DOJ Cracking Down On Profit-Driven Policing, Audit Looks At How Far It's Spread (muckrock.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ Cracking Down On Profit-Driven Policing, Audit Looks At How Far It's Spread (muckrock.com)

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday December 2, 2015 @12:33PM from the mine-now-I-take-it dept.

v3rgEz writes: Federal civil rights officials at the Department of Justice are launching an effort to combat widespread constitutional abuses in U.S. courts in the hope of ending budget-driven policies that cripple those unable to afford fines and fees for minor offenses, the Huffington Post reports. The DOJ's focus on court fees and bail practices follows the Ferguson report which found officials had colluded to raise revenue when they hit residents with exorbitantly high fines and fees, regardless of their ability to pay, and jailed people to extract the money. The Sunlight Foundation and MuckRock recently launched an audit to see how widely the practice has spread.

152 of 210 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Everywhere by Aero77 · 2015-12-02 12:35 · Score: 5, Informative

It's everywhere, you don't have to be a minority to get hit with excessive fines for minor (usually traffic) offenses.
1. Re:Everywhere by Sowelu · 2015-12-02 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well, define excessive. If the tickets for improper HOV lane usage were lower, I'd probably be that asshole who uses it with no passengers all the time. Risk has to be greater than reward for disobeying.
2. Re:Everywhere by C0R1D4N · 2015-12-02 12:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Simpler solution. Eliminate fines for motor vehicle offenses. Use a points only system. Rack up x number of points, one month suspension, more, 6 months, then a year, then permanent. Let the points decay at a reasonable rate. Should affect all drivers equally regardless of wealth.
3. Re:Everywhere by andymadigan · 2015-12-02 13:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And the punishment for driving on a suspended/revoked license is?
  
  No, there's a simpler solution than that: don't let municipalities keep the money from traffic tickets (or any kind of fine). The payments should be made directly to the state's general fund. Take away the profit motive, no more profit based policing.
  
  --
  The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
4. Re:Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 13:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How about ridiculously low B.A.C.'s which lead to DUI's or DWAI's and the non-stop barrage of fees and fines and general loss of rights for consuming a legal product. I'm in no way advocating drunk driving, but come on, in some parts of the country if you have 1 beer you're technically breaking the law, regardless as to whether or not you're actually impaired and shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle. May be the DOJ can look at the MADD cartel next.
5. Re:Everywhere by peragrin · 2015-12-02 13:15 · Score: 2
  
  Every county gets to make it's own laws. in NY that is generally how it is handled at the state level, however each county can add it's own fees to cover court and processing costs.
  So you pay your fine and then another $30-$100 to cover the cost of court.
  It is why gun laws are so poorly defined, and enforced. every county has it's own gun laws. not just state, but county.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
6. Re:Everywhere by Darinbob · 2015-12-02 13:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  True, but $1000 for me is not much pain compared to $1000 for someone who needs to skip meals to save money. Or are you one of those getting jailed over fines until you can manage to raise the money from family and friends? The problem is not high fees for minor traffic offenses, but the shake down from police officers and engaging in debtors prisosn in order to raise money. But points for the attempt at empathy.
  "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France.
7. Re:Everywhere by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-12-02 13:26 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Well, define excessive. If the tickets for improper HOV lane usage were lower, I'd probably be that asshole who uses it with no passengers all the time. Risk has to be greater than reward for disobeying.
  Snipers?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
8. Re:Everywhere by MightyMartian · 2015-12-02 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Courts have the means to deal with repeat offenders. A small fine is usually enough for most people to go "I won't do that again". But if you are serial violater of HOV rules, then a judge is going to start nailing you harder and harder.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
9. Re:Everywhere by glitch! · 2015-12-02 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Simpler solution. Eliminate fines for motor vehicle offenses. Use a points only system.
  I think you are almost there. I think that most motor vehicle offenses are various levels of reckless driving, ranging from a California stop to killing people. Why not treat all these as crimes? If there is a verdict of guilty, the driver will have to spend time in jail. Run a red light and endanger other drivers? That's one night in jail. Show up at 7PM and leave at 6AM. No exceptions, and no buying out. Get caught driving drunk? That's one week in jail. Work it out with your boss. Injure someone because of negligence? Even more. If there is no crime, I think there should be no punishment. But if there is a crime, I think there should be jail time with no way for rich people to weasel out with money.
  
  --
  A dingo ate my sig...
10. Re:Everywhere by nobuddy · 2015-12-02 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  Use the solution that Denver chose- make the HOV lanes toll as well. No pass or toll booth. Cameras cover use of the lane. One person in car- bill mailed to the owner of the car. No fine, no patrols, no enforcement on the road. Just a toll for using the HOV lane.
11. Re:Everywhere by AK+Marc · 2015-12-02 14:53 · Score: 2
  
  Nope. HOV infractions and speed cameras are often purely non-criminal. Like the citation is given to the car, not the driver. This is done because it's easier to collect and convict. But it also means that most are set up where you could get 1,000,000 of them, and so long as you paid the fine on time, there'd never be an escalation of penalty. Yes, you could change that, but it would be a fundamental change to the unattended ticket system, one that only barely holds on because so many people are against it, and they've never been shown to do what they say (it doesn't improve safety to send someone a ticket in the mail a month later).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
12. Re:Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 15:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well, define excessive. If the tickets for improper HOV lane usage were lower, I'd probably be that asshole who uses it with no passengers all the time. Risk has to be greater than reward for disobeying.
  Simple solution, do what a lot of countries in Europe do, base the fine off a percentage of your yearly income. The rich asshole who uses his cell phone without a hands free device pays a $10,000 fine while the average Joe pays, say $1000 and the poor pays like $50. The fine should be large enough to hurt, but not enough to cause serious financial problems unless the person is a repeat offender too stupid to change their behavior.
13. Re:Everywhere by Kohath · 2015-12-02 15:15 · Score: 2
  
  If the tickets for improper HOV lane usage were lower, I'd probably be that asshole who uses it with no passengers all the time.
  Would that be the end of the world? Is it worth all the bad things that come with higher fines and enforcement by armed officers to keep it from happening?
  I don't think it is. At some point you just have to say "we aren't going to micromanage everyone's daily driving using fines backed by government bullying, ultimately backed by armed enforcement". Instead of pretending we can micromanage everyone, let's just build safe, efficient roads, safe cars, and concentrate the enforcement on drunk or reckless drivers.
14. Re:Everywhere by MyAlternateID · 2015-12-02 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  Every county gets to make it's own laws. in NY that is generally how it is handled at the state level, however each county can add it's own fees to cover court and processing costs.
  So you pay your fine and then another $30-$100 to cover the cost of court.
  It is why gun laws are so poorly defined, and enforced. every county has it's own gun laws. not just state, but county.
  I never understood the concept of tacking a "court cost" onto the amount of a ticket. If not for things like the courts and criminal justice system, why are we paying taxes? If they want to move away from taxation and adopt usage fees instead, we can have that debate, but right now they seem to want to do both. It's effectively double-dipping.
15. Re:Everywhere by Kohath · 2015-12-02 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  If not for things like the courts and criminal justice system, why are we paying taxes?
  To pay for pensions and giveaways to non-workers.
16. Re:Everywhere by davester666 · 2015-12-02 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, here in Alberta, Canada, the level is down to .05 and you can get your license suspended for 3 days and your vehicle impounded just if the cop feels like it, no evidence needed. And your insurance gets notified of it as well, so your rates go up.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
17. Re:Everywhere by Tony+Isaac · 2015-12-02 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  You can't win by sending the money to the state. Greed always follows the money, whichever coffer it goes to.
  Still, I agree you have to have the fines, because nothing gets people's attention like having to pay money.
  Maybe we should consider the British system, which imposes fines based on a percentage of the offender's income.
18. Re:Everywhere by Tony+Isaac · 2015-12-02 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  The British system imposes fines based on a percentage of the offender's income. Maybe this would even things out a bit, and be more of an incentive for those of us who are well off as well.
19. Re:Everywhere by SirAudioMan · 2015-12-02 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  Same in Ontario. I believe between 0.05 and 0.08 is the warn range. The biggest issue is indeed the insurance finding out. I have had a few speeding tickets since I have been driving (15 years). In each case I wasn't really bothered by the fine (up to $200) but the potential imprecation of my insurance going up. I figure withing 5-10 years, in my province anyway, I'll see the 0.05 range drop to very low levels which will mean ANY alcohol in your system will be illegal. That and the lowering of residential speed limits because pedestrians keep getting hit into Toronto who aren't paying attention, so naturally the entire province need to lower the speed limits because. Nothing better than a political knee-jerk reaction.
20. Re:Everywhere by currently_awake · 2015-12-02 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  You could impose public service. Run a red light, pick up garbage for 100 hours.
21. Re:Everywhere by ToddDTaft · 2015-12-02 17:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  No, there's a simpler solution than that: don't let municipalities keep the money from traffic tickets (or any kind of fine). The payments should be made directly to the state's general fund. Take away the profit motive, no more profit based policing.
  North Carolina does this. The state constitution actually requires that all fines collected "shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for maintaining free public schools."
  I've seen this work to have the desired effect.
  The campus police at some of the state universities used to issue all sorts of nuisance parking tickets for things like "parked too close to line". At the time, the universities were keeping the money from the fines. Quite a few years ago, there was a legal case that went to the state supreme court where they ruled that the universities couldn't keep the money. After that, the number of nuisance fines dramatically decreased, even though officials claimed that there was no correlation between these events.
22. Re:Everywhere by AK+Marc · 2015-12-02 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  They are crimes, they are just too expensive to prosecute, so they are fined, rather than prosecuted. Everywhere in the US, running a stop sign can land you in jail, not just a fine. But nobody does because the costs of prosecuting someone for criminal bad driving exceed the perceived benefits from doing so. The traffic courts are set up as a revenue stream, and if the prosecution isn't profitable, it won't be done, no matter what the effect on safety would be.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
23. Re: Everywhere by Kohath · 2015-12-02 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about finding a way to micromanage everyone's driving that "works". Let people drive without being micromanaged. That "works" adequately versus the alternatives when you consider all the benefits and drawbacks to the public. Save enforcement for recklessness.
24. Re:Everywhere by mvdwege · 2015-12-02 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  Who is putting a gun to your head to have a beer?
  
  --
  "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
25. Re:Everywhere by Ihlosi · 2015-12-02 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  Should affect all drivers equally regardless of wealth.
  Except for those who can afford a chauffeur.
26. Re:Everywhere by Ihlosi · 2015-12-02 20:15 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  most of which was written by an apostle who said that what goes into a person's mouth does not defile them,
  It wasn't an apostle who supposedly said that, but the water-into-wine guy himself.
27. Re: Everywhere by bestweasel · 2015-12-02 20:28 · Score: 2
  
  No it doesn't. That progressive scheme, introduced in the '90s by John Major's Tory government, was abandoned after a short time amid stories in the press of excessive fines for trivial offences (usually because the person ignored the summons). The status quo was restored and the well-off could breathe easily again.
28. Re:Everywhere by davester666 · 2015-12-02 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  No warning in alberta. License and vehicle are gone for 3 days the first time, then it goes up after that. And appealing to the court is pointless because the law was written so that your license is suspended until the appeal is over, which is 6-12 months later...so it's ripe for abuse, as the cop gets to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
29. Re:Everywhere by penguinoid · 2015-12-02 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  I do wish more religious people would read and understand their own holy book,
  Trust me, you do not want people behaving as though they actually believe what their holy book says. What you want is people who pick the good parts of their holy book and conveniently ignore all the nasty parts.
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
30. Re: Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, you shouldn't have to have a beer, just because you want to put a gun to your head.
31. Re:Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-03 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  I stand by that what they do is a stupid solution. It motivates the behavior of hiding speed limit signs and such. I tend to think there should be no monetary punishment for traffic infractions at all. If the point of traffic infractions is to improve safety of the roads then surely proper punishment should be to remove you from the roads if you preform unsafe actions. Use a points system, and once those points are gone, you lose your license. Done. It punishes everybody equally regardless.
  Your way doesn't improve anything. Say a guy makes a million a year and hides 950 thousand of it? What if a guy makes a million a year but is drowning in debt and can barely pay his bills? No, monetary fines shouldn't be there at all. It creates the incentive for cities to do exactly what apparently the DOJ is trying to crack down on, and your method just increases the incentive.
32. Re:Everywhere by jaseuk · 2015-12-03 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  No we don't, but financial circumstances are taken into account. However, these are capped, so the rich don't suffer. I think it's Finland that link fines to percentages of weekly incoming or something.
  Jason
33. Re:Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-03 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  $200 for speeding?
  How about getting a ticket for doing 4mph over the speed limit and "Following too closely." (note: there was at least 100 yards between me and the guy in front of me. On the highway moving at 59mph)
  Which cost me $800 once you include the ticket cost and the court fee's, filing fee's, etc.
  You guys to the north have it easy at $200 for speeding.
34. Re:Everywhere by jittles · 2015-12-03 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  And the punishment for driving on a suspended/revoked license is? No, there's a simpler solution than that: don't let municipalities keep the money from traffic tickets (or any kind of fine). The payments should be made directly to the state's general fund. Take away the profit motive, no more profit based policing.
  That is inadequate because then the state will start pressuring municipalities to issue fines. In fact, in most states, the state already gets a portion and already encourages municipalities to issue fines. The solution is to one of two things: Lump the money from the fines into different categories and issue rebates (income based) to people who do not receive a fine of that type for the year or donate the money to charities. The difficulty with charities is that it would be very easy to subvert that and divert the money to individuals.
35. Re:Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-03 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Oh that sounds great!
  Replace a small fine with slave labor, nothing can go wrong there.
36. Re:Everywhere by Forgefather · 2015-12-03 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not just North Carolina. In Missouri the law requires that anything seized through equitable sharing must go into the state's educational fund, and we don't have many problems with asset forfeiture.
  
  --
  "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
37. Re:Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-03 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  The Finnish system is such that fines are "N daily incomes" where your "daily income" is based on all your taxable income the previous year / 365. N depends on what you're being fined for. As an alternative to paying it, you can actually also choose "part-time prison" in which case the number of days is halved. If you choose that, you're allowed to work normally and so on but you have to spend your time outside working hours in a minimum security prison. A teacher of mine said that he had done that when he got caught speeding quite excessively in his youth because he was curious and it doesn't result in anything worse on your record anyway.
38. Re:Everywhere by rhazz · 2015-12-03 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I got a ticket there for the license plate frame extending 1/8 of an inch further onto the plate than was allowed. The cop actually had a ruler and measured it. The fine was $150.
  The fine is ridiculous of course, but given how common the useless decorative frames are, you have to draw the line somewhere. A law specifying just how large frames can be makes sense. I have seen some decorative plate frames that obscure parts of the plate markings. If you want to put useless decorative items on your car, don't put it on your plate. I took off my dealership's stupid ad frame the day I drove the car off the lot.
  
  The last state trooper I dealt with pulled me over for no slowing down while they had someone pulled over on the highway. He let it go with a warning and explained that I had to slow down to 20mph under the speed limit or move over a lane when passing a cop on a traffic stop.
  Yeah, we have that law too, and most people are aware of it and follow it. If you see emergency vehicles on the side of the road, you switch lanes if you can, or otherwise keep to the far side of your lane and slow down. People getting clipped by some idiot who drove by too close happens more often than it needs to.
39. Re:Everywhere by DuckDodgers · 2015-12-03 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  If you read the report on Ferguson, it's worse than that. Someone is issued a fine, and when they fail to pay by a certain date they receive no second or third notice and are instead jailed for three days and then released and issued an additional fine for failing to pay the first fine on time. Then the person pays off the first fine and part of the second but can't scrape together the money to pay the rest of the second fine, so they're jailed again and issued a third fine.
  
  But the Ferguson police would only target people with black skin for that kind of fundraising.
40. Re:Everywhere by DuckDodgers · 2015-12-03 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that for many people outside major cities, there is no alternative way to get to work. When I worked a manufacturing job in college one of my coworkers was a guy who was driving without a license to and from work each day because his choices were "drive without a legal license" or "be unemployed".
41. Re:Everywhere by DuckDodgers · 2015-12-03 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Brilliant. Thanks for sharing that.
42. Re:Everywhere by RavenLrD20k · 2015-12-03 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'd love to know what state so I can avoid it just because of the 4mph thing. In any reasonable state "Following too closely" is only applicable as a tack on ticket in an actual collision where you rear-end someone else as that's the only way to prove that you were following too close. If you're following someone and they slam on the brakes and you're able to come to a complete stop getting your vehicles within millimeters of each other but never touching, you're not following too close because you demonstrated you had the reaction time to justify your judgement in spacing. Because of its subjective nature in the definition of the law, the only admissible evidence to prove that one really was in violation isn't the Officer's perception, but an actual collision.
  I have the distinct feeling you're not telling us something though. Speeding 23 mph above the limit in Georgia, USA nabbed my roomate a $276 fine. I've never had one go above $170 myself. My wife got one that would have been ~$120 for doing 16 over (had to pay the court 2x as much as "bail" for the Not Guilty plea... when we finally had the hearing the Judge threw it out due to the location that the officer stated he tagged her as being illegal since the curve was sharp enough that there was no way for the officer's vehicle to be visible for the requisite 500 foot minimum; got all the money back).
43. Re:Everywhere by kilfarsnar · 2015-12-03 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'd love to know what state so I can avoid it just because of the 4mph thing.
  Probably Virginia. Don't speed in Virginia. Seriously, if you want to shake your head in disbelief, look up the speeding laws and fines in Virginia. It's hilarious as long as it's not happening to you.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
44. Re:Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-03 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  And how do we lay this at the feet of police departments? Fines are determined by legislatures. Bail is set by judges (with recommendations by prosecutors.) Even B.A.C.'s are set by legislatures, not be police or sheriff's departments.
45. Re: Everywhere by kilfarsnar · 2015-12-03 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  The status quo was restored and the well-off could breathe easily again.
  That is why the status quo is the status quo.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
46. Re:Everywhere by GodelEscherBlecch · 2015-12-03 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  So. what - you got a ticket once and it made you have a bad day so it must be the same for everyone everywhere? The evidence does not support your position. Even if these fines were not being disproportionately levied against poor communities (I see that as the real factor, not race, but boy are those 2 tangled up in a big ol' Ooruboros / rat king type situation), the fact that there is 0 fucks given that a person can actually pay the fine as opposed to entering a downward spiral of late fees (which they also can't pay) is utterly ridiculous.
  It's like the asshole who jacked up the price of a pill 4000x. It's a blatant, disgusting cash grab that is totally unsustainable and leaves devastation in it's wake, ensuring that these already struggling populations will be permanently stuck in the rat maze. Sure, lots of the problems in poor and black communities are perpetuated from within, but this is the kind of shit that is perpetrated upon them and they have every right to be pissed about it, particularly when it is occasionally seasoned with a police shooting or 10.
47. Re:Everywhere by q4Fry · 2015-12-03 05:51 · Score: 2
  
  The signs says "Speed enforced by Aircraft," but I have yet to see them strafe anyone.
48. Re: Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-03 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's generally easier for government to extort from people who don't have sufficient financial means to fight back.
49. Re:Everywhere by sjames · 2015-12-03 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody puts a gun to your head to do anything at all other than go to work and pay your taxes, but there's this thing we call liberty...
50. Re:Everywhere by sjames · 2015-12-03 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  The worst are places where you can either pay the ticket or you can contest it, but the non-refundable court cost is greater than the fine in that case (and you might still have to pay the ticket).
51. Re:Everywhere by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-12-03 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  The signs says "Speed enforced by Aircraft," but I have yet to see them strafe anyone.
  I'd thought about making a short movie once using that concept.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
52. Re:Everywhere by kheldan · 2015-12-03 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  They only get to shoot at us if we get to shoot back, otherwise no deal. XD
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
53. Re:Everywhere by mysidia · 2015-12-03 18:38 · Score: 1
  
  convict simply petitions the state with a "hardship" temporary license to get to and from work.
  So either abolish "hardship" licenses Or put them in jail for a minimum of 90 days, if they violate while on a "hardship" license.
54. Re:Everywhere by DedTV · 2015-12-04 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  One of my coworkers ended up paying a total of $1900 and spent 3 days locked up over a license plate light that wasn't "bright enough". He got pulled over and got a $96 ticket. Rather than fight it, he just paid it. But, 3 months later he was pulled over and arrested because while the ticket said $96, the total was actually $104 after a "processing fee". They never notified him of the difference but after 90 days, his outstanding $8 debt caused an arrest warrant to be issued and since he got arrested on a Friday night, he had to spend the entire weekend in lockup for which he was charged the additional ~$1800 on top of the $8 to pay for his weekend in jail.
  
  That's "excessive".
55. Re:Everywhere by Methadras · 2015-12-04 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, it's worst than that. A first time DUI offense will probably run you anywhere from $10k - $20k and that is your out of pocket costs. That is one expensive drink and states are going to start dropping BAC's more and more. It's a huge profit center they will never get rid of.
56. Re:Everywhere by DuckDodgers · 2015-12-04 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, of course. He claimed the suspension had nothing to do with alcohol and was from some other bureaucratic nonsense, but of course I have no idea if he was telling the truth.
  
  But my point is, suspending driver's licenses in rural and even some suburban areas does nothing, because the person - whether a victim of police abuse of power or a repeat drunk driver with a body count - is going to keep driving because they have no other economic option.
57. Re:Everywhere by DuckDodgers · 2015-12-04 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Three reasons to target poor blacks:
  1. They're racist and prefer targeting blacks. (See for further example that the Ferguson police had sent attack dogs on unarmed blacks as young as fourteen several times per year since 2005, and had not ever sent attack dogs on a white suspect, armed or not.)
  2. If a victim can't afford the whole fine, they added repeat fines. A middle class target, black or otherwise, would only pay once and then another reason for a penalty would need to found.
  3. A middle class target, black or otherwise, is more likely to have the money or just the political connections to challenge an unlawful fine in court.
58. Re:Everywhere by rpstrong · 2015-12-05 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Jalopnik has a first person account from a reporter who spent three days in a Virginia jail for doing 93 in a 55 mph zone.
59. Re:Everywhere by beastofburdon · 2015-12-09 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Also, do not speed in North or South Carolina. Them and Virginia pigs have a massive hardon for handing out speeding tickets to anyone from another state.
  Also in that shithole called Virginia, it is illegal to use a radar detector.
  My dad always joked with me that every third son born in Virginia was a state trooper, after I lived there for 5 years I realized he wasn't actually joking.
60. Re:Everywhere by beastofburdon · 2015-12-09 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, those are straight up extortion, and becoming the norm.
Ban speed cameras and red light ones by Joe_Dragon · 2015-12-02 12:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ban speed cameras and red light ones a lot of them are rigged to make more profit by erroring in the states favor
1. Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/
  I can't support claims that they're rigged, but I can believe that they do not clearly attribute to a useful reduction in automobile accidents.
  Considering the aim of a government program such as RLC that is a civil service is supposed to not be about the money, I'll assume it's profit driven. In fact, people tend to ignore the tickets because it was not given to them by an officer of the law. I think that might fall under the grounds of requiring to identify yourself; the cameras don't have any human identification, and are thereby automated, and hence, not an officer of the law.
  Calling Robocop.
2. Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2015-12-02 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  Bear in mind those radars are pretty error prone to start off with they shouldn't be admissible as evidence
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
3. Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones by thegarbz · 2015-12-03 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need to ban anything. You just need to provide an audit trail. In Australia they send you 2 photos one of your before the intersection showing the red light, and one of you going through the intersection showing you didn't just happen to stop over the line, and along with it a link to a video of you getting caught complete with several seconds of footage either side.
  You don't need to ban something because it can be abused.
4. Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones by sjames · 2015-12-03 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  In some U.S. cities, if they don't get 'enough' revenue from a red light cameras, they shorten the yellow to bring in more. If necessary, they'll make it short enough to create a zone where it is theoretically impossible to stop in time when the light goes yellow.
  The system you describe would do nothing to stop that patently unfair and dangerous practice.
5. Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones by thegarbz · 2015-12-04 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  The system you describe would do nothing to stop that patently unfair and dangerous practice.
  And yet it has stopped exactly that practice in Queensland as the length of the yellow light is coded into an Australian Standard. Part of the evidence chain shows the light switching sequence when you run it. Lovely little piece of evidence you can take to court, and the court doesn't just throw out a ticket like it does in the land of the free over the other side of the pacific. Here the courts force the councils to ensure they are following the rules.
6. Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones by sjames · 2015-12-04 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Here, we have a "recommendation" with no force of law. That would need to change and the cameras would have to be replaced with models that capture the lights and video of the car before it could be feasible.
  Either way, the current cameras would have to be banned outright.
7. Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones by thegarbz · 2015-12-04 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Depending on your courts recommendations most definitely can hold a force of law, especially if they are in some formal standard, and if it can be proven that not abiding by that standard can have a negative impact (there were studies that show shorter yellows lead to an increase in whiplash injuries. For instance as an Engineer there's actually legally no Australian Standard with which I need to comply. Not by law. But god help me if I ever need to stand in a courtroom defending a design that killed someone which didn't at least meet the minimum standard requirements.
8. Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones by sjames · 2015-12-04 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  In civil court, failure to follow best practice can indeed lead to a finding for the plaintiff. Alas, in order to get a city on this, you'd need to show that you had an accident and that the short yellow was solely responsible. All while the judge stands ready to dismiss the case on the thinnest of procedural excuses or crazy legal theory that absolves the government even if it is actually at fault.
  If you somehow prevail anyway, they'll just have a longer all reds time to avoid collisions in the intersection while still unfairly fining people. If the collision was a rear ender from stopping short, they'll claim their maximum liability is the amount of the ticket since it was all your fault for not running the red.
  That's the level of corruption many cities will sink to if there isn't an overriding law to stop them.
  I say that as a one time resident of a town where the police would tailgate you hoping you would speed up to make a safe enough gap to pull over so they could nail you for speeding.
Civil Asset Forfeiture by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 12:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

How about they also do away with Civil Asset Forfeiture considering that cops have now stolen more from people than all burglaries combined last year, and most likely this year as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Coupled with all the other crimes committed by cops and the "justice" system over the years, like the Cash for Kids program, how are these people any different from a government sanctioned mob? Then there are the dimwitted idiots that are still defending these monsters, is this really the society we want?
1. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by known_coward_69 · 2015-12-02 12:51 · Score: 2
  
  CAF was originally created to fight the mafia and rich drug dealers who had the money to hire the best lawyers and to take their assets away so they wouldn't have anything to come back to after jail. it's like everything, after the problem goes away you find new ways to enforce laws
2. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 13:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This, so much. In some jurisdictions the police can and will seize your car for something as relatively benign as soliciting a prostitute. And when you know that finding a tenth of a gram of marijuana in someone's car means your department gets to seize and sell that car, even if the person is never charged with a crime, there is a huge incentive to plant evidence and engage in other corrupt activities.
  Civil asset forfeiture needs to stop.
3. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by Darinbob · 2015-12-02 13:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Perhaps there was an original reason, but there are a couple problems. First it has been expanded well beyond the original concept. And second there is no proof necessary before forfeiture happens. It would be blatantly unconstitutional if it were not for the Supreme Court siding with the hysterical tough-on-crime folks.
  "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
4. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by HiThere · 2015-12-02 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it (see other posts for the official line sold to the public) the purpose is to deprive people of the ability to hire lawyers to defend themselves. I don't believe that there is any requirement that guilt be proven, or even that charges be formally filed. The first time I heard of it being used it was against a doctor who was prescribing more pain medication than the DIA thought was appropriate.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
5. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by MyAlternateID · 2015-12-02 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it (see other posts for the official line sold to the public) the purpose is to deprive people of the ability to hire lawyers to defend themselves.
  
  So the intention is to rob the accused (who is innocent until proven guilty) of a chance to confront his accusers and achieve the good representation that true due process requires?
  
  This intention is already manifest in other ways. The worst of which is the prosecutorial abuse of the system. The prosecutor completely throws the book at someone, tacking on multiple charges leading to years of imprisonment for a comparatively minor offense, but then offers a reasonable sentence if the accused pleads guilty. Many criminal cases never even go to trial because of this, making a mockery of the foundational concept that government carries the burden of proof.
6. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-12-02 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  CAF was originally created to fight the mafia and rich drug dealers who had the money to hire the best lawyers and to take their assets away so they wouldn't have anything to come back to after jail. it's like everything, after the problem goes away you find new ways to enforce laws
  Giving the executive branch more powers to fix such problems is a really, really bad idea.
7. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by Pseudonym · 2015-12-02 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  CAF was originally created to fight the mafia and rich drug dealers who had the money to hire the best lawyers and to take their assets away so they wouldn't have anything to come back to after jail.
  Indeed, so write the law so the effect is to freeze assets, which would then be forfeited if a successful conviction happens.
  No conviction, no crime. No crime, no forfeiture.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
8. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by John.Banister · 2015-12-02 20:06 · Score: 2
  
  So, what I read here is that "the best lawyers" can make violating the law not matter and that this is fine for hereditary wealth but not for mafia wealth. How about we ditch CAF and go to single payer for lawyers? This would also greatly level the legal playing field between individuals and corporate entities.
9. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by AmiMoJo · 2015-12-02 21:14 · Score: 2
  
  It discourages foreign investment too. A lot of Chinese people have been complaining (in a series of stories on state television) that they tried to buy property in the US, took cash for a deposit and the police stole it.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
10. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by drinkypoo · 2015-12-02 23:38 · Score: 2
  
  CAF was originally created to fight the mafia and rich drug dealers who had the money to hire the best lawyers and to take their assets away so they wouldn't have anything to come back to after jail
  And anti-drug laws were originally created for all the wrong reasons, all of which are profit-centered. We could go down the list as usual but that would be tedious. Suffice to say that Big Pharma and Big Prison are the Big Supporters of the War On Some Drugs. Suffice to say that when you combine CAF with unsupported drug policies, the result is that the laws were created specifically to enable theft from people committing victimless "crimes".
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
11. Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture by Ihlosi · 2015-12-03 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  If you freeze someones assets, how do you propose they retain legal representation to defend against the crimes they are charged with ?
  There are always public defenders if you can't afford to pay a lawyer.
  Unfortunately, "due process" only means that you may have a somewhat competent lawyer, and not the best lawyer you could have afforded if your assets weren't frozen.
12. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by DuckDodgers · 2015-12-03 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Plus the penalties for crack - more frequently used by blacks - were literally ten times higher than the penalties for using cocaine. So it got to be abusive of power, legalized theft, and racist too!
13. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by HiThere · 2015-12-03 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that's the way I read it. Mind you, it's gotten a lot worse than what I suppose the original purpose to have been.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
14. Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture by sjames · 2015-12-03 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, that's another area that needs serious fixing. Public defenders are often so overbooked that they first meet their client IN the courtroom. It's not actually reasonable to call that representation.
15. Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture by Pseudonym · 2015-12-03 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Still illegal and likely unconstitutional.
  We'll see about that.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
16. Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture by Agripa · 2015-12-09 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  If you freeze someones assets, how do you propose they retain legal representation to defend against the crimes they are charged with?
  You do what our local Missouri courts do not far from Ferguson which is mentioned in the article. If the person cannot afford an attorney and can prove it, the court appoints one but only if the judge thinks you will go to jail for months or more. If you can in theory afford an attorney but civil assets forfeiture prevents it, then too bad.
  Having been pulled over for *wearing my seatbelt* where the cop contradicted himself and lied in court multiple times but the judge did not care, I have personal knowledge that local justice here in Missouri is not.
Loretta Lynch by frovingslosh · 2015-12-02 12:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Hard to believe that the D.O.J. is cracking down on Profit-Driven Policing when Obama's new Attorney General has been a huge advocate of "civil forfeiture" where the government takes your money without charging you with any crime or even having any suspicion that you committed any crime. I even saw sign on Interstate 70 this summer when driving through Kansas that there "checkpoints" ahead to check for "drugs" or "cash". Just part of the government's war on citizens.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
1. Re: Loretta Lynch by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  I am number 1 person against Eric Holder, but he ended CAF at the end of his term in the DOJ. It may be the only thing he did correct in his entire time there.
  Did Lynch undo that and reinstate them?
2. Re: Loretta Lynch by ShaunC · 2015-12-02 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  He placed some limits on it, but only at the federal level. Forfeiture is still rampant at the state level. I don't think Lynch has reversed Holder's federal directives yet.
  
  --
  Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
3. Re: Loretta Lynch by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  Tourist agencies in Europe warn tourist to not go to small town America because of how likely it is for a tourist to get their assets taken by the police.
  The police is counting on it that a European will not go through the decade long legal process to get their assets back.
4. Re: Loretta Lynch by compro01 · 2015-12-02 21:22 · Score: 2
  
  Much the same thing is also being said in Canada.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
5. Re: Loretta Lynch by Agripa · 2015-12-09 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  They aren't. It is just another big lie marketing campaign.
I used to live by penguinoid · 2015-12-02 12:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

I used to live in a place where the usual way to deal with speeding was to pay the standard bribe. If it was a bus, the bribe was bigger but the passengers would pitch in without complaint. As far as I can tell, that system worked very well for traffic violations and way better than the American system, where everyone is pretending they don't do bribes but instead they do it via crappy laws/policies and more inefficiently. Another similarity/difference is, there officers' salaries were reduced to account for the traffic violation income, while in the US police department budget is reduced to account for the traffic violation income.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
1. Re:I used to live by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2015-12-02 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Jag brukade bo"--inte "Jag brukade leva".
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
2. Re:I used to live by penguinoid · 2015-12-03 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  How do you expect people to follow the law if those enforcing it are criminals?
  Which country are you talking about?
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
3. Re:I used to live by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2015-12-03 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Given that so many Swedes feel the need to "correct" my wife's English--always wrongly, I might add--just because she's Asian, I've got to where I don't trust random ACs offering to "correct" my Swedish very much. Usually it's because they don't really understand English nearly as well as they pretend to. A bit like you, I suspect.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
4. Re:I used to live by beastofburdon · 2015-12-09 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know who AC is referring to, but it applies quite well to the U.S., UK, and many others.
Actually a serious problem by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 12:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is actually a very serious problem, and the linked articles don't do a good job explaining the actual issue.
There are a lot of people who a 375$ fine (minimum for speeding in a construction zone nearby) for speeding is not something they can immediately pay, and may be 30% or more of their monthly income. If you can't pay immediately, you have to make a deal with whoever the Police contract out to.
The trick is that a lot of those poeple charge an initial fee for the service along with interest and continuing fees, and any payment you make goes toward their fees and interest BEFORE it starts paying the actual fine down. These fees are typically 20% of the original fine or more, and for low income people make it effectively impossible to pay their actual fine.
This then leads them to paying hundreds of dollars over the original fine, with none of it going to the original fine until the point where they are then jailed for not paying the fine. It is pure and out right corruption and fraud, and heavy legal action needs to be taken against any county or company that is involved.
1. Re:Actually a serious problem by Sarten-X · 2015-12-02 14:43 · Score: 2
  
  I used to work nights on a road directing traffic. Every time I put on the reflective vest, I got to see the blood stain from my predecessor who got hit when someone didn't think they really needed to heed the warning signs.
  Yes, a speeding fine in an area where pedestrians are present should make your life hell for a while. You're risking someone else's life for the sake of getting to your destination a few seconds earlier. You don't get that right, regardless of how high or low your income is.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
2. Re:Actually a serious problem by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 15:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, a speeding fine in an area where pedestrians are present should make your life hell for a while.
  Doesn't stop anyone speeding and driving dangerously next to cyclists and other pedestrians, no matter how much I agree.
  But what the GP was talking about is that flat fines are stupid and you appear to missed the point. If someone makes $60k/yr, a $300 fine is an "inconvenient tax" on them, and their opinion is that they did nothing wrong, like most here. But if you make $10k/yr, $300 fine can be crippling. And then there are people that make $200+k, and for them a $300 fine is hustle, nothing more.
  Perhaps a better system would be to base fines on person's annual income. Like 1% of their yearly income, with $50 floor (considering driving costs money anyway). So a $10k/yr poor person pays $100, which is a lot of money for them. But a $100k/yr upper middle class person pays $1000. And it's $10k fine for the $1m/yr upper class person. Then such a fine is painful for everyone involved, not just the poorest.
3. Re:Actually a serious problem by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 16:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  their opinion is that they did nothing wrong, like most here
  When you see speed limits decrease from 55 mph to 25 mph on an 8 lane divided highway with no pedestrians, no cyclists, no residential zones and no driveways to turn off onto, you kind of start to understand how the system works. Then the 25 mph sign is taken down, so it's a speed trap without any posted speed limit signs. The county will park about 12 cop cars out there to write tickets to the people who have no clue that the speed limit goes from 55 mph to 25 mph. 911 response for things like home invasions start doubling or tripling since the county has all their cops parked to write tickets.
  It's pretty easy to see why people hate cops and mistrust traffic laws.
4. Re:Actually a serious problem by drinkypoo · 2015-12-02 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, a speeding fine in an area where pedestrians are present should make your life hell for a while. You're risking someone else's life for the sake of getting to your destination a few seconds earlier. You don't get that right, regardless of how high or low your income is.
  The problem is that the speeding fine is in effect at midnight when there's no pedestrians around, too. A law that says thou shalt always slow down for a construction zone is stupid, especially since we recently got the law that isn't stupid: slow down or switch lanes while you go past construction crews. The signage (the "zone") is there to inform you of possible pedestrians. The requirement to your behavior should be related to the pedestrians, not the signs. And road works should be designed with barriers etc. to protect road workers, because what fucking year is it?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:Actually a serious problem by Sarten-X · 2015-12-03 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  The OP said nothing about flat fines. Rather, he mentioned a minimum that imposes a hardship on someone with low income, and complains that the fine and associated fees should be lower. I'm suggesting that the total cost should be weighed against the health of another human being.
  In some jurisdictions, including the one where I worked, judges already have the (seldom-used) ability to raise the fine to meet the goals of fairness, retribution, and rehabilitation. I do think that should be utilized more, but that's a different matter.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
6. Re:Actually a serious problem by Sarten-X · 2015-12-03 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  I worked at a theater. We had pedestrian crowds at midday and at midnight. My post was actually usually guiding trucks out the back, which put me standing just around a blind corner on the road.
  Are you suggesting that we barricade the road before every performance ends? Should we redesign the city's roads to allow a few trucks to pull out easily each week? Or maybe, just maybe, drivers should be aware that they're operating a machine that can easily kill or maim people with only a moment's notice.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
7. Re:Actually a serious problem by wings · 2015-12-03 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  It is a good idea but I suspect the problem will become accurately determine someone's income or net compensation. Without a way to do that you'll have CEOs that accept a token $1 salary only paying the minimum fines.
8. Re:Actually a serious problem by Cederic · 2015-12-03 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  You're missing his point entirely.
  His point is that people with low income/assets are unable to pay the fine, and any money that they do pay goes on interest and fees, not the fine.
  This means that irrespective of whether the fine adequately compensates for the risk to human health or not, someone's getting fucked over by the system.
  The amount of the fine is totally fucking irrelevant, it's the way in which it's levied that's the issue.
  Now do you understand, or should we offer to cover the fine for the person that aims for you?
9. Re:Actually a serious problem by sjames · 2015-12-03 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  So make sure it is hell for Morbux when he blows past you in his Ferarri. Currently, the poor end up in what is constructively debtor's prison and Morbux peels a couple of bills off of his pocket change and goes on his way more annoyed than chastened.
10. Re:Actually a serious problem by drinkypoo · 2015-12-03 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  Are you suggesting that we barricade the road before every performance ends?
  That would be the cheapest and easiest solution: put out some cones and a sign for traffic control at that time.
  
  Should we redesign the city's roads to allow a few trucks to pull out easily each week?
  Yes, either that or the city should be blamed for poor planning: they shouldn't have allowed a cinema to be built there if it was going to cause a traffic hazard. That's part of their job. Public safety is more important than public access to movie theaters.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
11. Re:Actually a serious problem by Sarten-X · 2015-12-04 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  That would be the cheapest and easiest solution: put out some cones and a sign for traffic control at that time.
  If a driver isn't paying attention to speed limits, existing warning signs, or a man standing by the road in a bright yellow vest and waving bright orange flags, what makes you think they'll pay attention to a few cones?
  
  Public safety is more important than public access to movie theaters.
  Actually, the law already says that public safety is more important than a driver's need to get somewhere a few seconds faster. That's why the speed limit exists in the first place.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
12. Re:Actually a serious problem by drinkypoo · 2015-12-04 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  If a driver isn't paying attention to speed limits, existing warning signs, or a man standing by the road in a bright yellow vest and waving bright orange flags, what makes you think they'll pay attention to a few cones?
  You use cones to create a temporary lane division to control traffic flow.
  
  the law already says that public safety is more important than a driver's need to get somewhere a few seconds faster. That's why the speed limit exists in the first place.
  A sensible city code also includes requirements for lines of sight, etc., when points of ingress and egress to/from the property are permitted, to prevent creating situations like that one.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
13. Re:Actually a serious problem by Sarten-X · 2015-12-04 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  You use cones to create a temporary lane division to control traffic flow.
  It's a two-lane road (one each way) already. Creating a temporary division is not possible. What is possible is for drivers to follow the law and go slow enough that they can stop for obstacles in the road.
  
  A sensible city code also includes requirements for lines of sight, etc., when points of ingress and egress to/from the property are permitted, to prevent creating situations like that one.
  And in situations where legislation can't change the physical reality, it requires warning signs and slower speeds, both of which are in effect already.
  The simple answer is for drivers to obey the law. Those that don't get the punishment set forth in the statute, which reflects the same hardship their careless actions cast on the rest of society, including lowly stagehands.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Start in Texas by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 12:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let them start with the double jeopardy they call the "Texas driver responsibility program". Pay a ticket, then also an exorbitant surcharge to the "Municipal Services Bureau" which is a private company. If you don't pay the surcharge, the private company suspends your license until you do... You pay the surcharge just for getting the ticket, whether the ticket was dismissed or not.
Like I said double jeopardy.
1. Re:Start in Texas by tgu23monkforhire · 2015-12-02 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Let them start with the double jeopardy they call the "Texas driver responsibility program". Pay a ticket, then also an exorbitant surcharge to the "Municipal Services Bureau" which is a private company. If you don't pay the surcharge, the private company suspends your license until you do... You pay the surcharge just for getting the ticket, whether the ticket was dismissed or not.
  Like I said double jeopardy.
  Sounds good to me. This sounds a lot like taxation without representation. I don't have a say in it, I am not benefiting in it in any way, so therefor I am not being represented.
2. Re:Start in Texas by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-12-02 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds good to me. This sounds a lot like taxation without representation. I don't have a say in it, I am not benefiting in it in any way, so therefor I am not being represented.
  Ironically, it seems to be prevalent in states where God rules, and Taxes are considered a Democrat evil.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
3. Re:Start in Texas by drkstr1 · 2015-12-02 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  Let them start with the double jeopardy they call the "Texas driver responsibility program". Pay a ticket, then also an exorbitant surcharge to the "Municipal Services Bureau" which is a private company. If you don't pay the surcharge, the private company suspends your license until you do... You pay the surcharge just for getting the ticket, whether the ticket was dismissed or not.
  Like I said double jeopardy.
  I can't get my WA drivers licence because those scumbags have it blocked for some tickets I got in ~2002 (I moved away from TX shortly after highschool). All my actual fines (my "debt to society") have been paid. This bastard ass private corp has my license for Ransome to the tune of $2,500 in "surcharges" (the exact term listed on the paperwork I got).
  
  --
  Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
4. Re:Start in Texas by drkstr1 · 2015-12-02 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  PS: I just want to reiterate, THE STRUGGLE IS REAL. In addition to those fines I owe TX, I now owe WA $2,100 for getting a ticket for no license or insurance. They ran my plate and saw the car was registered to someone who only had a state ID and decided to pull me over and ask me a few questions. After ransaking my car, they let me go with a ticket. As it turns out, driving without a license is only an arrestable offense if you fail to provide a valid ID at the time of the offense. I got lucky that time (getting away with nothing but a little more debt tacked on to my household), but I have spent time in jail in TX for "crimes" that essentially amount to paperwork violations. I still to this day, struggling to get out of this cycle and have this burden off my chest once and for all.
  
  --
  Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
5. Re:Start in Texas by drkstr1 · 2015-12-02 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  The 'crimes' in TX are bullshit the ones in WA were not (though the stop may have been bullshit). You knew you weren't supposed to be driving. WA has good public transportation in a lot of places and many areas are walker or biker friendly. Getting rid of a car will save you a lot of money. I didn't get one until I was 30. I wish you luck in your lawsuit against the Municipal Services Bureau and TX and thank you for reaffirming my desire to never move to TX.
  I got by just fine in Seattle. It wasn't until I had to move to the heavily conservative Hanford area (Pasco) that I ended up purchasing a car in cash, that I still to this day drive it only out of necessity. While I understand the public need for insurance and licensing, I have never been in a wreck, or received any kind of moving violation since the age of 16. I consider it my free right of transportation, in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. I did not show up to court in WA, and do not plan to pay a dime on that ticket. Eventually, it will catch up to me, and I will be physically restrained, but in front of a judge, and told I can either pay up the cash or sit it out in jail for credit paid out at $x per day on my fine. When that day comes, I will choose to sit it out, just as I did in TX.
  
  --
  Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
6. Re:Start in Texas by drkstr1 · 2015-12-02 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  The option to sit out a fine is SOP. The going rate is about $100 a day (varies by state, and even county). I got $200 for being a trustee (had to mop floors and say yes sir no sir a lot). You can sit out any fine or ticket you get, no problems, free and clear. The issue with TX is that I owe money (surcharges) to a private corp in Texas, with the legal authority to block my license. These surcharges are what amount to a "processing fee" even though I never once used their payment processing services to pay my legal fines (opting instead for my right to sit out). It's actually not even on my credit, as they hold no actual debt over me. All they have is the power to coerce payment via the inter-state license ceck system (don't know the exact name of it). The WA ticket is another matter. This is money I actually owe (until it is cleared by time served).
  
  --
  Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
7. Re:Start in Texas by drkstr1 · 2015-12-02 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  Also for the record, it took me exactly 50 days to sit out my fines, in Denton county jail, TX. I do not recommend it.
  
  --
  Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
8. Re:Start in Texas by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2015-12-02 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  But it's not the government taking your money, so that makes it perfectly okay.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
9. Re:Start in Texas by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2015-12-02 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Bzzzzzt--WRONG.
  You have no "right" to drive a motor vehicle on public roads. The laws of most if not all US states make it quite clear that driving is a privilege.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Local funding cant keep up by AHuxley · 2015-12-02 12:59 · Score: 3, Informative

The problem is the tool set of advance electronics tracking, on going maintenance costs of "free" military hardware at a city, state and local level is starting to catch up with traditional wage based/over time policing budgets.
The new federal mil toys have real federal budget support budgets and upgrade costs over the years that a city or state did not fully understand.
Add in over time, pensions, fancy out sourced "private" sector training and the costs are getting more interesting every decade. How to cover the costs?
Civil forfeiture in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that no longer goes to the victim or into state, city funds but can flow in part into a department with not much oversight or controls on what the cash is spent on.
The constant need to top up limited funds becomes the mission.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
1. Re:Local funding cant keep up by MyAlternateID · 2015-12-02 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is the tool set of advance electronics tracking, on going maintenance costs of "free" military hardware at a city, state and local level is starting to catch up with traditional wage based/over time policing budgets. The new federal mil toys have real federal budget support budgets and upgrade costs over the years that a city or state did not fully understand. Add in over time, pensions, fancy out sourced "private" sector training and the costs are getting more interesting every decade. How to cover the costs? Civil forfeiture in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that no longer goes to the victim or into state, city funds but can flow in part into a department with not much oversight or controls on what the cash is spent on. The constant need to top up limited funds becomes the mission.
  Yet another force making sure that self-respecting people with integrity who really care about their community don't want to become police officers.
Excessive bail - based on the offense - also... by gavron · 2015-12-02 13:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

Another way to make money is to make excessive bail requirements in possible
collusion with bail bondsmen.
TL;DR - bail should be set by the circumstances of the person's ability to pay and
the nature of them being a flight risk, NOT the nature of the crime.
Now the "I'm sorry but it got long" part:
Bail from the eighth amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
"Excessive bail shall not be required"
Excessive is when it's greater than the amount necessary to bring the offender to trial. From Wikipidia:
"In Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951), the Court found that a defendant's bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant's presence at the trial" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Judges are starting to agree: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2...
But some are still hungry for HUMONGOUS bail to avoid looking soft on crime when BAIL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME.
Man kills cop: 3 million dollars
http://www.philly.com/philly/n...
Man kills man: 2 million dollars
http://www.bellinghamherald.co...
Cop kills man: 1.5 million:
http://abc7chicago.com/news/ja...
The US DoJ ought to take a long hard look at how our nation's Courts are handing out large bail
requirements --unconstitutionally-- to make it look like they're "tough on crime."
In fact, the people being granted bail are innocent until proven guilty, AND
the amount of the bail is only supposed to ensure they show up for trial.
We need a lot of reform in the criminal justice system. Hopefully the DoJ won't whitewash
bail while they look at the other methods that "the justice system" screws the people.
Full disclosure: I've never been arrested, offered bail, denied bail, nor am personally
part of the legal / "justice" system.
E
1. Re:Excessive bail - based on the offense - also... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 14:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In fact, the people being granted bail are innocent until proven guilty, AND
  the amount of the bail is only supposed to ensure they show up for trial.
  You're wrong.
  Bail is only supposed to prevent rich people from going to jail.
  Different crimes have different richness bars.
  The system is working as intended.
2. Re:Excessive bail - based on the offense - also... by Dayze!Confused · 2015-12-02 14:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I would add that the bond system is used to justify higher bails as not being excessive. For example, 200,000 bail may be excessive, but oh, guess what, you can just pay 20,000 to the bail bondsman instead, so if you think 200,000 is excessive it isn't because you can just pay 20,000. What most people don't know until they go through something which requires excessive bails is that the bond payment is forfeited even if you show up to court. That person now has the option, if they cannot put up 200,000 and float it until the end of trial, to spend 20,000 as a non-refundable expense to have restricted freedoms restored while awaiting trial, or stay in jail.
  When I read the 8th amendment I do not see bonds mentioned as part of consideration for excessive bail, and the bond is essentially an excessive fee paid. Would it be the case that if bonds were done away with that the amount that makes a bail excessive would be much, much lower?
  
  --
  "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
3. Re:Excessive bail - based on the offense - also... by c · 2015-12-03 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  TL;DR - bail should be set by the circumstances of the person's ability to pay and the nature of them being a flight risk, NOT the nature of the crime.
  The nature of the crime (and likely sentence) has strong influence on being a flight risk. Someone who might not run from a 6 month sentence isn't likely to stick around for a life sentence. A cop who shoots somebody on the job is less likely to be convicted than someone who shoots someone over a drug deal, and tends to get shorter sentences.
  Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point?
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
It's not extortion if by RichMan · 2015-12-02 13:07 · Score: 2

It is not extortion if you are the law.
Seems like the system is very very broken in the good ol' US of A.
This is What happen From the No Tax Pledge by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 13:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

You Voted for them because they Promised to Cut Taxes But Not services.
Guess What they are Politicians not Magicians.
So stop complaining. You got what you asked for.
1. Re:This is What happen From the No Tax Pledge by serviscope_minor · 2015-12-02 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  You Voted for them because they Promised to Cut Taxes But Not services.
  No I didn't! I didn't vote for them at all. Hell I've never even voted in an election that could have affected it in any way.
  You know, what with not being American and all.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Also look at speed limits set to low by Joe_Dragon · 2015-12-02 13:43 · Score: 1

Also look at speed limits set to low.
Most of the IL toll-way was 55 (real in forced seems to be 70-75) now more parts of it are 60-70.
Even in the 45 / 55 work zones no one does that and the cops lets you do 65-75 with them going faster then that.
Cops Steal More than Criminals by Jodka · 2015-12-02 13:45 · Score: 3, Informative

I posted this link a few days ago here on ./ but it's topical and worthy of a repost here:
Cops Now Steal More from Citizens than do Actual Criminals
And also on the "policing for profit" topic: Prisoners are now billed for their time in jail.. More here with some commentary here.

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Fairness and Missing Bullets by JimSadler · 2015-12-02 13:49 · Score: 1

There is so much nonsense in city and county governments that I think anyone taking reform seriously is at risk of being assassinated. Somehow America can not afford America. So we have all these entities capturing money any way they can. There is an area of study called poor law. trying to make reasonable laws to deal with the poor is an ongoing battle that has lasted for hundreds of years. Ant tiny bit of progress is rare.
1. Re:Fairness and Missing Bullets by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2015-12-02 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  Be careful what you wish for.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Civil Asset Forfeitures by blogagog · 2015-12-02 14:10 · Score: 1

I hope they find a way to do away with civil asset forfeitures too. That is the worst thing police do in America today. Steal things from citizens to boost their income.
1. Re:Civil Asset Forfeitures by myowntrueself · 2015-12-02 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  I hope they find a way to do away with civil asset forfeitures too. That is the worst thing police do in America today. Steal things from citizens to boost their income.
  Look at it this way; at least the organised banditry that the USA operates on is applied to US citizens as well as the rest of the world!
  The rest of the world feels your pain and I'm sure many overseas would be happy to help you oust those thugs who call themselves police and politicians in the USA.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Change how fines and forfeited assets are handled by Solandri · 2015-12-02 15:28 · Score: 2

All the money from fines and forfeited criminal assets should go into a Federal escrow fund. Every year on April 15, the total amount in that fund gets divided by the number of people filing tax returns, and gets added as a credit to each and every tax return (2x for married couples filing jointly).

Those fines and penalties are supposed to compensate for crimes against society. So it should be distributed back to society at large, not to police or government coffers.
John Oliver covered this... by binarstu · 2015-12-02 17:17 · Score: 2

John Oliver delivered an excellent treatment of this topic that is both informative and entertaining (and maddening). It's worth a watch.
1. Re:John Oliver covered this... by ZorroXXX · 2015-12-02 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  My thought exactly as wel, the video referred gives a very good insight into the problem.
  This guy is "brillent" and despite the fact that he does not like to call himself a journalist, John Olvier really is one of the worlds most important ones, bringing attention to many serious and important issues.
  
  --
  When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
Should be choice by cyberspittle · 2015-12-02 17:44 · Score: 1

Should be fine or jail time - hey, that rhymes!
Eliminate the human factor ... by golodh · 2015-12-02 21:14 · Score: 1

Points system? Nah ... humbug. Cash is better. Much better.
But let's face it, it's always the Human factor that's the problem, right? Driving Under Influence, speed violations, failing to signal turns, red light running ...
So let's do something radical!
Ban all manually operated vehicles from public roads and mandate fully automatic vehicles throughout. Prohibit the production of cars with manual controls. That will get you 100% compliance with all and any traffic regulations.
Problem solved. Right?
What? Oh ... I see ... the revenue from tickets and fines will dry up. Hmm ... got to solve that too. Ah wait. Got it.
Add a metering module to every car's on-board computer that bills its owner per ride via direct debit. The municipality, the county, the state, they can all impose a tax (to make up for lost fines) and add it to the bill. It will be transferred to them automatically. The car's software will stop the car it can no longer debit your account. We'll call that legislative proposal CART (Common Automatic Ride Ticketing), shall we?
There ... I've thought of everything.
1. Re:Eliminate the human factor ... by desdinova+216 · 2015-12-03 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  there are people working on that. Though it's probably a minimum of 25 years before it's implemented on a wide scale.
The right to drive by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-03 02:03 · Score: 1

The Ninth Amendment makes it quite clear that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". The law is subordinate to the Constitution.
A "right" to do something means that the government can limit it only when it has a reasonable interest that outweighs your right. The competing interests have to be weighed and balanced one way or the other. I can make a reasonable argument that in the 21st century, I have a right to drive as part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are limits to this right: pass a simple driving test to prove I am competent, avoid drunk driving or reckless driving. But no one can say that, for no reason, they are taking away a "privilege to drive", because I have a right to drive.
Need a simple rule by gurps_npc · 2015-12-03 02:55 · Score: 1

If you say you can't pay the monetary charges, you get hit with community service. Suddenly I bet those fees vanish into thin air.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
1. Re:Need a simple rule by Agripa · 2015-12-09 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  If you say you can't pay the monetary charges, you get hit with community service. Suddenly I bet those fees vanish into thin air.
  At least here in Missouri, the cities do not implement community service as an option.
Not when the racist blacks caused the crime. by sethstorm · 2015-12-03 04:04 · Score: 1

Kind of hard to claim grievances if you're the primary offender.
Even harder when you use racism against whites to justify looting, rioting, and non-enforcement of laws for black thuggery.
The only thing that should have happened in Missouri is for law enforcement to be as strict as Singapore. For every cry of racism, act with more strictness. Stop only when the black racists (and their financial backers) are soundly defeated, spines broken.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
1. Re:Not when the racist blacks caused the crime. by DuckDodgers · 2015-12-04 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  First, these penalties were for things like driving without a seatbelt on, or having an expired vehicle registration, or parking in a no-parking zone. We're not speaking of felony acts or even misdemeanors.
  Second, many thousands of people protested the Ferguson shootings without breaking any laws. Every looter and arsonist should be prosecuted and jailed, but you're blind - or racist - if you think that the actions of fifty or a hundred black criminals make it moral for Ferguson police to mistreat forty thousand other black residents in the town. That's especially true since many of the criminal looters didn't even live in Ferguson, they just used the tension as an excuse to come to the town and stir up trouble.
2. Re:Not when the racist blacks caused the crime. by sethstorm · 2015-12-06 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Every looter and arsonist should be prosecuted and jailed, but you're blind - or racist - if you think that the actions of fifty or a hundred black criminals make it moral for Ferguson police to allegedly do some fictional wrong to forty thousand other black residents in the town.
  If they take the direction of the looters and professional agitators, which they did, then the answer is to bring Singapore style strictness in law enforcement to Ferguson. If that means Sharpton, Crump, or their defenders get punished for fomenting violent hate crimes (if not terrorism), fine. If it means protecting the police and their families with deadly force, then fine. You do not give in to such agitating groups - you remove them before they can stir up the population.
  
  That's especially true since many of the criminal looters didn't even live in Ferguson, they just used the tension as an excuse to come to the town and stir up trouble.
  They stirred up trouble and residents got caught up in it.
  
  --
  Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
3. Re:Not when the racist blacks caused the crime. by beastofburdon · 2015-12-09 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  If the police are abusing the citizens then they do not deserve safety and should not be allowed to have it.
policing for profit - red light camara anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-03 05:22 · Score: 1

So can we get red light cameras included in this also?
Re:Then enjoy your hellhole. by beastofburdon · 2015-12-10 06:26 · Score: 2

The hell-scapes of Detroit and Baltimore are directly caused by police abusing the citizens you racist bastard.