R.I. DMV to update drivers’ manual after concerns about ‘dubious’ content

Submitted by bostonglobe t3_124vij6 in RhodeIsland

From Globe.com:

PROVIDENCE — The state Division of Motor Vehicles will revise its drivers’ manual after civil rights advocates called some of the manual’s guidance dubious, condescending, and erroneous.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has raised concerns multiple times with the Division of Motor Vehicles’ official drivers’ manual that counsels drivers to teach their children to respect and speak to police officers when they see them in the community; to turn off their cellphones when pulled over; and to answer questions from police. The manual also downplayed the possibility of racial profiling, telling drivers not to assume they’d been pulled over because of their race, gender, or religion, because “All officers know that this type of traffic stop violates federal civil rights laws.”

“Traffic stops understandably create a great deal of anxiety among motorists, and while it is important that they understand their responsibilities upon being pulled over by the police, it is just as critical that they be made aware of their legal rights during those encounters,” ACLU of Rhode Island Executive Director Steven Brown said in an emailed statement. “But the DMV manual instead provides drivers with misinformation and dubious advice and, just as troubling, trivializes the legitimate concerns of Black and brown drivers about being racially profiled by police during traffic stops and searches.”

A spokesman for the DMV’s parent agency said Monday that the agency is in the process of reviewing and updating the drivers’ manual, as is done periodically.

“The section questioned by ACLU is being completely stricken,” Paul Grimaldi, of the Department of Revenue, said in an email.

94

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Proof-Variation7005 t1_je15ris wrote

>respect and speak to police officers when they see them in the community

Eh, I get why some people might be upset, but that's not really worth getting mad over

>to turn off their cellphones when pulled over

Traffic stops famously go very well when the driver starts reaching for something immediately.

>and to answer questions from police.

....did a Prosecutor write this?

>downplayed the possibility of racial profiling, telling drivers not to assume they’d been pulled over because of their race, gender, or religion, because “All officers know that this type of traffic stop violates federal civil rights laws.”

Oh, for fuck's sake.

77

DMinTrainin t1_je1m82o wrote

The turning off of cell phones is also so they can't be recorded.

49

bunnybates t1_je2eoz3 wrote

Yup. I just put my phone on vibrate and out of sight.

4

barsoapguy t1_je1vf3f wrote

I bet you on average the advice to turn off the phones would save more people than it harms.

Imagine how many people pulled over with a game playing on their phone or a movie , cop will see that and ticket for distracted driving.

I’m in favor of striking the cellphone section though because I’m smart enough so this wouldn’t affect me.

−23

Proof-Variation7005 t1_je23y6t wrote

>people pulled over with a game playing on their phone or a movie

How common do you think that really is?

​

>cop will see that and ticket for distracted driving.

If a cop sees you reaching for or using your phone after getting pulled over, they could do the same thing. This is one of those infractions that is 1000% based on the word of the cop. And, as I already pointed out, encouraging people to reach for something that might be out of the way is probably going to raise suspicion.

6

T-RevFromDaHood t1_je29sa3 wrote

I want to agree with you, but I can't. I have police in my closest circles of life. Cops say "you get rid of my discretion to assess the situation and respond accordingly, and now I HAVE to arrest you" when you record the interactions, but I see this as an unwillingness to address the very real concerns people have over interactions with the police.

Shit, RI has that Instagram judge going viral every other week for traffic court interactions. Nobody lambastes the justice system or police or even the judge for "letting someone go". There isn't backlash for recording a police interaction when it ends in a ticket, except for from law enforcement.

But now you're upset that people are learning about their constitutional rights? Make it make sense.

4

barsoapguy t1_je2eaz1 wrote

I have to wonder what kind of situation the police would be using that kind of discretion to arrest …if merely filming an interaction would require it than the initial situation must be quite severe to a lay person.

If cameras mean that they have to arrest every time then we should be promoting them and removing officer discretion to make the arrests.

People are given to mo many chances when it comes to driving these large metal boxes that can kill others.

−2

FanOfVideoGames t1_je1dqzk wrote

It was going so well, but they just had to say it

7

majoroutage t1_je28qsn wrote

Johnny knows the law. Johnny is the law. Johnny don't care about the law.

3

RosaPalms t1_je22mua wrote

I promise I started reading this with a skeptical eye, but yes, by the end the shit was quite egregious.

5

beebo_guts t1_je1yb8p wrote

Empirical evidence shows that no one in RI has ever read the drivers' manual, so no one knew it had these issues for 30 years.

39

chomerics t1_je2rb0n wrote

The ACLU did, it's one reason why they are an awesome organization.

9

luongolet20goalsin t1_je22t17 wrote

This feels like an appropriate time to remind people that you do not have to answer questions from the police.

38

majoroutage t1_je28cla wrote

When it comes to talking to the cops, every day of the week is shut the fuck up friday.

20

totoop t1_je1bv4g wrote

It would be more useful if the drivers manual focused solely on providing a plain language outline of all legal requirements instead of being a "Best Practices Guide to Prevent Hurting Wittle Piggies Feewings"

35

Proof-Variation7005 t1_je1sqr8 wrote

It'd be good to include a basic reminder of things you are not necessarily obligated to do, like consenting to searches or divulging info on where you came from/are going, etc. Hell, even something like a field sobriety test is 100% optional is something a lot of drivers might not realize

If the manual linked here is the current one, it looks like they took out the charm school bullshit beyond the basics.

7

barsoapguy t1_je1vj9v wrote

Yeah but what happens when you decline the test ?

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_je1xhr1 wrote

If they're asking you to take a field sobriety test in the first place, there's a pretty good chance your fate for the evening has already been sealed.

4

smokejaguar t1_je1zko3 wrote

You could be potentially charged with DUI: Observation, but odds are, if you're being asked to perform an FST, you are in fact inebriated, and you're just helping build a case against yourself.

3

Proof-Variation7005 t1_je55og3 wrote

> if you're being asked to perform an FST, you are in fact inebriated

I'd maybe amend that to "the police think you're inebriated"

1

barsoapguy t1_je1vrz8 wrote

I mean this pamphlet is going to be geared toward new drivers who would mostly be teens.

Instructing them to behave as if they’re adults ( common courtesy) does everyone a favor.

−1

[deleted] t1_je1i3ep wrote

As a general rule it’s probably best not to assume you’ve been profiled simply by virtue of being pulled over, but I do find it strange that they’d address such a thing in a state driver’s manual.

10

Proper_Boss523 t1_je1xq1s wrote

We're not racial profiling, i swear! Would i lie to you? Look how honest this face is

5

lom117 t1_je32vr7 wrote

They're in a uniform, how could anyone in a uniform lie?

2

SuddenlySimple t1_je1yuf8 wrote

American Civil Rights can not be ignored. Or you are giving away the whole point of America.

4

overthehillhat t1_je1sy2c wrote

In the event that anyone reads the manual - -

it is still about common sense

that should be learned from childhood

−3

Ok-Carpet-2422 t1_je1c69w wrote

Love it!! Common sense! Public needs more training!

−38

[deleted] t1_je1fxug wrote

[deleted]

29

Ok-Carpet-2422 t1_je1g76r wrote

2 way street. Most officers show respect . The public is out of control and has zero respect. It’s time to sharpen their skills. Too many punks out there.

−32

totoop t1_je1gz2e wrote

Nah piggies are getting paid to enforce laws not their fragile feelings. They want respect, they can earn it by doing their job appropriately and not getting butt hurt when people don't worship the ground they walk on.

14

[deleted] t1_je1kgkd wrote

[removed]

9

[deleted] t1_je1kkzy wrote

[removed]

−4

5XTEEM t1_je1m3vl wrote

No we need new law enforcement and gun control.

I would yawn but my jaw is already agape at the over 100 mass shootings this year which cops have failed to prevent.

5

catman1761 t1_je1njv0 wrote

So why is that a gun control problem if the cops aren’t enforcing the gun control that’s already in law… It’s a police problem

−4

5XTEEM t1_je2tw1z wrote

Are they enforcing it? I recall a distinct lack of enforcement at Uvalde for example.

Edit- misread your comment. But it doesn't take a genius to see that the same people arming the cops to the teeth are the ones fighting hardest against gun control.

−2

ChronicCumShots t1_je1qrz0 wrote

Imagine your logic but someone in charge of nukes. Oh that country was mean to me so I’m wipe them off the map even though my responsibly over a deadly arsenal requires patience and good judgment.

2