Miami dade police department questionnaire

Research s and the Annotated Bibliography Double –entry research log entry for “ Miami Dade Police Department Questionnaire” by Anonymous March 17, 2011 MDPD,. ” Miami Dade Police Questionnaire.” Chapter 32 Part 1 Enforcement Profiling [CALEA 1. 2. 9]. (2011): Print. Reading Notes -racial profiling is the reason for the interview -a well worded questionnaire -A brief section of concise terminology clarifying definition and intent attached -Clear intent to stamp out blatant racial profiling -positive response from interviewee, clarity in responses Strong Response Notes An intense subject answered well Clarification of definition is very important The intent is clear, and motivations of the officer interviewed seemed clear Overall a great interview and approach -end result is the idea of racial profiling is seen as negative within the MDPD Annotated Bibliography MDPD,. ” Miami Dade Police Questionnaire.” Chapter 32 Part 1 Enforcement Profiling [CALEA 1. 2. 9]. (2011): Print. The questionnaire and chapter 32 part 1 from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., (CALEA®) both look at racial profiling. The questionnaire was well done, and showed a personal response from at least one officer currently employed by Miami Dade Police Department. The attached section from CALEA showed what lengths are necessary to gain accreditation from this external agency for a law enforcement agency. The CALEA portion defined “ Racial Profiling” according to the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners as, “ The initiation of police traffic stops primarily based on race.” (MDPD np.) It continued on to state unequivocally what is allowed and not allowed. The individual interview showed that the officer was well aware of the regulations though this officer responded to one question with the following statement. “ I do not believe that racial profiling is an issue, I do not believe it needs to be eliminated because I do not think it is being used as the sole technique to solve or deter crime.” (MDPD np.) The core approach within the questionnaire and the County regulations attached made it very clear that blatant use of race in the apprehension of suspects was forbidden. In the interview the officer stated that they are not a supporter of the use of racial profiling, however, did see that in some situations there was no choice but to use a person’s race as an identifier. The county regulations supported this in that it made clear that race was not to be used alone and then reasonable suspicion of a crime must be maintained and shown in all stops. Given the intent of the interview and the attached section of regulations it would be positive to use this as an example of a department that is committed to reducing and eventually stopping all together the use of racial profiling solely as a “ reason” for crime. It would be beneficial to gain more than one opinion and potentially interview a minimum of 10 officers from different stations and levels, simply to establish a better idea of the general consensus that is currently circulating in the Miami-Dade Police Department.