Slashdot Mirror
Using Google Maps to Get Out of a Traffic Ticket
Michael Nguyen writes "Edwin uses Google Maps to prove to the judge his traffic ticket was wrongly issued, saving himself some cash and points on his license. During his testimony, Edwin whips out a notebook, loads up Google Maps and upstages the offending officer with some quick Google Map searches." I wonder if anyone's gotten out of a ticket by showing how inaccurate most speed-check methods can be.
The problem with small fines like traffic tickets are that you need to prove that you are innocent of the crime vs. having to prove that you are guilty. If more and more people can prove their not guilty then the police will need to provide evidence that you were indeed guilty of the crime. And stop making traffic violations a means to subsidize taxes.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Here's a brief tale of my experience..
A few years ago, I was involved in a bad traffic accident. The time was well before dawn, and I was starting on my morning commute to Lansing. I turned out from my subdivision onto a main street, and was broadsided by a car whose driver had failed to turn his lights on. After the accident, I asked the other driver if he had his lights on. "No.", he blithely replied. "Don't you think you should have???" I said. In response, he gave only a shrug.
Fast forward two and a half hours later, when the police finally arrive at the scene (that's right, two and a half hours). The policeman asks what happened. I reply that I pulled out in front of the other car, but I was unable to see him as it was pitch black out, and the other driver had neglected to turn his lights on. The policeman asks the other driver, "Did you have your lights on?" "No", he replies. The policeman then writes him a ticket for driving without headlights. Then, he turns around and writes me a ticket for failure to yield! "How exactly was I supposed to yield to a vehicle I couldn't see, Officer?", I ask testily. His only reply is "tell it to the judge".
So now, in addition to having to get my car towed, and the hassle of opening a claim with my insurance company, I get to miss a day of work going to court. Before the court date, I compile a stack of data from various sources on the internet, all showing that the time of sunrise at the exact latitude and longitude of the accident, on the date of the accident, was a full two hours after the time of the accident, thus proving that the ambient light was zero, and that I had no chance to see the light-less car heading my way.
Fast forward to the court date. I walk into court with a thick sheaf of papers under my arm, determined to absolve myself of any blame.
The case lasted exactly twelve seconds. The officer failed to show, and the judge dismissed the case.
To this day, I still remember the odd mixture of relief and indignation I felt as I walked out of the courthouse.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I don't know if it'll be as impressive to the court going forward if everybody does it, but when I walked in a couple of years ago and pulled out my printed satellite photos from yahoo of the intersection where I allegedly ran a red light, the magistrate just said, "Not Responsible" without even looking at it or hearing any other evidence.
This is getting to be a joke.
The story about tusk-free elephants? On Boing Boing first.
The story about the nine year-old geek girl? On Boing Boing first.
The story about the Death Star subwoofer? On Boing Boing first.
And now this story comes from Boing Boing too?
These are only the stories I've noticed from the past couple of days reading Boing Boing. It's one thing to aggregate geek news from a variety of sources. It's another thing entirely to simply copy everything Boing Boing does. Slashdot is going downhill faster and faster.
Presumably before the defendent was allowed to do anything with that laptop the judge must have admitted it as evidence.
If an item is admitted as evidence, the court has to believe that it is accurate. It is assumed that it is because it is approved by the judge (of truth).
The only way the officer could argue that Google Maps is crap enough to disprove the defendent's case is to suggest that it not be included as evidence.
Does a police officer that responds to traffic accidents know anything about how to do that?
The trouble is that if you and the cop tell different stories, the judge will almost always believe the cop. The judge will say that the cop is doing his job and has no reason to lie whereas you do. So if it's the cop's word vs. your word, you lose.
If there is any evidence, for instance if you have an independent witness, then you stand a chance. A case like this would be if the cop said that you didn't come to a full stop. If your boss is in the car and he says that you did come to a full stop, you will usually get off. If the evidence conflicts, you get the benefit of the doubt.
The guy in the story presented evidence that the cop's evidence might not be accurate. btw. A map that you get off the internet is not real evidence. It proves nothing. On the other hand, if you show the map to the cop and say, "Does this map show the way the streets are laid out?" and he says "yes", then the evidence is his testimony.
Judges are also human and therefore come in all types. One of my friends pled guilty to a traffic charge saying that he didn't see how he could defend himself. The judge asked him for his story, told him to plead innocent, and tossed out the charge.
A cop ticketed me for doing 60 in a 40 - I saw him, checked my speed (42) and figured I was OK. I took pictures of the car where it was stopped and his view of the road from where they were parked, got aerial photos (acme.com) and did the calculations that showed that for him to catch me and stop me where he did then either I couldn't have been doing more than low 40s or if I was doing 60 he had to get his car backed out of a parking spot, get going and on the main road in under 2 seconds. The court looked at it and since I said I was doing 42, gave me a $25 "sign violation". Not a bad morning's work.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
it is a con, to try and get people to think of a good use for an intrusive technology. my property, its maps, and what it looks like is my business and nobody elses.
anyways... here is my court story:
what most people don't know is the traffic court judge is not there to be a judge. he is more lika an administrator for the city, whos job is to collect as much money as possible.
in my town the traffic court judge is not even a lawyer. i went to court for a ticket because i did not have my insurance card in my car. i was late to court, and the judge would not hear my case, i was fined $550.
before i continue, i should mention the reason i was late to court. the county changed the court from the building where the court has been the past 25 years, to a different location. while i was pulling on locked court doors, on the opposite side of town court was in session.
so i went to see the clerk of the court. this is the man who has ALL the power. well, the chief judge is the true power, a real lawyer, and has administrative power over all judges, but it is the clerk who is is gatekeeper. the clerk cleared out the conviction, reset a court date and all was dandy, so i thought.
next time, i showed up at court a good hour early. i had everything i needed to prove my case, a letter from my insurance company stating i had insurance the day i was pulled over, and my current insurance card.
they call my name...
me: your honor, i have a letter from my insurance compamy...
the judge inturrupts me
judge: wait, i am not here to listen to your insurance case, i'm going to first decide why i should hear your case. i don't know if i am the right court to review a conviction.
me: your honor, you are the court of original jurisdiction, and the clerk vacated the past conviction.
judge: i am not convinced. motion to rehear denied.
so, there i was, a judge who fucked me in under 15 seconds. before i could say another word, the court called the next case. i went back to the clerks office, dejected and ready to pay. somehow, the clerk remembered me. he asked, "how come you still have the fine, you showed me your insurance letter last time, the judge should have dismissed the ticket". i explained to him what happened.
and what happened next blew my mind. the clerk took out a pink colored pad of paper, about 3 inches by 4 inches, scribbled his signature on it, told me to go to office 427 and haand it to the woman, who would then get me 5 minutes with the chief judge. i started by handing the chief judge my insurance papers, because i know these guys are busy and would rather quickly skim evidance than listen to me for half an hour. in under a minute i explained what happened.
the chief judge went in his computer, reset my court date again, this time telling me who the judge was going to be and that he would call the judge to tell him about my case personally.
next time i showed up to court, there was a different judge. my case was dismissed. the judge even appologized for my wasted time.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Quick question. I've always read that when the officer asks do you know how fast you were going that you are supposed to not say because this is used as a confession in court.
However, I've wondered what the correct answer would be?
I don't know? I wish to remain silent or fib and say you were going at or slightly above the speed limit? I mean what is the most legal route.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
i have been to court many times. i went a couple times because i was given a traffic ticket, a few times with friends who were given traffic tickets, and for entertainment.
i would say that 85% of people who go to court are convicted or plead guilty. here is why...
the very first words the judge will tell everyone is this. "if you plead not guilty, i will send you back to your seat. i will hear all other cases first. your case will be last. we will then have the officer give his testimony, which i will consider truthful and accurate. if i convict you in a trial, then i will not give you any lenancy. if you plead guilty, and you don't have a criminal history, i will most likely give you supervision, which means your conviction is sealed and after 1 year it is removed. if you are found guilty, i will not give you supervision".
what that means, if you get supervision, your insurance company will not know you had a ticket, and will not raise your insurance rates. that could save hundreds of dollars.
here are other reasons people never win...
My personal opinion is traffic court should be run like a real court. All judges should have law degrees, which most do not. There should be public defenders in traffic court, everyone who can not afford a lawyer should be given access to a public defender. In most cases, 10 minutes with a public defender before going in front of the judge is all that is needed, he can tell you your chances. If you are innocent, maybe he can talk you into pleading not guilty and not being intimidated. And for God's sake, judges should spend more than 20 seconds per case. I know they often put 150 people on a docket for one day, but how can a judge really hear that many cases. It is more like a long line to pay the bouncer his cover charge.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Funny coincidence of careers. My high school gov. teacher got busted for speeding. Luckily, he had a friend who was a lawyer that was willing to represent him for nothing. In court, the lawyer pointed out that the cop had not used a radar detector, but rather used his cruiser to pace my teacher. Once this was out, he pointed out the the cop had not had his speedometer certified within 30 days prior to the ticket, so the case was thrown out.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Many years ago, maybe 25-30, when radar was first being used by law enforcement, I got stopped for speeding. When the cop came to my car he commented on my 'strange' tags which had my ham license on the tag. This was before New Jersey started issuing 'vanity plates'
When the cop was looking over my license and registration I said, very politely, "Would you please produce for my inspection the Federal Communications Commission license for your radar transmitter?" I told him federal law requires that all transmitting equipment be licensed and I wanted to see his.
Needless to say, he didn't know what to do. He called in another cop who was quite belligerant saying I had no right to ask. They gave me the ticket anyway.
In court, I produced the FCC regs which clearly stated that a license was required. I beat the ticket!
Unfortunately, this will no longer work. The FCC regs have been changed to allow for a 'blanket' license for specific multiple uses such as radar guns.
But that doesn't mean you folks can't give it a try. You may be able to intimidate the cop enough for him to not write the ticket.
Depends on the judge and the situation. I hit a woman several years ago, technically it was my fault, but logically it was hers. She had stopped at the top of an exit ramp, then proceded into the intersection, I had pulled up, looked for oncoming traffic, then proceded into said intersection. Only problem was she had stopped in the middle of the intersection for no reason! So I went to traffic court and pled no contest (she had retained a lawyer and sent out a letter about possible whiplash so a guilty plea through paying the ticket was not wise) and explained the situation as quickly and courtously as I could. The judge let me off with just court costs and no points.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
My brother always gets out of his tickets. He contacts the prosecuting attorney and asks if he can plead civil. That is, pay the find without incurring the points. All they want is the revenue anyway.
Also, the reason why it seems we're guilty until proven innocent is because it's a strict liability crime. All they have to do is prove you did it. And, cops spend a lot of time doing this.
If your jurisdiction has speeding as a misdemeanor, piss them off by demanding your Constitutional right to a jury trial. They can't deny and the cost will be so high as to make the ticket not worth it.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
We both used to work in a place who, among other things, supported this product called Microsoft Streets and Trips. He was leaving work one day, and a cop pulled him over. The cop told him that he was 'pacing' him and didnt even use a radar on him.
He went to court, printed out the map of our area in streets and trips, and presented that evidence. He pretty much told the judge that his car is incapable of accellerating to 65 (i think thats what the cop said he was going) in that short amount of time.
The judge was so impressed, that after he dropped the charges, he asked my friend what program he used to make that map. My friend got out of a 675 dollar ticket because of that..
There was an accident on the highway, so all the traffic was getting off and driving thru my little residential neighborhood the 4 blocks to the next exit.
Anyways, the light was red, it's was raining (mostly a drizzle) and a cop cruiser was across the street. Several minutes pass - no change in light. I decide to take a right turn instead of going straight. But the two times I try I almost get into an accident. (You see I am stuck on an arching overpass and unable to see what is behind me due to the elevation of the bridge.) Deciding that it is more prudent to simply wait then risk an accident - I wait.
Still no change in the light. I try to peer into the police vehicle but find myself unable to see inside due to the rain. Okay, this is getting excessive. I've now been at this light several minutes (and I mean approaching 10 minutes) without an iouta of direction, no light change, nadda.
Finally, I see the police crusier roll forward toward the light control box. I am like "finally". So I wait for a while longer. A few more minutes....nothing!
After what felt like over 10 minutes (and I later realized was probably closer to 15) I decided that either the "light" or the "officer" was not functioning properly.
So I treated it as one is specified to treat a broken light. I treated it as if I had a STOP sign and the oncoming had right of way. I waited for a pause in traffic and "proceeded with caution".
So I get a block down and what do I see but colorful lights. The cop is in a whole tiff. I am like "Is there a problem officer..." He responded "You just ran a read light." I told him the light was not functioning. His response was he was manning it remotely. Which I believe - I just sincerely doubt if he was actually awake for most of the time. I told him I was going to fight it in court. He refused to give me his badge number - told me it was on the ticket. However, it was only partially written out.
(oh, might I add as I was driving back down the street a minute later the light turned red as soon as my truck reached the intersection...thankfully, 30 seconds later it was green and I could finally get on my way to work)
So this leads to court dates. Now we are really !@#$% up here in Connecticut.
First off, you have about 2 weeks to mail the ticket. Which I did promptly. It would over 6 months before I received any notification that they even received it.
Then, I called the DA office. I told them I did not want any plea bargain and that I wanted to go straight to trial. Doesn't matter of course.
They give you a court date or so you think. In truth, you take 1/2 day off from work and wait only to be called up and offered a plea bargain. If you turn down the plea bargain they give you another court date. When you ask them why? they inform you that they must get your record first.
WTF?
6 months, and they assign you a court date and do not have your record for the case?
So you come back a second time....they offer you a plea bargain once again. I turned it down....guess what? Yup...you guessed it!
They give you another court date (the excuse this time is that they have to subpeona the officer). Wait, okay no record the first time, no opposition.
So finally, I get a court date (on the third trip to the court). I argued my case on the following points:
- the purpose of the officer being there was to guide and direct traffic and minimise confusion, the officer clearly failed this role and in fact furthered the confusion at hand
- if the intent was to not change the light a detour should have been erected instead
- my last main point was a technical argument on justice. if one were stopped at a light and there was a no turn on red (and we all know full well a U-turn is illegal on a bridge). What is one to do if that light never turns green? You cannot justly tell me that I have to remain at that light forever? or commit a violation of the law? so please tell me - in that
You're a government bitch.
The easiest way to get out of a speeding ticket is to ask the officer technical questions like "When was the last time the radar gun was calibrated?"
Cops simply lie about this one. They describe this complex procedure using two tuning forks that they religiously perform every day on which they are going to use radar. It's a joke, and you can hear it in their voices. The cops lie through their teeth under oath. So this one probably won't work, but it's worth a shot in case he says something stupid like "What do you mean 'calibrate?'"
and "What type of software does your system use?" Then hit them with the grand finale to get out of the ticket "May I see the code?"
Now this may actually work, depending on what state you're in. I'd like to see this trend spread.
Another possible strategy is to check on whether the road where you were clock was surveyed for radar. In some states, if the road isn't surveyed for radar, but radar was used, you can get the ticket thrown out.
Here's another strategy: In other states, when you are pulled over you can demand to see the numbers on the radar readout. Often they'll have a lower number since they also clocked you after you hit the brakes. If you request to see the radar display, and the officer refuses, tehre's a way to get the ticket thrown out.
Now here's a very good strategy, which will depend on your state law. In Minnesota for example, the law permitting police radar specifically says that radar is to be used as a supplement to the officer's skills and speed judgement rather than a replacement for them. So if you can get the officer to state something to the effect that he/she concluded you were speeding when the radar alarm went off, you can cite a precedent and have the ticket thrown out. I don't know the precedent offhand for MN, but I'm sure you can google it.
If your name is misspelled on the ticket, or anything is wrong about it, such as the street number, or statute number, etc. you can request for the ticket to be dismissed because the citation contains "procedural errors."
On your court date, you can talk to the county attorney or prosecutor, and strike a deal. Pay a court fee equal to the fine, but have the charges stayed for 12 months and if you have no similar offenses during that time, the chartges get dismissed. They do this quite often, especially if your record is relatively clear.
Now here's my favorite. In many states, including MN, the basic speed law is "Safe and Reasonable." There is nothing in the statutes which says you must be obeying the posted "speed limits." Those posted signs are actually just guidelines to help you get an idea of what a good speed might be.
If on your court date, you say something like, "Yes your honor, I was driving 65 mph on the freeway in an area which was posted with 55 mph signs. However, I was doing so in a safe and reasonable manner. The roads were clear and dry, while traffic was light."
The burden of proof is then back onto the police officer, to present some other evidence or testimony that your speed was unsafe or unreasonable. If the cop says, no, he saw you skidding sideways between pedestrians at 65 mph on the unplowed snow, then of course you're screwed. But that's the whole thing in a speeding ticket, the burden of proof. If you can successfully turn that around, you're golden.
Yet another strategy: This is for when two officers are working a sped trap together, for example one of them is up in a plane with a stopwatch, or is maybe up on the overpass with his laser gun, and is just radioing to the other officer who pulled you over. In some states you can demand that the officer who clocked you be the one who writes you the ticket. If he's up in a plane, well that's not going to happen! If he actually comes down from the overpass just to write you a ticket, you can bet that he will be pissed off and will not give you any breaks. But at that point you can insist on seeing the numbers on t
Urban legend, and more importantly you have no legal right to see the radar. Skip it. Besides, they're going to lock the reading on whatever it was when they decided to pull you over. If you were braking at that time, it must've still been high enough for them to justify a stop. If the cop didn't lock the reading, he's an idiot and you can petition his ticketing records during discovery, but you're not going to get anything by asking to see the radar display. All this will accomplish is making the cop nervous. Exiting your vehicle is a big no-no unless requested by the cop, and even then it makes them nervous. I was once asked to exit my vehicle and proceed to the rear because the dumb cop had never seen a retractable spoiler before. He thought my car was broken and wanted to show me the problem. His hand was on his gun holster the entire time I was out of the car, even though I was entirely non-threatening. By exiting the car or otherwise giving the cop a hard time (saying anything other than "yes, sir" and "no, sir", telling him you'll see him in court, etc) will do nothing but erase any possible chance you had for getting off with a warning. He doesn't need to know that you're pissed off, and that you're going to fight the ticket. Let him find that out when he's subpeonaed for court.
Another urban legend. Name misspellings, hair color differences (within reason -- if you're a dark blonde and they marked brunette, it's not going to fly -- if you have bright pink hair and they marked it as black, then maybe you have a shot), address typos, etc, are not enough to get the ticket thrown. You need something major, like they wrote down a street that's blocks away from where the stop happened, or they listed your vehicle as a Chevy Suburban when you're obviously driving a Mini. Unless something is significantly wrong, don't bother. You'll just get laughed at, and your credibility will suffer.
They do this so often that most states have a name for it -- deferment (I probably butchered the spelling). It's law, and you can ask for it any time you like. However, you need to know your state's laws, because most (all?) of them only allow you to defer one ticket every 7 years. Deferment is a very last resort if there's nothing else you can do. It's absolutely not your first option. Also keep in mind that if you do get another infraction during the deferred period (which could last up to 2 years in some states), the previous offense comes back as a guilty (and in some states, it may not matter whether or not you're convicted of the new offense, which is why you need to know the law).
Remember the part about it being 3:00 AM, deserted, and miles from anywhere?
Why am I allowed to climb mountains, skydive, bungee jump, and smoke cigarettes, all of which constitute a risk to myself (and in the case of cigarettes, others as well) and yet I can't speed on a deserted roadway because it's "unsafe?"
I was on a highway once, had just turned on and needed to be in the left lane for a left-hand turn fairly quickly, so I accelerated up to highway speed the and made my way left, one lane at a time and checking each time to make sure. The last two lanes contained: 1 van moving a little slower than me and slighly behind and the far lane: 1 motorcycle, quite far back but rapidly closing. I must've underestimated the bike because it was closer than I expected when i checked for the final lane change. My turn was approaching rapidly though and I didn't want to slam the brake in front of the van (I would've had to slam hard to execute the change "safely") the other choice was to accelerate a bit, pass in front of the bike and slow down in the turning lane leading up to a light. This plan seemed required the least amount of accelerating so I chose it. While in the lane before the turning lane, the bike closed to my bumper.
Well it turns out it was a bike cop. There is a light, so I'm stopped in the turn lane when he pulls up *between* me and the car to my right and says, "Do you know what the speed limit is here?"
"50" (i'd been going 50, so it seemed a safe bet.. turned out to be 45)
"Well it sure as heck isn't 65"
I don't know where he got the 65 number from. HE was going much faster than that and it took half my nerve to keep from saying, "Well you shouldn't have been going that fast then" but I know if i had, my seatbelt would have mysteriously been unbuckled and i'd probably turn out to have a broken tail light.
So the light turns green. (my light. the turning light. of a 10 lane highway +2 turning lanes) the cop then drives between the lines of traffic and drives straight across the intersection.
And to augment your statement about not speeding, they get you both ways on that one. Many states have a "reasonable and prudent" clause in their speeding laws. It means two things:
1) if conditions are poor, you should be driving at a reduced speed. regardless of what the number on the sign is. They can ticket you for this.
2) (and this is the tenuous one) you can get out of a speeding ticket if you truely are 'going with the flow of traffic', but I don't think that's ever worked and it's got another edge to it: they can ticket you for driving too slow if the 'flow of traffic' is speeding.
So really, you simply can't win. Pay the nice man his protection money.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
You don't really need Google maps for speeding tickets sometimes basic physics is all you need.
I won a case in League City, Texas. the officer game me a ticket saying i was going 85 in a 65 in the fog. You heard me the fog. That night the fog was so thick we got lost for an hour driving around because we couldn't see landmarks. Now not everybody knows that laser and active radar don't work too well in the fog or rain... If you can prove this point your case is made. Besides the fog I had a few other things in my favor.
I filed a 'writ of discovery' to find out what they had against me before I went to court. I found this info in a book about speed traps. I represented myself and I am not trained in law. I even gave them some lead time with the write so they had more than enough time to answer my writ.
Using the writ I was able to find out a few things. The first being that they really really did not want to produce the operation manual for their radar gun. I got a handwritten note from the DA that pretty much said if you want to see it you'll have to come in & read it. The second is that they had not had the radar gun tested as is required in some states to be proven accurate under the law. The third is that the officers training was out of date. The FCC required officers be trained in radar safety and the gun to be calibrated every 3 months. The officer and the gun were not in regulation. I still have a copy of the officers certification and the maintenance log of the radar gun. They were both out of date.
On top of this I had been stopped before a speed trap. There was road construction for miles right before I was stopped. I made the DA really mad when I brought up the fact that road signs are spaced an approximate distance appart from each other. I basically pulled out the fact if I had been going 85 by the time it took me to apply pressure to my breaks to slow down in the area
where the officer said he had clocked me speeding I would have been going so fast (I was in an 89' s-10 blazer v6) I would have been well into the speed zone.
When the DA found out I was there the court intentionally held the case after everybody left so that nobody would know what I was about to point out. I was amazed at how many people would have been seriously ticked if they knew this kind of information. Technically it would be a federal crime for an office to use an uncalibrated radar gun unlicensed. It just goes to show law enforcement makes the most money off of ignorance than anything else. Most people are too lazy to defend themselves. Do you know how many people pay for tickets when the officer doesn't even show up to court, just because they think they are getting off, or that something worse could happen. Whats worse than paying money out you don't have to give? Seriously. Some of these small towns have probably not calibrated their guns since they first bought them. Use this info to your advantage.
this sig is classified..how about yours?
In California, auto insurance is not specifically required. You can opt to post a bond that exceeds the minimum required insurance level, as you suggest.
However, the minimum insurance is pretty low. With the 100/300/100 insurance I buy, the maximum possible insurance payout will pretty much always exceed what I've put into it. So even if I had the funds for the minimum, it still probably makes sense to buy the insurance.
Insurance is not really a waste if the mean net cost isn't break even. It's protection against standard deviations. $100k+ accidents are not common, so the average expected cost is low -- however you need to be able to cover the whole cost in the rare case where your number gets called. Insurance helps to smooth the cost over a large number of drivers, and it takes work to manage this process.
I don't think it's fair to call it a ripoff based on the justification that profit is involved. Profit for a service is fair -- the insurance agents have to put food on their families too.