• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Local Police Jurisdiction on Interstate Highways

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

justalayman

Senior Member
The money goes to the state... the state subsidizes the local governments. When the mob does it, it's called laundering. When the state does it, it's called appropriations.
I'm glad you are so well versed with the financial workings of my state but you are wrong. The local police do not receive state subsidies.
 


Jim_bo

Member
Did any of you kool-aid drinkers even read the article posted by Random Guy?

One of the villages that would get pinched if such a law were passed is tiny Linndale near Cleveland. The village of 117 is a notorious speed trap - a 422-yard stretch of Interstate 71 runs through it and the local police write about 5,000 traffic tickets each year.

The resulting fines, fees and costs from the mayor's court in Linndale bankroll about 80 percent of the village's $900,000 yearly budget.
 

Some Random Guy

Senior Member
Did any of you kool-aid drinkers even read the article posted by Random Guy?
Well I read it. And it makes it clear that local police were writing tickets that were adjuducated in a local court so that the local village could spend the money. Your assertion that the money goes to the state is what people are questioning.
 

Jim_bo

Member
Well I read it. And it makes it clear that local police were writing tickets that were adjuducated in a local court so that the local village could spend the money. Your assertion that the money goes to the state is what people are questioning.
Do you really think people are not smart enough to understand that when I say "state", I am using that as a universal description of government. Do you think I believe it is OK for a local municipality to rip off drivers as long as it is not the state of Ohio?? I am saying that ticket writing is intended to promote safety. However, it has turned into a billion dollar industry. It doesn't matter if it is a state (i.e. Ohio), or tiny little Linndale (population 117)... when government uses fines and traffic tickets for the purpose of bolstering its budget, they have violated the public trust. The example given is just a balatant example of that, however, it happens at all levels.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Do you really think people are not smart enough to understand that when I say "state", I am using that as a universal description of government. Do you think I believe it is OK for a local municipality to rip off drivers as long as it is not the state of Ohio?? I am saying that ticket writing is intended to promote safety. However, it has turned into a billion dollar industry. It doesn't matter if it is a state (i.e. Ohio), or tiny little Linndale (population 117)... when government uses fines and traffic tickets for the purpose of bolstering its budget, they have violated the public trust. The example given is just a balatant example of that, however, it happens at all levels.
make up your mind. In one post, you most assuredly used "state" as in the state of California, Texas, etc.

Of course the state would allow a local agency to patrol an interstate. After all, the money the local cops earn on the highway is money they won't be begging the state to provide them.
The money goes to the state... the state subsidizes the local governments. When the mob does it, it's called laundering. When the state does it, it's called appropriations

". Now you want to claim you used the term state as in "all government".

why do you believe tickets to increase revenue are wrong? If they are legit tickets, the drivers deserved the tickets. I could understand if we were talking about underserved tickets but up to now, that has not been part of the discussion.

So, by your logic, it is wrong for the police to write tickets, even if they are legit, because somebody earns revenue from them.


as to your comment about my comment being stupid;

Honestly Jimbo, coming from you, I am not insulted at all. All little kids that cannot form a coherent argument tend to resort to such statements. I simply consider the depth of the well that that statement was drawn from and, well, let's just say that we don't even need a jet pump. We are dealing with a bucket on a rope depth of well.
 

Jim_bo

Member
make up your mind. In one post, you most assuredly used "state" as in the state of California, Texas, etc.






". Now you want to claim you used the term state as in "all government".

why do you believe tickets to increase revenue are wrong? If they are legit tickets, the drivers deserved the tickets. I could understand if we were talking about underserved tickets but up to now, that has not been part of the discussion.

So, by your logic, it is wrong for the police to write tickets, even if they are legit, because somebody earns revenue from them.


as to your comment about my comment being stupid;

Honestly Jimbo, coming from you, I am not insulted at all. All little kids that cannot form a coherent argument tend to resort to such statements. I simply consider the depth of the well that that statement was drawn from and, well, let's just say that we don't even need a jet pump. We are dealing with a bucket on a rope depth of well.
I'm still trying to find a valid point here... but it must be hidden.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
There is an inherent conflict of interest when the people giving the tickets get paid by the revenue from the tickets. Especially when the vast majority of the income is earned by nothing more than the word of the person giving the ticket.

That's why "quotas" are illegal people.

The complexity of our society and its funding mechanisims attenuate the taint. Maybe enough to make things fair. But, that Jim_Bo points out the truth that the police gain benefit from ticket income hardly makes him a fool. It might not make the point he's trying to make, but the truth is not foolish.

Carl and I had a long debate on this years ago and I pointed out numerous studies and reports to point out the truth of the statement that the government makes a profit on giving tickets. I think the final result from him was a grudging maybe, but not in his city.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Tranquility, while the nebulous "government" in CA might make some money from it (though the fines and fees are earmarked for non general fund expenditures for the most part), local governments do not.

In states where local jurisdictions are allowed to make mucho dinero from their enforcement of traffic offenses, that leaves wide open the perception - if not the fact - of a corrupt system that lends itself towards deception and false arrests. I cannot speak to the system in other states, only in CA, and moving violations in CA - aside from red light camera enforcement - do not make money for the local agency. Enforcement costs a good deal more than the few dollars they might receive from every fine.

The alternative, I suppose, is that we do no assess any fines for traffic offenses.

- Carl
 

tranquility

Senior Member
As I said:
The complexity of our society and its funding mechanisims attenuate the taint.
And, to the statement:
Tranquility, while the nebulous "government" in CA might make some money from it (though the fines and fees are earmarked for non general fund expenditures for the most part), local governments do not.
We've been here before. Local governments in CA *do* get money from it. I believe that even in the budget you showed in the argument last time we found it. It was not that great as a percentage of the budget, but it was there. That was without the more general portions the first statement referred to come into play.
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
=tranquility;2312293]There is an inherent conflict of interest when the people giving the tickets get paid by the revenue from the tickets. Especially when the vast majority of the income is earned by nothing more than the word of the person giving the ticket.
sure there is but it is what it is. It just means society must police the police regarding this.

That's why "quotas" are illegal people.
I love it when people say this. It's a great sentiment but the fact that a specific quota may be illegal, that does not mean quotas are non-existent. They simply survive in a less obvious manner.

The complexity of our society and its funding mechanisims attenuate the taint. Maybe enough to make things fair. But, that Jim_Bo points out the truth that the police gain benefit from ticket income hardly makes him a fool.
Not sure where anybody said he was a fool for claiming such. Everybody was addressing his claim of who got the revenue and how.

It might not make the point he's trying to make, but the truth is not foolish.
the fact he was playing volleyball from both sides of the fence is what made him look bad. Additionally, what he was getting so much flack about wasn't that somebody received revenue from the tickets but his claim that, at one point, the state received the money and then he attempted to change his intent by claiming a different definition of "state"

Then, when I stated that RG's link supported the fact he was wrong, he started tossing out insults.

Carl and I had a long debate on this years ago and I pointed out numerous studies and reports to point out the truth of the statement that the government makes a profit on giving tickets. I think the final result from him was a grudging maybe, but not in his city
I did not see the discussion so I will take your word on it. I have a hard time seeing huge profits from the tickets though. Courts, including all the personnel and buildings and all involved costs, are not cheap.

The problem I have with jimbos premise is;

why is an officer writing a ticket for a legit situation wrong? If the drivers would not break the law, they don't get tickets. He never spoke to improperly given tickets, just tickets. I accept there are improperly given tickets but I would like to think, that for the most part, the tickets issued are legit.

As such, a person has control as to whether they are subjected to a ticket and subsequently help support whatever community the ticket it written by.

what is the problem with that?
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top