Proof of the "Tickets for Revenue" Scam

[EWYLTJ]

Several months ago, I told the forum about a Travesty in my hometown. My local police department was conducting speed traps and secured an illegal conviction. This was overturned after I complained and the cops admitted to the speed trap and they sent a letter to the court asking for the case to be dismissed.

Recently, I have noticed as sharp increase in LIDAR enforcement on the same state highway. My wife got a ticket (22350 - 50 in a 35) on this road on 11 November, so I got the speed survey which was conducted in May of this year. The 85th percentile was 47mph with no justification for downgrading to the 35mph speed limit. I complained again to the chief of police and the city council. I was called by the chief who agreed that the speed limit was not justified, but he had called the CALTRANS engineer and she would be sending him something. I got a copy of the memo she sent which was dated 24 November (about 2 weeks after my wife's ticket and 1 day after she was called by the chief). There was some bogus, fluffy justification and a declaration that the speed limit should be 35. I complained again stating that this memo was irrelevant because it didn't exist at the time of my wife's ticket. After much rhetoric, I finally got to discuss the issue with the chief today face to face. Here is a summary of the points he made:

1. He knows the memo did not exist at the time of the ticket, but the conditions existed... so it was ok.

2. Despite the 85th percentile of 47mph, the survey itself did justify the speed limit because it had "35" in the block labled "existing posted limit".

3. His officers had no obligation to check the survey to see if the speed limit was justified before conducting LIDAR enforcement. Although conducting a speed trap violates VC 40801, his officer did not know what the survey said and he was acting in good faith.

4. If his department had written 100 speeding tickets on this road and my wife's was dismissed because it was declared to be a speed trap... the other 99 driver's tickets should remain (including the ones not filed with the court yet) because his officers were "acting in good faith".

5. Despite the fact that the MUTCD says studies show that setting the speed limit below the 85th percentile actually INCREASES the accident rate, he thinks the speed limit which is 25% below the 85th percentile is reasonable and safe.

To top off this insanity, I have an email from a city council member that states:

I do know we are now required, due to a grant received, to ramp up traffic enforcement for the next few years (the grant that got the m/c and new lidar ) , so we have in fact issued more tickets

I have always spoken of the ticket for revenue scam. Many posters here, especially Carl, continuously preach that the local agency doesn't see any of the money from tickets. The above quote is proof positive that they actually do!!! It's just that the money is laundered through the state. The local cops write more tickets in exchange for a grant, a new motorcycle and a new lidar gun. What more proof do we need???? I really want to see Carl respond to this.

[SMBI]

You are absolutely right. While $$'s from the ticket don't neccessarily amount to many beans there are many grants available to local law enforcement to ramp up various kinds of enforcement. More recently they have been putting out officers on overtime, at least in my city, to enforce the cellphone laws here in California. Typically part of justifying the need for a grant includes showing a high number of citations within your jurisdiction ... so the more grants you get, the more tickets you write and the more grants you get.

[cdwjava]

First, I cannot speak as to what a city council person might think he knows. I had a council person tell me recently that we can hire a police officer in 30 days, and another that told me that we could tkae a 10% pay cut and take 10% time off and it would not effect our status or retirement - both assumptions were incorrect. So, when a council person indicates that something is fact I am suspicious.

Perhaps you can read the grant and the evaluation requirements (if any) for yourself.

Of course if you purchase equipment from a grant they want to see it applied towards that purpose. So, if a grant paid for a motorcycle and a lidar, they will want to see some proof that it is being used effectively. I doubt that the grant REQUIRES citations. But, since I have not read that particular grant, I cannot say. Some one-time only grants will not even require feedback other than receipts.

We have a DUI grant through OTS. It has paid for some items and some overtime. In return, we have to operate saturation patrols and DUI checkpoints. Nowhere in the requirement is there any requirement we arrest more drunks or issue more citations. However, citations DO go up during the saturation patrols because the officers are stopping more vehicles (as the DUI car has almost exclusively discretionary time as they are not subject to calls).

In another OTS grant we are looking at the numbers are based upon collisions, not based upon citations. None of the grants I have read or submitted in the last couple of years mandated or encouraged citations. In fact, I cannot recall that I had to even obtain citation information for any of them. Might they ask for citations to confirm activity using the grant, I can't say that I have seen that in the grants I recall working on. Even the Click-it-or-ticket mini grants do not require citations, though they ask for how many were issued.

Of course you will have more citations when you have a grant that emphasizes traffic enforcement. So, as in my city, if you have officers making more stops the law of averages takes effect. If 15% of stops result in citations, and the total number of stops go up, of course citations will rise.

Oh, we also get grants for gang enforcement without having to arrest mor gang members, grants for technology, grants for school safety programs, etc. While there may be some grant somewhere that uses the number of raw citations as a foundation for issuing or evaluating the grant, I do not recall any with such a requirement.

So, nothing mentioned in this councilman's statement contradicts the fact that moving Vehicle Code citations do not make a city money. As a simple fact of budgeting and revenue, citations are not a moneymaker. And, as I have mentioned, Management and Administration courses for public safety in this state do not generally raise the idea of increased moving cites to raise revenue.

I am sure that nothing I say will convince you, Jim, and I'm sorry. But, I have been involved in law enforcement budgeting matters for a decade and movers just are not a serious part of that equation.

[EWYLTJ]

First, I cannot speak as to what a city council person might think he knows. I had a council person tell me recently that we can hire a police officer in 30 days, and another that told me that we could tkae a 10% pay cut and take 10% time off and it would not effect our status or retirement - both assumptions were incorrect. So, when a council person indicates that something is fact I am suspicious.

These are technical Human Resource type questions that an elected official likely would not know. However, there is no reason to believe he wouldn't know what the terms of a grant were for.

Perhaps you can read the grant and the evaluation requirements (if any) for yourself.

It would be pretty niave to believe that the grant would overtly demand more citations in exchange for the grant. However, just because you aren't hit in the head with a 2x4 doesn't mean you have to pretend that reality doesn't exist.

We have a DUI grant through OTS. It has paid for some items and some overtime. In return, we have to operate saturation patrols and DUI checkpoints. Nowhere in the requirement is there any requirement we arrest more drunks or issue more citations. However, citations DO go up during the saturation patrols because the officers are stopping more vehicles (as the DUI car has almost exclusively discretionary time as they are not subject to calls).

You are required to ramp up enforcement... but that doesn't mean you'll be writing more DUI citations... right? C'mon... how obvious can it be?? The grant is an investment for the state. They send you grant money and you pay them dividends in fines.

Even the Click-it-or-ticket mini grants do not require citations, though they ask for how many were issued.

Well what is the underlying message there??? You report back how many citations you write and if you are performing, you'll get another grant. Do you really think you would get a future grant if you reported back that you hadn't written ANY citations??

Of course you will have more citations when you have a grant that emphasizes traffic enforcement. So, as in my city, if you have officers making more stops the law of averages takes effect. If 15% of stops result in citations, and the total number of stops go up, of course citations will rise.

And of course when citations rise, revenue for the state rises. When state revenue rises, they invest more money in the form of grants!! Do you really have to be a business major to see the basic concept of Return On Investment????

So, nothing mentioned in this councilman's statement contradicts the fact that moving Vehicle Code citations do not make a city money.

For a person who refuses to open his eyes, I'd agree with you.

As a simple fact of budgeting and revenue, citations are not a moneymaker.

Maybe not directly, but the state of California makes BILLIONS of dollars off of traffic tickets per year. If it is not a money maker, who is getting all of those dollars??

And, as I have mentioned, Management and Administration courses for public safety in this state do not generally raise the idea of increased moving cites to raise revenue.

Luckily for you and other municipalities, the state is smart enough not to be overt in demanding increasing citations. Plausible deniability seems to be the word of the day.

I am sure that nothing I say will convince you, Jim, and I'm sorry. But, I have been involved in law enforcement budgeting matters for a decade and movers just are not a serious part of that equation.

You have been involved with LOCAL budgets. However, as I said before, it is niave to think that ticket revenue paying for grants so as to generate more ticket revenue isn't merely an investment for the state. There is no man as blind as he who will not see.


So, aside from the revenue scam, You didn't comment on the mindless justification of our local chief of police for his cops conducting speed traps. I'd really like to know if others believe that a cop has no duty to ensure a speed limit is justified before he begins speed enforcement. The idea that a cop can violate the law simply because he was ignorant of the speed survey is offensive to me. I don't get to violate the law and say, "I didn't know I was violating the law, but I was acting in good faith". So, why do LEOs think they can do that??? Comment Carl????

[cdwjava]

These are technical Human Resource type questions that an elected official likely would not know.

Apparently you know different council critters than I have known. They vary in their knowledge and understanding of such things. Like I said, if you want to know the terms of the grant and its evaluation, read it.

It would be pretty niave to believe that the grant would overtly demand more citations in exchange for the grant. However, just because you aren't hit in the head with a 2x4 doesn't mean you have to pretend that reality doesn't exist.

Sooo ... if the grant does not REQUIRE more citations, and citations are not an element of the grant, more citations will inevitably result anyway? That's a wee bit fuzzy, Jim.

You are required to ramp up enforcement... but that doesn't mean you'll be writing more DUI citations... right? C'mon... how obvious can it be?? The grant is an investment for the state. They send you grant money and you pay them dividends in fines.

The dividends "the state" might get are not likely to come close to the amount of money they spend on the grant. Obviously I can't speak to their effectiveness everywhere but I know that in the four counties around here, saturation patrols result in a few more cites and a few more DUI arrests, but the checkpoints are far less effective for catching DUIs than the saturation patrols.

Well what is the underlying message there??? You report back how many citations you write and if you are performing, you'll get another grant.

If only it were that easy!

Some grants are competitive and require a demonstration of need or program development. Others are pretty much free for the taking. Looking over the grants I can find here I see that none ask for citation numbers - only crash stats and arrest stats (one for traffic safety and another for DUI). The Click-it-or-Ticket one asks for citation numbers for that offense and for other offenses, but it is not asked for in the application - it is pretty much a "ask and you shall receive" grant ... provided there is enough funds to go around.

Do you really think you would get a future grant if you reported back that you hadn't written ANY citations??

Since they don't tend to ask that question, how are they going to know? The DUI grants ask for DUI arrests and the various charges associated with DUI, but not citations.

You have been involved with LOCAL budgets. However, as I said before, it is niave to think that ticket revenue paying for grants so as to generate more ticket revenue isn't merely an investment for the state. There is no man as blind as he who will not see.

I cannot speak to the state's motives, only local motives. With few exceptions local agencies do not write tickets to generate money because they just do not do so. The exceptions are red light camera tickets, parking tickets, and municipal code violations. In these days of tighter budgets some municipalities are looking at writing citations for muni codes as opposed to state Vehicle Codes as that means more to the jurisdiction, though it takes the state out of the loop ... and, it keeps the violation of the defendant's DMV record. I know of only one city that is actually trying this (Roseville), and whether it is a benefit or not I have not yet heard.

So, aside from the revenue scam, You didn't comment on the mindless justification of our local chief of police for his cops conducting speed traps.

You didn't ask me about that.

I'd really like to know if others believe that a cop has no duty to ensure a speed limit is justified before he begins speed enforcement. The idea that a cop can violate the law simply because he was ignorant of the speed survey is offensive to me. I don't get to violate the law and say, "I didn't know I was violating the law, but I was acting in good faith". So, why do LEOs think they can do that??? Comment Carl????

Good faith is an axiom of the law and officers routinely follow it. Speed limits are one example of good faith. If the officer operates radar/lidar on a posted stretch of road he should be able to assume that someone else did THEIR job and correctly posted the street. Should he or she verify this first? Sure. It would help prevent tossed citations. My officers do that. I keep a log of currently valid surveys and the stretches of roadway where we can operate radar/lidar. But, are they REQUIRED to check this first? No. No such law exists that I am aware of. And in a major city, this would be a herculean task.

I do know that at least in one major metropolitan city (San Jose) they run radar/lidar in only a small number of intersections and approaches where they have a high concentration of collisions - 18. They do very little regular enforcement in other locales as I am told. I am similarly told that this enforcement has reduced collisions in those areas by more than 50% so it does seem to have the desired effect.

We also operate on good faith that a warrant or a restraining order or even a parole/probation record is valid. Should the officer be expected to do a speed run to the courthouse to verify the record before the warrant is served or the TRO is enforced? They have to operate on good faith that if the information is in the system that it is valid.

I would hope that if the Chief is aware that a posted limit is not supported by a proper survey and any adjustments, that they would not enforce that posted limit until the matter is properly addressed (by modification or re-posting, or whatever). But, I agree with the Chief that the officers should not be faulted for what is an error on the part of others. And, of course, if the roadway is improperly posted then the charges should be dismissed.

[HonkingAntelope]

4. If his department had written 100 speeding tickets on this road and my wife's was dismissed because it was declared to be a speed trap... the other 99 driver's tickets should remain (including the ones not filed with the court yet) because his officers were "acting in good faith".

If the other 99 drivers don't know their rights and just mindlessly pay up, they have nothing to complain about - even if they find out later that the ticket is bogus (and it's too late to file a motion to reopen the case ...not even exactly sure what the law says about that, though).

[EWYLTJ]

The dividends "the state" might get are not likely to come close to the amount of money they spend on the grant.

You have to be kidding. The state makes billions on tickets. Just buying a Lidar gun for a small city can result in a huge profit for the state. But I guess you seem to think that when you pay your fine, that money just falls into a black hole some place ant the poor state gets no benefit.

Good faith is an axiom of the law and officers routinely follow it. Speed limits are one example of good faith. If the officer operates radar/lidar on a posted stretch of road he should be able to assume that someone else did THEIR job and correctly posted the street. Should he or she verify this first? Sure. It would help prevent tossed citations. My officers do that. I keep a log of currently valid surveys and the stretches of roadway where we can operate radar/lidar. But, are they REQUIRED to check this first? No. No such law exists that I am aware of. And in a major city, this would be a herculean task.

Once again... you must be kidding!! Of course there is a law that requires an officer to know if he is conducting a speed trap:

40801. No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in
arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person
for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be
used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the
purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code.

For a cop to conduct a speed trap and use ignorance as an excuse is insulting. No civilian gets to use ignorance as an excuse... why should cops??

We also operate on good faith that a warrant or a restraining order or even a parole/probation record is valid. Should the officer be expected to do a speed run to the courthouse to verify the record before the warrant is served or the TRO is enforced? They have to operate on good faith that if the information is in the system that it is valid.

That is a horrible analogy. In the case you are talking about the cop actually looks at the warrant or the order. However, in the case of a speed trap, the cop doesn't even look at the survey. Heck, there are tons of examples where no valid survey even exists.

I would hope that if the Chief is aware that a posted limit is not supported by a proper survey and any adjustments, that they would not enforce that posted limit until the matter is properly addressed (by modification or re-posting, or whatever). But, I agree with the Chief that the officers should not be faulted for what is an error on the part of others. And, of course, if the roadway is improperly posted then the charges should be dismissed.

The officers should be faulted for what is their error/negligence.

If the other 99 drivers don't know their rights and just mindlessly pay up, they have nothing to complain about - even if they find out later that the ticket is bogus (and it's too late to file a motion to reopen the case ...not even exactly sure what the law says about that, though).

Is that really what we should expect from our government??? Prosecutions for everyone except for those who are well versed in traffic law. Since a motorist is almost always going to be unrepresented by counsel, it is even more incumbent on the state to ensure that only proper charges are brought against its citizens. Instead, they take the opposite approach. Charge them with whatever you like... they will be unsuccessful in any defense anyway...

[EWYLTJ]

Another point for HA,

Why is it ok for the cops to conduct speed enforcement under the assumption that someone else has done their jobs (i.e. speed survey and setting appropriate speed limit), but if the public pays their ticket assuming that the cops have done their jobs... then they "have nothing to complain about?"


By the way... I didn't make the title of this thread. My main point here was cops woefully failing in their responsibilities to adhere to the law, not the revenue issue (although it is interesting). I titled it something different. I'm not sure why a moderator changed my title.

[HonkingAntelope]

Is that really what we should expect from our government??? Prosecutions for everyone except for those who are well versed in traffic law. Since a motorist is almost always going to be unrepresented by counsel, it is even more incumbent on the state to ensure that only proper charges are brought against its citizens. Instead, they take the opposite approach. Charge them with whatever you like... they will be unsuccessful in any defense anyway...

Is this what we should expect from the government? Absolutely not! We should expect way better!

My point was that the people who just pay up without even a token effort to contest the charges are the reason why the system has become the way you described above. If even half of those 99 citizens went to court and had their cases tossed out after a court trial, believe me when I say the courts would instantly light a huge fire under the asses of the local police chief and the city council to comply with the law.

Another point for HA,

Why is it ok for the cops to conduct speed enforcement under the assumption that someone else has done their jobs (i.e. speed survey and setting appropriate speed limit), but if the public pays their ticket assuming that the cops have done their jobs... then they "have nothing to complain about?"

There's still the presumption of innocence and an incredibly generous set of rights afforded to every single traffic defendant in CA. If the justice system did its job perfectly, there would be no need for defense attorneys or appeals. As anyone over the age of 10 should know, the system is not perfect at all.

Like cdw mentioned, the cops did their jobs properly by stopping drivers when they observed a suspected violation and issued a ticket where they thought it was necessary. A traffic ticket is merely a notice to appear in court later in order to enter a plea to the charges against you. Just because the officer writes a ticket doesn't mean you are guilty when you give the officer your autograph. The defendant must still be found guilty in a court of law where both The People and the defendant present their case. If the defendant chooses to plead guilty rather than prepare even a token defense, then yeah, they have nothing to complain about if it later turns out the case could've torpedoed on the account of an illegal speedtrap.

[EWYLTJ]

I think the important point/focus here is not the duty or responsibility of the driver, rather that of the officer. I agree that when he writes a ticket, he is only alleging that an offense occurred. However, in doing so, he has broken the law himself. Who holds the cop accountable for violating the law? Shouldn't we expect our cops to NOT violate the law when they are enforcing the law?

As soon as he cranks up that LIDAR on a highway with an unjustified speed limit, he is violating the law. I just don't buy the argument that cops can violate the law as long as they do so "in good faith". That's just a catchy phrase intended to say, "I'm above the law".