How much do Police PROFIT from tickets?

[Lerkfish]

I mean, actual cash money coming into their coffers?
How much are quota systems used? How much pressure is on each patrolperson to bring in the right amount of tickets/dollars?

I once got a speeding ticket in a highly affluent community. I was going 28 in a 25 and it was going to cost me 70 dollars. The cop was hiding behind a panel truck. Was I speeding? I guess so, I'll take his word for it. Here's the deal, though:

I called, and offered to pay that 70 dollars to a homeless shelter and provide proof of doing so. My contention was that the punishment was still invoked, I would still be out the same amount of money, but at least the community would benefit from my punishment. I was directly told that the police depend on fees from tickets to "help run the dept.".
I then suggested, then isn't that an unlegislated tax? Shouldn't simply taxes be raised to pay for police? Otherwise, there's a conflict of interest: Police could lose their job if they don't write enough tickets. Ergo, if citizens are law-abiding, they starve out the police.

So, mr. policeman, whereas I appreciate your public zeal to keep us safe, do answer the question: does the money from a traffic ticket end up at the police dept. in any way shape or percentage? If so, what is that portion used for? Better equipment to catch more speeders?

[SmokingJacket]

1. Good point!

Police and fire departments need to be better funded, and traffic fines should go into a separate pot, if they're not. Conflict of interest indeed.

No one should profit from crime....

(28 in a 25?? Are radars even that accurate?)

[Deja Q]

3. Radars have to be checked DAILY. Even then,

they have helicopters flying around just for the sake of catching speeders.

And 25MPH sounds like all the side-roads in Wisconsin. And that state is notorious for cashing in big-time on out-of-state drivers.

[samsingh]

22. smart dog to piss on bush

bush is pissing on the rest of us.

[Deja Q]

2. Government is non-profit. But they do make quotas to ensure...

that the money coming in goes to pay for some things directly related to their department. (and I thought it was all taxes... nope.)

the difference between non-profit and profit is very thin. As more and more cops are laid off, expect speeding quotas to go higher.

I wouldn't speed at all anymore if I was people.

It's ironic: Protesting BY behaving.

[southlandshari]

4. "Better equipment to catch more speeders"

Honestly, if some of the money from speeding ticket fines goes to pay for better equipment for those who patrol our streets and highways, I'm fine with that.

Speeding is the number one cause of auto accidents in this country. And auto accidents are one of the leading causes of DEATH in this country. It's against the law, and for good reason.

[Lerkfish]

5. not debating the law...debating where the money goes..

if a fine is a punishment, and the point is to relieve you of money to teach you a lesson, why can't it go to a homeless shelter instead of Officer Duright?
AND, more importantly, shouldn't we correctly allocate the funds to run the police from the city budget, and NOT from fines? because if everyone behaves, which SHOULD be the goal of pollice, then they get less money.

[southlandshari]

6. I understand exactly what you are saying here.

And I'd turn it around and ask it this way: why does it make any more sense for traffic ticket fines to go to a homeless shelter than it does for the money to go to support the work of those who enforce traffic laws? The funds have to go somewhere, and to me it makes the most sense for them to be channeled back into supporting law enforcement efforts. And I'm assuming that in any city's budget, all kinds of fines collected from all branches of city government are part of the revenue stream. This is not just about traffic tickets or police activity.

I understand the potential conflict of interest with the issue of quotas and overly aggressive enforcement for the sake of collecting more money. I guess I just see those pitfalls as the exception to the rule. I think the majority of law enforcement officials are hard-working and good-intentioned men and women who care a lot more about keeping the public safe than they do about racking up traffic fines.

I have a lead foot, myself, and have been let off many a time with a warning, which produces no money for their "coffers" but helps remind me not to speed. Perhaps we've just had differnt experiences with the police, which has led us to different conclusions...

[Lerkfish]

14. confused why you think I've had a bad police experience...

when you said: "the majority of law enforcement officials are hard-working and good-intentioned men and women who care a lot more about keeping the public safe than they do about racking up traffic fines."

you're jumping to conclusions if you're assuming I disagree with that.

again, you're taking what I'm saying about an unlegislated tax and how the fines are distributed, and then putting words in my mouth that I'm bad-talking cops, which I definitely am not.

In fact, I'd PREFER the police dept was more than adequated funded. I'd PREFER that their revenue had nothing to do with civilian compliance. I thinkt that funding scheme is illogical: it only works IF civilians are disobedient, which should be the opposite goal of law enforcement. Otherwise, if the goal of an obedient populace became a reality, we'd have to find NEW ways to fund the police, rather than the existing illogical method of fines.

I"d prefer that police funding be there, regardless of whether enough citizens break or keep the law.

[samsingh]

23. i agree with Lerkfish

profiting from enforcing a law means its going to be abused.
period.

[southlandshari]

31. Sorry if I misunderstood.

I thought your original post WAS a description of a bad experience you'd had with law enforcement and a questionable speeding ticket.

Didn't mean to jump to conclusions or cloud the issue under discussion in any way. No offense intended...

[Lerkfish]

42. no problem, my flaw is that I dont' always explain well...

I was using that just as an example of something that happened to me, and how I tried to suggest an alternative and was shot down.

[WillowTree]

12. Since when...

....does the person who breaks the law get to decide how the fine will be administered?

Here's an idea: Why not run for the City Council or the County Board and have this proposal of yours be a major talking point in your campaign? See how many voters think that they should have their taxes raised to give more financial support to law enforcement so that the people who break traffic laws and local ordinances can feel better about paying their fines by designating what charity or social service they want their fine to be paid to. Let us know how it works out.

Personally, I think there's genuine poetic justice in making the people who get caught breaking the laws help to support the agencies that caught them.

[Lerkfish]

15. you see poetic justice, I see illogical funding.

What happens if for stretches at a time, no one breaks the law?

statistically, it could happen. What then? taxes would have to be raised, anyways OR, the worse alternative, policemen laid off or districts closed.

I'd prefer that certain necessities, like police, fire, hospitals and public schools, be sufficiently funded and independent of happenstance. That's called budgeting. Adults do that, they figure out how much something costs, and plan accordingly.
Irresponsible children buy things hoping that "something will happen" to let them come up with the money later.

[3waygeek]

8. Actually...

many radar/laser guns are donated to police departments; the insurance industry (especially Geico) are really big donors.

[southlandshari]

11. Ok, I'll buy that. So...

...what are you saying about the issue at hand, channeling traffic ticket fine dollars back into police department budgets?

[Dora]

46. Wow.... so in effect...

The more tickets a driver has, the more the insurance companies can raise their rates.

It makes financial sense for the insurers to provide police depts with radar/guns because it ultimately provides them with a "riskier" pool of drivers.

[Jack_DeLeon]

19. Bullshit....

speeding doesnt kill, drivers who dont pay attention to the road and hit people and things kill.

I've gotten 3 speeding tickets in my life. One was going 83 in a 70, I paid it since I was young and naieve and didnt want to go through the hassle of having a trial.

The second I got for going 40 in a 30, I didnt like the fact that that this slower speeding ticket actually would have cost me more than the one I got for going 83mph so I plead not guilty and requested a trial by jury, and the case got dismissed at the day of the trial.

Last week I got another ticket for going 79 in an 80, and I'm definately going to fight that one.

Its definately my belief that all 3 of these speeding tickets were just revenue generation and fishing expeditions. They pulled me over not because I was a threat to fellow motorists but because they wanted to see if they could bust me on anything else, since they didnt they decided to just shake me down with a speeding ticket instead.

Its not about safety, its about money. It was definately far more dangerous for me to pull to the side of the road and then to get back in traffic afterwards than it was for me to have just continued on my way.

Oh BTW FUCK TRAFFIC COPs, I guess there must have been so little crime in the jurisdictions I had been pulled over in since they had so much time to waste on such petty trivial tickets.

[Sokrates]

26. BS on you.

A study released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in January, 1999 found that higher travel speeds translate into more fatalities. IIHS reports that in 24 states that passed higher speed limits during late 1995 and 1996, motor vehicle deaths increased during 1996-97. Comparisons were made in these states from the time speed limits were raised through 1997 with corresponding fatality counts for the same months in the six-year period prior to when their speed limits were changed. A control group of seven states where speed limits had not changed during the study period was used for comparison. Ohio was not included in this study. IIHS estimates a 15% increase in fatalities on interstates and freeways, based on its findings.



This is just common sense. The higher the rate of travel, the less time you have to react.

And no need to swear about something that is easily ascertained via google.

[Jack_DeLeon]

29. Thats why...

the German Autobahn is safer than American highways with lower speeds. :eyes:

[Sokrates]

32. German Autobahn is safer than American highways with lower speeds.

Too many variables. Ceteris non paribus. Different highway system, different cars, different drivers.

If you want to pretend that highway fatalities didn't go up after '95 when Newt and the R's did away with the 55 mph limit, that's your perrogative, just keep in mind you're wrong.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillowTree]

37. How refreshing...

....to see someone so unabashedly proud of his total disregard for the law and those who risk their lives every day to enforce it.

Just out of curiosity, where were you driving where the speed limit was 80 mph? In most areas of your state, the maximum daytime speed limit is 70 mph (65 mph at night), though there are a limited number of areas, notably portions of highways located in counties where the population density is less than 10 persons per square mile where the highway commission, at its discretion, can post a limit as high as 75 mph. In fact, until and unless the Arizona legislature passes SB1329, there is nowhere in this country where the speed limit is higher than 75 mph, so your statement that you were "going 79 in an 80" is most interesting.

[Jack_DeLeon]

38. actually that was a typo...

I meant going 79 in a 70, however if you think driving 10 miles over the limit in anywhere other than say a school zone or in heavy traffic deserves a fine of > $100 then its my belief that people like you are the reason so many people grow to dislike law enforcement.

I have no problem with police, and I have so far been pretty cooperative with them whenever I've been pulled over. I've humored them and answered thier pointless questions like "where am I going," "where am I heading," "how long I've stayed wherever," or "Where do you work." However that doesnt mean jack shit cause they have already made up thier mind to try to shake you down for some money. I've never gotten a "warning."

So here I am now wasting both my time, the court's time, and the time of the people who will be on my jury just because some asshole cops needed to bring in some more money.

It has nothing to do with safety as I said before the act of pulling over and then getting back into traffic is usually far more dangerous for both me and the officer.

Also FWIW Texas has no "absolute" speed limit, just going faster than the posted speed limit is not in and of itself a crime.

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/laws.html

In Rhode Island, Texas, and Utah driving faster than the speed limit is prima facie evidence of unreasonable speed. One can argue in court that one was exceeding the speed limit but should not be convicted because the speed was safe (when they accept this argument, judges will likely want to see evidence beyond a defendant's claim that he was driving safely).

I only have to convince a jury that my speed was not unreasonable, and from my experience most people dont consider 10mph over the limit unreasonable.

[0rganism]

7. This is an answerable question

Once costs of training, equipment, costs court appearances, etcetera, are taken into account, I think you would find that the net income of a police force is in the red. Are the revenue from traffic violations used to offset the loss? Probably, but it would come as a shock to me if I found that police were netting a profit from such fees.

In any case, you can probably find state-by-state statistics on how much police take in via fines, compared to their total expenses.

[ewagner]

30. Thanks for adding some sanity

to this thread......

Generally speaking, there is no profit from tickets and fines and in my experience (I was a full-time, elected Mayor) the fines just became an additional "revenue" item for the City. You couldn't "budget" for the revenue, because you had no idea how much would be raised. In addition, if the officer issuing the ticket had to appear in court, we had to pay a minimum 2 hours "show up" pay (at overtime) to the officer so even if the fine was levied, we lost money on the deal....we also discouraged "frivilous" ticketing (e.g. a ticket that carried a fine of $10.00 because it would cost us $65 to prosecute it).

Quotas are sometimes used but not for revenue or promotion, they're used to implement policy (e.g. crack down on speeders in school zones, crack down on OWIs, crack down on running stop signs/lights etc.,)

There may be different situations but these were my experiences....

[wuushew]

9. Reguardless of where the money goes tickets are regressive

Also I doubt that the idle rich are in an equal hurry to get places as quickly as the working poor who hold two or three jobs.

all forms of revenue generation should be progressive in nature. I wish we were like Scandanavia where the rich pay for their crimes.

HELSINKI, Finland -- Jaako Rytsola, a 27-year-old Finnish Internet entrepreneur and newspaper columnist, was cruising in his BMW one recent evening. "The road was wide and I was feeling good," he later wrote. "It's nice to be driving when there's no one in sight."

But this road wasn't empty; a radar-equipped police car was clocking his speed. The officer pulled over Mr. Rytsola's car and issued him a speeding ticket for driving 43 miles an hour in a 25-mile-an-hour zone. The fine: $71,400...


http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/wsj_finland.html

[barb162]

10. WOW, now that's what I call a fine!!!!

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. Actually the money goes to the local city or county from which the ticket

orginated.

The police departments themselves do not gain anything monetarily from tickets.

The officers generally do not have quotes..and I believe it may be improper to assign a quota. Sometimes, however the departments use the number of tickets an officer writes as a way to monitor the officer's work habits.

[SouthernDem2004]

16. Yep... /eom

[Cleita]

17. That's what I thought. When a city needs money, ticket writing,

mostly parking violations kicks into high gear or so I was told.

[ariellyn]

18. Ticketing is literally becoming highway robbery....in Chicago

the greedy Mayor has police setting up seatbelt check zones and ticketing drivers all over the city.

Not to mention the fact that they made perfectly good spaces no parking zones in order to increase the possibility of towing cars at about $180 a pop (and that's not counting the ticket for the tow).

They even have people with walkie talkies watching people driving cars with handicapped stickers to see if they appear to be able bodied. Even WITH valid stickers, they observe the drivers and check to see if they are the actual owners of the vehicles with handicapped stickers or not. If they aren't they issue tickets.

It's ridiculous.

[Kingshakabobo]

45. I live near Wrigley field.

A couple weeks ago, I watched the city clear my street off at 5:05pm before a Cubs game. The signs DO say no parking without a permit/sticker after 5pm but this was ridiculous. The game wasn't until 7:30 so all they did was tow a bunch of poor suckers who didn't get home from work in time to move their cars or place the placards in the windows. It was disgusting.

I'm getting sick and tired of the citizens of Chicago being seen as da mayor's fine-bots.

[johnaries]

20. I remember back in the 70's here in Nashville

traffic officers were actually given QUOTAS on traffic tickets that they has to write.

In silent protest, one officer started handing out S&H Green Stamps (if anyone remembers those) with each ticket he wrote.

He was fired.

[napi21]

21. One poster had it right. $$ goes to the municipality where the ticket

was handed out.

Having said that, there are quite a few very small towns that have such a very low income, traffic tickets are their only option. You find a lot of that in small rural towns in almost every state.

I hate to rain on your parade, but there are speed limits, and if you exceed them, you are breaking a law. Most officers won't bother a driver that is within 5 mi. over. It's not worth anyone's time. Some only go after drivers who are weaving in and out of traffic and cutting other drivers off. The serious speeders and erratic drivers are the biggest hazards on the road. You don't really want them to be ignored.

[Lerkfish]

24. grrrr. WRONG! what is the problem here?

I'm NOT an avocate for speeding.
please understand me....I'm saying that the fines for speeding, if they fund police depts are illogical and possibly counterproductive.

I do not understand why everyone keeps thinking I'm for law breaking. I'm for more sane funding of police, even excessively so, so that funding should never be tied to fines.

you have, however, pointed out why I think its insane to tie tickets to revenues, when you said:

"there are quite a few very small towns that have such a very low income, traffic tickets are their only option. You find a lot of that in small rural towns in almost every state."

I'm saying that's WRONG.

[napi21]

25. I agree with you, but where are they going to get their $$?

All the ones I'm familiar with have few residents, none are wealthy, in fact, most are poor, so they can't pay more taxes. Their viewpoint is that most of the people who preak these laws are from out of town, so they just don't care, and it's the only help they can think of.

As far as the cost of tickets, as far as I know, the philosophy is, if the fine was $5.00, nobody would care. If it's high enough to hurt (the wallet) that individual is going to slow down because they don't want ot have to pay THAT AGAIN! I suppose they do have a point there.

[Jack_DeLeon]

28. So theft is appropriate...

if you live in a small town and only steal from outsiders. :eyes:

[Lerkfish]

43. I wouldn't state it that strongly, but yes, why should travelers through

subsidize that small community's police dept?

[Jack_DeLeon]

27. so you think....

that small communities have the right to have thier armed tax collectors shake down drivers who happent to drive through thier communities just because they dont have the money they want?

I hate to rain on your parade, but there are speed limits, and if you exceed them, you are breaking a law.

Depends on the state, in Texas we dont have "absolute" speed limits, where just merely being over the speed limit automatically means you are guilty. That is one of the reasons I am starting to fight any of these trivial speeding under 20 mph tickets that I get on the highways.

However Texas is also fortunate in that you are entitled to a trial by jury even for "minor" traffic violations. I'm so glad this is the case here. I feel really sorry for those that live in states where you have your right to trial by jury stripped away from you. IMO those states are the worst and streamlined totally to separte you from your money.

Most officers won't bother a driver that is within 5 mi. over. It's not worth anyone's time. Some only go after drivers who are weaving in and out of traffic and cutting other drivers off.

Its been my experience that city officers wont hassle you for up to 10mph over. Then ofcourse I suppose they have more important things to deal with. But out in the highways outside of city limits where there is less traffic and its actually safer to drive faster the Highway patrol has gotten for about that much over.

Ofcourse they do it for the money, and because most people wont drive all the way back out several counties over just to have a trial, now I will though.

The serious speeders and erratic drivers are the biggest hazards on the road. You don't really want them to be ignored.

The serious speeders are doing 30mph+ over, not 10 or 20. I've never driven erratic.

Speed doesnt kill its the crashing into things that does. I would much rather keep my eyes on the road and speed than to be doing the limit and watching my speed to make sure I dont go over.

[SouthernDem2004]

34. Do you think speed limits should be raised to 90?

[Jack_DeLeon]

39. I think an 80mph limit would be appropriate for many parts of Texas...

with the next 15mph not being ticketed for.

I traveled out to Big Bend a few weeks ago and for a few long stretch of road I drove 90mph.

On the way back I slowed down a good bit before I got into Del Rio and that is where I got my ticket for going 79.

[Clark2008]

35. I think it depends on how your local government is set up.

Here, all collections go into the general fund and are meted out based on a pre-set budget. And drug-related seizures of cash and property are given directly to the departments who investigated the crime.

Not sure how it works in your neck of the woods, but your city/county trustee could tell you.

[SouthernDem2004]

36. It is the same everywhere....

Tickets go to general funds.

Seizures are regulated be the Feds and go to Law Enforcement directly.

[rman]

40. for some it's how they pay their own salary

privitized police has an economic incentive to make as many arests as possible, confiscate as much property (cars, houses) as possible.

[SouthernDem2004]

41. What privitized Police are you talking about?

All fines go into a city's general fund. Confiscations are minimal.

[slaveplanet]

48. I heard on the radio

that after the Feds got through militarizing or (swat)ifying certain towns in the south. They raided all the bars that weren't already controlled by the police. That now all the bars are owned by the police through confiscation. Then they use them as fly on the wall intelligence ops to do drug raids so they can confiscate more land.

[Blue Diadem]

44. I don't mind if they spend some of their time writing tickets

since that keeps people safe too. My issue comes from them spending too much time running radar and not enough time patroling. It's happening here. There are things taking place in this town that never would have taken place previously. Tickets are up big time, but so is vandalism. The previous Chief and officers spent more time being visible by patroling, thus detering some of the kid things that can get out of control if not nipped in the bud early. When I'd heard a park gazebo was destroyed and then the community pool vandalized, it didn't surprise me..the kids know right where the cops sit for hours on end.

[MXMLLN]

47. When it comes to speeding ... most citizens aren't law-abiding.

Police could lose their job if they don't write enough tickets. Ergo, if citizens are law-abiding, they starve out the police.