Slashdot Mirror


Baltimore Issued Speed Camera Ticket To Motionless Car

SternisheFan sends this story from the Baltimore Sun: "The Baltimore City speed camera ticket alleged that the four-door Mazda wagon was going 38 miles per hour in a 25-mph zone — and that owner Daniel Doty owed $40 for the infraction. But the Mazda wasn't speeding. It wasn't even moving. The two photos printed on the citation as evidence of speeding show the car was idling at a red light with its brake lights illuminated. A three-second video clip also offered as evidence shows the car motionless, as traffic flows by on a cross street. Since the articles' publication, several lawmakers have called for changes to the state law that governs the way the city and other jurisdictions operate speed camera programs. Gov. Martin O'Malley said Tuesday that state law bars contractors from being paid based on the number of citations issued or paid —an approach used by Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Howard County and elsewhere. 'The law says you're not supposed to charge by volume. I don't think we should charge by volume,' O'Malley said. "If any county is, they need to change their program.'"

57 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Not legal here. by HexaByte · · Score: 4, Informative

    In my own area, a Judge has ruled they are not legal.

    --
    HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
    1. Re:Not legal here. by TWX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sounds like to me, every other photo radar defendant can cite this example as machinery that is not functioning properly, subpoena the calibration test records, and request for the ticket to be dismissed if the company can't provide recent calibration test records.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Not legal here. by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lawyers. The judge outlawed lawyers.

    3. Re:Not legal here. by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that whether red light or speeding cameras improve safety is unclear. What we need are tailgating cameras. When people stop tailgating ("driving on a road too close to the vehicle in front, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible"), they will stop colliding with others who slam on their brakes. This will dramatically improve the safety of other traffic enforcement cameras and justify their existence.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    4. Re:Not legal here. by crypticedge · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, theres sufficient evidence that shows they make the roads more dangerous because of sudden stops to avoid said tickets, and have done little to curb others that would run it anyway. They also have a habit of taking pictures during green lights and submitting tickets for those.

    5. Re:Not legal here. by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm no grammarian, but I'm pretty sure "they" is either Judges or Areas...

    6. Re:Not legal here. by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a pedestrian I try to always understand that in a battle of "Who can pay less attention to where they are going" the pedestrian will always lose.
      So I do not play that game. I assume the drive does not see me till I know he does.
      When I ride a motorcycle I do the same.
      Pedestrians that step onto a road hoping that cars see them and stop need to fail at this before they pass on their defective genes to offspring.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    7. Re:Not legal here. by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you're going to put that in, than I also demand something about people cruising 20mph under while in the inside lane, because those are the people I tailgate. If you want to go slow, that's fine, just get out of the way of those who don't.

      If you're going to put that law into place, then how about computer controlled speed governors on every car, restricting them to the speed limit (with maybe a short override allowable for merging/passing)

      If I'm driving 65 in a 65mph zone and pass a block of cars driving 60mph, I don't need an idiot tailgating me until I complete the pass. He may want to drive 80mph, but that doesn't mean that I should have to drive 80mph to pass a car.

    8. Re:Not legal here. by freeze128 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Current laws require these photos to be reviewed by a live human police officer who has to testify that the suspect car was in fact speeding. In this case, the failure can be attributed to "Human Error".

    9. Re:Not legal here. by Jesse_vd · · Score: 5, Funny

      My father was a lawyer, we used to go on road trips to fight the speeding ticket we got on the last road trip.

      My favourite defence was the calibration log. "Manual says it has to be calibrated at each shift, do you have records showing it was calibrated on the morning of _______? Nope? Thanks, have a nice day."

      And then we'd sit in the back and watch every other defendant use the same questions and get let off :)

    10. Re:Not legal here. by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      What is too close?

      "Too close" is "a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible".

      If I'm driving a Lotus Elise and someone else is driving an old VW Beetle towing a camping trailer, does that mean that they aren't allowed to follow as closely as me?

      Correct.

      If so, why should I be discriminated against based on what car I drive (and therefore my socio-economic status)?

      Poor people don't own camping trailers, silly!

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    11. Re:Not legal here. by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well let's see, TFA is about speed cameras, so that can't be it.....I know! PURPLE MONKEYS!!!

    12. Re:Not legal here. by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, theres sufficient evidence that shows they make the roads more dangerous...

      And there's at least as much evidence to the contrary.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    13. Re:Not legal here. by hawguy · · Score: 2

      To be fair, if your walking you are taking a very large risk anyway and should be paying attention since you aren't protected by a steel cage, especially if you walk the Monday after daylight savings time switch happens (single highest pedestrian death day each year)

      Are you sure you meant to say "fair"? Why should the pedestrian who poses the smallest risk to everyone have the largest responsibility to look out for errant drivers? Sure, it's realistic, but it hardly seems fair - to be fair, the guy in the steel cage that's capable of inflicting great harm on the unprotected pedestrian would be the one that's paying closer attention.

    14. Re:Not legal here. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "In my own area, a Judge has ruled they are not legal."

      If "they" means red light cameras, they probably should not be legal.

      I did a bit of internet research last year, and found out that of the U.S. cities that surveyed the results of their red-light-camera use, many of them (a majority) found that they actually increased both the number and average severity of collisions.

      How is that possible? Some of the reasons are complex, but others are simple. For example: instead of just cruising through an iffy judgment call when the light is about to change, motorists now (fearing a traffic ticket that can be $100 + in some places) slam on their brakes, and get rear-ended by the inattentive driver behind them.

      Others cities have been caught deliberately shortening the duration of their yellow lights to create more ticket revenue.

    15. Re:Not legal here. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      can't provide recent calibration test records.

      And in-court sworn testimony from the person who signed-off on the calibration and the calibration of that calibration instrument, all the way back to NIST.

      We only give so many speeding tickets because we have a RADAR gun - people focus on what they can measure. I've been thinking of using OpenCV to create a tailgating gun. That's an actual danger, unlike speeding which usually isn't.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:Not legal here. by jxander · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which side does more violating than the other is entirely moot. Pedestrian is going to lose either way.

      --
      This signature is false.
    17. Re:Not legal here. by jxander · · Score: 2

      I've had to fight my way through two different red light camera tickets. One wasn't even my car (different make and model, different lic plate, though only 1 digit off), and the other shows me clearly coming to a full stop before turning right on red (which is legal in California)

      Both incidents involved three trips to the courthouse. First to acknowledge the receipt of the ticket and set an arraignment date. Second trip for the arraignment, "How do you plead," and setting a trial date. Third trip was the first time a judge actually looked at the content (or rather, had a bailiff look at it and give a head-shake of disapproval) and summarily dismissed all charges. Each of those trips involved several hours of waiting before three seconds of face-time with a judge or clerk, and then more waiting for paperwork about my next appointment or dismissal.

      At this point, I'm pretty sure the camera just snaps at random. If it catches someone, good. If it takes a picture of an innocent person, c'est la vie. Maybe they'll just comply and send the city free money. Or maybe they'll miss the letter in the mail, or forget their court date and the city can bilk them for a few hundred bucks.

      --
      This signature is false.
    18. Re:Not legal here. by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It shouldn't have gotten to that point because the machine shouldn't have triggered on that, and the contractor should have caught the error, but besides all that, there is a lot more than 'human error' involved, it's human indifference, and most likely intentional.

      Remember, "The department has said that a single officer can review up to 1,200 citations in a given day.". So if you have an awesomely diligent cop reviewing these things, who's working on it non-stop for a full 80 hours, that means he's devoting about 24 SECONDS to each one. So loading the data, reviewing the pictures and the video, making a decision, and clicking on whatever buttons and possibly filling out supplementary information required of him (whatever that may or may not be) all in 24 seconds. Yeah, the donut eating coffee swiller is just rubber stamping them. Hell, he probably doesn't even notice what color the car is, nor does he care.

      This system isn't designed to improve safety or help anyone, it only does one thing, and that's to make money for the local government and the contractor.

    19. Re:Not legal here. by CanadianRealist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd agree that fair is not the right word to be using here. "To be brutally honest" would probably be better (and more correct) than "To be fair".

      As a pedestrian I'm amazed at how stupid many drivers are. As a driver I'm amazed at how stupid many pedestrians are.

      Whether walking (or biking ) I treat it like a game where the drivers are actively trying to kill me and won't be punished if they do. That is definitely not true, and wouldn't be fair if it was, but thinking that way is a great survival tactic.

      As a driver I've many times let someone "steal" my right of way since that seemed preferable to being in an accident, even if it would have been the other driver's fault.

    20. Re:Not legal here. by c0lo · · Score: 5, Funny

      As a non-pedestrian

      How do you get to/from your car? Teleport?

      He doesn't. Was born in a trailer, will live in a car or a trailer, will die in a trailer.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    21. Re:Not legal here. by Redmancometh · · Score: 2

      The problem is the endless chain of people who say that, and all have a different idea of what "slow" is. You might think 70 or less is slow and go 75, another guy might think 80 and under is slow, and etc up the chain. I've been tailgated on I-45 going 85 before (it's a 65), and I tap my brakes (TAP as in just enough to make the lights come on) to make them aware of how bad of an idea that is. There are way too many douchebags living out their fucking racecar driver fantasy. You're gonna feel like a real jackass when that person has to brake. Maybe they are driving a vehicle you can't see over, and there is an obstacle in front of them for example. You hit their rear, they get pushed forward, and in many cases to the left or right. Due to their orientation they get more or less T-boned by a car going full speed. If you hit someone and the differential between your stopping time and theirs is sufficient you're going to turn them not just push them forward. At an angle you may even turn them across your car. On a highway you just killed a dad, a mom, or someone's kid in the passenger seat. Because they were going too fucking slow for your taste. I think speed limits need to be raised nationwide. However there is a very good reason for tailgating laws in my view of the world. Your type of people need to stop with the aggression and calm the fuck down behind the wheel. It's probably the easiest way to die or kill someone in day-to-day life.

    22. Re:Not legal here. by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      Don't be a jackass. I see more than enough tailgaters when I'm going 10 over in the right lane and other absurd scenarios. Seriously, sir, the left lane is right there. Why not just use it? (It's a lot more common to see tailgaters when you're in the left lane, too, but that mostly occurs to me when I am already passing someone and a person behind me wants to at the same time pass both of us at 20 over.)

    23. Re:Not legal here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wouldn't talk so much shit about cops that can work an 80 hour day...

    24. Re:Not legal here. by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

      Did that, had a gun pulled on me. Stupid idea. Not lulsy. I'd rather leave them alone than ruin the rest of my day.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    25. Re:Not legal here. by thebigmacd · · Score: 2

      *whoosh*

      What does a double shift have to do with an 80 hour DAY?

  2. Obviously guilty by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Funny

    He is guilty. Clearly guilty of embarrassing some government officials with his so called 'evidence'. Lock him up.

    1. Re:Obviously guilty by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He is guilty.

      Just think how many other people just paid the ticket and didn't contest because they didn't have the time or assumed the judge would sustain the fine? While I have little sympathy for drivers who drive on the edge, pushing yellow lights and often running reds, in many places, Traffic Cams are a SCAM.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Obviously guilty by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      Just think how many other people just paid the ticket and didn't contest because they didn't have the time or assumed the judge would sustain the fine?

      That's only a part of it.

      Much worse is that no matter how many people successfully contest the ticket, the contractor is never fined. Utter lack of penalties for bad behavior encourages bad behavior.

  3. Happens everywhere by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

    This happens regularly in the UK too, often with slightly unusually shaped vehicles like flat bed trucks. Sometimes the police paint the road markings used to verify the amount of movement between two sequential photos the wrong distance apart as well (happened near me).

    Best thing to do is record your journeys with GPS so you can always prove you were not speeding. In fact all you really need to do is record one journey and then just alter the dates on the log for whenever you need it. UK courts have consistently taken GPS data over speed camera images/radar data.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Happens everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is that in the US, most jurisdictions (including Baltimore) require you to be physically present at the court at a given time to contest the charges. For most people, it's far more cost effective to simply pay the fine than to spend hours in traffic/waiting/before the judge(s).

  4. The camera was only out by 38mph! by kawabago · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well within the manufacturers margin of error!

  5. Crooked cop by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The cop who signed off on this ticket is obviously not doing his job. This should at least be fraud, if not something more serious. Of course, there's no chance of the thug with a badge getting any sort of charges laid against him. There is no justice in the US.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Crooked cop by Bigby · · Score: 2

      Not fraud. Extortion.

    2. Re:Crooked cop by agallagh42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The cop who signed off on this ticket is obviously not doing his job. This should at least be fraud, if not something more serious. Of course, there's no chance of the thug with a badge getting any sort of charges laid against him. There is no justice in the US.

      Not fraud. Perjury. The cop is basically swearing that he witnessed the accused committing the act of speeding, and it is quite obvious that he did not. He lied to the court, in a round about way.

      --
      Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
    3. Re:Crooked cop by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Informative

      From the article: " The city's speed camera contractor, Xerox State and Local Solutions, says each potential citation goes through two layers of review to weed out any that have a deficiency, such as an illegible license plate. Then a Baltimore police officer must review the citation before approving it for issuance to the vehicle owner. Each citation says the officer swears or affirms that the car was going at least 12 mph over the speed limit "based on inspection of the recorded images." The officer's signature is also printed."

    4. Re:Crooked cop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perjury.

      Signing off on the ticket matches the definition of perjury. The officer willfully and falsely certified that the driver violated an ordinance (speeding over the limit), one which had a financial penalty to the driver (possibly above and beyond the $40, given insurance and other unknown factors). If I recall correctly, the statements for signing off on tickets for revenue enhancement cameras include statements that signing is under penalty of perjury.

      The only out would possibly be mens rea, the intention. If the cop did so accidentially, then it could be incompetence (and not malice). Since the job was explicitly to examine these photos, then you're into malpractice territory. Doesn't speak well to the cop, nor to the program. If this is one case of a major foul-up, how many more were there, ones paid off false due to fifty dollars being less cost than missing a day of work to dispute it.

      Note: IANAL. Also, obviously, I am strongly against the police acting as The Sherrif Of Nottingham, levying fines and taxes for their own benefit. Revenue cameras tend towards injustice; especially so when they change conditions like shortening the time of yellow lights to increase said revenue.

    5. Re:Crooked cop by ehiris · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did you ever see how they "sign" the citations? They are printed signatures in low dpi meaning noone really reviews them on a case by case basis.

      I got a ticket once and tried to dispute it based on the fake signature but the judge was as crooked as the cop who showed up in court because he admitted the case even though the fake printed signature should have invalidated the complaint to begin with.

      Someone high up in position of authority is filling up their pockets and the pockets of their cronies with money from those shotgun-approach speeding tickets.

      Meanwhile, those freeway speed cameras are gone as they were ruled illegal but I did not see a dime back and I still had to deal with my insurance rates going up because of the points.

    6. Re:Crooked cop by ShadoHawk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, last year we had a dead cop signing them! (I am from Baltimore.) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/10424713107/dead-baltimore-cop-signed-certified-red-light-camera-tickets.shtml Not sure if we can fire him.

    7. Re:Crooked cop by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are supposed to look for the infraction and do not it is lazy.
      If you attest to a court that you did when you in fact did not you are perjuring yourself.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  6. Do away with the fines. by reasterling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Speding fines are nothing more than a tax. If we realy cared about the safety of drivers on the road then speeding violations should be delt with using some kind of points system that will eventualy suspend your licence for a while. Instead we have a tax that encintivises harrassments of good citicens by cops. I have seen in many areas where city limits are extended for miles outside of any reasonable resemblence of a city just so the city can garner extra funds from speeding tickets. The use of financial punishment for these sorts of violations only leads to a more controling and harrassing atmosphere from those who reciave the funds (ie our local governments).

    --
    "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
    1. Re:Do away with the fines. by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      I have seen in many areas where city limits are extended for miles outside of any reasonable resemblence of a city just so the city can garner extra funds from speeding tickets.

      Or, are those the actual city limits where the city has jurisdiction and people just got caught speeding?

      A municipality doesn't just end because most of the houses run out. If they're still charging taxes out there, they get to enforce speed limits.

      If the speeding took place outside of their jurisdiction, sure, they've overstepped their bounds. Otherwise, you've just mis-judged when you can start speeding and are complaining you got caught.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Do away with the fines. by HaZardman27 · · Score: 2

      At least in my state, and I'm assuming it's not the only one, there is both. You get a fine with the ticket, but you also get a number of points put against your license. If you exceed a certain amount in a year, your license gets suspended for 6 months.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    3. Re:Do away with the fines. by reasterling · · Score: 2

      I was typing in a hurry. Thank you for taking the time to proof read my comment for me. In truth I have the day off and was enjoying "The Last Command: Star Wars (The Thrawn Trilogy)" and wanted to get back to enjoying my book. Leia has just figured out that Luke and Mara are in trouble because C'baoth is hidden in the mountain surounded by ysalamiri.
      Any way, its a great old book, and I have better things to do than to worry about spelling on an internet forrum. Besides, I do not have to worry about spelling when I have "Anonymous Cowards" to check it for me. ;)

      --
      "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
    4. Re:Do away with the fines. by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      Exactly. There's many reasons why a town might want to extend their city limits out beyond where there's a lot of houses. They can collect quite a bit of property taxes out there from the few businesses and houses that are out there. Also, even, if there are only a few people, those people usually want water and trash service, which is usually provided for by the municipality. Timmins, Ontario is famous for this. It was the largest (by land area) town in Canada up until 1995. This was because they wanted to be able to include all the surrounding mines and logging lands as municipal lands for taxing purposes.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  7. Its all relative! by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

    From a point of view at the center of the solar system that car was moving at 30 km/s!

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Its all relative! by poofmeisterp · · Score: 2

      From a point of view at the center of the solar system that car was moving at 30 km/s!

      The IAU as just unanimously voted in your favor.

      Now they*cough*WE can all drive at the speed of our choosing because all data is relative and not permissible in court! :-D

    2. Re:Its all relative! by Zephyn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Drive a little faster than that and you could see us sooner.

  8. 90's Era Germany by hovelander · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This happened when I was in the military in Germany in the early 90's. Just about to leave for the US and I got a speeding ticket in my mailbox for my 67 VW Beetle. Thing is, that Beetle never even made it onto the autobahn or any other street since I had the engine out of it the whole time and didn't finish the project before I had to leave country. I also wasn't allowed to leave until the false ticket was paid. Back then, if you contested the ticket, you had to write in to get access to the photos. I didn't have enough time left in country for that, so I had to pay the ticket or get an Article 15 (which is like a speeding ticket for your life in the military). I had thought, and still think, that it was a scam played on GI's about to leave the country. I'll have to dig that ticket out and finally request the photos from that bit of glory...

  9. As a resident... by Aryden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Living in Baltimore now, What I would really like them to address is this:

    Why are the speed cameras concentrated in the predominantly lower class black areas?

    Why are cameras that were approved to operate ONLY in school zones ONLY during school hours, issuing tickets around the clock?

    Why are mobile speed cameras being used when they were only approved for stationary cameras in school zones?

    1. Re:As a resident... by Magius_AR · · Score: 2

      Why are the speed cameras concentrated in the predominantly lower class black areas?

      Might have something to do with the fact that Baltimore is predominantly black, and predominantly poor.

  10. Re:double fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My mother was driving through baltimore a few years back. A couple weeks later a red light camera ticket came in the mail. My parents paid it, only to have it show up again in their mailbox. At first they were really mad that the city screwed up and sent multiple tickets, even though the first payment went through....then they realized the timestamp was about 10 minutes later than the first. Yep, my mother accidentally ran the same stoplight twice in a row because she was lost...

    Just when I was thinking these cameras were a bad idea, you had to post that. Running a light once, because you're lost is inexcusable.

    My mom totaled her car that way. She's still driving and doesn't hold herself responsible. After all, she was just lost. It's not like she was drunk. Those people should go to jail. grrrr

  11. Was it a red Mazda? by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Funny

    Obviously the car looked fast.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  12. We had speed cameras on the freeway in Phoenix by mark_reh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    for a couple years. They were eventually removed because people simply ignored the tickets that came in the mail. Tickets delivered by mail are not delivered by a sworn peace officer so they were unenforceable. The state contracted with a private company because sending process servers out to deliver tickets would be too expensive.

    There were other ways around the tickets, too. Two car families would register husband's car in wife's name and wife's car in husband's name. If the face in the photo doesn't match the license photo of the registered owner, the ticket would not be mailed. One guy in Scottsdale collected >30 tickets without having to pay because he wore a gorilla mask when he drove past the cameras. He admitted to owning the car and the mask, but denied being at the wheel and no one could prove that he was behind the wheel when the photos were snapped.

  13. My idea by rk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have an idea for making traffic safety laws about traffic safety and not revenue generation:

    Pass a law that says all proceeds from moving violation citations go into a statewide fund. Then every 12 months, the funds are distributed evenly to every licensed driver in the state who has a 36 month clean driving record. Good drivers get rewarded by bad drivers, who pay into the fund with their tickets, and municipalities can't turn traffic laws into a cash cow with bullshit like speed traps, red-light cameras with short yellow lights, and other shenanigans.

    1. Re:My idea by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find your ideas intriguing and would like to vote you into office.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  14. pencil whipping by v1 · · Score: 2

    The vendor on his video link goes into detail about all the checks that are done, and at one point says "a minute to do this, a minute to verify that, a minute to check this..." etc.

    The main article then states that "a single officer may check 1400 a day". OK, time for maths! There are 480 minutes in an 8 hour day, assuming no breaks for potty or lunch. We'll assume the officer is equipped with a sandwich and depends. But he obviously is spending LESS than "a minute" reviewing the entire citation so lets go down to seconds.

    28800 seconds in his breakless-day, / 1400 citations, means the officer is averaging no more than 20 seconds per citation review. If we add up the vendor's recommended "minutes" to be about 3 per citation, the officers are being pushed to spend 16% of the expected time reviewing and approving these citations.

    This is the police department's fault. If an officer is approving more than 500 citations a day, he's spending less than a minute on each review and is either not being given adequate time to do his job, or is just plain pencil-whipping/shortcutting to be lazy or work his quota/metrics.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.