By James Baxter, NMA President

Fighting a traffic ticket isn’t fun, at least for most people. You’re playing in an arena where the other side has the home field advantage, makes all the rules, owns the referees, and virtually operates without meaningful oversight. No wonder only a tiny percentage of ticket recipients seriously set out to challenge the charges lodged against them. Still, the justice system’s hackles are up and it senses the need to protect its prerogatives (and its cash flow).

Despite the small cadre of often ill equipped, poorly prepared, and over-matched traffic ticket defendants, the courts feel threatened and they are fighting back.

Traditionally the courts have relied on obscure rules, byzantine procedures, inconsistency from court to court and system to system, deliberately unhelpful employees, and insider collusion to keep the riff raff at bay. Not good enough anymore; the unwashed masses, in the form of pro-se defendants, keep cluttering up the courtrooms and threatening the vacation plans of the “keepers of the law.” The new weapon of choice; price the slugs out of the system. Make it too expensive for the average person to even consider fighting a ticket, and woe be to thee who loses his or her challenge.

Individual judges have employed economic roadblocks and confiscatory penalties for years, but the practice wasn’t systematic. That’s beginning to change.

Massachusetts started the ball rolling on a grand scale by charging every traffic ticket defendant $25, non refundable, regardless of guilt or innocence, just to get a hearing in front of a dubiously qualified judge. Upon failing at that level and desiring a more legitimate trial, with some semblence of rules, the erstwhile defendant must cough up another $50, again, non refundable, for his date in court.

Just recently, the Indiana Legislature, under the guise of corraling a rogue judge who was slapping major fines on defendants because they had the audacity to use up his valuable time, passed a law that systematically increases the fines of ticket defendants who make a point of challenging the traffic ticket industry in court. These people are the thin line that keep the system half way honest and the legislature (with courthouse boosters) has decided to throttle them with additional fines in excess of $500! Just watch this trend grow.

The passing of hundreds of arcane traffic laws every year, increasing fines to the point that they are challenging car and mortgage payments, making police officers revenue generators, and “Public Private Partnerships” like the combination of local governments and ticket camera merchants are creating a growing mass of otherwise passive and apathetic citizens who want to resist the egregious use of the police power to steal their money. Where do they think they can get relief? The courts! Fat chance that. But hope springs eternal.

Voting is a right. Many decades ago governments used poll taxes to price minorities out of the voting booth. These people were being denied their right to vote through the government sanctioned use of financial penalties. They weren’t called that but that was what they were. The courts eventually admitted the obvious and prohibited this practice.

Due process is a right. Currently the government uses fees, penalties, fines, and a host of non-financial strategies to deny due process to the average citizen who wants to challenge a traffic ticket. The techniques are not always overt, but they serve the purpose of discouraging, if not making it impossible to fight a ticket. But here’s the rub, unlike the poll tax, traffic ticket revenue is the mothers milk of state and local court systems. Will they ever willingly pull free of the traffic ticket teat? I fear not.

• Due Process For Traffic Ticket Defendants Threatened
• 8 Questions About Traffic Tickets That Politicians Never Answer
• Where Does The Money From A Speeding Ticket Go?
• Traffic Tickets Are Big Business
• No More Fines: A Traffic Safety Revolution

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

Sam Francis — a brilliant political writer — once wrote about something he called “anarcho-tyranny.” Simply put, it’s the growing tendency of the government to harshly treat ordinary citizens over even the most minor infractions while at the same time treating violent predators — real criminals — with disinterest and often minimal punishment relative to their deeds.

The growing use of “shock therapy” — Tasers — on motorists who’ve committed minor traffic infractions such as failing to wear a seat belt or who grumble under their breath while being issued speeding tickets is Exhibit A.

Argue with a cop — indeed, do anything other than submit immediately to his any and every command — and you risk being shot through with 50,000 volts of “non-lethal” (but sometimes not) Attitude Adjuster. It’s happening all around the country, to people who likely never saw it coming or even conceived that such a thing could happen to them. People who work, pay taxes and never so much as pocketed a Hershey bar at the drugstore. Middle-aged hausfraus. Moms with their kids in the car. College kids. Retirees.

You and me, in other words.

There are two reasons for this.

First, the system and its laws are becoming more and more officious. Books such as “Three Felonies A Day” detail the near-impossibility of not violating some state or federal law (inadvertently or not) just by dint of getting out of bed and going about your day. The country is so thick with Thou Shalt Nots — laws, rules and regulations — that there’s almost always a reason for some cop to pester you. When you get indignant and object, it’s open season.

Note that we’re not talking about physically threatening the cop. No reasonable person would object to honest self-defense. No, we are talking about cops Tasing people — body-slamming them onto the ground and sometimes breaking their teeth off in the process — for things like talking back (or even just talking to themselves, as in the case of a 21 year old college kid who got The Treatment recently; see http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/us-taser.pdf).

The courts have affirmed most of this stuff, too. For the average citizen, there is almost no sphere of initiative left.

We must seek permission — and more importantly, we must obey.

Reason Two arises from the first: Bad laws attract bad men. What sort of human being — what sort of man — would Tase a middle-aged woman with her kids in the vehicle after pulling her over for a seatbelt violation? Or a college kid — neither one armed nor dangerous nor physically threatening the cop in any way? Answer: A thug. Someone who ought to be on the other side of the Thin Blue Line but clearly isn’t. Decent men and women just don’t do such things because they aren’t thugs. But such people are less and less inclined to get into the law enforcement business because the law enforcement business is increasingly thuggish.

But ironically, as Sam would point out, the growing thuggishness of modern law enforcement doesn’t extend to real-deal criminals.

Have you ever watched any of those Live Cop TV shows? The boys in blue are often seen cajoling and even pleading politely with violent felons. “Please, Sir,” they say. And then courts hand down puff-piece sentences completely out of step with the nature of the offense. Less than five years for armed robbery — sticking a gun in someone’s face and threatening to kill them — is typical. To a career criminal — no job, no worries about his credit rating or his resume — five years in the clink (in practice, this will be less than two before early release) amounts to a free gym membership and three squares a day.

For the average Joe, on the other hand, being Tased, hog-tied and carted off to jail can be a life-altering experience. It may even be a life-ending experience (several people have died of heart failure after being hit with a Taser). And remember: All these people have done “wrong” is not show sufficient, immediate deference to some cop.

Civil law enforcement is becoming militarized and this is no random development. Many cops are ex-military and have done tours in Iraq or in other provinces of The Empire. In these blighted places, they come to view anyone who isn’t wearing BDUs and buzz cuts as The Enemy. Or at least, some lesser form of life. Certainly not humans of equal standing deserving of the same respect they’d give to, say, their neighbor next door. So when they come home and become cops, they may carry the same attitude back with them. Civilians are strange and suspicious creatures — and the cops treat them much the same as an occupying army treats the ordinary masses in foreign countries.

The cultural divide between cops and ordinary Americans — in particular, middle class Americans — is probably wider today than it has ever been.

And this divide is growing as more and more “for our own good” laws are passed that give our increasingly militarized and unsympathetic law enforcement authorities legal pretext to harass us — and worse.

“Don’t Tase me, bro!”

It’s a good thing Sam’s not around to see what America is becoming.

Comments?
www.epautos.com

• Should The Driving Age Be Raised To 18?
• Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?
• 8 Traffic Stop Safety Tips For Women
• Drive By Wire, Drive You Crazy
• Will GM Be Driving Your Next New Car?

By Jim Baxter, NMA President

Jennifer Muir of the Orange County Register did a little digging at the California DMV and found that thousands of state employees have special license plates that are not traceable for enforcement purposes. The recipients are primarily involved with enforcement activities, although for many that’s a stretch. The rationalization is that they need untraceable plates to protect themselves from vengeful criminals.

As it turns out the “confidential plates” also protect the holders from traffic tickets, parking fines, road tolls, and other unpleasantries of life. They are just one more example of our two tiered society where the farmers, clerks, merchants, mechanics and homemakers are held to the letter of the law while the police, courthouse residents, and elected officials have “professional courtesy.”

Our system was based on the ideal that everyone is to be held to the same standard, be equally responsible for our actions and that there not be an anointed elite with privileged status. Granted, this is an “ideal” and ideals are something we strive for knowing that perfection is usually not achievable.

Still, when a glaring and pregnant contradiction to the ideal is so apparent and malignant, as is “professional courtesy,” why is it so readily ignored?

Jennifer Muir’s exposé uncovered a program that has existed for three decades and was certainly obvious to our “representatives,“ those in positions of power. Of course they too were attracted to confidential license plates.

For as long as traffic laws have been enforced there has been professional courtesy among police officers. Cops don’t give tickets to other cops. Why is that? If these laws have merit and it’s to everyone’s benefit that these laws be obeyed why aren’t the enforcers held accountable?

Cops don’t let other cops rob, kidnap, or murder — what’s up with traffic laws? Could it be that many of these laws are not necessary, constructive, or fair, and the police inherently know this? Is it that many of these laws and their enforcement are more about making a buck for the sponsoring governments than they are about public safety?

Perhaps the ultimate solution to professional courtesy is to trim back the laws to those the cops will enforce against other cops and see how that works out.

Image Credit: IntangibleArts

• Maryland Police Refuse To Pay Speed Camera Tickets
• The 10 Biggest Injustices Against Motorists In October
• St. Louis Aldermen Don’t Have To Worry About Paying Tickets
• Traffic Tickets: Politicians & Double Standards
• Traffic Tickets Are Big Business

A little background: The AAA was once known as the American Automobile Association. In the first half of the 20^th century it was the pre-eminent spokesman and advocate of American motorists.

The American Automobile Association championed more and better roads, rational traffic laws and fair enforcement. It even identified and campaigned against speed traps. Not remembered by many; it was the principle sanctioning body for auto races.

By the 1960’s the American Automobile Association was well into its transition from motorist advocate to insurance company.

The association had a long history with roadside assistance, a type of insurance, but not until the 60’s and 70’s did the insurance function begin to dominate its priorities. The insurance role evolved to total control in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Eventually the facade of being a motorist advocacy organization collapsed and the name was changed to “AAA,” the letters meaning whatever the observer assumed them to mean. In the era when AAA was championing the 55 MPH speed limit (like all other insurance companies) the interpretations were not complimentary.

That, abruptly, brings us to the AAA press release that hit the media yesterday. I should add, there are still a fair number of reporters and other media mavens that have not caught on to the fact that the AAA is not the American Automobile Association of old.

The press release claims that auto accidents are costing we naïve citizens a lot more money than is traffic congestion and yet the government seems much more focused on traffic congestion than it is on traffic safety. This is one of those instances where because they said it, it must be true.

In reality, it’s unvarnished nonsense.

First, the claim that auto accidents are costing society more money than congestion is based on “funny money” assumptions, made up costs, and “apples and oranges” comparisons.

Assumptions on the value of one person’s life, work place losses, and monetizing “quality of life” or “pain and suffering” are futile subjective exercises intended to prove a point, not to shed light.

Yes, there are 43,000 annual traffic related fatalities, but why not mention that the fatality rate, a more meaningful statistic, has dropped like a stone over the past three decades?

Simple. Positive news doesn’t support the insurance industry’s agenda.

Assuming that 75 percent of the population lives in urban/suburban/developed regions means that 225 million people, including 150 million drivers deal with some level of congestion on a daily basis. If it costs each person an hour each work day that’s 58 billion man hours lost to congestion. OK, only a half hour; 29 billion man hours a year. At $7 per hour that’s $203 billion dollars a year and we haven’t even started with “quality of life” or workplace losses.

If these seem like silly numbers to you I’d argue that they aren’t any sillier than saying every life lost in an auto accident cost $3,249,192.00 (they apparently rounded off the cents).

Barbara Harsha, Exec. Dir. of the Governors Highway Safety Association unintentionally stated a fact; “Traffic Accidents happen in ones and twos, and people see them as random events that don’t effect them.” Actually “the people” have it about right. For most of them, traffic accidents are random events that do not affect them in a significant manner if they are not directly involved in the accident, which is usually the case. Yes, there are auto insurance rates, but those rates largely track inflation and are driven by administrative costs and property damage claims.

Besides, when is the last time you heard about an auto insurance company being unprofitable?

Congestion is not a random event; motorists confront it almost every day they travel. It costs them time, makes them late, aggravates and irritates (probably causes plenty of heart attacks and strokes), increases fuel consumption, emissions, and vehicle wear and tear, and it causes accidents. It stands to reason that funds garnered by taxing motorists should be used to improve roadways and lessen congestion.

Suggesting that safety has been shorted resources or given a low priority is sheer political nonsense.

No single government action has done more to improve highway safety than the construction and the expansion of the Interstate System. Without these and similar limited access divided highways we would experience twice as many fatalities, if not more, than we do today.

The vast preponderance of traffic accidents are not caused by speeding, impairment, senior drivers, or being young. They are caused by distraction, inattention, and fatigue.

Passing more laws, heaping on more penalties, or hiring platoons of cops will not address these factors.

If the resources that are wasted on speed traps, ticket cameras, roadblocks, enforcement binges, and propaganda, like this study, were invested in real research, programs, and projects that addressed the real causes of most traffic accidents we might just be able to make progress toward safer AND less congested highways.

• Traffic Tickets Are Big Business
• Why Does Car Insurance Cost So Much?
• Why The Insurance Industry Loves Red-Light Cameras
• How To Objectively Identify Unsafe Drivers
• Compulsary Insurance Won’t Work

Just one day after Kentucky’s new Secretary of Transportation, Joe Prather, assumed control of traffic issues in the state, the process began to install signals that had previously been deemed unnecessary. Specifically, $5450 worth of left-turn arrows happened to be set up at an intersection making it easier for Prather to turn into his subdivision. The Lexington Herald-Leader obtained transportation cabinet documents dated January 8, 2008 that showed that the intersection of Ring Road and Pear Orchard Road had one-half the traffic volume it would need to justify the engineering change.

In a not-so-shocking twist, Prather insists that he did not order the left-turn arrows to be installed.

Image Credit: dbking

• How Should Speed Limits Be Set?
• Tyranny Of The Minority: Why Bad Traffic Laws Get Passed
• 6 Dumb Traffic Laws That Should Be Repealed
• Report Gets Frosty Reception From Transportation Community
• 7 Ways To Shut Down A Speed Trap

Sometimes, the frog leaps before he’s cooked.

Remember the story about the frog and the pot of boiling water? So long as you raise the water temperature gradually, Mr. Frog doesn’t notice the increasing temperature until it’s too late too get away.

The analogy is used to convey, in easy to understand language, the process of "government creep." We don’t go from freedom to fascism overnight; statism creeps up on us incrementally — one step at a time. And each step, by itself, doesn’t seem all that bad; just another annoyance to deal with — or avoid, if you can. But one day you find yourself  living in a country that looks more like Orwell’s "1984" than the place envisioned by the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Government — its laws, its minions, its petty harassments and endless rigmarole — is an omnipresence that is inescapable.

Which brings us to the matter of Virginia’s "abuser fees" — the brainchild of a state lawmaker named Dave Albo.

Albo, who just happened to be a big-time lawyer connected with a firm that specializes in (surprise) defending traffic cases, pushed for — and got — a new law that went into effect last January that imposed unprecedented fines on motorists for traffic infractions, including routine speeding, that ranged as high as $3,000 per incident — on top of whatever fine the court levied for the infraction.

The justification given was that the fees would help fund transportation improvements — and of course, "safety" — that well-worn bray that’s still remarkably effective, despite the obvious cynicism with which it is deployed.  

But Albo and his backers made a mistake. They went for broke — and all at once.

Not only were the fines outrageously high relative to the offense(s); not only did they constitute a "double tap" (violators paid, in effect, two fines) but to add insult to injury, they only applied to in-state drivers. A Virginia motorist convicted of driving 80-something mph on a Virginia highway with a posted speed limit of 65 mph faced a "reckless driving" charge, a court fine of several hundred dollars — plus an "abuser fee" of more than $1,000. But an out of state driver caught doing exactly the same thing only got the court fine; the "abuser fees" weren’t applicable.

Seem fair to you?

Virginians felt the same way — and lawmakers got an earful of a different sort of abuse. Just one year after Albo’s Law went into effect, it is on the verge of being repealed in total. State lawmakers are even taking the rare procedural step of seeing to it that when the law repealing the fees is passed, it will go into effect immediately. No waiting until January 2009.

The water is that hot.

So the "abuser fees" will go; but it may be only a temporary victory. Albo and his friends will realize, if they haven’t already, that they overplayed their hand. Gradualism is the key. Next time, the "abuser fees" will only apply to indefensible acts — DWI, vehicular manslaughter resulting from gross negligence — etc. Then, the law will be expanded to the next-down category of offenses. Things not quite so bad — but still hard to make excuses for. Few will complain. It will become accepted practice — and precedent. Other states will pass similar laws. There will be uniformity — and reciprocity.

A few years will pass. Then, someone — perhaps Albo himself — will propose that the fines be applied to yet more offenses. "Public safety!" will be the cry. And just as seat belt laws went from no-argument laws requiring that small children be restrained to "primary enforcement" laws that empower police to pull adults over for failing to "buckle up" — so, too, will the "abuser fees" eventually encompass routine (and purely technical) infractions such as simple speeding.

And we will have come full circle.

There’s just too much money at stake; too much potential control over the Masses to be passed up for long.

To paraphrase Arnold: They’ll be back. Count on it.

And next time, we will probably not notice the water’s getting warm again; at least, not before it’s too late to jump.

Comments?
www.ericpetersautos.com

• Watch Your Wallet When Driving Through These 10 States
• 8 Questions About Traffic Tickets That Politicians Never Answer
• No More Fines: A Traffic Safety Revolution
• Traffic Tickets Are Big Business
• The 10 Biggest Injustices Against Motorists In October

Tim Shingara does not look like a man you would expect to be working for the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP).  His shoulder-length hair, thick mustache, tight black t-shirt, torn jeans and intense stare exude the image of a motor-head, not a radio-telecommunications specialist lab technician, specializing in advanced radar operations.

Shingara probably looks the part of a Harley enthusiast because he is a Harley enthusiast.  He is a police lab technician by day and a husband, father and biker by night.  This more or less average guy’s world was turned upside-down as he was thrust into the midst of a Pennsylvania State Police corruption scandal dubbed “Radargate” by watchdog groups.

J. Michael Sheldon’s Lucky Find

Radargate and Shingara’s uphill battle against the PSP began on November 29, 2002.  Ironically, Shingara himself had nothing do to with the beginning of the fiasco. 

On that Friday evening, the day after Thanksgiving, Brent Hanlin was hurrying to his father’s hunting cabin in Perry County, Pennsylvania.  It was getting late, and Hanlin wanted to get settled in for the weekend before rifle season opened on Monday morning.  He was traveling northeast along PA route 533 in his 1994 VW Jetta.  Ominous rain clouds darkened the sky and the road was already slick from earlier showers.  To make matters worse for Hanlin, the lights on his VW dashboard had been flickering on and off for weeks and finally decided to die, making it difficult to gauge his speed. 

As Hanlin passed an intersection, a State Police patrol car began trailing him from a distance.  Hanlin noted the patrol car, but continued on without a second thought—he was the type of guy to drive 43 in a 45 zone  “just to be safe.”  Minutes later, the Trooper turned on his flashing lights and Hanlin realized that he was being pulled over.

The encounter that ensued was not pretty.  Hanlin was informed by PSP Trooper Gregory Styers that he was driving in excess of seventy miles per hour.  “Impossible,” thought Hanlin.  Sure, Hanlin, might have been speeding.  He could not exactly tell because his darkened dashboard.  But seventy miles per hour?  Fat chance.  He curtly informed the Trooper that he was mistaken.  The situation got worse when Hanlin could not produce either a registration or proof of insurance.  Styers decided to detain Hanlin for the evening for a traffic violation and resisting arrest.

Hanlin hired prominent local attorney J. Michael Sheldon to represent him in court.  Hanlin insisted that he was going forty-five miles per hour at the most.  “Sure,” thought Sheldon, “that’s what they all say.”  While driving home from his office, Sheldon was suddenly struck by a new thought: maybe it was impossible to hit seventy on the stretch where Hanlin was pulled-over, especially given the road conditions in a 1994 Jetta. 

Sheldon visited the scene and determined that it was unlikely that Hanlin could have reached seventy miles per hour.  On a flier, he contacted PSP headquarters and asked to speak with their lab expert on radar gun performance.

Enter Tim Shingara.  Shingara was the local expert identified by the State Police for Sheldon to interview.  Sheldon quickly discovered that he hit a legal jackpot.  Shingara openly admitted that State Police radar guns are unreliable.  Internal memos noted problems with the radar guns, especially the Genesis model guns, as early as 2002. On August 2, 2003, Corporal William LaTorre officially filed a memo to his superior noting that everything he aimed the gun at was registering seventy-eight miles per hour—including inanimate objects.  A tree, rock, road, sky and moving car all registered seventy-eight. 

Six months later, Sergeant Thomas Decker reported a similar problem to his commanding officer.  According to Sgt. Decker, the Genesis gun would suddenly jump from the mid-fifties to the low-eighties without cause.  Later, even after Radargate broke in Philadelphia and Harrisburg newspapers, field officers were reporting problems with the Genesis guns.

Shingara was subpoenaed as an expert witness in Hanlin’s case.  According to Shingara’s testimony, the Genesis radar gun registered an “alternator whining” when plugged into a Trooper’s vehicle.  Under intense electrical strain, such as the use of a radar gun, the alternator runs constantly in an effort to recharge the car battery.  The constant running of the alternator produces an electrical disturbance that is captured by the Genesis gun.  Out of the alternator whining, Radargate was born.

Institutional Failure

Radargate was potentially explosive for PSP.  The costs would be extraordinary, both in public-image and sheer economic terms.  The State Police own nearly one thousand radar guns, more than half of which are the Genesis model, produced by Decatur Electronics.  Internal records show that State Troopers use radar guns in roughly eighty-seven percent of speeding tickets. 

Records, do not, however, indicate which radar gun was used for issuance of each ticket.  Thus, no one truly knows how many of the PA State Police issued tickets might be invalidated if the Genesis model is proven inaccurate.  Since the first internal memos filed by Troopers in late 2002, motorists have been issued approximately two hundred thousand tickets—incurring total fines of more than fifteen million dollars.

The contracting arrangements between Decatur and the State Police are baffling at best.  Decatur was chosen and the Genesis model selected because Decatur was the lowest-bidder for the radar contract.  This is hardly atypical, as it is normal for state government agencies to award contracts to the lowest bidders. Shingara’s attorney Don Bailey thinks the problem is that government agencies such as PSP have budgetary pressures in conflict with public safety concerns.  Bailey bluntly stated in an interview, “The Genesis II gun was a cheap gun.” 

At the same time as Decatur’s radar gun bid, Ford Motors was contracted in early 2002 to supply new squadron cars for PSP.  The “cost-effective” Crown Vic model was chosen, in spite of its low battery power. The Governor’s Office was thrilled with Ford’s Crown Vic bid, as PSP was saving the state thousands of dollars.  For most cars, battery drain is a relatively minor problem, but squadron cars generally run a radio unit, laptop, lights, A/C, cell phone charger, and radar gun simultaneously.  Drain on the battery can have dangerous consequences, such as stalling in the middle of traffic.

The government mismanagement of Radargate goes even deeper.  Decatur Electronics acknowledged the problems in the Genesis model and recommended an easy solution to State Police brass.  Decatur offered to fix all of the Genesis guns for free, absorbing a loss of thirty thousand dollars.  Decatur was hoping to avoid public embarrassment and loss of reputation in the market.  They could offer a solution and save face, as no one would blame Decatur for not predicting how the Genesis model would interact with future car models. 

PSP, however, turned down Decatur’s offer to fix all of the units for free.  According to Shingara’s lawyer, Don Bailey, the higher-ups of the State Police wanted to cover up any wrongdoing.  If the State Police were found guilty of using faulty radar, the “implications [would be] enormous and quite significant cost wise,” said Bailey.  The Governor’s office would inevitably respond by distancing themselves from the top officials in the Police Department. 

In all likelihood, the administrative officials at the helm of the State Police would lose their jobs—and potentially jeopardize their mandatory service for the State pension plan. 

Bailey, never a man to mince words, candidly asserts, “The reason for any kind of a cover-up of a bureaucratic mistake of any kind is very simple: careers are on the line…gotta get my career, my pension, gotta get outta here sorta thing…They were willing to let bad tickets be written…Probably the leadership at the top of the State Police doesn’t want to write bad tickets.  It’s not that they want to do that or get any pleasure out of it.  But the issue is, ‘How is my career going to be affected?’” 

According to Bailey, the institutional pressure of budget politics and lack of government oversight created circumstances that lead to the organizational panic in which the police turned down Decatur’s simple, free, and easy solution in favor of a cover-up.

Part of the cover-up, in Bailey’s eyes, was a phony study on the accuracy of the Genesis radar gun.  In response to Shingara’s testimony in the Hanlin case, the State Police commissioned a study on Genesis radar guns performed through a lab at the University of Pittsburgh.  After the study was concluded, the State Police issued multiple press releases indicating that the radar guns had proven consistent and trustworthy beyond a shadow of a doubt.  This seemed to assuage the public, as most citizens and media outlets were willing to accept these conclusions.

Unfortunately, it appears that State Police leaders were fudging the truth.  Professor Marlin Mickle, the lead experimenter at the University of Pittsburgh, was unavailable for comment in this article, but has elsewhere claimed that the tests conducted in his department were neither conclusive nor aimed at gauging radar accuracy under field conditions. 

Mickle says that the tests reflect Genesis radar performance in the laboratory, but the accuracy results do not necessarily transfer to the real world.  When subpoenaed by Bailey, Mickle claimed that the State Police had not provided him any background on the on-going legal battle, nor suggested a field test versus a laboratory test.   At any rate, police officials could breath a sigh of relief, as the momentary scandal of Radargate had passed.

PSP Retaliation

When the dust had cleared from the Mickle study and the public was placated, PSP turned its sights on Shingara, according to Bailey.  Shingara was removed from radar detail, which was both a financial blow and a slap in the face professionally. Shingara was denied additional assignments at work, meaning that he went to work for months with absolutely nothing to do. 

In Bailey’s experience, this is a common tactic of PSP officials to isolated and control whistleblowers (public employees who speak out against corruption or malpractice from within the department).

Over the next several months, it became increasingly clear to Shingara that he needed legal representation, prompting him to hire Bailey to sue PSP for unlawful retribution.  In addition to being removed from radar detail and assigned no work, Shingara complained of other retaliatory measures, such as withheld promotions and subjugation to “an unfair internal investigation,” according to the lawsuit.   Ultimately, Shingara claimed that the police were looking for an opportunity to fire him. 

Bailey built a case focused on First Amendment violations by the State Police, which was subsequently filed in the U.S. Third Circuit.  According to Bailey, Shingara’s case is a clear-cut example of First Amendment violation in the workplace.   Shingara observed a problem in PSP that defrauded the public and compromised the integrity of the State Police.  When J. Michael Shelton subpoenaed him, Shingara testified to problems within PSP. 

In an interview, Bailey was quick to point out that Shingara had no economic motive for testifying against PSP.  Shingara was not guilty of libel, as both internal memorandums and independent studies have vindicated his version of Radargate.

While Radargate was being argued at the Third Circuit (spring 2005), a related civil rights battle raged in the U.S. Supreme Court.  Garcetti v Ceballos worked its way through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and was finally argued by the Supreme Court in October 2005.  The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy (joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) ruled, “Statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline.”  Richard Ceballos, the defendant in Garcetti, had a very simple analysis:  “I think government employees will be more inclined to keep quiet [about corruption].”

New Dilemma of State Employees

In lieu of Radargate and the Garcetti ruling, police officers in PSP (and government employees in general) are caught in a bind.  In Radargate, for instance, Shingara’s initial report to his superiors was co-authored or verified by at least nine other communications specialists.  None of these nine men and women, however, have come forward to corroborate Shingara’s testimony.  That is hardly surprising given the financial and professional repercussions reaped by Shingara. 

The State Police have made an example of Shingara—“This is what happens to those who break rank and speak out against the State Police.”  As if that were not incentive enough to keep quiet about government corruption or malpractice, the Supreme Court has removed even whistleblower protection from state employees. 

In the case of Shingara v Skiles et al, the State Police holds all the cards.  Institutionally, not many people testify against the State Police because of its reputation and power.  PSP is a powerful and influential lobby in Pennsylvania, as evidenced by their Commissioner’s seat on the Governor’s cabinet. 

The sheer disparity of power and funds for waging expensive legal battles creates a strong disincentive for insiders to exposure government corruption.  PSP officials have virtually unlimited resources in terms of legal counsel.  They have a special task force that specializes in handling the legal defense of PSP.  Should these lawyers not have enough time or expertise to handle a specific case, it is not uncommon for the State Police to hire outside law firms to run the case.

Conversely, Tim Shingara, although not a poor man, is severely limited in his funds to pay for lawyers.  Ironically, his salary as a lab technician was slashed by virtue of his removal from the radar detail and from other special assignments, the very sort of retributive action that led him to sue PSP.  Fortunately for Shingara, he has enough money to put up a fight as a radio-telecommunications specialist, unlike many of the young Troopers in the force.

Bailey claims that PSP also has an advantage in terms of public perception. Shingara is fighting against image of the State Police.  There is, according to Bailey, a tendency among the general public to view the law enforcement in almost binary terms.  The police are the good guys and the accused are the bad guys.  It would be impossible for individuals in the State Police, especially high-ranking officers, to be guilty of a systematic cover-up, even in a situation like faulty radar guns. 

Looking Ahead

In the grand scheme of things, malfunctioning radar guns are not that important.  After all, the cover-up could be for something much greater, like murder, money laundering, drug running, political corruption, or the like.  The troubling fact is that, if Shingara and Bailey are correct, the State Police officials had the desire, ability, and organization to pull a cover-up, even on a relatively minor issue.  According to Bailey, the current legal climate (especially post-Garcetti) provides further incentive for public officials to keep silence. 

The question raised by Bailey is this: Who will speak out against government abuse if not government insiders? As a State Police officer, Shingara is legally forbidden to speak with any member of the media under the threat of being fired.  PSP was unavailable for comment on this article.  The University of Pittsburgh also refused to given comment on their study of the Genesis II gun and PSP interpretation of the study.  Decatur likewise declined to comment on the accuracy of the Genesis II radar guns.

Radargate thus moves quietly toward its undecided, but impending legal conclusion.  In July 2005, the U.S. Third Circuit Court ruled against Shingara.  The Third Circuit determined that there was not enough evidence of retribution by PSP.  Shingara and Bailey are currently fighting through the appeal process.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals will soon decide whether or not they will hear the case. 

Regardless of the decision in the Court of Appeals, the losing side will inevitably appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for final mediation.  Shingara v Skiles et al would be an opportunity for the Court to revisit Garcetti. 

In light of the outcry by civil rights groups and Congress alike, it is conceivable that the Court will vote to reverse Garcetti.  The fates of Tim Shingara, PSP officials, and potentially millions of future whistleblowers thus await judgment.

Benjamen can be contacted at benjamen.ober@duke.edu.

• Traffic Tickets Are Big Business
• 3 Common Myths About Radar Detectors
• NMA Contest: Tell Your Ticket Story & Win A Free Book
• Speed Limit Signs Used To Research Speed Enforcement
• Guilty in Ohio: Speeding Convictions by the Art of Observation

Here’s a quick roundup of stories from this year where ticket quotas were discovered around the country.

November

Washington State Police Use Ticket Quotas
Officials with the Washington State Patrol set numeric goals that encourage state police officers to issue as many traffic citations as possible. The effect has been a significant increase in the number of tickets written — 50,000 additional tickets were issued between 2005 and 2006. A Bellvue state patrol sergeant issued a memo ordering troopers to meet the accountability goals, writing: “No matter how many cars you stop, the goal… is 80 percent enforcement (tickets).” Those failing to meet the goal may lose vacation time or receive other sanctions.

October

Georgia: Speed Trap Caught Using Ticket Quotas
WGCL-TV reports that DeKalb County Police officers are told during roll call that they must issue 65 citations a month and make 25 arrests. Those on traffic duty must issue a minimum of 150 citations a month and make 11 arrests. Unlike in many states, ticket quotas are not illegal in Georgia.

September

Texas: Ticket Quota Memo Uncovered
Police officers in Midlothian, Texas received a written memo ordering them to issue twenty traffic citations each month. With more revenue, police officials believed they would be able to expand the small department. WFAA-TV in Dallas confirmed the quota’s existence through unnamed department sources, marking the second time this year a numeric traffic ticket quota has been uncovered in Ellis County.

August

Michigan: Community Protest Torpedoes Ticket Quota
A planned protest at the Redford Township, Michigan police station helped kill a ticket quota that officials had adopted last month. Since mid-July, township police had been handed one hour’s worth of overtime pay for every two traffic citations issued. This meant that a typical officer could pocket up to $21 in cash for each individual ticket issued. The Mary Church Terrell Council for Community Empowerment now plans to go after the ticket quota in Dearborn Heights. The Detroit suburbs of Livonia, Oak Park, Rochester and Trenton also depend on numeric ticket quotas for police.

May

Iowa: Police Chief Suspended Over Ticket Quota
The Pleasant Hill, Iowa city manager suspended the city’s police chief on April 26 after evidence surfaced that he had instituted an illegal traffic ticket quota. According to local police union leader Ron Zimmerman, 33, officers were being told to issue between five and ten tickets each month. A sergeant chided Officer Zimmerman on “the low number of tickets” that he issued. Although Chief William Hansen, 58, denies the existence of a quota, a Des Moines Register review of court documents shows the amount of ticket revenue has more than doubled under Hansen’s watch.

Denver, Colorado Ticket Quota Uncovered
Police officials in Denver, Colorado confirmed that they have placed pressure on rank-and-file officers to issue a minimum number of traffic citations. Since September, those that have failed to produce have faced disciplinary action. “We’re always looking at performance,” Denver Police Captain Eric Rubin told KCNC-TV. “If an officer is under the average set we might discuss it with the officer.” Rubin insisted that these requirements are not a quota. Instead, they are a “measure of performance.”

March

Texas: Police Chief Faces Ticket Quota Charges
The police chief in Red Oak, Texas faces charges that he imposed an illegal traffic ticket quota. The city council last week suspended Police Chief Donald “Red” Fullerton and Deputy Chief Stephen Anderson pending the conclusion of an outside investigation by a retired Fort Worth policeman. Evidence shows that the city’s police force began issuing a traffic ticket every twenty minutes during a severe budget shortfall. The police chief budgeted $3.4 million in citation revenue, which required each officer to issue 320 tickets a month. A bulletin board in the police station displayed how each officer measured up.

February

Utah: Police Chief Blocks Ticket Quota Ban
It isn’t often that a police chief can block the action of an entire state legislature. However, Ogden Police Chief Jon Greiner stopped a ticket quota bill aimed directly at him from being considered by the state Senate. Greiner, a newly elected state Senator representing the Ogden area, cast the deciding vote on the Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee where the measure failed 2-2. Representative Neil Hansen (D-Ogden) had introduced a bill that had passed the House to prohibit municipalities, counties, sheriffs and police chiefs from requiring officers to issue a certain number of tickets in a given amount of time.

All articles referenced were compiled from the archives of www.thenewspaper.com.
Click on the titles of each section to read the full story behind each of these situations.

• Red-Light Camera Contracts Incentivize Ticketing Innocent Drivers
• Florida Highway Patrol Ticket Quota Exposed
• How To Fight A Michigan Speeding Ticket
• The 10 Biggest Injustices Against Motorists In October
• Maryland Police Refuse To Pay Speed Camera Tickets

By NMA President, James Baxter

For over thirty years I have heard every excuse and permutation conceivable to justify more and larger fines for traffic law violations. The one thing they all have in common is that there is no evidence that they reduce accidents.

The founders of our country were clearly aware of the corrupting and corrosive potential that derives from allowing the “enforcers” to profit from enforcement.

They knew better than to allow enforcement agencies, or the governments that employ them, to profit from law enforcement activities. That’s why many state constitutions mandate that fines and financial penalties be diverted to non-enforcement purposes such as education or libraries.

Unfortunately, less gifted legislative bodies, in the intervening years, have created legal fabrications that allow the circumvention of these needed restraints.

I propose we strike this beast at its heart; we eliminate financial penalties for traffic law violations.

No money means no enforcement for profit. The remaining enforcement activity would be concentrated on truly dangerous drivers. Wouldn’t that be novel!

There is no serious evidence that traffic fines really have a positive effect on highway safety. That’s not the same as saying traffic law enforcement doesn’t, or can’t, have a positive effect on highway safety.

I’m saying traffic fines are ineffectual. After almost thirty years of listening to ticket recipients I can attest to the constancy of one refrain:

“I don’t mind paying the fine, but I don’t want the points on my driving record.”

Many times followed by:

“I don’t want my insurance rates jacked up for the next three years.”

Clearly, it’s the points and the implied potential for loss of license and increased insurance rates that are the real deterrents.

The government types aren’t so slow as to miss this point, nor to fail to capitalize on the leverage it offers.

Any prosecutor with more than a week’s experience knows that an offer of “no points” converts a determined “not guilty” to a compliant “no contest.”

I propose that the current corrupt fine system be replaced by a non-negotiable point system.

1. The points would be assessed much like they are today, based on the seriousness of the violation.
2. The violations could be contested in court, just like they are today.
3. If the number of points exceeds a set number over a set time span the operator’s license would be suspended for a specified period of time.
4. Escalating non-financial penalties, including jail time, could be applied to those driving on a suspended license.

I can already hear the road warriors out there bemoaning the loss of the “easy out,” just pay the fine, forget the points, and be on your way. However, that’s the system that has gotten us where we are today; wholesale government extortion of motorists.

This change will not take place in a vacuum, and the ramifications will reach far beyond the obvious:

• Small villages with populations of 200 people will not be fielding 20 man police department to patrol the half-mile of Interstate that passes through the village boundaries.
• County Sheriffs’ departments and city police departments will redirect the man hours spent operating speed traps to dealing with real crimes and providing emergency services.
• High profile enforcement binges will become rare events.
• There will be far fewer people driving on suspended licenses which will result in more insured drivers (no license, no insurance coverage).
• Significantly reduced case loads in traffic courts, perhaps resulting in the return of due process for persons charged with a traffic violation.
• And, the allure of ticket cameras will also fade into oblivion.

Why all these positive changes?

Taking the money out of the system will vastly reduce the number of tickets issued and change the priorities for law enforcement agencies. There will be no financial incentive to ensnare normal citizens with arbitrary traffic law enforcement.

Replacing traffic fines with a non-monetary penalty system could dramatically improve the driving experience in the US. No more revenue and profit-driven enforcement. And, yet there would be meaningful deterrents to dangerous and unsafe drivers that would equally affect the poor, the wealthy, and everybody in between.

Let me know what you think about this “revolution!”

• Traffic Tickets Are Big Business
• 8 Questions About Traffic Tickets That Politicians Never Answer
• Georgia City Rakes In $1,136 In Traffic Ticket Fines Per Resident
• Making Functional Laws Dysfunctional
• Watch Your Wallet When Driving Through These 10 States

The list was compiled from items on our site and from www.thenewspaper.com. TheNewspaper.com is an excellent source of news on motorists issues and we encourage anyone who is interested in the politics of driving to subscribe to their news feed.

10) City Rakes In $1,136 In Traffic Ticket Fines Per Resident

The city of Pendergrass, Georgia pulled in $558,020 in traffic fines despite only having 491 residents.

9) Police Wrongly Seize Car From An Innocent Woman

Police in Alexandria, Louisiana seized the car belonging to a motorist who had committed no crime. A pair of police officers ran the license plate on Ruby Wallace’s 1995 Honda Accord and found the department of motor vehicles (DMV) had listed it as canceled. Wallace was without her car for days until the DMV admitted their database was wrong. As fees mounted, neither the Alexandria Police nor the DMV would take responsibility for the mistake or pay the towing company the $430 it demanded before it would return her Honda.

8 ) Texas Toll Authorities Double-Bill 50,000 Drivers & Have No Plans To Stop In The Future

Since January, one out of every 600 vehicles was double-billed on Texas toll roads. Instead of fixing the problem, the authorities were satisfied with only reducing the frequency of the error to one out of every 2000 drivers.

7) Maryland Pushes for $2000 Speed Camera Ticket, Virginia Follows

Officials in both Maryland and Virginia are planning to introduce legislation allowing cameras in so-called highway work zones that would issue automated tickets worth $500 in Virginia and $2000 in Maryland. Lawmakers are following the lead of Illinois which last year introduced $1000 freeway speed camera tickets that have generated significant revenue.

6) Texas DOT Considers Lowering Speed Limit To Boost Toll Revenue

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has agreed to consider lowering the maximum speed limit on a stretch of interstate highway that competes with a planned toll road. TxDOT’s agreement with the company collecting the tolls also ensures no improvements can be made to nearby roads unless the agency issues payment to the company with taxpayer funds.

5) Georgia Speed Trap Caught Using Ticket Quotas

A local television station has uncovered evidence that a notorious Georgia speed trap has been using traffic ticket quotas. WGCL-TV reports that DeKalb County Police officers are told during roll call that they must issue 65 citations a month and make 25 arrests.

4) Traffic Court Judges Caught Fixing Tickets

New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram announced the filing of corruption charges against nearly half of the Jersey City’s municipal court judges for “fixing” tickets for their friends and family.

3) Wisconsin Appeals Court Decision Grants Police License to Stop Innocent Motorists

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently ruled that police do not require a reason to stop a car registered in the name of someone with a suspended license. The court ruled that as long as a police officer makes no attempt to determine whether a spouse or other family member might be behind the wheel, he is free to pull over whoever happens to be driving.

2) West Virginia Looks to Boost Revenue with Court Costs

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals moved to boost revenue from traffic tickets by warning lower courts that they must collect the maximum possible amount in court costs from each defendant. As a result of the clarification, any motorist charged with, for example, both speeding and failure to signal must pay the $160.50 assessment for court costs twice — for a total of $321 — even though the motorist appeared only once in court.

1) Motorists Forced To Let Officers Draw Blood Samples At DUI Stops

An increasing number of police departments are allowing their officers draw blood samples from motorists under suspicion of a DUI/DWI. The officers have limited medical training and it’s the officer’s choice between a breathalyzer or a blood test.

If you found this list worth reading, please take the time to share it with others. Click the “Share This” button below to email it to friends or submit it to a social news site.

• Maryland Police Refuse To Pay Speed Camera Tickets
• 19 Interesting Driving-Related Legal Rulings From This Year
• Motorists Forced To Let Officers Draw Blood Samples At DUI Stops
• Watch Your Wallet When Driving Through These 10 States
• Michigan Cities Break The Law To Generate More Speeding Tickets