?


                     Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Benefits of Occupant
 Protection Systems
  Reduces contact with vehicle
   interior and other occupants
  Prevents ejection
  Allows “ride down”
  Spreads stopping force widely
   across body’s strong points
  Helps maintain control of
   vehicle subsequent to a
   collision
                     Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Detecting Use and Misuse

• While Investigating a crash –
  observe:
  – The vehicle
  – The Seat Belts
  – The Occupant’s Injuries

                      Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
    Convertible Seat –
      Rear Facing




Birth to at least one year and at least 20 pounds

                                Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Convertible Seat –
 Forward Facing




One to Four years and at least 20 pounds
                           Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Booster Configurations




 This model is both a child seat with harness
 up to 40 lbs. and a belt-positioning booster
    For four to at least eight years of age.
                              Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Booster Seats




          Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
       Child Safety Seat
    Manufacturer Guidelines
Rear facing infant seat:              Until 1 year of age and at least 20
                                      pounds

Rear facing/forward facing            Until 1 year of age and 20 pounds rear;
convertible seat:                     1 year of age or older and 20-40 pounds
                                      forward

Forward facing seat:                  1 year of age and 20-40 pounds

Booster seat:                         Over 40 pounds and up to 8-12 years
                                      old

Correct fit of lap/shoulder           Approximately 4’9” inches tall and
belt only:                            80 pounds


                    Source: Automotive Safety Program
                                                        Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Air Bags




           Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Stored                      Deployed




1
1   Sensor   2
             22   Ignition Circuit 3 Bag Module
                             Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
            Stored
 To Crash       Inflatable Structure
 Sensor

                                “A” Pillar
              “B” Pillar
Gas
Generator
                                             Deployed




                                             Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
 Function of Head/Neck Air Bags
• Support occupants’ heads and necks
• Eliminate head rotation
• Prevent the head and arm from striking the
  glass and partial ejection out the side window
  or door frame
• Protect the head and neck during rollovers
• Position and protect the head during secondary
  impacts
• Prevent the head from colliding with “A” and “B”
  pillars and the roof rail



                               Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
3. Enforcement & Education




                Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Enforcement & Education
 • Local Law Enforcement Attitudes on
   Occupant Protection
 • Enforcing Occupant Protection Laws
 • Local Occupant Protection Laws
 • Enforcement & Educating the Media



                        Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Enforcement & Education

 •Why do we need an
  occupant protection
  law?

               Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
 Enforcement & Education
• Enforcing Occupant Protection
  Laws
  – You have detected a violation of
    the occupant protection laws, what
    action will you take?


                        Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
       Enforcing Occupant
        Protection Laws
• You have several enforcement choices
  – ZERO TOLERANCE (OPO Grants)
  – Educating the public
• The Goals
  – Compliance
  – Reducing traffic injuries and fatalities



                                  Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
    Indiana Statutes
• New Seat Belt Law – July 1, 2007
• Current Child Passenger
  Safety Restraint Law
• New Child Passenger Safety
  Restraint Law – July 1, 2005

                     Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
History of Indiana’s Seat Belt Statutes
         Seatbelt Enforcement Act of 1985
    – P.L. 122-1985, I.C. 9-19-10-2, 3
       • “A person may not be stopped, inspected or
         detained solely to determine compliance with
         this chapter.”
    – State v. Eilers, Indiana Court of Appeals, 1998
       • Held that this statute prohibited an officer from
         watching for and pulling over a driver not
         wearing a seatbelt.


                                    Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
History of Indiana’s Seatbelt Statutes
          Seatbelt Enforcement Acts of 1998
  • P.L. 57-1998 added:
     – SECT 2.5 - Requires children age 4-12 to be fastened or
        restrained in a child restraint system or a safety belt.
     – SECT 3 (first version) “(a) Except as provided in
        subsection (b), a person may not be stopped, inspected, or
        detained solely to determine compliance with this chapter.
        (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a stop, an inspection,
        or a detention to determine compliance with section 2.5 of
        this chapter.”
  • P.L. 57-1998 - amended Sect. 3 to allow a police officer to
    pull over a vehicle to determine compliance with Sect. 2.5
    ONLY.


                                           Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
History of Indiana’s Seatbelt Statutes
              Seatbelt Enforcement Act of 1998
• P.L. 116-1998 - amended Sect. 3 to allow a police officer to pull
  over a vehicle to determine compliance with chapter 10 (9-19-10)
• 9-19-10-3 (second version) “A vehicle may be stopped to
  determine compliance with this chapter. However, a vehicle, the
  contents of the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle, or a passenger in
  the vehicle may not be inspected, searched or detained solely
  because of a violation of this chapter.”
• NOTE: There are now 2 different I.C. 9-19-10-3’s.
         • The law is unclear as to which is actually valid.
         • See later discussion of Baldwin v. Reagan, Trigg v. State and State v.
           Morris.




                                                      Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
       Constitutional Challenge to
       Indiana’s Seat Belt Statute
  Baldwin v. Reagan, et al. 715 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. S.Ct.
                                              1999)
   –   Plaintiffs: Urban League, Carmel Motorists Assoc., State Sen. R. Michael Young, Gary
       Hoffmeister, other attys & politicos.
   –   Defendants: Hendricks Co. Prosecutor, Patricia Baldwin & Hendricks Co. Sheriff, Roy Waddell.

• Lawsuit
   – Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment that Seatbelt
     Enforcement Act violated both State and Federal
     Constitutions and requested a permanent injunction
     prohibiting enforcement of statute.
   – State argued that statute did not violate State or Federal
     Constitutions in that officers would see violation before
     making a traffic stop for seatbelt violations.


                                                               Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
          Constitutional Challenge
                 Baldwin v. Reagan, cont’d

• Indiana Supreme Court Ruling:
   – Police must have reasonable suspicion that a driver or passenger
      is not wearing a safety belt in order to make a traffic stop to
      enforce this statute.
   – Police must base this on observations of the driver or passenger,
      e.g. bodily movements, distance, lighting, angle, actual
      observation of the position of the safety belt, etc. that would
      cause an ordinarily prudent person to believe that the driver or
      passenger was not wearing a seatbelt as required.
   – Police cannot make a stop in order to gain reasonable suspicion.
   – State statute is NOT unconstitutional.



                                             Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
 Investigating Beyond the SB Ticket
         State v. Morris, Ind. App. 2000
• Facts: Officer observed Defendant driving without a
  shoulder harness in place. Defendant did not have a
  driver’s license but did have a registration and
  provided his identifiers to the officer. Officer ran a
  BMV check. Defendant came back as DWS. Officer
  asked Defendant to step from the car. Officer then
  smelled odor of alcohol on his breath.



                                      Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Investigating Beyond the SB Ticket
                 State v. Morris, cont’d
• Issue: Was the evidence of the defendant’s intoxication
  obtained in violation of the Seatbelt Enforcement Act?
• Holding: The Court found that the legislature’s intent was to
  not allow police to use failure to wear a seatbelt as a fishing
  expedition or an opportunity to unilaterally expand an
  investigation for other possible crimes. HOWEVER,
  circumstances after the initial stop created reasonable suspicion
  of other crimes. Therefore, additional investigation was not
  SOLELY based on the seatbelt violation.


                                            Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
 Investigating Beyond the SB Ticket
     When does an officer have reasonable
                 suspicion?
• “The officer may only expand his or her investigation
  subsequent to the stop if other circumstances arise after
  the stop, which independently provide the officer with
  reasonable suspicion of other crimes. Reasonable
  suspicion exists where the facts known to the officer,
  together with the reasonable inferences arising from such
  facts, would cause an ordinarily prudent person to
  believe that criminal activity has or is about to occur.”
       • Baldwin, Ind. S.Ct. 1999 (citing Taylor v State, 639 N.E.2d 1052,
         1054)
                                               Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Investigating Beyond the SB Ticket
     State v. Trigg, Ind. App. 2000
 • Facts: Officers saw driver and passenger not wearing
   seatbelts. Officers initiated a traffic stop for seatbelt
   violation. As one officer approached the passenger
   side of the vehicle, he noticed that the passenger was
   “fidgeting down in his seat as if attempting to hide
   something.” Officer feared that passenger was
   concealing a weapon and asked him to step out of the
   car. Officer then saw, in plain view, a glass crack
   pipe.

                                       Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Investigating Beyond the SB Ticket
             State v. Trigg, cont’d.
• Issue: Whether a police officer is prohibited from
  making a search for officer safety when conducting a
  stop for a seatbelt violation.
• Holding: NO! “I.C. 9-19-10-3 does not prohibit
  police from performing a limited weapons search for
  officer safety.” However, the officer still must have
  specific and particularized facts available at the
  moment of the search that would cause a
  reasonable person to believe that the suspect has a
       weapon.
                                    Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
          Statutory Omission??
• I.C. 9-19-10-2.5 requires children ages 4-11 to be in
  safety belt or child restraint system.
• I.C. 9-19-10-8 Penalty for those age 16 and over for
  not wearing a seatbelt is an Infraction.
• I.C. 9-19-10-2 covers front seat passengers, but
  provides no penalty provision for children ages 12,
  13, 14 or 15 who are not properly buckled up. In
  other words, the present statute does not specifically
  indicate that it is an infraction for 12-15 year olds not
  to be properly buckled up.


                                     Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT A 12-15 YEAR OLD
 WHO IS NOT PROPERLY BUCKLED UP???
                          THE ANSWERS:
• 9-19-10-2 applies to all drivers and makes it the driver’s
  responsibility to ensure that all front seat passengers are
  properly secured regardless of the age of the passenger.
• 9-19-10-8 only assesses a Class D infraction ticket to the driver
  if the driver is at least 16 years of age.
• SO, go ahead and write the driver a ticket for failure to comply
  with 9-19-10-2 if that driver is 16 or older and a front seat
  passenger of any age is not buckled up.



                                          Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
            New Child Passenger
           Restraint Law (07/01/05)
• Children are required to ride properly restrained in a child
  restraint, which can include a belt positioning booster seat,
  until they reach their 8th birthday.
• If at court proceedings, a driver who has received a
  violation under this code possesses or has acquired a child
  restraint system, the driver is not liable for any costs or
  monetary judgment if the person has no previous
  judgments of violation of this chapter against the person.


                                        Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
        New Child Passenger
       Restraint Law (07/01/05)
 Fees collected from violations will be entered
  into a fund to purchase child restraints for low
  income families throughout Indiana.
 Children at least 8 years old until their 16th
  birthday are required to ride properly restrained
  in a child restraint system or seat belt in all
  seating positions in all vehicles.


                                 Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
                   New Child Passenger
                  Restraint Law (07/01/05)
Exemptions:
• If all lap/shoulder seat belts are being used by other children, then a child over
   40 pounds may ride in a lap only seat belt without a child restraint. (Booster
   seats cannot be safely used with a lap only seat belt.)
• This chapter (9-19-11-1) does not apply to a person who operates any of the
   following vehicles:
     – A school bus.
     – A taxicab.
     – An ambulance.
     – A public passenger bus.
     – A motor vehicle having a seating capacity greater than nine (9) individuals that is
       owned or leased and operated by a religious or not-for-profit youth organization.
     – An antique motor vehicle.
     – A motorcycle.
     – A motor vehicle that is owned or leased by a governmental unit and is being used
       in the performance of official law enforcement duties.
                     A motor vehicle that is being used in an emergency.

                                                          Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
  Trucks, Vans, SUVs &
  Recreational Vehicles
Does it matter if the vehicle has a
           truck plate?




                       Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
              Seat Belt Law
               •   LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 2007
Effective July 1, 2007, I.C. 9-19-10-2 requires “that each
 occupant of a motor vehicle equipped with a safety
 belt that is standard equipment installed by the
 manufacturer” wear a seatbelt. The pickup truck
 exemption has been eliminated by the new law. Thus,
 occupants in most motor vehicles, including occupants
 in the passenger compartment of pickup trucks and
 all occupants of SUVs, must “buckle up” regardless of
 how a vehicle is plated or registered. As of July 1,
 2007, any occupant in a motor vehicle who is not
 wearing a seatbelt can be issued a ticket for seatbelt
   violation. The exceptions to the seatbelt requirement
           are listed at I.C. 9-19-10-1.
                                       Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
                       Exceptions
(1) For medical reasons should not wear safety belts, provided
    the occupant has written documentation of the medical
    reasons from a physician.
(2) Is a child required to be restrained by a child restraint system
    under IC 9-19-11.
(3) Is traveling in a commercial or a United States Postal Service
    vehicle that makes frequent stops for the purpose of pickup or
    delivery of goods or services.
(4) Is a rural carrier of the United States Postal Service and is
    operating a vehicle while serving a rural postal route.
(5) Is a newspaper motor route carrier or newspaper bundle hauler
    who stops to make deliveries from a vehicle.



                                             Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
                      Exceptions (continued)
(6) Is a driver examiner designated and appointed under IC 9-14-2-3 and is conducting
     an examination of an applicant for a permit or license under IC 9-24-10.
(7) Is an occupant of a farm truck being used on a farm in connection with agricultural
     pursuits that are usual and normal to the farming operation, as set forth in
     IC 9-29-5-13(b)(2).
(8) Is an occupant of a motor vehicle participating in a parade.
(9) Is an occupant of the living quarters area of a recreational vehicle.
(10) Is an occupant of the treatment area of an ambulance (as defined in IC 16-18-2-13).
(11) Is an occupant of the sleeping area of a tractor.
(12) Is an occupant other than the operator of a vehicle described in IC 9-20-11-1(1).
(13) Is an occupant other than the operator of a truck on a construction site.
(14) Is a passenger other than the operator in a cab of a Class A recovery vehicle or a
     Class B recovery vehicle who is being transported in the cab because the motor
     vehicle of the passenger is being towed by the recovery vehicle.
(15) Is an occupant other than the operator of a motor vehicle being used by a public
     utility in an emergency as set forth in IC 9-20-6-5.




                                                        Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
             NOTICE

There are no exceptions for police
officers! You MUST wear your seat
belts at all times when operating your
vehicle.


                         Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
                    Also…
• Also effective July 1, 2007 is I.C. 9-19-10-3.1
  which (1) provides for primary enforcement of
  the seatbelt law and (2) outlaws the use of a
  “checkpoints” by law enforcement to detect and
  issue citations for seatbelt violations. Under the
  new law, officers may stop a vehicle to determine
  compliance with the seatbelt law. Law
  enforcement may not use a checkpoint to detect
  and issue citations for failure to comply
       with the seatbelt law.

                                 Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
        DO’S & DO NOT’S
• DO: Write seatbelt citations to occupants
  of pickup trucks and SUVs. No need to
  check the registration of the vehicle first.
• DO NOT: Write seatbelt citations to
  ADULT riders in the beds of pickup trucks
  or ADULT riders in cargo areas of vans.


                             Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
• CAVEAT: Since all occupants in pickup trucks
  and SUVs are required to wear seatbelts, there are
  potentially more seatbelt citations to be written
  effective July 1, 2007.
  Although there are no specific exceptions for occupants in
  the beds of pickup trucks or cargo areas of vans and trailers,
  a thorough review of the newly added exceptions and of
  prior legislation outlawing riders in truck beds which was
  rejected indicates that seatbelt citations in these situations are
  not appropriate and would not be viewed well in the Courts.
  My concern is that a more significant case arising out of a
  simple seatbelt stop could be lost because the seatbelt traffic
       stop was ruled to be “unreasonable” under the 4th
       Amendment because the stop for seatbelt violation
               was not a valid stop under the seatbelt law.
                                           Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
• DO: Make traffic stops for observed
  violations of the seatbelt law and issue
  citations to occupants in the same manner as
  making stops for speeding and other traffic
  violations.
• DO NOT: Make a traffic stop for seatbelt
  violation unless there is a reasonable
  suspicion that the driver or a passenger in
      the vehicle is not wearing a seatbelt as
            required by law.
                             Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
• CAVEAT:
  Language identical to the language of the new law, “may be stopped to
  determine compliance with this chapter” was considered by the Indiana
  Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Reagan, 715 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 1999). The
  Supreme Court held that for the stop to be constitutional under the Indiana
  Constitution, a police officer could not stop a vehicle for a possible seatbelt
  violation “unless the officer reasonably suspected that the driver or a
  passenger in the vehicle [was] not wearing a seatbelt as required by law.
  This reasonable suspicion exists where the officer observes the driver or
  passenger under circumstances (e.g. bodily movement, distance, angle,
  lighting, weather) that would cause an ordinary prudent person to believe
  that the driver or passenger is not wearing a seatbelt as required by law.”
  715 N.E. 2d at 337. It is likely that the same language in the new seatbelt
  law will be interpreted in the same way and will not necessarily mean
  literally what it says.
• CAVEAT:
     There is also language in Baldwin regarding consent searches during
         seatbelt stops which will probably also still be good law.


                                                   Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
• DO: Keep the stop as brief as possible.
• DO NOT: Inspect, search, or detain the
  vehicle, its driver, passenger(s) or contents
  or otherwise prolong the traffic solely
  because of an observed seatbelt violation,
  unless observations and interactions lead to
  “reasonable, particularly suspicion that
  criminal activity is afoot” making a Terry
      stop under the 4th Amendment
      justifiable and necessary. Always
      document!
                              Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
• DO:
  Actively watch for seatbelt violations and
  issue citations.
• DO NOT: Use checkpoints, “seat belt
  enforcement zone” or other warning signs.
• DO NOT: Funnel or block or impede
  traffic while stopping and issuing seatbelt
  citations.

                              Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
• CAVEAT:
 The legislature has specifically outlawed the use of
 checkpoints. Although the term “seatbelt enforcement zone”
 is not used in the statute, the use of the term “checkpoint”
 makes clear the legislative intent that random pullovers and
 funneling of traffic and traffic backup in order to check for
 seatbelt compliance and ticket offenders be eliminated.

 If it looks like a “checkpoint”, it probably is a “checkpoint”
 whether or not it is called a “checkpoint” or “seatbelt
 enforcement zone”. Therefore, all law enforcement is
 cautioned to be aware and to be careful to avoid the
 appearances of a checkpoint when doing enforcement.


                                         Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
• DO NOT compromise in enforcing this
  law! Legislators have cautioned that if we
  have cases that are lost in Appellate Court,
  they will revisit the law and consider
  changing it to a SECONDARY law. We all
  worked too hard to lose it.
  Thank you for your efforts in helping save
  lives!

                             Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Public Information
  and Outreach



            Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
       The Media
•What should we do?
•What should we say?
•Should we talk?
•All of these are concerns… but
nothing that can not be overcome

                   Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
  Occupant Protection
      Increases
Enforcement + Education +

 Public Information = Occupant

 Protection Use Increases


                     Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
4. Looking Beyond
    the Ticket



           Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
      Session Topics
What is “Looking Beyond the
 Ticket?”
Why do we need to look
 beyond the ticket?
What are some ways to do it?

                   Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
“Looking Beyond the Ticket”
• Reduce the number of victims
   – Traffic crashes and crime both have:
      • Victims –Fatalities & Injuries
      • Costs – Medical Expenses & Property
        Damage
• Traffic enforcement improves quality of life
  issues
   – Prevents violent crime
   – While enforcing traffic laws

                               Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Through the Window…
  • What can I see?
  • What does that mean?
  • Why is that important?
  • What should I do?


  *These questions can be applied to
  all aspects of law enforcement

                           Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Traffic Safety Myths vs. Facts
 MYTH: Police officers should be arresting
 criminals, not writing traffic tickets.

 FACT: Traffic enforcement regularly
 identifies criminals and results in their
 apprehension.



                              Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
     Myths vs. Facts (continued)
* In October 1996, two suspects wanted in Ohio
  for a motel robbery and kidnapping of a motel
  clerk were apprehended by an Indiana State
  Trooper after stopping the suspect vehicle for
  speeding.

* During 1994, traffic enforcement stops in Grand
  Prairie, Texas accounted for 66 percent of all
  warrant arrests and 50 percent of the arrests
  made for non-traffic related offenses.


                               Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
    Myths vs. Facts (continued)
* In Peoria, Illinois, during 1994 and 1995, an
increase in traffic enforcement contributed to a
6% decrease in violent crimes and a 12 %
decrease in crashes.

* Drugs, weapons, contraband, fugitives, and
illegal aliens are frequently found in vehicles
during 'routine' traffic stops.



                                Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
    Myths vs. Facts (continued)
• * During a traffic stop, a Glendale, Arizona
  officer recovered a stolen vehicle, which led to
  the location and identification of shops where
  parts from stolen vehicles were being sold.

  * During 1995, through traffic enforcement
  efforts, the STOP program in San Francisco
  resulted in 120 felony drug arrests, 84 loaded
  weapons confiscated, 65 recovered stolen
  vehicles, 128 other felony arrests, and 153
  felony warrants issued.


                                 Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
     Myths vs. Facts (continued)
* In November 1995, an Albany, New York, police
   officer stopped a vehicle without a front license
   plate. The vehicle was stolen and the driver was
   wanted in connection with a New York City
   homicide.

  * In July 1996, during a routine traffic stop, a
  Lincoln, Massachusetts, police officer found a
  shotgun in the vehicle. The shell casings
  matched those found at the scene of a double
  homicide. Both occupants were arrested and
      charged in connection with the murders.


                                  Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
 Myths vs. Facts (continued)
• A license plate violation resulted in
  the apprehension of the suspect
  (Timothy McVeigh) in the Oklahoma
  City federal building bombing.
• Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy were
  apprehended from information
  gathered from routine traffic stops.


                           Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
    Bridge the Gap
Support a “beyond the ticket”
 enforcement program administratively
Train motivated officers
Develop “all purpose” officers
Identify the problem
Inform and educate the public


                      Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Why Do We Need It?
Beyond the Ticket Enforcement
        Makes Sense
Uses scarce resources wisely
Lowers the threat of crime
Is good public relations


                   Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Questions?



        Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
     Traffic Safety Websites
• Automotive Safety Program for Children – IU
  Med Center
   – www.preventinjury.org
• National Highway Traffic Safety
  Administration (NHTSA)
   – www.nhtsa.dot.gov
• Indiana Criminal Justice Institute
   – www.in.gov/cji/traffic
• Urban Center
   - www.urbancenter.iupui.edu

                              Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
    Indiana Traffic Safety
     Resource Prosecutor
        Deborah Reasoner
Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council
            317-232-1836
       dreasoner@pac.in.gov

                       Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
  Governor’s Council on
  Impaired & Dangerous
         Driving
101 W. Washington St., Suite 1170 East
        Indianapolis, IN 46204
            www.in.gov/cji
             317-232-1295

                         Occupant Protection Risk and Survival
Traffic
  Occupant
       Protection
Strategies Occupant Protection Risk and Survival