Local Police Jurisdiction on Interstate Highways

[tranquility]

sure there is but it is what it is. It just means society must police the police regarding this.

That's part of why people like Jim_Bo are valuable.

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.

Agreed. That's why I put the term in quotes.

Not sure where anybody said he was a fool for claiming such. Everybody was addressing his claim of who got the revenue and how.

I spent the most time on my post trying to think of what the dismissive attitude towards him could be called. I choose fool. I can change it.

why is an officer writing a ticket for a legit situation wrong?

It's not.

If the drivers would not break the law, they don't get tickets.

Um..you see the logical fallicy here, right?

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.

Darn that "most part".

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?

Different argument. We can talk of the criminalization of governmental revenue collection at a later time.

 

[CdwJava]

We've been here before. Local governments in CA *do* get money from it.

Yes we have, and the point even then was that while they get money it does not make up for the expense of the enforcement. It would be a very poor business model to follow.

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.

Yes, it is a line item on the budget ... so is revenue from the vending machines at city hall. Because it is there does not mean it MAKES any money. Moving citations do not ... PARKING citations do. In some jurisdictions, parking enforcement is a self-funding operation (though, not mine). There is no jurisdiction in CA that I have ever heard of where a traffic unit is funded entirely or in any significant way through the proceeds of traffic violations - there simply is not enough money there.

So, if your point is that cities in California GET money from traffic fines, sure they do. I concede that point. But, the cost in manpower tends to exceed this reimbursement. And if my city, with a low salary level cannot make money on traffic citations, how could bigger cities with base salaries 50% again my own?

- Carl

 

[justalayman]

all I am trying to say T is you come along and support Jimbo in a discussion and state that he was being unjustly ridiculed.

we did not ridicule him for the same reason you were defending him about. He made an incorrect statement, was called on it, refused to support it and then he started with insults when I simply stated that the post he brought to everybody's attention proved him wrong.

nobody argued that tickets were not an action to raise revenue.

If the drivers would not break the law, they don't get tickets.

Um..you see the logical fallicy here, right?

Quote:
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.

Darn that "most part".

and if it were a perfect world, we wouldn't need police at all. It's not a perfect world. We simply keep trying to reach that point. Until we do, we live with and deal with imperfections. They fact that some tickets are unjust does not color all police and all tickets as unjust.

 

[tranquility]

It seems as though the overriding facts are agreed upon. The interpretation of the facts is what the reader must determine.

(As to the facts of a ticket, it does seem that the precepts of the Constitution requires the State to prove up its case.)

 

[tranquility]

Sorry to add one more. Promise to shut up in this thread after this one.

So, if your point is that cities in California GET money from traffic fines, sure they do. I concede that point. But, the cost in manpower tends to exceed this reimbursement. And if my city, with a low salary level cannot make money on traffic citations, how could bigger cities with base salaries 50% again my own?

The cop is already on duty. That cost is already sunk. We need to look at the marginal cost. How much does it cost to process the ticket? Most of the studies I've seen about how the cities don't make money on tickets include the proportional cost of the officer and the car and all the other capital costs involved with the ticket. However, that calculation is only useful *before* the car purchased or the officer hired. Even then, I pointed out last time some city council decisions to add a traffic officer for the revenue.

But, from a revenue standpoint, is it better for the city for an officer to FI gang members or give tickets?

 

[CdwJava]

If the Finance Director were running the city, he might prefer the officer write PARKING tickets! One $27 parking ticket would make more for my city than 5 movers and take 1/10 the time. Larger cities with stiffer fines would find parking enforcement to be even MORE lucrative. And, the Finance Director might prefer the officer to write moving tickets rather than just drive around ... but, darn it, then there is that nasty overtime that tends to come with traffic citations and that effectively kills the incentive. One court appearance at time-and-a-half (minimum 2 hours) defeats the "profit" from about 10 citations. If you have a less than 10% contesting rate, then making a few pennies might be worthwhile. Then, of course, you have to take into account the statutory cap on reimbursements from the state that would effectively remove this incentive from many cities on or about April or May of every year. My previous department hit its cap about February or March of every year ... using the revenue enhancement theory, we should have reassigned the Traffic Division to Patrol or Parking functions at that time.

If it were about money and money alone, officers would be given chalk sticks and golf carts as THAT is where the real money exists.

Since it is the Chief, and police supervisors, that run the police department, they would prefer the officer FI the gang member as that helps to solve crimes and get criminals off the street. Then, later, when some bored officer pulls him over for a tail light out, he could have a warrant and be arrested. (Note: More arrests occur as a result of traffic stops then warrant sweeps or directed warrant details.)

The bottom line is the police department administration is not making decisions to enforce traffic laws on revenue enhancement. Maybe the bean counters at city hall like it as it defrays some small cost of operation, but that is not the marching orders the troops receive.

- Carl