Taxpayer-Subsidized Seminars Train Cops To Violate the Constitution
A report from New Jersey's comptroller criticizes Street Cop Training for encouraging illegal traffic stops.

If a driver looks away while passing a police car, cops learn from a checklist promoted at an October 2021 conference in Atlantic City, that is suspicious. But if a driver stares at the police car, that is also suspicious. Hats work both ways too: Wearing one "low to cover [your] face" is suspicious, but so is removing a hat when you are stopped by the police. Other telltale signs of criminal activity, according to Street Cop Training's list of "reasonable suspicion factors," include texting, smoking, lip licking, yawning, stretching, talking to a passenger while keeping your eyes on the road, signaling a turn early or late, maintaining "awkward closeness" or "awkward distance" during a stop, standing parallel or perpendicular to the car, saying you are heading to work or heading home, questioning the reason for the stop, and refusing permission for a search.
That Street Cop Training checklist, which offers handy excuses for officers keen to conduct searches for drugs or seizable cash, figures prominently in a recent report from Kevin Walsh, New Jersey's acting comptroller. The report criticizes the New Jersey company for encouraging officers to make or extend stops without reasonable suspicion and for promoting a "warrior" mentality that fosters the excessive use of force. "We found so many examples of so many instructors promoting views and tactics that were wildly inappropriate, offensive, discriminatory, harassing, and, in some cases, likely illegal," Walsh said when he released the report this week. "The fact that the training undermined nearly a decade of police reforms—and New Jersey dollars paid for it—is outrageous."
Street Cop Training was founded in 2012 by Dennis Benigno, who was a Woodbridge, New Jersey, police officer until 2015. Each year the company, which Benigno describes as "one of the largest, if not the largest, police training providers in the United States," trains about 25,000 officers from agencies across the country. The six-day Atlantic City seminar that Walsh describes in his report attracted nearly 1,000 officers, including 240 from New Jersey. Their employers covered the expenses, which included a $499 fee for each officer, travel and lodging, and paid time off.
What did taxpayers get for their money? Potentially, Walsh argues, greater exposure to more expenses down the road, including millions of dollars spent to litigate and settle civil rights lawsuits. "This kind of training comes at too high a price for New Jersey residents," Walsh's report says. "The costs of attendance for training like this is small in comparison to the potential liability for lawsuits involving excessive force, unlawful searches and seizures, and harassment and discrimination."
While "some of the observations and reasoning" described in Street Cop's checklist "find support in case law," Walsh says, "others appear to be arbitrary and contradictory." Officers who follow Benigno's advice therefore may end up violating the Fourth Amendment by making or prolonging stops based on factors that fall short of reasonable suspicion. If so, any resulting searches also would be unconstitutional, making any evidence they discover inadmissible.
Beyond the checklist, Benigno suggested during presentations at the conference that a driver's refusal to allow a search can support reasonable suspicion or probable cause. For example, he showed "a montage of people refusing consent in an attempt to illustrate that a motorist's refusal to consent is a suspicious factor that justifies further prolonging an investigative detention." If you have nothing to hide, in other words, why wouldn't you let a cop paw through your possessions on the side of the road? Surely the inconvenience, indignity, and public embarrassment are a small price to pay for helping the police protect the public.
That reasoning is legally as well as logically dubious. In New Jersey, Walsh notes, "it has been long settled that the police must have reasonable suspicion of criminality before they ask for consent to search a motor vehicle." And "even outside of New Jersey, many courts have found that a 'refusal to consent to a search cannot itself form the basis for reasonable suspicion.'"
One Street Cop instructor, Hobart, Indiana, police Sgt. Kenny Williams, seems to make a practice of stopping motorists without reasonable suspicion. In Indiana, Williams noted, the speed limit for trucks is 65 miles per hour, while the speed limit for cars is 70. "There is no fucking way that any car should ever be behind a semi if they have the ability to pass it," Williams said. "When you do that," he explained, "if you are coming through Indiana, I am going to fucking stop your ass."
Another speaker at the conference, Boston police officer Tommy Brooks, suggested pulling over "20 people in a row for the sole purpose of asking them a series of questions," such as where they are coming from and where they are going. That experiment, Brooks said, would establish a "general baseline" of "how people answer questions," which the officer could later use to identify "weird" responses from other drivers. Helpful or not, the research project that Brooks recommended would be blatantly unconstitutional. "Without an objectively reasonable basis for the stop," Walsh notes, "those stops, as described, would violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizures."
Even when a driver is legally pulled over for a traffic violation, the encounter is supposed to last no longer than is necessary to complete the purpose of the stop unless the officer has enough evidence to support reasonable suspicion of other illegal conduct. At the Street Cop conference, Brad Gilmore, a narcotics detective with the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, suggested a way around that constraint: "finger-fucking" your computer or "playing Tetris." In other words, Walsh says, Gilmore "endorsed a practice of pretending to conduct a computer lookup so an officer can illegally but surreptitiously continue an investigation during a motor vehicle stop that should have already concluded."
Another trick suggested by "multiple instructors," Walsh says, involves returning at least one of the driver's documents (such as his license or his insurance card) and/or assuring him that the stop will end with a warning rather than a ticket. While those techniques might make a driver more patient or more cooperative, Walsh notes, they cannot legitimize "a stop that has been illegally prolonged."
The report also faults Street Cop for encouraging "a hyper-vigilant 'warrior' mentality" that views "every interaction with a civilian" as "a potential deadly threat." Benigno, for example, told the cops at the conference they should always keep in mind that their work could "take your fucking life in a second" and to "treat every motor vehicle stop as if you are going to die and you might just live." Throughout the conference, Walsh says, speakers "made comments glorifying violence and the application of military techniques to policing."
In September, while Walsh was conducting his investigation, the New Jersey State Police told its employees they should stop taking Street Cop courses. There was more apparent fallout on Thursday, when New Jersey prosecutors abruptly dropped drug charges against Francisco A. Paulino-Edua, who was arrested in 2017 by Gilmore, one of the Street Cop instructors. In addition to criticizing Gilmore for endorsing illegally extended traffic stops, Walsh describes him as encouraging insubordination and making light of internal affairs investigations.
"This officer's believability and credibility were so suspect that the government could not back up a prosecution based on his behavior," Paulino-Edua's lawyer, Brian Neary, told The New York Times. Neary predicted that Walsh's investigation is "going to open up a floodgate" as other cases come into question because of the policing tactics that Street Cop promotes.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“Am I being detained or am I free to go?”
How suspicious of you to ask that.
Is this anything like, "The Weinstein Sexual Harassment Seminar"?
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
The only way out is through the use of white privilege (or an unbuttoned blouse).
My sister had a cop stalking her. Pulling her over for bullshit reasons and offering to not issue a ticket if she would go out with him.
He clearly didn't know who our father was. He handed a wad of cash to the family lawyer and told him to go after the cop for harassment.
Cop lost his job in that town. Fucker moved 20 miles down the interstate and went back to harassing women.
You get the justice you can afford.
Was this the same town you were subjected to the Christian Taliban's laws in?
My sister is 9 years younger than me. In the 80s she was in grade school. By the time she was old enough to be the target of this cop it was the early 00s. The Moral Majority had discredited itself by then and biblical laws were being repealed or overturned by courts.
It's was around the time when the courts in Georgia ruled that that Intelligent Design was just Creationism in drag so it was illegal and the stickers that by law were in biology text books claiming that biology was only one of the accepted explanations for life on earth had to be removed.
By then I had done my time in the army and was living in Colorado.
I unbuttoned my shirt once during stop and they doubled the fine.
Your taxpayer dollars at work.
Is this part of the FED Talks series?
If every traffic stop is likely to end in the death of an officer why do they pull people over for stupid shit so often? Is window tint or a faulty tail light really worth a cop's life?
Nope. But they're willing to risk the driver's life on it by being ready to shoot them in an instant.
The allure of civil asset forfeiture is too strong.
Being a cop is a very safe line of work. The per capita death rate is lower than a farmer's. The danger in a traffic stop is from standing with his ass out into oncoming traffic, not from a person pulling a gun.
They also teach cops paranoid nonsense like the Tueller drill.
If a driver looks away while passing a police car, cops learn from a checklist promoted at an October 2021 conference in Atlantic City, that is suspicious. But if a driver stares at the police car, that is also suspicious. Hats work both ways too: Wearing one "low to cover [your] face" is suspicious, but so is removing a hat when you are stopped by the police. Other telltale signs of criminal activity, according to Street Cop Training's list of "reasonable suspicion factors," include texting, smoking, lip licking, yawning, stretching, talking to a passenger while keeping your eyes on the road, signaling a turn early or late, maintaining "awkward closeness" or "awkward distance" during a stop, standing parallel or perpendicular to the car, saying you are heading to work or heading home, questioning the reason for the stop, and refusing permission for a search.
Effectively, damned if you do and damned if you don't. This sort of checklist should be blatantly illegal, and it is decidedly unconstitutional.
One Street Cop instructor, Hobart, Indiana, police Sgt. Kenny Williams, seems to make a practice of stopping motorists without reasonable suspicion. In Indiana, Williams noted, the speed limit for trucks is 65 miles per hour, while the speed limit for cars is 70. "There is no fucking way that any car should ever be behind a semi if they have the ability to pass it," Williams said. "When you do that," he explained, "if you are coming through Indiana, I am going to fucking stop your ass."
Never mind that one may not be passing the truck for good safety reasons such as not cutting the truck off to reach an exit. Williams sounds like an asshole who should have his badge and gun revoked.
I recently retired after driving a semi truck for 18 years. I've driven tens of thousands of miles in Indiana with their boneheaded truck speed differential. I've observed a whole lot of drivers. In a lot of states. A lot of people simply follow at the same speed as whatever vehicle is in front of them. It's called keeping up with traffic. It's a good thing. Some people seem to like following semis in bad weather because they figure the truck driver is likely to be a safer driver. In heavy snow I always had little car hooked on my trailer bumper. Some people are not desperate to drive at the speed limit and don't want to get out in the passing lane and compete with more aggressive drivers so following a slow truck is just less stressful. Not everybody sees driving as a competition. I sure don't. If anything, all of these people are probably the safest drivers on the road. They're not weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating somebody doing the speed limit in the passing lane. They're also not doing 45 and forcing the trucks into the passing lane. The speed limit purports to be the maximum legal speed you can drive. If driving over that limit is a crime and driving under that limit is suspicious activity every driver on the road is subject to being harassed by these assholes. Which is obviously the goal.
George Carlin said that anyone driving faster than you is a maniac and anyone driving slower than you is an idiot. Thus as you drive you are simultaneously an idiot and a maniac.
1987 when I was in the Navy I was driving from Florida to Pennsylvania for leave. My Chief lent me a portable 40 channel CB radio. He told me to get with a group of trucks and let them know I was heading home on leave. Good advice. I got with a group on I-95 in Georgia and when a couple broke from the group they told me to follow them. When I left I-79 a few miles from home several airhorns blew. Did the same on the way back because of an emergency recall (USS Stark).
Don’t want to be treated like a thug, don’t exist like a thug.
The Constitution does not contain a "thug exception" to the BoR.
Perhaps you'd care to specify what "existing like a thug" means. I assume it's more than just DWB, a common "probable cause" in NJ, as we know.
Get yourself a sense of humor.
I have one. R_Mac was not, however, joking, judging by his actual words. Of course, you may think that letting the police violate the constitution for civilians who don’t treat them with sufficient respect is very funny.
No, I was joking shrike.
Still not shrike, you cunt. Yeah, well next time try and write it as one.
Don’t want to be treated like a shrike, don’t be a moron like a shrike.
Ok Pluggo.
Sullum... is there a reason you chose the two types of things that were in actuality the most suspicious to lead off with? As someone who one year was too lazy to get new tags for his license plate, I damn well watched the cop cars through my mirrors if one came up behind me closely because I was nervous about being pulled over. I also consciously chose not look at any cop cars in front of me coming the other way so as to avoid drawing attention by engaging in eye contact by any cops in the vehicle. As for the hat thing, pulling it low would be to hide your face and prevent identification. Taking it off would be either because you were planning to run and didn't want to lose it, or assuming a normal baseball cap because you hid something in the front above the brim and wanted to be able to toss it quickly. That being said, except for the concealing identity bit, and then only if the other information about whoever they are looking for matches(skin color, height etc...), none of those things should be a legitimate pretext for a stop.
So, if looking at a cop is bad and not looking for a cop car is bad, wearing a hat is bad and taking it off is bad, there's basically nothing a citizen can do to avoid being drawn into the web of the government goons.
Your life could have been free of all of that stress if you just paid the vig and put the tag on. Then could like wear your hat backwards without fear. Just trying to be helpful.
Yes... Which is a lesson I learned 19 years ago.
LEOs have no disincentives to abusing people's rights other than whatever shreds of conscience they possess. Until the pendulum on qualified immunity is reigned in, this is what we the people are tacitly approving.
Forget qualified immunity. That only protects them from civil suits, which don’t really matter anyway because the taxpayers foot the bill while the cops keep their jobs.
They need to be charged criminally, convicted, and hanged from the nearest lamp post when they abuse their power. Cops might think twice before violating our rights if they have to drive by dead officers on the way to work.
I feel the same way about Marxists. Let’s hang all your pals. Except Jeffy, as his girth makes hanging infeasible. Perhaps we can find an industrial sized woodchipper for him. Something that even an old redwood couldn’t choke.
We live in a feudal society. Only the costumes have changed. Instead of lords in fancy dress, we have politicians in suits. Instead of knights in armor with swords, we have cops in vests with guns. And just like knights of old, they serve the ruling class by oppressing everyone else.
Things haven't changed in the last 8000 years. The wealthy have the power and the normal folks are kept like mushrooms. In the dark and fed bullshit. Doesn't matter how leadership is chosen. Be it Anointed of Gawd or will of the people.
"The six-day Atlantic City seminar that Walsh describes in his report attracted nearly 1,000 officers, including 240 from New Jersey. Their employers covered the expenses, which included a $499 fee for each officer, travel and lodging, and paid time off."
The hotel, airfare/mileage, per diem and seminar fee is easily $2500 per person x 1000 attendees = $2.5 million taxpayer dollars, not including the PTO. Training should be done by the agency at time of hire.
handy excuses for officers keen to conduct searches for drugs or seizable cash
Maybe not have those things? I mean, it's an option.
Let's say you are clean, totally clean of anything that might be construed as illegal but you make the mistake of either looking at the cop or not looking at him. They pull you over. You of course tell them you have absolutely nothing illegal in your car, not even prescription drugs not in a bottle with a current active prescription. That too is suspicious so the cops call in a couple more cars, a dog unit and the media. They spread your shit all over the highway as they tear into your seat cushions because the dog acted funny in your back seat. In the end the best they find is a single seed lodged on top of your catalytic converter that looks like it could be a pot seed so they claim you could plant that seed and grow enough weed to justify charging you with intent to distribute and have what remains of your car and stuff is dragged off to the impound yard while you spend the night in jail while the seed is tested to see if it is actually a Marijuana seed.
But hey, you had nothing illegal on you. Good for you.
Is that the first chapter of your upcoming book, Things That Never Happen?
Eh. I'm not really into the fantasy genre myself. But you do you bro.
Well Ackchyually...
https://www.google.com/search?q=cop+caught+planting+evidence+in+car&rlz=1C5GCEM_enUS1071US1071&oq=cop+caught+planting+evidence+in+car&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCDczMzRqMWo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
If a cop plants drugs in your car and you consented to search, you'd best hope he was so stupid that the dash cam picks it up.
If you refused to consent to a search, there's a much better chance that your lawyer can get the evidence ruled inadmissible.
The only benefit I see to consenting to a search is that the cop is more likely to let you off with a warning for whatever infraction caused him to pull you over to begin with, rather than giving you a ticket.
I've seen reports of studies that say that military combat vets that join civilian police departments are slower to resort to force and slower to escalate the use of force than officers with only civilian law enforcement experience.
Kind of makes the whole 'military tactics' thing ironic.
His punishment should include having "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" on his forehead ... forwards and backwards so he can read it in the mirror.