Citation/performance award question??

[MotorinLA]

Having issued somewhere in the neighborhood of 8000-9000 tickets, I can say from experience that giving people a break by citing them for something other than what you originally stopped them for can often lead to problems. I certainly would never issue a citation for a fix-it that the driver knew, or claimed, did not exist. Nor would I cite for a lesser violation that I did not observe (seat belt, cell phone, etc.). The reason for this is your predicament, namely it can come back and bite you in the behind.

 

When you cite for a fix-it, you'll invariably get the guy that will come and complain and will say, "The officer claimed I did X, but clearly that wasn't true, because he only cited me for Y after he stopped me."

 

As stated earlier, no good deed goes unpunished. You try to be nice and you get kicked in the teeth. :frown:

 

To all here who complain about not getting a break when you get stopped, this is one of the many reasons why many officers simply issue a citation and complete the traffic stop. Not all LEOs are heartless bastards, just some of us .

[jackie]

What ever happened to 'officer discretion'? A week off? That seems pretty harsh... Did your chief have an axe to grind or was he trying to make a point and you were the victim?

[dba]

Well I'm be the bad guy........again. How to word this? The law is not inforced in the spirit it was written, it's black and white. Why does a patrolmen get to decide the grey area? This is the biggest problem I have with this. If you took the time to pull them over, be it a loud mouth, pretty girl, old person that looks like they don't have money for food, etc. you give them the ticket, otherwise do not pull them over. Period. YOU should not be allowed that authority. You could have just had a fight with your wife, kid, mother, or you could have just saved someones life. You cannot tell me any of this will not affect decisions you make on the next traffic stop. This is what a judge is for. I cannot tell you how many times I have talked myself INTO a ticket. I always ask "If it wasn't that bad then why are you wasting my time with this stop?" Never goes well after that. Just my view.

 

First of all, it’s “enforce” not “inforce”. Using spell/grammar check just might give your editorial a little more credibility.

 

Second, even going back to my academy days, the “spirit” of the law was the position instructors used as their starting point for any type of traffic enforcement. There was ALWAYS some type of violation or the stop would be illegal. What we chose to do then was our choice. We could write or verbally warn the violator. You are right, the law is written in black and white and there are absolutes that must be enforced, ie: DUI. Playing “Let’s Make a Deal” on the side of the road is not an option.

 

But I have a “for instance” for you: You’re driving at 85 mph in a 65 mph zone of a quiet, rural two lane with no traffic. I catch you and stop you. I tell you I’ll only write you for 75 mph. The difference between an 85 mph cite and 75 mph cite is usually huge. 20 mph over can usually be considered “Reckless Driving” and entails all sorts of joy for the violator; license suspensions, vehicles towed and the assorted insurance happiness that coincides with that type of behavior.

 

Is it your point that you’d rather the officer NOT have the discretion to cite for the lower speed? Really?

 

[Paul Mihalka]

"But I have a “for instance” for you: You’re driving at 85 mph in a 65 mph zone of a quiet, rural two lane with no traffic. I catch you and stop you. I tell you I’ll only write you for 75 mph. The difference between an 85 mph cite and 75 mph cite is usually huge."

 

Memories: 1981. National 55 limit. Terrible. Touring Florida in a rented Olds. Two-lane Alligator Alley. Straight, you can't see the end of it. Rolling along with Maria, in conversation. Suddenly oncoming car flashes all kind of blue/red lights and makes a flashy sliding U turn behind me. I stop, officer walks up. Tells me he had me on radar at 80mph. Invites me over to sit with him in the car while he writes the ticket - that would never happen today. He: I got you at 80, but I'm going to write you at 79. I: What's the difference? He: fifty bucks. Thank you, officer!

 

John, I'm really sorry that your good deed bit you in the butt!

[tallman]

JP,

Been out of town and just saw this.

Sad state of affairs.

Keep up the good work, there are good days ahead.

Next time you pull that driver over, try not to grin.

"Hi, remember me?"

I've been given a break or two over the years and I would never have even dreamed of complaining, at least not officially.

Do you want letters to the Chief?

the Mullet Wrapper?

Or just let it go ...

Best wishes.

Any chance you could borrow a bike for the run to Cedar Key?

[ShovelStrokeEd]

You know, John, I had a similar situation a couple of years back.

 

Got nailed by a state trooper on radar for 81 in a 60. No question I was in the wrong. At the time, I was not in good shape points wise and told the trooper so. He pointed out that my registration was expired by about 10 days. I asked that he give me a ticket for that and a warning on the speed and that is exactly what he did. I had been very polite and actually pulled over before he completed his U-turn.

 

I too contacted his supervisor. Big difference was that I complimented the trooper and the supervisor on the trooper's professionalism and exercise of judgment and the quality of the training he received. Now, I'm sure he got a large ration of ribbing over this but also pretty sure he didn't get docked a week's pay.

[KDeline]

Speed limit is 70 m.p.h. I clock you at 71 m.p.h. during clear dry day and you're the only one on the road. You cool with getting a ticket as long as I treat everyone the same?

 

You just made my point, you don't treat everyone the same, thank you. Of course I would not LIKE getting it but I would expect it, as long as it is the same for everyone. Why should the rules be different? The sign did not say speed limit 71 on a clear day, right?

[KDeline]

 

First of all, it’s “enforce” not “inforce”. Using spell/grammar check just might give your editorial a little more credibility.

 

Second, even going back to my academy days, the “spirit” of the law was the position instructors used as their starting point for any type of traffic enforcement. There was ALWAYS some type of violation or the stop would be illegal. What we chose to do then was our choice. We could write or verbally warn the violator. You are right, the law is written in black and white and there are absolutes that must be enforced, ie: DUI. Playing “Let’s Make a Deal” on the side of the road is not an option.

 

But I have a “for instance” for you: You’re driving at 85 mph in a 65 mph zone of a quiet, rural two lane with no traffic. I catch you and stop you. I tell you I’ll only write you for 75 mph. The difference between an 85 mph cite and 75 mph cite is usually huge. 20 mph over can usually be considered “Reckless Driving” and entails all sorts of joy for the violator; license suspensions, vehicles towed and the assorted insurance happiness that coincides with that type of behavior.

 

Is it your point that you’d rather the officer NOT have the discretion to cite for the lower speed? Really?

 

So .08 is the absolute and .07 is have a nice day. But YOU get to decide if 70 M.P.H. is absolute versus 65 M.P.H. is have a nice day, your discretion tells you I look like an upstanding fellow.

 

 

One misspelled word and I have less credibility. Is that part of the discretion you use when you pull someone over? You've hit my point home, thanks.

[Dave McReynolds]

As far as discretion is concerned, I assume it happens all the time, at all levels of law enforcement; for example, plea bargains in criminal cases can be viewed as a form of discretion.

 

I don't think anyone likes the concept of discretion very much, but I would assume that the engine that drives law enforcement would pretty much grind to a halt if there were no discretion in enforcement. Courts would be clogged, criminals would walk free after being acquited of a more serious charge when they might have agreed to a plea bargain to a lesser charge, citizens would revolt if they were fined for driving 1 mph over the speed limit, etc.

 

I'm the trustee for the son of a former friend and client who died. The son has various mental disorders, and his life is pretty much a nightmare. Sometimes being the trustee makes my life a nightmare too, and I wonder why I ever agreed to do it, but maybe it will pay for a few of my sins when I face St. Peter someday. Anyway, this guy owns a truck which he has no license to drive, but he was driving it down the street anyway late one night, when the cops, who all know him very well, observed him and pulled him over. The cops took the keys and sent the guy home on foot. I was able to get the keys back if I promised the cops that I would park it somewhere where the guy couldn't get to it. I assume none of this is by the book, but the cops know that the county mental health facilities have all been shut down for budget reasons, so there is really nowhere to send this guy but to jail or home. He can't be committed unless he harms someone or goes voluntarily, which he won't. So for right or wrong, they make a judgement call, and I'm happy that they're still allowed to do it.

[Skywagon]

Let's look at it from a business perspective. We have rules at my work. They are hard fast rules........except when I need to apply judgement....which I do on a regular basis. Most of what I do these days is work on very large $250million + contracts. I have limits set by our board on limits of liability, IP, PI, MFN, balance of trade, terms and conditions etc.

 

They grant me discretion to bend the hardfast rules up and down We call it the give for get. Client wants something from me that is outside our approval process...what can I trade for it..

 

I am giving the lattitude to balance the overall outcome and risk against what I think is prudent. If they took that away from me, all deals would look the same regardless of client.

 

I hope for all it's worth we don't take away judgement from the people we ask to serve and protect. I am sure the consequences of such an outcome would not be something we would appreciate.

 

Again...thanks John for exercising what you believe was good judgement. I surely hope this turd didn't taint you too much, however I would be very smart about the future...you know break out their tail light on the way up so you will always have a reason

[tallman]

Ken,

For the sake of discussion, if there is no leeway at all, should the LEO's ticket every offender, every time?

Should we not police ourself and not need traffic enforcement?

Or, is it a gamble and do what I want until I get caught, pay to play and move on?

[Spike]

For the sake of discussion, if there is no leeway at all, should the LEO's ticket every offender, every time?

 

We'd probably have a bunch less laws on the books ....

[Quinn]

Whole lot of talk about justice vs. mercy. I only want justice when I'm innocent; most of the time I want mercy. Maybe I'm in favor of descression because I'm White, I'm loveable, and I've got faith in the LEO's good intent. Everything going for me at a traffic stop except large breasts and single.

 

Wonder how I'd feel about "customized justice" if I were a minority, a grumpy old man, or looked like the LEO's high school Algebra teacher.

 

----

 

 

[upflying]

Good point bringing up race. Due to racial issues, the ability a LEO to apply and use discretion when issuing cites is suppressed. LEO's must cite and treat all violators equally to avoid appearing biased or in favor of one violator over another. Just to be safe, everyone gets a ticket nowadays.

I actually had a complaint made about me regarding race. It involved issuing a ticket to a black person for passing on the shoulder. Without my knowledge, she hid nearby to see "who" would be the next person I cited.

She then approached me and asked why I ignored white drivers who were passing on the shoulder. Next thing I knew I was in the sgt's office explaining what happened. Fortunately I had three other citations for the same offense in my book, one white, one Asian and one Hispanic.

The explanation comes from the gravity or seriousness of the offense. Should I cite violators for driving in the last 50' of the shoulder or should I stop the ones who drive 800' in the shoulder? In other words, should I cite for 36mph in a 35 zone or 50mph in a 35 zone? All examples are illegal but which violation is the most egregious and the best utilization of the officer's time and effort?

LEO's are given citing discretion before making the traffic stop.

The person who complained about me was from the 800' shoulder driving group.

[KDeline]

Ken,

For the sake of discussion, if there is no leeway at all, should the LEO's ticket every offender, every time?

Should we not police ourself and not need traffic enforcement?

Or, is it a gamble and do what I want until I get caught, pay to play and move on?

 

 

For the sake of discussion, if there is no leeway at all, should the LEO's ticket every offender, every time?

 

Yes, it's the only way to be far.

 

 

Should we not police ourself and not need traffic enforcement?

 

We should but we don't.

 

 

Or, is it a gamble and do what I want until I get caught, pay to play and move on?

 

That's what we do now.

 

 

 

[motorman587]

Ken,

For the sake of discussion, if there is no leeway at all, should the LEO's ticket every offender, every time?

Should we not police ourself and not need traffic enforcement?

Or, is it a gamble and do what I want until I get caught, pay to play and move on?

 

Tim,

Thanks, this happened about a year a go. It still on my mind and still plays a part in what I do today. Just lay it to rest and the comments have helped a lot. Thank you all for the comments even the negative ones, which I do not see as negative just someones point of view.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

For the sake of discussion, if there is no leeway at all, should the LEO's ticket every offender, every time?

 

Yes, it's the only way to be far.

 

I think discretion is appropriately reserved depending on the history and demeanor of the driver:

 

-if the driver has a poor record (a lot of recent infractions), it's apparent they're not learning their lesson, and so stronger penalties are merited in these cases. It's reasonable for an officer to show less mercy: if you were doing 45 in a 30 and you've already racked up six points on your license, don't expect to get written up for just 35 in a 30, no matter how nice you are.

 

-if the driver is unrepentant (or even argumentative) as regards the cause of the current traffic stop, it's apparent they don't understand that they are not above the law; likewise, stronger penalties are merited in these cases. If you were doing 45 in a 30 and whine about how there was no traffic (i.e. no danger) in sight and the cop had nothing better to do, well, expect no mercy.

 

It's rare that a HUGE infraction goes totally unpunished, but if your record is clean and you behave perfectly during a traffic stop - that is, with great courtesy, and a self-comportment that does absolutely nothing to make the officer fear for his safety - my experience has been that MINOR infractions are often met with nothing more than a verbal or written warning. This seems reasonable to me.

[dba]

Invites me over to sit with him in the car while he writes the ticket - that would never happen today.

 

Actually it still does. When I got my performance award in 2007 the Wyoming State Police Officer had me sit next to him in his car.

[dba]

So .08 is the absolute and .07 is have a nice day.

 

You're missing the point. The .08 standard is the legal presumption that anyone at or above that level will be "presumed" to be under the influence.

 

Because of my experience and training I have arrested adults that ended up blowing as low as a .05. Legally, discretion wise, I could have told them, have a nice day.

 

My discretion in this matter allowed me to make an arrest and take an impaired driver off the road.

 

Any more questions?

 

[Deadboy]

Your example is interesting but actually an exact opposite of the one in question. A similar example would be you pulled the driver over for speeding for driving 50 in a 55......

 

When did the police become judges? I know years ago the magistrates in Seattle were in trouble for cutting deals with drivers regarding traffic tickets (cut a few deals myself in my late teens/early 20's)...typically you could pay the fine and they would suspend the points)....while I understand the idea frankly I think officers frequently overstep their training and authority in many of these cases, and as a result lots of drivers have far fewer tickets and points on their record than they deserve.

 

Have I benefitted? Sure, but was it fair....probably not.

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Your example is interesting but actually an exact opposite of the one in question. A similar example would be you pulled the driver over for speeding for driving 50 in a 55......

 

That can happen; if road conditions are dicy, you can be cited for driving too fast for conditions, even if driving below the posted limit. This is up to the judgment of the officer.

 

 

[philbytx]

Hi 'Nando,

 

I had a similar experience going through Heathrow 2 years ago but with another result! I had two of the smallest jars of Marmite (125g or 4.4ozs) still sealed, that I put in a Ziploc and had them out to run them thru the scanner with our carryons. They were the ONLY "liquid" items we had as we had left our toiletry stuff at our Uncles house. Nice white Englishman looked at 'em, said to pick 'em up at go our merry way. Unfortunately, black lady supervisor (Nigerian!) saw this, came over and yelled at him and me and then confiscated them. He looked at me, shook his head and then I said to her, with a smile, I hoped she enjoyed it on her morning toast. She then smirked at me and said I don't eat that rubbish!

 

Going again this March but this time I'll simply leave one of each in our carry-ons!

 

 

 

[Deadboy]

Your example is interesting but actually an exact opposite of the one in question. A similar example would be you pulled the driver over for speeding for driving 50 in a 55......

 

That can happen; if road conditions are dicy, you can be cited for driving too fast for conditions, even if driving below the posted limit. This is up to the judgment of the officer.

 

 

Sure it can, and a good lawyer could easily get it tossed out in court (unless the driver had an accident or the officer could show some other reason the speed was unsafe for the conditions). They make hard and fast rules for these situations to remove the gray areas and help avoid the problems associated with them.

 

However my point was that citing someone for DUI that is below the legal limit is not the same as citing somone for speeding but cutting the speed, it is the opposite in fact. It is more like they blew .10 but were written up for .08.....

[beemerman2k]

I have no problem with the police exercising their judgment by the side of the road. The aim of the State should be the protection of the populace and not necessarily the following of the letter of the law. If a driver violated the letter of the law, yet is not a danger to society, then I would argue that the State has little interest in penalizing that person. Conversely, if a driver is a great danger to society yet did not violate the letter of the law (hauling loose and unsecured debris in the back of a truck or driving at 20mph under the limit in the left lane or ...) then I would hope an officer would use their own judgement and intervene.

 

I've told the story about how when I bought my BMW motorcycle, I was pulled over by a white police officer when I was no more than 1/4 mile down the road from the dealership on my new motorcycle. I was ripped! No citation issued. I have always wondered if I was pulled over for "riding while black" on a nice BMW motorcycle in this white neighborhood. In spite of my anger, though, this officer would tell you that I was polite and cooperated competely as he did his work.

 

Having said that, the solution I would prefer is not for officers to lose the discretion of making road side judgements, I would only argue the case for making road side judgements fairly. But whether I feel an officer was fair or not, my job is to be supportive of that person. At the end of the day, they are out there doing what they do for the good of me and my family. I'll gladly suffer a few misjudgements on their part every now and then if that's what it takes for these people to do their jobs. You cannot pay me enough to walk a mile in their shoes that's for sure.

 

I remember a story on the news where a big, older black man was roughed up by the New Orleans police shortly after Katrina struck. It must have taken at least 4 officers to bring this man down! In any case, in spite of all the calls of police brutality, he got on the news and simply apologized for publically acting in a manner where the police felt compelled to involve themselves with him like they did. He did not call for retribution, punishment, or revenge, he simply claimed all the responsibility for his own role in elevating the conflict. I was very impressed with his attitude.

 

Whether I get a ticket or not (and usually it's a "not"), I always shake the officers hand and thank them for their good work

[Deadboy]

http://www.britishdelights.com/marmite.htm

 

 

[tobyzusa]

Well I'm be the bad guy........again. How to word this? The law is not inforced in the spirit it was written, it's black and white. Why does a patrolmen get to decide the grey area? This is the biggest problem I have with this. If you took the time to pull them over, be it a loud mouth, pretty girl, old person that looks like they don't have money for food, etc. you give them the ticket, otherwise do not pull them over. Period. YOU should not be allowed that authority. You could have just had a fight with your wife, kid, mother, or you could have just saved someones life. You cannot tell me any of this will not affect decisions you make on the next traffic stop. This is what a judge is for. I cannot tell you how many times I have talked myself INTO a ticket. I always ask "If it wasn't that bad then why are you wasting my time with this stop?" Never goes well after that. Just my view.

 

"If it wasn't that bad then why are you wasting my time with this stop?" Never goes well after that." Imagine that...

 

You only think you don't want officers to have discretion..Give that more thought and I think you'll change your mind..

 

Nope. Everyone has their own good reason to break the law. Joe is a race car driver and feels he is a better driver versus John trying to get his pregnant wife to the hospital. Both are speeding, both are guilty. No excuse. This is what the letter of the law is. Kudo's for the OP to try to be nice, but that was not inforcing the law that was broken, and what he took an oath to do. It bites back.

 

Speed limit is 70 m.p.h. I clock you at 71 m.p.h. during clear dry day and you're the only one on the road. You cool with getting a ticket as long as I treat everyone the same?

 

Yes. Two tickets to the Superbowl would be just fine, Thanks for askin'!

[Brick Pilot]

I have read this thread for days now, and at times I have had to leave it, out of sheer dismay. I am a Businessman, in the operation of a business, one of the more important responsibilities of supervision and management is the expenditure of funds and resorces. In this case it is most difficult for ANYONE to convince me that this was exhibited by anyone above this officer. To start with, opening an IA investigation for THIS, involving a 14 year vetran, a Motorman. I know that no one is trying to kid me, it happened. If, as the Chief, this is all that you have for IA to do he needs to put these guys back on the street where they might do some good. Involving the crime lab for printing and processing. PLEASE...

 

At best a word from his immediate supervisor would have been more than sufficient.

 

It is nice to know that FDLE still has some intelligent people.

 

It is not that Talahassee is out in the Boone Docks, this is an issue in alot of public service departments, it is the attitude of the tax paying public that needs an adjustment, and with the attitudes exhibited here. It is still way out there, but it is going to happen.

 

John, you are appreciated, I have carried a gun and a badge, and it is a lot like the military, "Those who can do and those who can't manage. Hange in there, only 6 more to go.

[philbytx]

Yup! I know I can obtain it in the colonies but I'm too bloody cheap to pay the premium !

 

LOL

[motorman587]

I have read this thread for days now, and at times I have had to leave it, out of sheer dismay. I am a Businessman, in the operation of a business, one of the more important responsibilities of supervision and management is the expenditure of funds and resorces. In this case it is most difficult for ANYONE to convince me that this was exhibited by anyone above this officer. To start with, opening an IA investigation for THIS, involving a 14 year vetran, a Motorman. I know that no one is trying to kid me, it happened. If, as the Chief, this is all that you have for IA to do he needs to put these guys back on the street where they might do some good. Involving the crime lab for printing and processing. PLEASE...

 

At best a word from his immediate supervisor would have been more than sufficient.

 

It is nice to know that FDLE still has some intelligent people.

 

It is not that Talahassee is out in the Boone Docks, this is an issue in alot of public service departments, it is the attitude of the tax paying public that needs an adjustment, and with the attitudes exhibited here. It is still way out there, but it is going to happen.

 

John, you are appreciated, I have carried a gun and a badge, and it is a lot like the military, "Those who can do and those who can't manage. Hange in there, only 6 more to go.

Thank you Sir!!!

[upflying]

While I agree this was a nothing issue that should not have blown up like this, all law enforcement agencies are highly political environments. Not saying or implying John falls into this category but some officers for one reason or another become a thorn in the side of admin. Once you brand yourself as an instigator, hot button activator or malcontent, the tag is hard to shake. Lt's and capt's respond by putting a bulls eye on your back in retaliation.

Once a problem child is identified, he or she becomes the focus of a department project. The project includes workplace harassment in the form of forced transfers, forced shifts, forced overtime, forced undesirable assignments, passed over for promotion, no advanced officer courses, no specialized assignments and as we have seen in this thread, overzealous punishment over a minutia event.

In Ca, LEO's are provided with an attorney when fighting disciplinary action. Such legal representation is funded through an legal defense fund paid for through the officer's labor organization. I sincerely hope John availed himself of legal advice and plans to appeal the discipline.

 

[4wheeldog]

Retribution? By a police agency? Never happen.

[Skywagon]

The most unbelievabe story of all is Phils in Heathrow...Wow..unbelievable you actually eat marmite...

[philbytx]

You've never lived unless you've spread Marmite over a hot buttered crumpet

[Boffin]

You've never lived unless you've spread Marmite over a hot buttered crumpet

 

I agree with that on every level...

 

Andy

[philbytx]

Ah! And when washed down with a cup of fresh (and properly) brewed Twinings Orange Pekoe, almost a gastronomic orgasm !

 

Unfortunately Andy, there are no crumpets available here .

However, in desperation, one could, and I do use, that extremely poor U.S. substitute, the freely available "English Muffin" .

 

Extracting the urine about Marmite indeed! Bunch of Philistines

[motorman587]

While I agree this was a nothing issue that should not have blown up like this, all law enforcement agencies are highly political environments. Not saying or implying John falls into this category but some officers for one reason or another become a thorn in the side of admin. Once you brand yourself as an instigator, hot button activator or malcontent, the tag is hard to shake. Lt's and capt's respond by putting a bulls eye on your back in retaliation.

Once a problem child is identified, he or she becomes the focus of a department project. The project includes workplace harassment in the form of forced transfers, forced shifts, forced overtime, forced undesirable assignments, passed over for promotion, no advanced officer courses, no specialized assignments and as we have seen in this thread, overzealous punishment over a minutia event.

In Ca, LEO's are provided with an attorney when fighting disciplinary action. Such legal representation is funded through an legal defense fund paid for through the officer's labor organization. I sincerely hope John availed himself of legal advice and plans to appeal the discipline.

Bob,

I am one of those. I work hard and get the complaints. I have been passed over for promotions, been passed over for the swat team, kicked off motors and then this one week suspension.

 

However I believe I work for the greatest department and I continue to be productive. I love to work. I enjoy law enforcement.

 

Like I tell my friends I am who I am. I am not a yes person.

[upflying]

John, it wasn't my intention to "out" you but I've been in the business long enough to know when disciplinary action of this sort probably had political motivations.

The key to a successful law enforcement career involves two components. Hard work, 110% effort, lot's of stats, lot's of arrests, lot's of FI's, lot's of on-view reports. It's called a strong work ethic. A strong work ethic will "rock the boat" because at times it will generate complaints from the public. A strong work ethic may also generate complaints from fellow officers since your hard work makes their lazy ass "look bad". You never doubted me that you have a strong work ethic. I have that same work ethic.

The other component to law enforcement success involves ass kissing and brown nosing. You have to play the political game of sucking ass with administration. I was never good at that since I found the activity corrupt and repulsive. I was rewarded with a retirement after 30 years at the rank of 'master officer'. Yep, I never promoted and in the end that was probably a good thing.

I like the high activity of the street and was never good pushing papers in an air conditioned office. Promotion means you cease being a cop and that's not fun.

Am I on the right track John?