September 2019

Report Lists Top Ten Reasons for,
and the Results of, Traffic Stops

A recent report conducted by autoinsuranceez.com collected results into the top ten reasons for traffic stops and, also, provided the outcomes of the stops. The top ten reasons, collected primarily from data in the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Police-Public Contact Survey, are: 1) speeding; 2) vehicle defect; 3) record check; 4) stop sign or traffic-light violation; 5)  illegal turn or lane change; 6) multiple reasons; 7) seat-belt violation; 8) non-specified or no reason given; 9) cell-phone violation; and 10) roadside sobriety check.

1) Stops for speeding violations accounted for about 40.9% of all traffic stops. About 31% of the drivers received a warning, 2.4% received no enforcement action, and 66% received a ticket. About 1.7% of those drivers were subjected to a search and/or arrest.

2) Vehicle defects accounted for about 12.2% of the traffic stops. No enforcement action resulted in 17% of the cases, tickets were issued in 18.2% of the cases, and warnings were given in 83.6% of the cases. Drivers were subjected to search and/or arrest in 5.1% of the cases.

3) Record checks accounted for 9.8% of the traffic stops. No enforcement action was taken in 29.8% of the cases, warnings were issued in 35.4% of the cases, and tickets were issued in 34.1% of the cases. Drivers were subjected to search and/or arrest in 2% of the cases.
4) Stop sign or traffic light violation stops accounted for 7.3% of all traffic stops. Warnings were issued in 40.3% of the cases, tickets were issued in 52.3% of the cases, and no enforcement action resulted in 6.2% of the cases. Drivers were subjected to search and/or arrest in 2.1% of the cases.

5) Illegal turn or lane changes accounted for 6.8% of the stops. No enforcement action was taken in 8% of the cases, warnings were issued in 45.5% of the cases, and tickets were issued in 45.2% of the cases. Drivers were subjected to search and/or arrest in 2.7% of the cases.

6) Multiple reasons for a traffic stop accounted for 5.8% of all traffic stops. No enforcement action was taken in 14.3% of the cases, warnings were issued in 37% of the cases, and tickets were issued in 45.4% of the cases. Drivers were subjected to search and/or arrest in 8.4% of the cases.

7) Seat-belt violations accounted for 3.2% of the traffic stops. Tickets were issued in 69.9% of the stops, warnings were issued in 20% of the cases, and no enforcement action was taken in 10.1% of the cases. Drivers were subjected to search and/or arrest in 2.2% of the cases.

8) Police gave no reason for a traffic stop in 2.1% of the cases. No enforcement action was taken in 35.4% of the cases, warnings were issued in 31% of the cases, and tickets were issued in 19.8% of the cases. Drivers were subjected to search and/or arrest in 14.5% of the cases.

9) Cell-phone violations accounted for 1.7% of the traffic stops. Warnings were issued in 22.4% of the cases, tickets were issued in 73.6% of the cases, and no enforcement action was taken in 4.1% of the cases. Drivers were subjected to search and/or arrest in 0.5% of the cases.

10) Roadside sobriety checks accounted for 1.4% of the traffic stops. Warnings were issued in 18.4% of the cases, tickets were issued in 4.3% of the cases, and no enforcement action was taken in 72.1% of the cases. Drivers were subjected to search and/or arrest in 8.9% of the cases.

The report notes there are about 219 million vehicles driving on American roadways. In 2017, there were 37,133 traffic fatalities. Of those fatalities, 10,874, or about 29%, were alcohol related. On average, there are 19 million traffic stops annually.

There were some notable demographic statistics found. Women were less likely to be pulled over than males. People aged between 18 and 24 were most likely to be stopped. African-Americans were more likely to be stopped than other racial groups. Hispanics were more likely to get a ticket, and less likely to receive a warning, than other racial groups; were the least likely group to have no enforcement action taken; and were the least likely to receive an explanation for the stop. Police were more likely to give a reason for the stop to females than to others.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics report noted that overall police-public contact declined by 5% between the years 2011 and 2015, from 62.9 million people to 53.5 million people. In 2015, whites were more likely (23%) to have had contact with police in the preceding 12 months than blacks (20%) or Hispanics (17%), and the rate of police-initiated contact was the same for whites and blacks (11%), but lower for Hispanics (9%).

Sources:  “Top Reasons Drivers Get Pulled Over [And What Happens],” autoinsuranceez.com, 2019:
 https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/traffic-stop-reasons-and-outcomes/
Elizabeth Davis, Anthony Whyde, BJS Statisticians, Lynn Langton Ph.D., former BJS Statistician, “Contacts Between Police and the Public, 2015,” bjs.gov, October, 2018:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp15.pdf

Polygraph Developments

A recent article reviewed ongoing quest to develop an accurate lie-detector.  Thousands of years ago, in China, suspects would chew and then spit out rice grains.  Grains would stick in the mouths of those with “dry, nervous mouths,” i.e., the guilty.  History shows various methods, often tortuous, of truth-detection.  Humans, on average, according to multiple scientific studies, the article notes, can discern truth from lies only about 54% of the time.  The commonly-known and familiar polygraph machine, invented in 1921, measures a person’s physiological responses to yes and no questions; the results are then interpreted by the machine-operator.  Although the machines have been improved over the years are widely used, they are still largely considered unreliable.

In 1965, the U.S. Committee on Government Operations concluded, “People have been deceived by a myth that a metal box in the hands of an investigator can detect truth or falsehood.” In 1988, Congress banned the use.  The U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a report in 2003 concluding that the accuracy of polygraphs was “far from satisfactory.” Still, there are an estimated 2.5 million polygraph examinations done in the U.S. each year.

Modern technological developments have expanded the reach of technology into areas of voice-analysis, EEG and fMRI scans, and AI-based, ever-learning, “multi-modal” systems.  The newer multi-modal systems use AI and algorithms to extend beyond voice-analysis, body-language, physiological, and brain-scan systems, to examine eye-movements, body-movements.  The newer systems, proponents say, have an accuracy rate of between 83-85%.  Critics note that there is a lack of transparency, because the self-taught AI-systems do not explain the reasoning-processes used and make their own decisions.  Also, there is a risk that the algorithms used by the systems “tend to encode the biases of the societies in which they are created.”

There are some who say that the real value of the machines and technology lies in the belief that the machines work.  According to Dr. Andy Balmer, a sociologist at the University of Manchester, “The people who developed the polygraph machine knew that the real power of it was in convincing people that it works.”  Polygraph machines could, however, be used/misused as a type of “psychological torture” to extract false confessions.  The article referenced a practice used in Detroit in the 1980s where, during interrogations, investigators would place a suspect’s hand on a photocopier -- pre-loaded with paper indicating “He’s lying” – and then use the ‘printout’ of the ‘lie-detector’ to confront the suspect.

 One polygraph examiner in Britain, Terry Mullins, said that it is difficult to get politicians and law enforcement excited about the newer, ostensibly more accurate lie-detecting systems; he said, “You can’t get the government on board.  I think they’re all terrified.”

Source:  Amit Katwala, “The race to create a perfect lie detector – and the dangers of succeeding,” the guardian.com, September 5, 2019:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/05/the-race-to-create-a-perfect-lie-detector-and-the-dangers-of-succeeding?utm_source=pocket-newtab


by Neil Leithauser
Associate Editor