Quote:
Originally Posted by floridaZ
Indiana: City Threatens $2500 Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets
Lawyer sues traffic and parking courts in Indianapolis, Indiana over threatened $2500 penalty for contesting a ticket in court.
The city made explicit the threat of additional fines for challenging parking tickets in a November 30 press release announcing a deal between Indianapolis and a private firm, T2 Systems, to hand over operations of a parking ticket court to increase municipal income.
"Using Six Sigma process improvement strategies, it is estimated that under this program the city may collect an additional $352,000 to $520,000 in parking citation revenue over the next 12 months," the city press release stated.
There's your answer right there It's all about the $$$
"Unfortunately what you have happen a lot of times is that judges aren't particularly worried about whether what they're doing may be violating the law as the odds of someone ever appealing a $400 traffic ticket is remote," Ogden wrote. "I see it all the time. Trial judges flouting the law knowing they are unlikely to ever be challenged on an appeal because the litigants can't afford it."
This is where it needs to stop. I frankly hope the attorney WINS his class action suit and bankrupts the city! (it won't happen but one can dream ) This would set not only a precedent, but send a message to other like minded morons on the bench who have obviously outgrown thier trousers
I'd tie these feckers up with appeals so long they'd never be able to get out of the backlog!
Ogden is specifically representing three motorists affected by court policies. Toshinao Ishii received a ticket for driving 63 MPH in a 55 zone in February. Had he paid the ticket without challenge, the fine would have been $150. After Judge Young sided with the police officer in court, Ishii was fined $550. Motorist Matthew Stone was told by his doctors not to wear a seatbelt over his chest as it could damage his cardiac pacemaker. He received a $25 ticket for wearing his seatbelt "improperly." After reading that he would face a $500 fine, Stone gave up his intention of challenging the citation. Adam Lenkowsky, who did not receive a ticket, attempted to attend a traffic court proceeding on September 23, 2009. He was barred from the court, despite the state constitutional requirement that court proceedings be open.
The sheer ARROGANCE of our judiciary these days is disgusting!
Ogden argues the court's practices in the first two cases violate the excessive fines clause of the state constitution as well as the clause requiring that "all penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense."
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Z
I believe that whenever it was that law enforcement became more a revenue collection activity for the state, rather then TRULY interested in corrective actions for the wrong doings of those people violating statutes, this became the beginning of the accelerating slide towards distrust and loss of respect for the general population for much of law enforcement personnel. People aren't fooled by the rhetoric about the purpose of law enforcement any longer. It's all about collecting money by force, and the laws amended to make the net capable of catching more and more fish with every throw. So when you stop looking up to the people you thought were entrusted with public safety, well just who can you look up to?
Then when you throw forfeiture into the pot and see personal property being targeted (profiled) because of the profits they could garner on the auction block, well, sorry, but how can you respect agencies who engage in that sort of practice?
|
Get ready...since local and state agencies (not just law enforcement) can not or will not, seem to live within a budget like the rest of us, they're using the courts and the legislature, to raise fines and costs to make up the difference.
And whenever given the opportunity to do so, administrators are using "scare tactics" relating to "budget cuts" to support crappy service!
I recently called the Hillsborough County Clerk of Court. On thier recording, the FIRST COMMENT you hear is that idiot Pat Frank (identifying herself)
plainly state that "I apologize for any inconvenience, but due to budget cuts and a reduced staff, your wait time may be longer than normal...
"
Hell, it sucked to begin with...way before the "budget cuts!"
So blame your sh**ty Service on the "budget cuts" (God knows, we can't help the taxpayers during hard times and God forbid a county employee might actually ahve to do something!)
And although she said she did not give "bonuses" last year, she did promote several people to mid level management positions that previously did not exist (per one of the clerks I know personally).
This is only going to get worse before it gets better unless we and people like this attorney, get proactive and start doing something about it!