By Caleb O. Brown
Snitch Contributing Writer
"Must be a full moon."
That’s a common refrain among nurses, police officers and observers of crime or other unusual human behavior. Even among reporters, listening to police scanners and watching the wires can often make one believe that the full moon might be responsible for the violent or otherwise odd things that people do.
For believers in the moon’s ability to affect human behavior, a full moon explains a whole host of voluntary and involuntary actions: expectant mothers going into labor, criminals running rampant, emboldened drunks wandering the streets, increased domestic violence and assault, increased homicide and the resultant increase in emergency room visits and hospital admissions.
We all know that the phase of the moon affects the tides, (fewer people know that it’s the gravitational relationship between the moon and the Earth that makes some of it happen). Sir Isaac Newton explained all of that to us back in the 1600s. Believers in the moon’s effect on human behavior say we’re all regularly affected by the changing phases of the moon, and those same ocean-moving gravitational forces may very well be responsible.
Astrologer and author John Townley has written that murder rates in at least one study wax and wane with the phases of the moon, that another study found levels of postoperative bleeding following a similar pattern and that more babies are conceived as a new moon becomes a full moon than otherwise.
And, at least historically, astrologers aren’t the only people who have sought to explain human behavior through the movements of heavenly bodies. A 19th century economist, William Stanley Jevons, was convinced that economic cycles coincided with sunspot activity and wrote extensively to plead his case. In the last century, economist Henry Moore formed a theory of economic cycles based upon the position of Venus in the sky. Both theories have since been refuted.
But the belief that a full moon yields strange behavior is by no means limited to astrologers — economic or otherwise. Police and health care professionals routinely believe that a full moon in the sky means a busy graveyard shift for everyone on duty.
Everybody knows
“It’s just common knowledge around here,” says Cpl. Dennis Cunningham with the New Albany Police Department. “It’s just a busier time around a full moon. More crazy stuff goes on during a full moon than at other times.”
Kentucky State Police dispatcher Kim Lewis agrees. She has “no earthly idea” why the full moon has such an impact, but she’s sure it does.
Citing an unusual number of strange reports from the field, Lewis says, “Phone-call volume is higher for about three days surrounding a full moon. We get a wider variety of calls, too.”
Some teachers have noted that their students pay less attention and are a bit more rowdy during a full moon. Lynne Huckleberry teaches sixth grade math at Moore Middle School and she says most of her colleagues can spot a full moon just by observing student behavior.
“They’re more rambunctious during a full moon. We (teachers) can walk down the hall and tell that there’s a full moon. I don’t know if there’s a scientific basis for it or not, but we can tell.”
Nurses at Baptist Hospital East agree that there is just something about a night with a full moon, whether it be in terms of the variety of afflictions or the volume of women in labor.
Paula Gelhausen is a nurse manager in Labor and Delivery at the hospital. She says she sees the pattern every time a full moon comes around.
“We’re used to it,” she said.
“You just anticipate and know that during a full moon you’re just going to be busier.”
Most of Gelhausen’s colleagues across the nation hold the same belief, that lunar cycles impact the number of expectant mothers in labor and therefore the pace of the workday. Connie Cuadros, a charge nurse in the same department, agrees.
“When I see the big full moon at night, I’m thinking that I’d better get some rest,” she says. “Pregnant ladies are anticipatory of a full moon because they know that’s the night they might go into labor.”
Cuadros says the department doesn’t keep data on the statistical difference between full-moon nights and other nights. Gelhausen says no staffing decisions are made based on lunar cycles.
Lt. Col. Mike Helm with the New Albany police was an orderly at Floyd Memorial Hospital before becoming a police officer. Combined, he has 25 years of experience observing the changes in human behavior during the full moon.
“It just brings out the worst in people,” Helm says, stressing that violent crimes like rape and assault are more numerous under full moons than at other times of the month.
Helm doesn’t recall specific full moons in the past when crimes may have occurred, but he’s confident that the trend would be easy to document.
“Statistics will probably bear that out,” he said.
In fact, statistical evidence does not support any of the preceding claims.
Where there’s smoke...
Louisville Fire officials took a quick look at data for the previous two full moons and found nothing that made full moons look suspicious.
Lt. Col. Tom Carroll is assistant director of Operations. He says the moon has not been shown to have any impact on the number of runs that firefighters make.
“We found that whether or not there was a full moon had no bearing on the number of runs made by fire crews on those days,” he said, adding that factors like day of the week and storm damage largely determine the range of runs made.
Carroll says he doesn’t buy the full-moon hypothesis.
“I’ve never noticed it,” he said. “One day is just like another, regardless of whether the moon is full.”
But fires are often random. They are not always acts of humans, but acts of nature.
What about hospital visits?
Baptist Hospital East uses a statistical package called LogiCare, which allows the hospital to track patients from minute to minute, from the emergency department to longer-term care. The program allows the hospital to adjust levels of staffing based upon various factors contributing to a need for additional or reduced staff at regular times.
Susan Domagala says the moon plays no role in any staffing decisions, and for good reason.
“We have not identified a statistical correlation between patient volumes or types based on the phases of the moon,” she said.
Domagala examined data on admissions, particular complaints like depression or alcohol abuse, ambulance transfers and many other factors.
She found no correlation between any of those things and phases of the moon.
Nearby Jewish Hospital had similar results for emergency room visits. Jeff Polson is a spokesman for the hospital.
“Our emergency department reviewed four months of emergency room data,” Polson said. “They did not find a trend. There is no notable difference between full moons and any other night in the number of people presenting at the emergency department.”
Pygmalion effect?
Jack Fletcher directs Eastern Kentucky University’s planetarium.
He says the evidence for the theories surrounding the full moon simply doesn’t exist.
“When you look at the statistical evidence, it’s not there. The statistics do not bear out that there’s any more crime or that more babies are born during the full moon,” he said.
Fletcher says some myths that are widely believed are examples of the Pygmalion Effect, or the idea that perceived outcomes are often shaped by our expectations. If we expect to be busier during full moons, we might subconsciously seek out evidence to bolster our belief that full moons cause us to be busy. Presto! The outcome is one we expect based upon the beliefs we hold.
Iain Murray is director of research at the Statistical Assessment Service (www.stats.org).
Said he: “Every time someone has done a proper review of activity in emergency rooms or criminal activity associated with phases of the moon, they found no difference, whether the moon was full or waxing or waning.”
Murray says that when the moon isn’t full, you don’t make the correlation between crime (or childbirth or emergency room visits) and the moon and vice versa.
When the moon isn’t full, he says, “It just won’t stick in your memory. That’s the problem with these things. That’s why when they do scientific studies they can’t find any correlation at all.”
If it’s any consolation, consider this: Although none of the researchers could find a relationship between the moon and human behavior, all of them say that doesn’t conclusively prove there isn’t a relationship.
Some things don’t show up on statistics, they say.
Thursday, August 22, 2002
Saturday, June 01, 2002
Your Rights
By Caleb O. Brown
SNITCH Cincinnati Contributing Writer
June 2002
No one likes flashing blue lights, especially on a lonely night through the rearview mirror. Your sweaty palms and racing heart are preparing you for the worst.
But why? You haven’t done anything wrong.
The officer approaches a few minutes later and asks for the license and registration that you’ve been thumbing for the last several minutes. He takes them and asks if you know why he pulled you over.
You swallow and offer a meek, “No, sir,” as another cruiser pulls up behind the first one.
“Your taillight was out,” he says, tapping your license between his fingers. You sigh, loosen your grip on the wheel and relax. The other officer runs a beam of light across the interior of your back and front seats.
The officer then adds, “You mind if we look in the trunk?”
You feel a bit insulted and unjustly suspected, but because you want this situation to end, you oblige and allow the officers to prod several other parts of your car as well. One officer even pats you down. You watch blandly, wanting to ask them to please leave, but you stay silent. After all, they’ve got the badges and guns.
The disappointed officers end the search, thank you for your time and send you on your way. The tightness in your chest and profuse sweating haven’t subsided and you’re furiously trying to think about how you could have, should have, handled that situation without feeling so powerless.
Pop quiz: When did you waive your right to say “no”? Did you consent to the seizure and subsequent search? Did the police violate your rights at all?
If you’re like most people, you don’t know what rights you have during a traffic stop. What’s more, you probably wouldn’t stand up for them if you were a criminal law professor.
Christo Lassiter teaches criminal law at the University of Cincinnati’s School of Law. He’s felt like kicking himself more than once after consenting to various minor invasions during a traffic stop.
He says the power differential between the police and lone citizens is so great that drivers — innocent and guilty — alike consent to things even when they know that they are waiving their rights.
“In the two times I was pulled over, I found myself consenting and hating myself for it,” Lassiter says. “Police are trained to exploit traffic stops for maximum benefit. Lack of knowledge of your rights isn’t the reason people consent.”
Lassiter contends that when an officer asks for your consent, they do so in such a way that draws no distinction between the reason for the stop — such as a broken taillight, rolling through a stop sign — and a “fishing expedition.”
Lassiter says that once an officer has investigated the reason for the stop, “You’re on consent time” with regard to the questions that follow.
“If a law enforcement officer stops you for a busted tail light, and he’s finished investigating that tail light, his authority is over,” Lassiter says.
He says officers are trained to get consent by making a concealed leap from “legal investigation time” to “consent time.”
“It’s a seamless transition,” he says. “Absolutely seamless. I’ve got videotape of the (Ohio vs.) Robinette case, and you simply can’t tell where you switch from the initial reason for the stop — going 55 in a 45 zone — to a narcotics check.”
Ohio vs. Robinette
Sometimes it’s great to live in Ohio. Across the river in Kentucky, that “seamless transition” from the reason for the stop to the “fishing expedition” is a routine matter for police. The subtle transition is one that often gives police the chance to poke through a citizen’s passenger compartment, trunk or unlocked glove box.
In Ohio vs. Robinette, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require that police give any kind of “warning” or say, “You don’t have to allow this,” before seeking consent to search your car.
That made Ohio prosecutors happy. Luckily for Ohio motorists, that wasn’t the final word.
Ohio Supreme Court justices found that while police officers need not give warning, the officers must “clearly demonstrate” that a motorist would feel free to go before an officer requests such a search.
In other words, immediately after you decline to allow police to rummage through old Dr. Pepper cans and sticky straws, you can start up your car and go about your business. In that particular circumstance, Ohio is the exception, not the rule.
Shorten the stop
It’s a pretty simple process to avoid a stop, but sometimes the basics are easy to forget. Even if you have your papers in order, you may not be able to avoid the long, and sometimes annoying, arm of the law.
When an officer stops you, he’ll immediately ask for your license and registration. If your registration isn’t with you, the officer may reasonably ask, “Is this your car?”
It’s best to avoid that line of questioning altogether. Thus, it’s probably a good idea to keep those two items handy, along with making sure your car has the proper tags and all your lights and blinkers are in proper working order.
The American Civil Liberties Union produces what it calls a BustCard, a short explanation of your rights and recommendations for making your visit with The Man go a little more quickly.
Among the recommendations, the card suggests that you make it crystal clear to the officer that you do not consent to any kind of search of your vehicle. That way, if something illicit is discovered, it’s inadmissible in court.
It’s easier than you might think to make the police stop short and sweet without — out of a desire to cooperate — giving up your rights.
Lassiter says that when the police ask for license and registration, the motorist should respond, “Here you go officer, but I don’t consent.”
He believes it’s more important that you speak the “no consent” declaration many times, clearly, and at the beginning of the conversation so that there can be no question or confrontation on the matter later. Lassiter goes so far as to recommend that drivers practice so that it will be easier to refuse consent should the occasion arise.
“If you can actually voice those words, you might actually win something in that dynamic, but it’s really hard to get that out,” he said.
The ACLU’s Bustcard states, “If you’re suspected of drunk driving (DWI) and refuse to take a blood, urine or breath test, your driver’s license may be suspended.”
Terry Cosgrove, of the Cincinnati Law Department, advises police on such matters. He says refusing a breathalyzer test will get your driver’s license suspended, but it’s not a criminal penalty.
“In other states, refusing a breathalyzer test is a fourth-degree misdemeanor,” Cosgrove said. “In Ohio, it’s not a separate crime.”
This is routine?
Before you start denying consent left and right, though, it’s important to note what police can make you do during a routine traffic stop. A series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings have boiled down to a series of powers police do have, balancing the interests of public safety against Fourth Amendment protections.
Police can order a driver out of the car during a routine traffic stop. Police may frisk a passenger or order passengers out of the car, but cannot compel passengers to identify themselves. Police do not need to advise you of any of your rights unless you are arrested.
If you are arrested, police can search the available portions of your vehicle, including the available portions of the passenger compartment and — if it’s unlocked — the glove box.
Roadblocks
Police can pull you over for one of three reasons: probable cause, which means they have observed you committing a crime; reasonable suspicion, which means that, more than likely, you have not committed a crime, but you might have. It’s a lower, less definite, standard.
Or, in the case of a roadblock, police can pull you over for no reason at all.
Thankfully, in Ohio, police don’t engage in drunk-driving checkpoints, but it’s a matter of procedure for officers rather than mandate from the law books.
Cosgrove says police don’t use roadblocks because police “didn’t find it was that effective.”
He says the police department found that individual officers, for example, could take more drunk drivers off the road than the same number of officers working one roadblock.
Still, roadblocks go on all the time, but rest assured that during a roadblock, your car will not be targeted, Grateful Dead sticker or not. Officers conducting checkpoints are not allowed to use any discretion in choosing which cars are stopped at the checkpoints. This helps eliminate allegations that officers are profiling motorists.
A procedure could be “every second car, every third car … a procedure where every car is treated the same,” Cosgrove says.
But roadblocks generally seem to be constitutional, at least for drunk drivers.
Police — in the interest of public safety — can require a motorist stopped at a roadblock to step out of the car, provide “lung samples,” and undergo a field sobriety test.
Lassiter stresses that when an officer pulls you over, he or she is not there to give you a lesson in your rights.
Regardless of what the courts have decided, he said, police exist to investigate, stop and prevent crime.
SNITCH Cincinnati Contributing Writer
June 2002
No one likes flashing blue lights, especially on a lonely night through the rearview mirror. Your sweaty palms and racing heart are preparing you for the worst.
But why? You haven’t done anything wrong.
The officer approaches a few minutes later and asks for the license and registration that you’ve been thumbing for the last several minutes. He takes them and asks if you know why he pulled you over.
You swallow and offer a meek, “No, sir,” as another cruiser pulls up behind the first one.
“Your taillight was out,” he says, tapping your license between his fingers. You sigh, loosen your grip on the wheel and relax. The other officer runs a beam of light across the interior of your back and front seats.
The officer then adds, “You mind if we look in the trunk?”
You feel a bit insulted and unjustly suspected, but because you want this situation to end, you oblige and allow the officers to prod several other parts of your car as well. One officer even pats you down. You watch blandly, wanting to ask them to please leave, but you stay silent. After all, they’ve got the badges and guns.
The disappointed officers end the search, thank you for your time and send you on your way. The tightness in your chest and profuse sweating haven’t subsided and you’re furiously trying to think about how you could have, should have, handled that situation without feeling so powerless.
Pop quiz: When did you waive your right to say “no”? Did you consent to the seizure and subsequent search? Did the police violate your rights at all?
If you’re like most people, you don’t know what rights you have during a traffic stop. What’s more, you probably wouldn’t stand up for them if you were a criminal law professor.
Christo Lassiter teaches criminal law at the University of Cincinnati’s School of Law. He’s felt like kicking himself more than once after consenting to various minor invasions during a traffic stop.
He says the power differential between the police and lone citizens is so great that drivers — innocent and guilty — alike consent to things even when they know that they are waiving their rights.
“In the two times I was pulled over, I found myself consenting and hating myself for it,” Lassiter says. “Police are trained to exploit traffic stops for maximum benefit. Lack of knowledge of your rights isn’t the reason people consent.”
Lassiter contends that when an officer asks for your consent, they do so in such a way that draws no distinction between the reason for the stop — such as a broken taillight, rolling through a stop sign — and a “fishing expedition.”
Lassiter says that once an officer has investigated the reason for the stop, “You’re on consent time” with regard to the questions that follow.
“If a law enforcement officer stops you for a busted tail light, and he’s finished investigating that tail light, his authority is over,” Lassiter says.
He says officers are trained to get consent by making a concealed leap from “legal investigation time” to “consent time.”
“It’s a seamless transition,” he says. “Absolutely seamless. I’ve got videotape of the (Ohio vs.) Robinette case, and you simply can’t tell where you switch from the initial reason for the stop — going 55 in a 45 zone — to a narcotics check.”
Ohio vs. Robinette
Sometimes it’s great to live in Ohio. Across the river in Kentucky, that “seamless transition” from the reason for the stop to the “fishing expedition” is a routine matter for police. The subtle transition is one that often gives police the chance to poke through a citizen’s passenger compartment, trunk or unlocked glove box.
In Ohio vs. Robinette, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require that police give any kind of “warning” or say, “You don’t have to allow this,” before seeking consent to search your car.
That made Ohio prosecutors happy. Luckily for Ohio motorists, that wasn’t the final word.
Ohio Supreme Court justices found that while police officers need not give warning, the officers must “clearly demonstrate” that a motorist would feel free to go before an officer requests such a search.
In other words, immediately after you decline to allow police to rummage through old Dr. Pepper cans and sticky straws, you can start up your car and go about your business. In that particular circumstance, Ohio is the exception, not the rule.
Shorten the stop
It’s a pretty simple process to avoid a stop, but sometimes the basics are easy to forget. Even if you have your papers in order, you may not be able to avoid the long, and sometimes annoying, arm of the law.
When an officer stops you, he’ll immediately ask for your license and registration. If your registration isn’t with you, the officer may reasonably ask, “Is this your car?”
It’s best to avoid that line of questioning altogether. Thus, it’s probably a good idea to keep those two items handy, along with making sure your car has the proper tags and all your lights and blinkers are in proper working order.
The American Civil Liberties Union produces what it calls a BustCard, a short explanation of your rights and recommendations for making your visit with The Man go a little more quickly.
Among the recommendations, the card suggests that you make it crystal clear to the officer that you do not consent to any kind of search of your vehicle. That way, if something illicit is discovered, it’s inadmissible in court.
It’s easier than you might think to make the police stop short and sweet without — out of a desire to cooperate — giving up your rights.
Lassiter says that when the police ask for license and registration, the motorist should respond, “Here you go officer, but I don’t consent.”
He believes it’s more important that you speak the “no consent” declaration many times, clearly, and at the beginning of the conversation so that there can be no question or confrontation on the matter later. Lassiter goes so far as to recommend that drivers practice so that it will be easier to refuse consent should the occasion arise.
“If you can actually voice those words, you might actually win something in that dynamic, but it’s really hard to get that out,” he said.
The ACLU’s Bustcard states, “If you’re suspected of drunk driving (DWI) and refuse to take a blood, urine or breath test, your driver’s license may be suspended.”
Terry Cosgrove, of the Cincinnati Law Department, advises police on such matters. He says refusing a breathalyzer test will get your driver’s license suspended, but it’s not a criminal penalty.
“In other states, refusing a breathalyzer test is a fourth-degree misdemeanor,” Cosgrove said. “In Ohio, it’s not a separate crime.”
This is routine?
Before you start denying consent left and right, though, it’s important to note what police can make you do during a routine traffic stop. A series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings have boiled down to a series of powers police do have, balancing the interests of public safety against Fourth Amendment protections.
Police can order a driver out of the car during a routine traffic stop. Police may frisk a passenger or order passengers out of the car, but cannot compel passengers to identify themselves. Police do not need to advise you of any of your rights unless you are arrested.
If you are arrested, police can search the available portions of your vehicle, including the available portions of the passenger compartment and — if it’s unlocked — the glove box.
Roadblocks
Police can pull you over for one of three reasons: probable cause, which means they have observed you committing a crime; reasonable suspicion, which means that, more than likely, you have not committed a crime, but you might have. It’s a lower, less definite, standard.
Or, in the case of a roadblock, police can pull you over for no reason at all.
Thankfully, in Ohio, police don’t engage in drunk-driving checkpoints, but it’s a matter of procedure for officers rather than mandate from the law books.
Cosgrove says police don’t use roadblocks because police “didn’t find it was that effective.”
He says the police department found that individual officers, for example, could take more drunk drivers off the road than the same number of officers working one roadblock.
Still, roadblocks go on all the time, but rest assured that during a roadblock, your car will not be targeted, Grateful Dead sticker or not. Officers conducting checkpoints are not allowed to use any discretion in choosing which cars are stopped at the checkpoints. This helps eliminate allegations that officers are profiling motorists.
A procedure could be “every second car, every third car … a procedure where every car is treated the same,” Cosgrove says.
But roadblocks generally seem to be constitutional, at least for drunk drivers.
Police — in the interest of public safety — can require a motorist stopped at a roadblock to step out of the car, provide “lung samples,” and undergo a field sobriety test.
Lassiter stresses that when an officer pulls you over, he or she is not there to give you a lesson in your rights.
Regardless of what the courts have decided, he said, police exist to investigate, stop and prevent crime.
Thursday, May 09, 2002
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)