I have a couple of issues to take with the City of Houston and the Houston Police Department. I read Matt Stiles article in the Houston Chronicle this morning, “HPD Still Issuing Tickets for License Plate Borders” (linked via title bar). My opinion on the matter may have a little more weight, having been a police officer and having written my share of tickets; some of which could fall into the category of “CS” (the letter C stands for Chicken; it shouldn’t take much to figure out the S).
Matt Stiles wrote, “Houston police officers continue writing tickets to motorists with brackets bordering their license plates despite a new law passed last month making it clear drivers should be cited only if the plate is significantly obscured.” He further explained that there was some “confusion” because of a poorly written law which continues to be in effect.
As a retired street officer I can recall some officers who seemed to think that such “technicalities” justified “ginning” the public. “To Gin the public”, a police term which means the same as CS because the violation either didn’t really happen, it was marginal at best or had little chance of being proven in court and the officer needed to have another “duck” on his work card. They’d write a CS ticket and leave it up to the citizen to go to court; adding court appearance time to his paycheck, regardless of the validity of the ticket issued; either way the officer was in good standing with his supervisors for having done his/her duty, writing traffic tickets.
I won’t go into a long explanation of whether or not a “traffic ticket quota system” existed in the past or continues to this day. I don’t care that the folks in the ivory towers of the HPD deny that such a quota has ever been in use; there has always been and always will be some kind of “minimum production” requirement regarding traffic tickets.
“It was never the intention of the Legislature for people to be receiving traffic citations for having license brackets," said state Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, who sponsored the bill.”
{. . .}
“In their defense, police commanders note that the state's highest criminal appellate court has ruled that, because of the 2003 prohibition's wording, the ban technically extends to any covering of a license plate.”
I used to enjoy writing tickets to folks who ran red lights and stop signs; my favorites of all traffic tickets because those folks could end up killing somebody driving with reckless regard for the rest of the public. If things were slow there were always expired inspection stickers or expired license plates; not very threatening to the safety of the public but, “technically”, one ticket on the work card counted the same as another as far as my supervisors were concerned. I don’t think I ever stopped anyone for having a “cracked tail light lens” or any of the marginal violations that can be used to justify stopping a vehicle just to see if something else would turn up; then again my memory is starting to develop CRS and I could be mistaken.
My son in law mentioned that he’d received a Camera Red Light ticket issued to a vehicle which he sold over a year ago. He tried to explain that he no longer owned the vehicle, that it had been sold and then resold once more. The bill of sale has been lost and he has no idea who owns the vehicle now; all the same who ever is driving it continues to run red lights and enter the toll roads via the EZ Pass lanes, violations which the Toll Road Authority claim is my son in law’s responsibility regardless of his explanation that he no longer owns the vehicle.
I can see how the loss of a bill of sale might make it difficult to “prove” that he no longer owned the vehicle the first time the Toll Road Authority sent him notification that somebody had entered the toll road without paying; however, once my son in law took the time to explain that he no longer owned the vehicle, that somebody else was violating the law it should have been noted and changed at that time. It would seem, at least from the attitude of those sending out summons, that they don’t really care who violated the law as long as the tickets gets paid.
I hold firm in my opinion that camera issued traffic tickets are an abomination, that they are in conflict with our judicial system here in America, the system which holds that citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Camera issued tickets take pictures of the license plate of vehicles which are believed to have violated a law, not the driver, and presume that the last documented owner somehow is responsible for any and all violations. In a nutshell, to presume guilt in this manner should be considered to be against the peace and dignity of the State of Texas; but that minor technicality would deprive the general fund of so much money.
I went back into my digital file box and found a letter which covers most of my concerns regarding the subject; it was part of my reason for becoming a “blogger” as is indicated in the header of my blog.
Open Letter to Members of the Houston Police Department
December 8, 2004
By: T. F. Stern, Retired Badge 908
I read an article in the Houston Chronicle, April 29, 2004, “Hurtt Calls for Cameras to Catch Traffic Violators”, that pointed out an agenda that would eventually be put into place. This past week the Mayor and City Council have said that this will become a way of life for all Houstonians. The State Legislature has specifically admonished all municipalities against such actions. I wrote an Op-ed piece which was printed in the Houston Chronicle on December 8th. Unfortunately the editor omitted one important word from my piece of sarcasm, “I have no problem with such a scam as long as it is presented properly.”; however, I noticed the omission of the word “SCAM”.
A scam would include any operation that is intended to bypass acceptable or lawful means. I have folks attempt to scam me over the telephone everyday with “free” this, that, or the other if only I will send them $4.95 to cover the shipping and handling. The City of Houston will do almost anything to increase its revenues. The Mayor and City Council attempted to nullify their contractual agreement with retired employees by passing it along to voters in the form of a referendum long after the ink had dried on the dotted lines. That was a scam. It violated the terms of a signed contract. The Mayor and City Council will sidestep the State Legislature’s stipulation that such camera issued tickets will not be used. It is dishonest because the citizen’s rights are sidestepped in order to be more efficient, not more safety conscious. It has to do with money; not safety.
When I was working downtown the “unofficial quota” was understood to be “2 and 10”; 2 moving tickets and 10 parking tickets per officer per day. They call it “productivity levels” now; in either case it’s an illegal quota system and always will be. The City of Houston is faced with near bankruptcy because of unbridled spending on new projects and old debts which include pensions and retirement obligations. One solution that they have agreed would help solve some of their budget woes is the magical infusion of money from camera traffic ticket fines. The City wouldn’t even need any up front investment money to purchase the cameras because these units would likely be supplied by a private company whose only desire is to make the streets safer for all Houstonians; that and a major profit from its percentage of the take. Talk about being over zealous; the cameras would ticket each and every violator, twenty four hours around the clock with no need for commissioned police officers or traffic courts. Since the violator cannot subpoena a camera as a witness there can be no defense; everyone is automatically Guilty, now how’s that for efficiency? The City of Houston will make a large fortune and it will only cost us a little thing we used to call Justice. I hope I’m not the only one who sees something frightfully wrong with this picture.
I used to joke about the chance to work on commission for a percentage of the fines generated by traffic tickets. That would never work because it would lead to officers getting rich off the tickets they wrote. I can see no difference with what has been proposed other than that fact that police officer will still not make any more from his or her efforts based on productivity. I guarantee that the City of Houston and the private contractor will push for every nickel, dime and dollar that the cameras can produce.
When a citizen is issued a traffic ticket by a commissioned law enforcement officer several points of law have to be met. The first is that the officer is commissioned, or acting for and in behalf of the citizens. The officer has to have a knowledge of the laws as well as the spirit of the laws that he/she is enforcing. A mechanical device can record incidents but is not capable of interpreting circumstances. When an officer issues a ticket; for example, excessive speed, several issues may be brought into play. The first would be the officer’s initial observation of existing traffic conditions; to include all other vehicles traveling on the roadway, road and weather conditions at the time of the incident, and a comparison with that of the violator’s actions during that same moment. If a mechanical device such as radar equipment is used to corroborate the officer’s original observation, then the officer must also prove in a court of law that his/her training with such equipment is documented and valid. The part that is being omitted by this SCAM is that there is no 1st observation by a commissioned law enforcement officer to justify the second step, that of backing up the observation with a mechanical tool. This one missed step in the process invalidates any and all mechanical “testimony”, and I use the term testimony quite liberally. Testimony cannot be given by a machine. There are many who have already chosen to use the thought process that testimony might be permitted by an inanimate object, that is as long as we can make enough money and thereby turn our attention away from such a minor point. A human being can give testimony and he can use photos or data from mechanical equipment to corroborate his/her testimony; not the reverse.
Many years ago the Department came after me with a vengeance claiming that my activity in the area of issuing parking tickets was “over zealous”. I had upset the boat and the smooth waters. I had issued parking tickets to some “good ole’ boys” that were on the “do not write” list. I still had way too much mouth for my brain at the time ( still do) and so the more weighty matter of insubordination was my undoing. If memory serves me, I said something to the effect, “You can climb up my ass”, to my Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain and three Assistant Chiefs. It turns out that they wouldn’t all fit, at least not at the same time. I got an indefinite suspension which was eventually over turned into a 40 day suspension. I bring this up because there remains a bitter taste in my mouth about that incident; even though I went on to complete my 20 years and obtained my retirement.
As far as my suspension from the Department; that’s water under the bridge. If you think about it, a suspension is not actually a loss of pay. Prior to retirement any time that was lost due to suspension has to be made up on the other end. It’s like a short sheeted bed, the material still all adds up the same. Productivity is all in the eye of the beholder, just remember to make it to your own retirement. “Y’all be careful out there.”, as they used to say at the end of each and every roll call.
No comments:
Post a Comment