Police should follow law on traffic stop policy
Acting Police Chief Thomas Stangrecki appeared to have overstepped his bounds by, in effect, instructing his officers to ignore a 2021 city ordinance that restricts traffic stops for minor violations. Either way, he and Mayor Ed Gainey, in statements last week, sent mixed signals on the policy that need to be explained.
To minimize confusion, arbitrary enforcement and allegations of bias, the public, as well as police officers, need a clear and consistent message about how traffic laws will be enforced in Pittsburgh — and why any changes in those polices should be made.
In December 2021, Pittsburgh City Council members approved, by a vote of 8-1, prohibiting officers from pulling over drivers solely for minor infractions. Several other cities, including Philadelphia, also have banned police from stopping drivers solely for secondary violations — sometimes called pretextual stops — such as a single broken taillight, one burned out headlight, or a poorly secured license.
Such stops have disproportionately targeted Black and Latino drivers, escalated risks of dangerous confrontations, and led to several high-profile wrongful deaths, including Sandra Bland in Texas, Walter Scott in South Carolina, and Duante Wright in Minnesota. Proponents of the policy argue that secondary stops can uncover illegal drugs and weapons and bolster law enforcement.
On Saturday, the Pittsburgh PostGazette reported a memo issued by Mr. Stangrecki instructed officers to follow general police policy for traffic stops, which doesn’t include the 2021 city ordinance. Mayor Ed Gainey further muddied the waters on Friday: He reaffirmed his support for restricting secondary traffic stops, but also stated the memo from Mr. Stangrecki was about “delaying the training around our new city law on secondary stops in order to make sure the training
included information about a new state law.”
The mayor’s statement is puzzling because the training document on the city’s 2021 ordinance was issued almost a year ago. No changes in state law would, by themselves, justify rescinding or delaying the policy. And in statements made last week to a radio station, Chief Stangrecki did not mention training but said officers thought the ordinance was preventing them from doing their jobs.
Officers, of course, must be able to do their jobs. But the job of a police officer falls within the parameters of the law. In Pittsburgh, city ordinance states secondary traffic stops for minor infractions are not part of a police officer’s job and, in fact, ought to be avoided. As a practical matter, with homicides rising in Pittsburgh, local police should focus more of their resources on violent crime.
If Chief Stangrecki wants to change the 2021 city ordinance, he ought to tell City Council members why it isn’t working, and recommend that they rescind or amend it, following a public hearing. But the rationale for rescinding the law must be more concrete than some officers feeling they can’t do their jobs. There needs to be some evidence, statistical or otherwise, that suggests the law is undermining public safety.
Until then, the Pittsburgh Police Department should do what it expects city residents to do: Follow the law.