The corrupting of traffic citations - by Judge Jim Gray

In many parts of the country, police have expressly been instructed to issue more traffic citations in order to generate revenue to counteract governmental budget deficits. For example, this has happened in the metropolitan Detroit area, where the state of Michigan reduced its revenue sharing with communities by $3 billion. More tickets have been issued there for driving as little as 5 mph above the speed limit, and traffic warnings have virtually become a thing of the past.

The reason for this action was stated succinctly by the president of the Police Officers Assn. of Michigan, who said: "When elected officials say 'We need more money,' they can't look to the department of public works to raise revenues, so where do they find it? Police departments."

Michael Reaves, the chief of police in Utica, Mich., explained the situation this way: "When I first started in this job 30 years ago, police work was never about revenue enhancement, but if you're a chief now, you have to look at whether your department produces revenues."

An even more direct comment came from Sgt. Richard Lyons of Trenton, Mich., went like this: "They're trying to use police officers to balance the budget on the backs of drivers, and it's too bad. . . . We might as well just go door to door and tell people: 'Slide us $100 now since your 16-year-old is going to end up paying us anyway when he starts driving.' You can't blame people for getting upset."

In Virginia, where a campaign was launched under the title of "Operation Air, Land & Speed," state troopers were ordered to issue as many citations as humanly possible during one particular weekend along Interstates 95 and 81. That effort resulted in the issuance of 6,996 traffic citations. The published reason for the program was that the state had a big deficit, and it needed to find some quick sources of money.

According to California Watch and the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley, our state has also undertaken similar fundraising programs. For example, these two groups reported that during 2009 alone, sobriety checkpoints in California yielded approximately $40 million in state fines and towing fees.

Similarly, the revenue in Los Angeles from red-light cameras doubled from $200,000 per month in 2007 to $400,000 per month by the end of 2009. And this occurred even though several studies had found that those cameras increase traffic collisions and injuries. How so? Because the presence of red-light cameras often results in people unexpectedly slamming on their brakes to avoid a citation, and this directly leads to more rear-end collisions. Nevertheless studies like that did not deter officials in the Washington state from choosing in 2005 to expand the red-light camera programs, because they produced revenues of $32 million.

The best way to reduce traffic collisions at crash-prone intersections is the lengthening of the yellow lights. But, of course, since that action does not put money into the bank accounts of local governments, those adjustments are seldom chosen. To the contrary, some of our state officials are now encouraging the addition of speed sensors to the existing red-light cameras. Why? Because state officials have estimated that those sensors could raise another $300 million for the state by the end of 2011.

Unfortunately, in some jurisdictions the institutional corruption brought about by these approaches has actually been compounded. For example, for a while the private companies that were involved in the enforcement of the traffic fines in Washington, D.C., actually got to pocket a portion of the proceeds, until citizen complaints resulted in that practice being terminated as a transparent conflict of interest.

This is not the purpose of traffic laws. In fact, the use of the Criminal Justice System in this manner constitutes an intolerable institutional corruption. Yes, it is appropriate to assess traffic fines, and it is also appropriate for the revenues received to be used to pay for public expenses. But the purpose of traffic laws is to keep us safe on our streets and highways, and no good purpose can be achieved by changing that focus.

Why is this so? I can think of four reasons. First, if traffic police are used as a revenue source, there will be a tendency to divert them onto traffic duties and away from other duties that would keep us safe.

Second, our way of government requires the good will of the people being "served" by that government. So if people start to see police officers as predators, that good will could be seriously and maybe even irretrievably compromised.

An 80-year-old woman from Bloomfield Hills, Mich., put that thought this way after she received a citation for running a red light that she insists she did not commit: "I told one officer that I used to tell my children that police officers are their friends — but with the (traffic citation) quotas, they are not any more."

Third, the more that police have a vested interest in securing convictions for traffic offenses, the more likely they would be to stretch the truth in their testimony in court. Not a good situation. And fourth, this approach further expands the role and intrusion of government, which will breed more cynicism and cause us to get even closer to the time that governments will tax us on every breath we take.

There certainly are more reasons as well. Do we want law enforcement officers, and even justice itself, to be seen as a means of simply gathering revenues? Please contemplate where a system like that could take us. Yes, most governments now have budgetary problems, but the costs of bringing in the criminal justice system to help alleviate them are simply too great a price to pay.

www.judgejimgray.com

“CHARITY BOLSTERS CHP FAVORITISM” by Judge Jim Gray

“CHARITY BOLSTERS CHP FAVORITISM” - by Judge Jim Gray 10/18/07

  Recently a good friend of mine who lives in Northern California bought a new, expensive and fast car. When his neighbor, who has a similar type of car, noticed it he told my friend that he would now certainly want to make a $5,000 contribution to the California Highway Patrol’s 11-99 Foundation. “Why was that?” asked my friend. “Because that is like buying insurance against being cited by the CHP for speeding and other traffic violations. It has worked form me, my son and numbers of my friends,” was the answer.


  So what is the CHP 11-99 Foundation? This charitable organization receives contributions from the public and uses them to provide financial support for widows and orphans of deceased CHP officers, scholarships for deserving dependents, and similar worthwhile activities. Donations in any amount are accepted with appreciation. But, according to the nice lady at the foundation who responded to my call and according to the brochure she sent to me, those who donate $5,000 or more receive an engraved license plate frame that says “Member, 11-99 Foundation” on it, and they also receive a pocket-sized wallet complete with a card with the donor’s name and lifetime identification number engraved in relief upon it.


  Now there is absolutely no question that the family members of deceased officers of this great and professional law enforcement organization should be supported, and a foundation of this kind is a perfectly appropriate vehicle to accomplish that goal. But the furnishing of a license plate frame that will allow all law enforcement officers to see that the automobile owner supports their “families in need,” or a wallet that places proof of membership in this organization conspicuously close to that person’s driver’s license will at best be misunderstood by the public. And at worst they will appear to be what my friend’s neighbor said they are: an invitation for favoritism in the criminal justice system for people who donate to this cause.


  To be honest, I do not know how effective those invitations are in obtaining favorable treatment from law enforcement officers on our streets and highways. I myself have asked several CHP officers if it makes any difference to them, and they have consistently denied it. But even the thought that these objects might work in even a few cases, or even appear to work, is enough to require that this part of this otherwise worthwhile program be disbanded.


  As a practical matter, we will never run out of worthy causes for which donors could be considered for favorable treatment from government agencies. If we follow this lead, soon the California Franchise Tax Board could be giving favorable interpretations on close tax questions to donors who support the agents’ children’s scholarship funds, or the county board of supervisors could be giving the “benefit of the doubt” and approve land development projects for those who donate to the supervisors’ “pet charities.”  


  You might not be aware that judges are ethically prohibited from informing law enforcement officers about our status under circumstances in which that knowledge might affect the officers’ decisions about issuing us a traffic or other citation. That was not always so, to the degree that when I first became a judge back in 1983 I was offered a wallet with a badge right across from where I carried my driver’s license. (Actually some people might feel that this might hurt us more than help.)  


But times and morays have changed, and I believe that restrictions of this kind are fully appropriate, and an overwhelming majority of judges understand and embrace those restrictions. But should not the same standards be applied to supporters of even such worthwhile programs as the 11-99 Foundation?


Now I agree that sometimes it is hard to draw the line. For example, I have a small “organ donor” sticker pasted right on the front of my driver’s license. Does this mean that under certain “close call” circumstances I might be treated with more deference by a police officer than someone without it? Probably not, but maybe so. I know that there is a socially justifiable reason for that sticker to be there, and I never really focused upon this issue until I began thinking about this column. In addition, I really think that the chances that this sticker would even be noticed by an officer much less be the cause of any special favoritism would be miniscule, but should I take the sticker off just to be sure? No, it is still there.


  But seemingly there is no reason for the CHP to provide license plate frames or these particular wallets except to provide the opportunity for favorable treatment. Of course this is a legitimate organization commendably addressing a community need. Furthermore, the CHP officers I have encountered appear to be fine individuals who routinely provide a difficult and much-needed community service, often without sufficient appreciation by the public they serve. But at the end of the day, no matter how fine the organization, improper influence is just that: improper. 


Many times in this column we have discussed things that are complicated and difficult to change. But here we have a specific area of ostensible inappropriate influence peddling that can be fixed right now. Accordingly, I request each of you to join me in doing whatever we can to cause the following three results to be realized:  


1. The practice by the CHP’s 11-99 Foundation of providing any form of object that can be used to call the attention of law enforcement officers to the identity of donors to this worthwhile cause be immediately curtailed;

2. Officials at the highest levels of the California Highway Patrol be encouraged to instruct all of their officers that they are not in any way to be affected by the presence of such information if it is encountered; and, 

3. Those people who are presently carrying wallets with those identification cards and/or have those license plate frames on their cars be encouraged as a matter of personal integrity to dispose of them.


Some unintended consequences of discussing a program like this publicly could be that by calling attention to it we could actually start a “cottage industry” of people who would steal the license plate frames and sell them to others who would hope to benefit from some special treatment. Other results could be that people who did not otherwise know about the program now would make the requisite contributions so that they too might receive this special treatment. And finally, it is possible that some members of the CHP who might view this article will see it as another example of the public’s lack of appreciation of the invaluable services they provide, sometimes at the risk of harm, or worse. I hope not to be the cause of any of those results.


But equal justice under the law cannot exist in a climate that confirms some people’s already jaded view that government can be bought. As such, people of good will should do everything they reasonably can to help do away with even the hint that any influence peddling is occurring today in any fashion with the California Highway Patrol.

James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.