Interesting idea: Stop the Shakedowns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RblDiver

https://fee.org/articles/colorado-ch...e-and-collect/I know we have a number of LEOs and former LEOs, so I'm particularly interested in your take on this. TL;DR version, this proposal would change fines collected from violations from going to state coffers to instead go to a charity of the user's choice.

---

I'm not a fan of this. Let's be clear where fines go though. At the municipal level, they (generally) go into the city general fund; county level, they (generally) go into the county general fund. There is really no money going into "state coffers" as generally misunderstood.

Here is a recent case of mine relating to fines:

Court Costs 35 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Request for Time to Pay 25 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Victims Assistance Fund 163 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Court Security Cash Fund 5 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Victim Compensation Fund 163 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Genetic Testing Surcharge 2.5 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Drug Standardized Assessment 45 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Public Defender Accts Rcvable 25 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Restorative Justice Surcharge 10 DOLLAR AMOUNT

The defendant received a 3 year DOC sentence for fraud, forgery, theft et al.

Another case relating to a traffic offense:

Court Costs 21 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Traffic Fine 100 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Victims Assistance Fund 37 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Court Security Cash Fund 5 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Family Friendly Surcharge 1 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Genetic Testing Surcharge 2.5 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Restorative Justice Surcharge 10 DOLLAR AMOUNT

This a DUI handled at the county level:

Court Costs 18 DOLLAR AMOUNT
LEAF Assessment 90 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Victims Assistance Fund 25 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Victim Compensation Fund 35 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Cost of Care - Outside Agency 300 DOLLAR AMOUNT
Driving Und Influ/Abil Impaird 100 DOLLAR AMOUNT

As you can see, very little goes straight to a "state coffer" source to spend on whatever is wanted. Most fund existing programs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

I'm not a fan of this. Let's be clear where fines go though. At the municipal level, they (generally) go into the city general fund; county level, they (generally) go into the county general fund. There is really no money going into "state coffers" as generally misunderstood.

...

---

Thanks for sharing this. I often wonder where people get the idea that money from fines/fees go back into someone's coffers. As if Judges and staff get paid by the magic paycheck fairy. Courts cost money to operate and most of this money is assessed through court costs and fees from the defendants. I also had to chuckle at the public defender fee, which working at a courthouse, I'm very aware of. We don't tell the defendants that they have to fork over $25 to the PD when their case is done, and they're often surprised. "You mean to tell me that the public defender isn't free?" That lunch isn't even free.

So that being said, would the traffic court shut down if no traffic offenses took place in a week, month, year? No, they would pass more laws to fine people to keep their jobs, or as the PD for stricter enforcement.

The proposal is to remove the incentive for LE to selectively enforce the laws that bring in the most cash for their jurisdictions. The purpose of law enforcement needs to revolve around public safety, not revenue generation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric P

So that being said, would the traffic court shut down if no traffic offenses took place in a week, month, year? No, they would pass more laws to fine people to keep their jobs, or as the PD for stricter enforcement.

The proposal is to remove the incentive for LE to selectively enforce the laws that bring in the most cash for their jurisdictions. The purpose of law enforcement needs to revolve around public safety, not revenue generation.

---

Since we don't have "traffic court" here, it would be hard to say. At the municipal court level, the judge hears violations of municipal ordinance. Barking dogs, minor traffic, simple assault, parking violations, anything that is in the municipal code. At the county level, you see traffic violations, misdemeanor violations like DV, assault, child abuse, etc, that are misdemeanors. At the district court level, you see felonies.

Frankly, the cost of running a court outweighs any revenue that is generated by fines levied that are directed for court costs, at any level. You weight the cost of salaries for court clerks, bailiffs, court security, judges, court building, maintenance, maintenance personnel, electricity, insurance against the revenue as listed above in the examples, and you aren't on a positive cash flow.

But like with anything, don't let your bias get in the way of facts and reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric P

So that being said, would the traffic court shut down if no traffic offenses took place in a week, month, year? No, they would pass more laws to fine people to keep their jobs, or as the PD for stricter enforcement.

The proposal is to remove the incentive for LE to selectively enforce the laws that bring in the most cash for their jurisdictions. The purpose of law enforcement needs to revolve around public safety, not revenue generation.

---

Far as I know, when I issue a summons or make an arrest, I don't go looking for the most expensive fine or surcharge in the book, I look for the violation that occurred, and that's it. I can't say for every jurisdiction, but most LE I know, and have had the pleasure of working with, don't care about bringing in money- they care about keeping the streets safe, and enforcing the law. Are there stats that supervisors keep? Yes. Quotas? Not really. But if you go 6 months without a felony report or it doesn't look like you're all too busy, your SGT may ask you to work a little harder. I don't agree with this belief that is so widely held that many cops are out for revenue generation.

Big city boys should try some of the small towns.

At CDOT, I have reviewed speed studies to raise the speed limit in many locations. These studies show the predominate speed the majority of drivers feels safe traveling. The 85th percentile.

Many, actually most of the time, local LE or politicians veto increases in speed limits since revenue would drop. A prime example is I-25 through the pass through town of Castle Rock. When I25 was widened and the us 85 access removed, engineering guideline said the limit could be raised to 75. The project was bid with 75mph signs, but after bid, the town protested the increase and the spineless leadership at CDOT caved.

High speed is not dangerous. Speed differential is. When you can drive 75mph safely, most will except for the nanny do gooders driving the speed limit or slower. The nanny do gooders become rolling chicanes that create excessive lane changes.

Red light cameras do not work creating safer intersections, they do the opposite. And if public safety was the priority of traffic enforcement, why do cops hide? If it was about safety, they would be highly visible and advertise their presence, much like DUI saturation patrols. Traffic always slows when they see the cop cars. Instead of hiding and causing panic braking even from those doing the limit, they could be patrolling and pacing traffic.

I have no problem with cops enforcing meaningful laws and fighting real crime. I support that. But can't stand enforcement of nanny state do gooder laws.

Here here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric P

At CDOT, I have reviewed speed studies to raise the speed limit in many locations. These studies show the predominate speed the majority of drivers feels safe traveling. The 85th percentile.

Many, actually most of the time, local LE or politicians veto increases in speed limits since revenue would drop. A prime example is I-25 through the pass through town of Castle Rock. When I25 was widened and the us 85 access removed, engineering guideline said the limit could be raised to 75. The project was bid with 75mph signs, but after bid, the town protested the increase and the spineless leadership at CDOT caved.

High speed is not dangerous. Speed differential is. When you can drive 75mph safely, most will except for the nanny do gooders driving the speed limit or slower. The nanny do gooders become rolling chicanes that create excessive lane changes.

Red light cameras do not work creating safer intersections, they do the opposite. And if public safety was the priority of traffic enforcement, why do cops hide? If it was about safety, they would be highly visible and advertise their presence, much like DUI saturation patrols. Traffic always slows when they see the cop cars. Instead of hiding and causing panic braking even from those doing the limit, they could be patrolling and pacing traffic.

I have no problem with cops enforcing meaningful laws and fighting real crime. I support that. But can't stand enforcement of nanny state do gooder laws.

---

It may not be the beat cops that look for revenue... but the politicians that work with their leadership expect revenue, and pressure accordingly.

It all goes back to crappy politics... (especially when you have Democrats in office... then it's corrupt, too)

Liberals have abused the idea of charities (aka "non-profits") for decades to get the taxpayer to fund their war on American heritage and culture. I hate the shakedowns but don't see them much and don't want to keep fueling liberal abuse of non-profits.