Fix-It Ticket For Missing Front License Plate

[ronc]

My son got a $10 fix-it ticket to put his front plate back on, and did so, but one of the two screws came loose and he had to remove it while he went to school. Only one day without it, and the foot patrol around San Francisco State gave him a straight $100 citation with no recourse. It seems the officer has the option of giving the fix-it ticket or the direct citation.

My concern is that the fines are getting exceedingly high, and that the checks and balances via the courts are being taken away. Even if he could go to court, they make it extremely difficult to schedule and get to, and he could spend more in parking alone in SF than the ticket would cost. And since the only excuse accepted is a stolen plate, what is the point anyway, the officer already determined it is not a fix-it ticket, and the court said it will not change that.

I'm all for officers using good judgement and trying to ease the burdens on the courts at the scene, but it seems to be going the other way and becoming a police state. His friend arrived at his car just as the 4-hour time period expired, and the officer would not let him leave, he insisted on giving him the fine for literally 1 minute over the 4-hours. I'm really starting to worry that police think they are being taken advantage of or lied to, and are responding with rediculously poor judgement, and making it harder on all concerned that are trying to abide by the rules.

Re the license plate, you will see a lot of ranting on the web about this. I can see the reason for the red light cameras to need the front plates, but they could snap a shot from the back after it passed as well. One Audi owner noted that he was only sent a rear plate since the car has no provision for a front mounting. The judge will just tell you to get large sheet metal screws and punch holes in your $70,000 Audi or BMW (or Corvette). The car manufacturers need to accomodate this somehow, but until they do, the fines should be light, until you are found and match the car without the plate running the red light, or have that non-reflective paint on your plate...

[cdwjava]

It seems the officer has the option of giving the fix-it ticket or the direct citation.

That is sometimes true. However, if the $100 was a parking violation, that is a different avenue than a traffic citation.

My concern is that the fines are getting exceedingly high, and that the checks and balances via the courts are being taken away.

Fines are a political issue as well as a legal issue. Local politicians as well as state legislators can have an effect on the fines. What has happened in recent years is that as the state has robbed local governments and courts of their funding sources, the courts have had make this up by tacking court costs on to the fines and fees levied against the perpetrator.

I'm all for officers using good judgement and trying to ease the burdens on the courts at the scene, but it seems to be going the other way and becoming a police state.

And others might disagree. If this were truly draconian, the law might allow for the impound of the vehicle. As it is, it does not.

I'm really starting to worry that police think they are being taken advantage of or lied to, and are responding with rediculously poor judgement, and making it harder on all concerned that are trying to abide by the rules.

Well, where does the cutoff occur, then? AT the proscribed time? Or should the law allow for the wiggle room? If so, what would be the point of even having the time limit?

Still, it is a political decision. And in places where parking is a serious issue, you can see that enforcement of the parking laws will be pretty strict. People in New York City and San Francisco get hit pretty hard on parking violations. That's an unfortunate cost of doing business or living there. If the people that reside there want to change things, they need to appeal to their local politicians for a change in the law or a change in department policies for parking or traffic violations.

Re the license plate, you will see a lot of ranting on the web about this. I can see the reason for the red light cameras to need the front plates, but they could snap a shot from the back after it passed as well.

No you can't - bad angle if the vehicle is turning. Plus, this was the law in CA long before these cameras were in vogue. Much of it has to do with identification of the vehicle from front or back.

One Audi owner noted that he was only sent a rear plate since the car has no provision for a front mounting.

CA sends two plates. He may have chosen only to mount one, but unless the DMV messed up, they sent him two.

The judge will just tell you to get large sheet metal screws and punch holes in your $70,000 Audi or BMW (or Corvette). The car manufacturers need to accomodate this somehow, but until they do, the fines should be light, until you are found and match the car without the plate running the red light, or have that non-reflective paint on your plate...

Maybe the consumers should get on top of the manufacturers, then. I have been a peace officer in CA for 15 years and two plates have been required since long before that! How much time should the manufacturers be given? And is it the state's responsibility to tell manufacturers to add this? I suppose the state could prohibit the sale of these luxury cars in CA ... but, then, people would buy them out of state and they'd be right back in the same boat.

There ARE ways to mount these plates. And having friends with these same classic cars, I know there are good alternatives to mounting plates without hacking up the car.

- Carl

[chuckycheese]

I just bought a new BMW and had to sign a statement at the dealership stating that I knew that a front plate was required. Like so many traffic laws, it is arbitrarily enforced. You see very few front plates on BMW's....and virtually none on Corvettes.

When my new car gets here, I'll put on the front plate....I want as little to do with those people as possible (and so far, I've done very, very well!)