Executives are raising alarms about a proposal from Los Angeles City Hall that would remove police officers’ power to arrest drivers for traffic violations, suggesting instead that civilians take on this responsibility. They describe the plan as “extremely dangerous.”
On Wednesday, the City Council voted unanimously, 14-0, to support a scaled-back version of the initiative aimed at regulating pretext traffic stops.
This shift seems to tighten what police can do regarding arrests, but it also opens doors for more radical changes, potentially allowing unsworn officers to assume control.
The Los Angeles Police Protective League shared concerns on Thursday, labeling the proposal as “deadly,” warning it could transform the city streets into “demolition derbies.”
Speaking at City Hall, City Council President Marquise Harris-Dawson called the new traffic stop policy a “moral shift” and suggested further adjustments could be on the horizon.
A spokesperson remarked, “Many uninformed activists think unsworn peace officers can legally detain drivers for traffic violations. This isn’t just incorrect; it could be quite hazardous. If we stop enforcing traffic laws, we might see a spike in accidents, turning streets into demolition zones.”
Wednesday’s decision diluted what some city leaders have been advocating for since the rise of the anti-police movement in 2020.
Harris-Dawson initially proposed a plan to divide control over traffic enforcement, aiming to relieve the LAPD from managing minor infractions like broken taillights and expired registrations, as well as more serious issues like crash responses and driving under the influence.
Rather than relying on police, they intended to enhance the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s role, introduce automation in enforcement, and possibly give power to unarmed civilian officers.
Harris-Dawson characterized this as a moral progression, describing the use of armed responses for minor issues as “barbaric” and “entirely uncivilized.”
However, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell has argued consistently for the necessity of police traffic stops in combating illegal gun circulation, gang activities, and drug trafficking.
The initial proposal faced difficulties right away, primarily failing to address crucial questions, like how civilian officials would handle situations of suspect resistance.
By the time the council voted, many of the more ambitious suggestions had been moderated, and the goal of establishing a force of non-police traffic officers was removed, at least for now.
The plan that passed restricts police actions to instances where equipment violations pose a clear public safety threat, with the added requirement for officers to justify their actions through body cameras.
Still, Harris-Dawson referred to this as merely a “down payment,” prompting worries that more expansions could come.
Now, this motion moves on to the Police Commission for further consideration.
