New Polling On The Role Of Police In Traffic Stops
Nearly two months ago, five Memphis police officers beat a 29-year-old man to death, Tyre Nichols, during a traffic stop. That killing has sparked a new round of calls for police reform around the country; and, in particular, calls to limit the role of armed police officers in traffic stops. Memphis is considering a new bill that would reclassify a half dozen different traffic infractions as minor, meaning that they would no longer warrant a traffic stop. Montgomery County, Maryland is too. So are the legislatures in California and Washington.
The proposed laws rekindle a dialogue fueled by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020, which spurred laws to limit police traffic stops for minor infractions in cities like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco—as well as statewide in Virginia. Last year, Safer Cities conducted a national poll to determine voters’ views on traffic laws and found that nearly 3-in-4 voters support banning traffic stops for minor offenses that pose no imminent safety risk like broken tail lights and outdated registration.
In light of the renewed interest in the role of police officers in traffic stops, Safer Cities conducted a new national poll in partnership with Data For Progress, that refreshes last year’s results and dives deeper into the nuances around public opinion around traffic enforcement [see methodology here].
Here are three key findings:
1. Voters would prefer to not enforce cracked windshield violations rather than to send an armed police officer to conduct traffic stops.
We asked voters to tell us what they think the best approach is for handling various traffic violations ranging from driving while intoxicated to driving a car with a cracked windshield:
A traffic stop conducted by an armed police officer
A traffic stop conducted by an unarmed civilian enforcement officer
A traffic camera or license plate reader captures the violation
Not actively enforcing the violation
Right now, in most places in America, an armed police officer is the default response for each of these traffic violations. And likely voters strongly agree that an armed police response is the best response for certain violations:
81% of voters say that an armed police officer is best positioned to conduct a traffic stop involving a suspected driving while intoxicated violation.
78% of voters say that an armed police officer is best positioned to conduct a traffic stop for a suspected reckless driving violation, for example when a person drives the wrong way down a one way street.
63% of voters say that an armed police officer is best positioned to conduct a traffic stop when a person is speeding 20 mph or more over the speed limit.
What’s striking, though, are the situations in which voters clearly do not view an armed police response as the best response. For example:
Only 17% of voters say that an armed police officer is best positioned to conduct a traffic stop for a cracked windshield.
Only 21% of voters say that an armed police officer is best positioned to conduct a traffic stop for a single burned-out brake light or taillight
Only 23% of voters say that an armed police officer is best positioned to conduct a traffic stop when a person is speeding 5-10 mph over the limit.
Only 26% of voters say that an armed police officer is best positioned to conduct a traffic stop for violations such as a noisy muffler, excessive window tint, or hanging an air freshener on the rearview mirror.
For each of these violations—a cracked windshield, a burned-out brake light or tail light, a noisy muffler, excessive window tint, an air freshener on the rearview mirror, speeding 5-10 mph over the speed limit—voters are more likely to say that “not actively enforcing the violation” is the best response than they are to say that sending a police officer to conduct a traffic stop is the best response.
2. Republicans and Democrats can’t agree on anything, but voters from both parties support state laws that would reclassify minor traffic violations so that they no longer warrant a traffic stop.
69% of voters—including sizable majorities of both Republicans and Democrats—would support “a law in the state where you live” that creates “a category of secondary vehicular code violations for traffic issues that do not pose an imminent safety risk such as outdated registration, one broken taillight, or hanging an air freshener from the rearview mirror. Under the new law, these violations would no longer warrant a traffic stop.”
3. After hearing arguments from a police chief in support of banning traffic stops for minor offenses, as well as arguments from a different police chief who opposes such bans, voters are more likely to say that the argument in support of the traffic stop ban reflects their views.
Notably, Democrats favor the statement from the police chief in support of the ban by a nearly 2-to-1 margin. Independents, too, are far more likely to agree with this position (55% to 35%). But Republicans are more likely to agree with the police chief who opposes the bans by a 53% to 40% margin. This means that after hearing the most powerful arguments against banning traffic stops for minor violations, Republican support erodes, but still sits at 40%.
Read both statements below:
