A New (Hillarious) Low

[bing_oh]

The question then is perhaps: How much influence can politicians- and by that I mean politicians at all levels who may also exert their influence through grant moneys- have on the operating poicies of police departments?

My outsider's perspective is: A whole bunch.

In my experience, politicians realistically have very little direct influence on the operation of a police department. Of course, that depends a great deal on the administration of the individual PD as well. A stong, independent chief of police will tend to run his department as he sees fit, not as the politicians want him to. A weak chief will bend more easily to the political will. And, unfortunately, there are politics in law enforcement. It's really a matter of degrees.

When it comes to grants, it really depends on from whom and for what the grant is obtained. In my experience, grants are usually applied for by the department, not by the city. Yes, such grants must be approved by the city (especially when "matching monies" must be contributed by the city for approval of the grant), but the specifics on what the grants pay for tend to be spelled out in the grant AND (depending on the type of grant) at the whim of the department. Some grants are much more open and flexible than others. The only traffic-specific grants I've ever seen are related to seatbelt and DUI enforcement.

Yes, but whose idea was it to make the grant in the first place, and whose idea was it to apply for and conform to the requirements of said grant?

The grant is usually made either by the state or the federal government for the use of local departments. I suppose that most, if not all, grants were at one time or another a political creation. However, many of those grants have been in existance for so long that they hold very little in the way of political undertones anymore. And, as I said, in my experience it's the choice of the department, not the politicans, whether to apply for a grant.

[etypejohn]

As for the article, I noticed that there were alot of references to "city officicals," "mayors," and various other politicians. I won't say that politicians don't see traffic citations as a form of revenue...politicians are greedy little creatures who would, for the most part, steal the fillings from a dead man's teeth if they could make a buck off of them. So, do politicians see dollar signs in traffic tickets? You're damn right they do! But, they see dollar signs in pretty much everything!

The question for debate wasn't if politicians wanted to make money off of traffic tickets, it was if law enforcement used traffic enforcement as a form of revenue. I can say, from my personal experience and from what other officers I know have told me, that law enforcement has no interest in using traffic enforcement as a revenue-generator. Speaking from a patrolman standpoint (ie, I'm not the brass, I'm just the worker bee), there's absolutely no reason for me to even care about the revenue generated (if any) from the citations I write. I don't get a bonus. I don't get a better car or better equipment. Whether I write 1 ticket ot 1000, I still have to come in and do my job every day. I suppose that there are oddball departments that reward their officers for high citations numbers, but they're so rare as to nearly be things of urban legend!

Just for clarity I was not arguing that the police departments themselves were behind using tickets to generate revenue.  I assumed it was understood that the police departments are under direction of local governments and it was that local government that asks the police dept to start issuing more tickets.  I could search the news archives here in Houston and show that it has been done here and I suspect Houston is not unique in that respect.

I would be quite surprised if the average chief of police or whatever title is appropriate, is willing to tell the mayor or city council "no" if he is asked to tell his officers to write more tickets.  I suspect in many jurisdictions the chief of police wouldn't last too long if they did that.   

[James Young]

bing_oh writes:

. . . so enforcement is preferable, but finances and manpower limit many departments in their ability to do that enforcement.

Why don?t they just do NO enforcement?  LAPD is very small force (10,000) covering over 1,000square miles and 10+ million people.  They do very little traffic control and speed enforcement is unheard of.  Yet, LA has an extremely low fatality rate even though freeway speeds can be 80+ mph.  The other night, I merged onto the 15 at 95 mph, faster than usual but right with traffic and without incident.

And finally, while I'm not sure why I'm doing this again, I will...traffic enforcement isn't about revenue. When you add together the gas money spent, the officer's pay, and the vehicle maintenance costs, the vast majority of departments are LOSING money doing traffic enforcement.

I have no doubt that you sincerely believe what you write but the facts just don?t support you.  Whether the equipment is used to generate revenue or not, it is a sunk cost; therefore, if it can be used to generate a few hundred thousand a year, all the better.  Many jurisdictions are openly admitting that they want to increase revenues through the use of traffic fines, pronounced ?speeding? since it is so common and is the low hanging fruit.

As etypejohn pointed out, your department will exist with or without ticket money.  There are thousands of little villages, a dozen or so along US 69 through Oklahoma, whose sole source of revenue is traffic fines.  Typical of these is the infamous little village of Stringtown, where unemployment is 25%-50% and median income is $19,643 for males and $14,861 for females.  Household median income is just over $20K.  The government IS the police force; the mayor is the judge.  Absent those tickets, they cease to exist as a government.  They provide no city services other than a small park.  They handle no criminal calls, leaving that for the Atoka County Sheriff.  Tell me again how legitimate they are.  Yet, they have just as much authority to extract money from citizens as you do.  Oh, you?re POST-certified; they?re not.

[bing_oh]

Why don’t they just do NO enforcement?

"...protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution and the laws of the State of Ohio..."

That's from my oath of office. You want the simple answer? There it is. I swore to uphold the laws and that includes the speed limit. You want any other answer? Talk to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (as opposed to the executive branch, which I'm a part of) that creates the law.

[hounddog]

"...protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution and the laws of the State of Ohio..."

That's from my oath of office. You want the simple answer? There it is. I swore to uphold the laws and that includes the speed limit. You want any other answer? Talk to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (as opposed to the executive branch, which I'm a part of) that creates the law.

You might as well talk to a cow pie, bing.  Oh, wait, I think you are.

[bing_oh]

You might as well talk to a cow pie, bing.  Oh, wait, I think you are.

I'm well aware, Tony. I always promise myself that I won't respond to James, then I go and do it anyways. I have a legitimate excuse this evening...I was "Christmas shopping" all day and may have ended up at an establishment of ill repute that sold adult beverages. Damn draft beer!

[hounddog]

I'm well aware, Tony. I always promise myself that I won't respond to James, then I go and do it anyways. I have a legitimate excuse this evening...I was "Christmas shopping" all day and may have ended up at an establishment of ill repute that sold adult beverages. Damn draft beer!

Strip bar?   

[bing_oh]

Strip bar?   

I may have been in an establishment where I contributed to the financial well-being of scantily-clad (or unclad) females, yes. And it was worth every dollar.

[James Young]

bing_oh writes:

You want any other answer? Talk to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. . .

Sure, the old ?I don?t write-the-laws-I-just-enforce-them? mantra.  I have talked to the legislative branch in 5 different states and have been denied access to other  legislators in 3 of them because we had not contributed to their re-election campaign fund.  Yet, LE officials are afforded unlimited time to present ?testimony? that is better described as propaganda, and do so with public funds.  When was the last time that you and/or your agency asked for the installation of scientifically sound engineering recommendations for speed limits (or other rules)?  I bet you have never done that.  I bet that you never will do that.

Why is it that every time some new academic, scientific, or engineering study or survey is released, that those of us who criticize the status quo are proven right and the anti-destination league (LE agencies, insurance companies, municipalities, and legislators) are proven, once again, to be wrong?  Might I add, not just wrong but actively opposed to improvements in traffic flow, traffic safety and motorists rights?


hounddog writes with his usual eloquence:

You might as well talk to a cow pie, bing.  Oh, wait, I think you are.

When they can?t refute you but can only call you names, they?re on the run.  Happy trails.

[hounddog]

When they can’t refute you but can only call you names, they’re on the run.  Happy trails.

First off, it is an internet board, no eloquence required.
Secondly, you refuse to listen to any information passed on including state law on how ticket monies are divided, often calling us liars, uneducated, stupid and lazy. 

In essence, there is no debating with someone like you.  Your only goal is try to sound intelligent by using raw data, which anyone with any mathematical or statistical education knows to be just plain incorrect.  All data must be poured through, quantified, anylized, and catagorized.    Therefore, there is no reason to debate you as if you are an intelligent adult.

[bing_oh]

Sure, the old “I don’t write-the-laws-I-just-enforce-them” mantra.

You missed a spot, James. Lemme bypass your creative editing and get that for you...

"...protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution and the laws of the State of Ohio..."

That's from my oath of office. You want the simple answer? There it is. I swore to uphold the laws and that includes the speed limit.

I seem to recall a thread not too long ago where you accused police officers in general of misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance. I believe that purposely failing to enforce the laws as per my oath of office would fall under those catagories. So, which way ya want it? Can't have your cake and eat it too...

And, you're absolutely right...I've never asked for an engineering study associated with speed limits. Wanna know why? CUZ I'M A FRICKIN' PATROL COP!!! What, you think I can wave my magical cop wand and change whatever I want? You think I can walk into the Govenor's officer without an appointment and have the laws instantly rewritten? What world do you live in?!?! I've probably got LESS power than the average citizen because I'm a public servant and people think that I shouldn't have an opinion! And, quite frankly, if I had the amazing powers you think I have, I'd have alot higher priorities than the speed limit surveys you think are so damn important.

Your world view and your priorities are all kinds of screwed up, Mr. Young.

[dazzleman]

Oh no, not this again. 

Guys, you have the same fight over and over.

[bing_oh]

Yea, I know, Daz. I'm really not sure why I keep subjecting myself to this. I mean, I seriously think James copies and pastes his answers over and over again from one thread to the next, so there's really no progress. I'm like a heroin fiend...I know I should stop and that nothing good will come from it, but I just can't!

Personally, I'm just hoping that someday James will come whipping through my town is flagrant disregard of the speed limits set without the input of proper engineering surveys and we can have this debate in person. Probably never happen, but I cop can dream, can't he?

[dazzleman]

Yea, I know, Daz. I'm really not sure why I keep subjecting myself to this. I mean, I seriously think James copies and pastes his answers over and over again from one thread to the next, so there's really no progress. I'm like a heroin fiend...I know I should stop and that nothing good will come from it, but I just can't!

Personally, I'm just hoping that someday James will come whipping through my town is flagrant disregard of the speed limits set without the input of proper engineering surveys and we can have this debate in person. Probably never happen, but I cop can dream, can't he?

Dude, you're a glutton for punishment.  That's one traffic stop you'd probably be sorry you ever made.  He'd bust your balls every step of the way, man.

You'd do much better pulling me over.  I wouldn't get upset about the ticket, and it would make a great story to tell the other guys on the forum.....

[hounddog]

Dude, you're a glutton for punishment.  That's one traffic stop you'd probably be sorry you ever made.  He'd bust your balls every step of the way, man.You'd do much better pulling me over.  I wouldn't get upset about the ticket, and it would make a great story to tell the other guys on the forum.....

But that is ok, after all, it would be at time and a half! 

[dazzleman]

But that is ok, after all, it would be at time and a half! 

[bing_oh]

Dude, you're a glutton for punishment.  That's one traffic stop you'd probably be sorry you ever made.  He'd bust your balls every step of the way, man.

You'd do much better pulling me over.  I wouldn't get upset about the ticket, and it would make a great story to tell the other guys on the forum.....

Rule #1 in LE...they can have the last word, as long as you get the last act. At the very least, I'd get a nice cite out of it. Best case scenario would involve matching jewelry (nice silver bracelets ).

I've been getting my balls busted by motorists for 9 years, now. I have yet to lose a "debate" on the side of the road, though...I rather look forward to them, actually.

[dazzleman]

Rule #1 in LE...they can have the last word, as long as you get the last act. At the very least, I'd get a nice cite out of it. Best case scenario would involve matching jewelry (nice silver bracelets ).

I've been getting my balls busted by motorists for 9 years, now. I have yet to lose a "debate" on the side of the road, though...I rather look forward to them, actually.

You never argue directly with a guy who holds a ticket book, 'cuffs and a gun.   

[bing_oh]

You never argue directly with a guy who holds a ticket book, 'cuffs and a gun.  

I always knew you were a wise man, Daz!

[dazzleman]

I always knew you were a wise man, Daz!

Honestly, whether you're right or wrong, the side of the road is not the place to argue with a police officer.  He has the ability and power to f*$k you over in that situation, and it's not a situation where either person can be comfortable.

If you really think the officer is wrong, you can take it to court.  Arguing with him will only make him more determined to give you a ticket, and back it up.  I'm much more of a 'slip under the radar' type of guy, and if I do get busted, I acknowledge generally that I deserve it and move on.  I don't see 'unjust' traffic tickets as a highly deserving cause, in the grand scheme of things.

If I were ever actually innocent (hasn't happened yet), I imagine I'd fight it.  But I can't see getting all worked up over a minor penalty that I deserve and, truth be told, should get hit with more often than I do.

[James Young]

hounddog writes:

Secondly, you refuse to listen to any information passed on including state law on how ticket monies are divided, often calling us liars, uneducated, stupid and lazy.

And you have yet to recognize the fact that there are thousands of CS little villages out there who write citations for money and KEEP all that money.  As I?ve pointed out, many of them are not even incorporated and their "officers" are not POST-certified but they have the same authority as you do.  You also refuse to recognize that even large departments with sunk costs (cars & equipment) use citations to supplement municipal coffers, freeing up money for other purposes. And most important, you refuse to recognize that the fines are largely for perfectly reasonable behavior.

In any case, the money ? to the tune of an estimated  $100 billion a year -- comes from motorists and goes somewhere, often obfuscated by those who receive it, justified in the name of the false god of security.  According to your reasoning, it?s OK to abuse those motorists for doing reasonable things because your department doesn?t get to keep the money.  I got news for you:  It?s still wrong.

Your only goal is try to sound intelligent by using raw data, which anyone with any mathematical or statistical education knows to be just plain incorrect.  All data must be poured through, quantified, anylized, and categorized.

On the contrary, my goal for 50 years has been two-fold:  (1) to improve the performance of the traffic safety institution and (2) to assure that that happens within the parameter of expanding motorists? civil liberties.  I don?t use raw data but I am curious as to why you would believe that I do.  I also wonder why you want to make a distinction because it makes no sense.   I use publicly available information, preferably from independent sources but also from the very biased (anti-motorists) NHTSA, and then synthesize it with other information to develop a theory to explain it.  This should not be news as it is called the scientific method, utilized around the globe.  How well the theory explains the phenomena and how well the theory predicts future findings is a test of its validity. 

I don?t write for you but to get the message out that much of the public pronouncements coming from the safety/enforcement establishment is bogus and self-serving.  Whether I sound intelligent or not is best judged by my target audience, which excludes you.

[James Young]

bing_oh writes:

That's from my oath of office. You want the simple answer? There it is. I swore to uphold the laws and that includes the speed limit.

Simple question for you then:   When you pin on your badge and swear to uphold Ohio law, does that relieve you of your human responsibility to act in a manner that improves the human condition?  While I am arguing on a much too broad basis, you are arguing from a much too narrow perspective.  I want to improve traffic flow and safety and the things that I have long suggested have proven to be correct, yet you speak against them because that?s what you have been told all along.  You must learn to question authority but that is very difficult when you are the authority.

I seem to recall a thread not too long ago where you accused police officers in general of misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance.

Not quite.  No doubt there are officers who are malfeasant and certain agencies that permit or encourage such behavior.  The vast majority of LEOs sincerely believe in what they are doing and that it is the best course for society.  My complaint against those good officers is that they have not done nearly enough to root out the criminals who wear the badge.  Whether the hypocrisy is the mild ?professional courtesy? of evading responsibility for actions that would yield a citizen a citation, or the deadly serious active cover-up of serious felonies, it still violates the oath that you quoted above. 

And, you're absolutely right...I've never asked for an engineering study associated with speed limits. Wanna know why? CUZ I'M A FRICKIN' PATROL COP!!! What, you think I can wave my magical cop wand and change whatever I want?

No, but that?s a pretty good straw man.  Besides, I don?t want you to ask for a an engineering study; I want you to tell your Captain who will pass it along to your PR guy who will go to the legislature, that they should base traffic law on existing science and engineering data because it yields a better result than their current method of  political spoils and protecting vested interests.

You think I can walk into the Govenor's officer without an appointment and have the laws instantly rewritten?

No, you can?t do that but your agency can and does so by invitation.  Do you really believe that we are so na?ve that we don?t know your agency, other municipal agencies and state agencies routinely  meet with individual legislators and ?testify? before the assembly, often with material that is proven false.

What world do you live in?

I live in the world of science and reason rather than the world of special interests and institutional behavior.

I've probably got LESS power than the average citizen because I'm a public servant and people think that I shouldn't have an opinion!

As I?ve said before, it is your responsibility to voice your opinion as a professional with the caveat that what you say must be correct, just the same as me.

And, quite frankly, if I had the amazing powers you think I have, I'd have alot higher priorities than the speed limit surveys you think are so damn important.

Traffic surveys are just a tool.  The real story is the use of public authority by special interests to further their interests but which results also in a degradation of the public good.  John Q. Public gets a RLC citation for running a red-light, where the yellow light time had been reduced by 1.5 seconds less than the required engineering standard for that roadway, just so Redflex can make $100 from it, his insurance gets jacked up by $500 for 3 years, and the municipality makes another $170, all just because they set up the light so that more Johns would get caught there, and despite the fact that RLCs increase crashes at equipped intersections.  The critical story is the public policy that allows or even promotes this type of abuse, not the behavior itself, much less those apologists who defend it irrationally.

Public policy is a very high calling and one that I take very seriously.

[James Young]

This is one of those towns that don't profit from speeding cites:

Oklahoma: Speed Trap Town Goes Bankrupt
Without speeding ticket revenue, a former speed trap town is forced to declare bankruptcy.

The town of Moffett, Oklahoma announced on Wendnesday that it had filed for Chapter 9 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The move comes just two months after the state attorney general and Department of Public Safety declared the town of 178 an illegal speed trap, stripping its authority to issue speeding tickets.

Without the steady stream of citation revenue generated from motorists passing through on U.S. Highway 64, the town is unable to manage the $200,000 in debts incurred by the former mayor. Moffett will likely be forced to unincorporate as a consequence of its financial difficulties.

Source: Moffett files bankruptcy (Sequoyah County Times (OK), 2/3/2007)

[Catman]

This is one of those towns that don't profit from speeding cites:

Oklahoma: Speed Trap Town Goes Bankrupt
Without speeding ticket revenue, a former speed trap town is forced to declare bankruptcy.

The town of Moffett, Oklahoma announced on Wendnesday that it had filed for Chapter 9 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The move comes just two months after the state attorney general and Department of Public Safety declared the town of 178 an illegal speed trap, stripping its authority to issue speeding tickets.

Without the steady stream of citation revenue generated from motorists passing through on U.S. Highway 64, the town is unable to manage the $200,000 in debts incurred by the former mayor. Moffett will likely be forced to unincorporate as a consequence of its financial difficulties.

Source: Moffett files bankruptcy (Sequoyah County Times (OK), 2/3/2007)

Why does a town of 178 even need an LEO?    I'm sure they have a Sheriff's Dept there.

[Soup DeVille]

Why does a town of 178 even need an LEO?    I'm sure they have a Sheriff's Dept there.

I think JY's point is that he wasn't a LEO, but a revenue gathering officer.

I'm sure that towns like this are a statistical anomoly, but they do serve to point out that the current system can encourage corruption.

(no, I don't have a proposal for a perfect utopia)

[bing_oh]

Simple question for you then:   When you pin on your badge and swear to uphold Ohio law, does that relieve you of your human responsibility to act in a manner that improves the human condition?  While I am arguing on a much too broad basis, you are arguing from a much too narrow perspective.  I want to improve traffic flow and safety and the things that I have long suggested have proven to be correct, yet you speak against them because that’s what you have been told all along.  You must learn to question authority but that is very difficult when you are the authority.

"Improves the human condition"?!?! With all due respect, what the hell were we talking about, again? Oh yea...you don't like speed limits. SPEED LIMITS. How, exactly, does increasing speed limits like you want "improve the human condition?" I mean, if you wanted to talk about criminal aspects of child abuse or domestic violence, then we could discuss improving the human condition. Instead, you think that letting people drive faster "improves the human condition." Like I said before, your priorities are all kinds of screwed up.

Not quite.  No doubt there are officers who are malfeasant and certain agencies that permit or encourage such behavior.  The vast majority of LEOs sincerely believe in what they are doing and that it is the best course for society.  My complaint against those good officers is that they have not done nearly enough to root out the criminals who wear the badge.  Whether the hypocrisy is the mild “professional courtesy” of evading responsibility for actions that would yield a citizen a citation, or the deadly serious active cover-up of serious felonies, it still violates the oath that you quoted above.

"The criminals who wear the badge." Puh-leese! Yes, show me all of the criminals in LE. Do you want to know why police officers who violate the law garner big headlines? Because they're a rarity. It's almosr 2008. Law enforcement in the US is at the height of its professionalism. Police officers today are better screened pre-hire and more highly trained than any time in history. Until we reach the level of technological advancement where we can create perfect robots to do police work, there will always be a chance for corruption...police officers are still human and prone to human error. But, to imply that there is a culture of corruption in modern law enforcement is ludecrous.

By the way, while I personally disagree with the idea of "professional courtesy," there's nothing corrupt about it. Have YOU ever gotten a warning for a traffic violation? Was THAT warning a form of corruption? If you want to eliminate officer discretion...which is what "professional courtesy" is...fine by me. Every violation we see, we stop. Every person we stop, we cite. No excuses. No warnings. No slack. Sound good to you?

No, but that’s a pretty good straw man.  Besides, I don’t want you to ask for a an engineering study; I want you to tell your Captain who will pass it along to your PR guy who will go to the legislature, that they should base traffic law on existing science and engineering data because it yields a better result than their current method of  political spoils and protecting vested interests.

I don't have a Captain. We don't have a "PR guy." I can't remember the last time anyone in my department had direct contact with a member of the legislature. My department is too small for all of that. Are we a rarity? Actually, no. Somewhere around 90% of the sworn police officers in the nation are members of "small departments," and fall into the same catagory as I do. So, once again, your obtuse world of political corruption and vast government/insurance conspiracy theories falls apart. Oops.

No, you can’t do that but your agency can and does so by invitation.  Do you really believe that we are so na?ve that we don’t know your agency, other municipal agencies and state agencies routinely  meet with individual legislators and “testify” before the assembly, often with material that is proven false.

See above.

I live in the world of science and reason rather than the world of special interests and institutional behavior.

Guess we disagree with about everything tonight. I dont' see much reason in anything you advocate.

As I’ve said before, it is your responsibility to voice your opinion as a professional with the caveat that what you say must be correct, just the same as me.

Actually, no, you can speak with impunity (and frequently do, from what I've seen). There's no expectation that waht you say is accurate or true.

[rohan]

Why don?t they just do NO enforcement?  LAPD is very small force (10,000) covering over 1,000square miles and 10+ million people.  They do very little traffic control and speed enforcement is unheard of. 

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/LAPD+TARGETS+RED-LIGHT+RUNNERS%3B+FINES,+ENFORCEMENT+INCREASED+FOR...-a083895595

http://www.lapdonline.org/valley_traffic

http://www.lapdonline.org/central_traffic

http://www.lacity.org/LAPD/traffic/dre/bioniels.htm

http://auntbeep.blogspot.com/2005/06/buckle-up-or-youll-go-to-court-in-los.html

http://roadbeacon.org/1300/1327.html?*session*id*key*=*session*id*val*

http://lapdblog.typepad.com/lapd_blog/2007/07/results-of-4th-.html

http://www.easyir.com/easyir/prssrel.do?easyirid=A558CA325D8ADB62&version=live&prid=180852

http://www.lapdonline.org/special_operations_support_division/content_basic_view/1033

Once again you are full of shit.

[Tave]

To be fair, I think he's saying that traffic isn't as big of a concern as other crimes. Not that they never do traffic enforcement.


It's probably true of any large city. I can get away with driving a lot faster in Phoenix or Denver than I can in my hometown.

[rohan]

To be fair, I think he's saying that traffic isn't as big of a concern as other crimes. Not that they never do traffic enforcement.


It's probably true of any large city. I can get away with driving a lot faster in Phoenix or Denver than I can in my hometown.

NO he clearly said it's unheard of.  More BS from the police-basher.

[Tave]

NO he clearly said it's unheard of. 

It was hyberbole. Obviously people get speeding tickets in LA.