police officer and a politician

[Knutselsmurf]

Good day all of you,


I have a question, please correct me if I got it wrong.


In the USA the sherif is chosen by elections.
He/she is not only police officer,
but also a politician who needs to keep the people happy to get re-elected.

Cutting costs on the TV in the prison saves monny and make the voters happy.

But installing more anti speeding cameras is very un-popular.
How does this work in the USA, can this be a conflict of interests ?



Greetings from
The Netherlands

[SnapShawt]

The majority of people are productive, law-abiding citizens who want safe and peaceful communities. They want a sheriff who will deliver this as the chief law enforcement officer in his county. Take a look at Arpaio for example. That's one tough sucker, and he continues to win elections handily. I find that obviously encouraging as it speaks to the ethos of the majority of the people he serves.

[Sierra]

I think he is a glory hound. I didn't vote for him the last time and I won't this time.

[Strijder]

Even though candidates for our local sheriff run on the Republican or Democrat ticket, the race is generally pretty a-political. They'll run based on their experience in law enforcement or law background, and political leanings are almost never mentioned.

That said, we've had Republican Sheriff's in a Democrat county for as long as I can remember... .

[ngcsubutterbar]

smurf, I don't know of a single instance where the sheriff alone was allowed to set up and operate a 'speed camera and ticket system'. Yes the sheriff is elected but he isn't the 'boss' of the rest of the county. The ones that set up those cameras are the 'mayors' or 'councilmen' types. The sheriff may or may not agree with the cameras.

[SnapShawt]

This is true butterbar. The sheriff himself wouldn't set the cameras up. He could suggest it to the county commissioners and then they would determine if and where to do so, same as a municipality with the council.

[Knutselsmurf]

The majority of people are productive, law-abiding citizens who want safe and peaceful communities.

That is the same overhere.

They want a sheriff who will deliver this as the chief law enforcement officer in his county. Take a look at Arpaio for example.

I found an artical about him in Wikipedia.
My girlfrend and I liked the text abaut Pink underwear :D

The ones that set up those cameras are the 'mayors' or 'councilmen' types.

In The Netherlands the cameras are setup by the police.
But they are not elected.
The similarity is that there are several people between those who are elected
and those who determine if and where to do so.

Thank you for the anwers so far, ;)
But where this question is also about something else ;

At manny public places such as shopping mals and railway stations, cameras are already used.
This way, the police can watch out for pickpockets and drugdealers.
I can't imagine someone (on this forum) to have an objection against this.

But, then there is a " law-abiding " citizen who, who abuses a parking place for disabled people.
The officer in the controll room obtains the tag number from the vehicle using the camera.
And writes a citation.

Over here, some people are working on a new kind of camera system for traffic survailance.
This new camera system is to be used for traffic survailance at intersections, railway crossings and so on.
The computer can read and remember tag number and the cameras can cooperate to follow a car.
Now some of the law-abiding citizens say that this is an invasion of there privacy. :confused:

.

[SnapShawt]

You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. If they put cameras in your garage or in your house, then okay you have a legitimate concern. Along a public highway or in public places? Nope.

[ngcsubutterbar]

Don't have street CCTV systems 'here' like Europe (especially the UK) has. If there are video systems, there is no 'central office' all those cameras are individually owned and operated by whomever owns the businesses and whatever security they choose to employ.

If it's a public area like for example a library, or bus station, then employees of the local government man those cameras, but here at least most of the time those aren't cameras that 'cops' sit and watch

Our government buildings 'are' watched and secured by a public safety agency, our County Marshals, they do a lot of the 'civil' law enforcement in our area, but many are still 'certified cops', but there is no 'central office' for that either. It's all done 'on-site'.

Again, for example here if we're talking about a railroad, the people responsible for those cameras would be the railroad and any security they have, not the local cops.


Malls here have cops working security as an 'extra off duty/on duty' job. Sometimes they do man cameras in stores but they are only connected to the rest of the area by radios or phones, our dispatch doesn't know whats happening there unless they're told.

I used to work at the mall, a grocery store, a couple of hospitals, and special events when I was a cop. All of that was on 'my own time' but I was a dressed and acted in an official way when doing those jobs. If I screwed off I was held liable in my 'real' job.


However, it's not like that everywhere. Quick example is Chicago, Illinois. Chicago 'does' have some CCTV/police camera systems on the streets; I'll let them answer for themselves.


As far as the 'tracking system'. If it's used for its intended purpose then no, I don't have a problem with it.

[Knutselsmurf]

As far as the 'tracking system'. If it's used for its intended purpose then no, I don't have a problem with it.

The purpose of the CCTV system is of course to catch law-braking citizens on tape who cheat a bit, or a lot.

This can be a traffic violation but also collecting indications
that someone who has a disability benefit, apparently is driving to work every morning.

So, if I want will sell such a system in the US,
Which person or agency must I then get in touch with ?

.