Ticket Money

[redhead]

Who gets it?

Some say the state gets the funds,.....but I have been told and want to reinforce what I heard that when you (chp officers) cite a violator, the money goes to the city and or county you cited in.

Is that true?

[retchp]

It goes to the city/county and court system. The CHP and/or "state" get nothing from it. As an example on the "ticket" is a place to put where the violaton occurred. Lets say that you saw the violation in LA City Limits and made the stop in LA County after passing through a corner of some other city briefly before you were able to get the vehicle stopped. Each of those three jurisdictions would get some money generated by that fine.

[redhead]

Thank you for the answer.

[SB 405]

On the topic of tickets and money...I heard on the news the other day these "photo enforced" cameras at intersections in some cities are bringing in mega bucks. Last year while opening my mail one day I found something I first thought to be junk mail and almost tossed it in the trash but after opening it I read the city of Hawthorne would like my autograph on a check in the amount of $349.00:shock: Seems I didn't come to a complete stop at a red light before making a right turn. Thing is this camera is located at the same intersection of the hotel I work for and I notice those flash bulbs poppin' off all day long so how could I have been so stupid? They should install some speakers and a cash register sound in the thing that goes "cha-ching" everytime it fires off a picture. The city says the cameras cut down on accidents and safety is the main concern....yeah right,and I've got a nice little parcel of ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell ya.;)

[Your Mentor]

Wow SB 405, I never imagined a photo cite could cost that much. Sorry man. I hope you contested that cite. Photo cites are relatively new and, in my opinion, worth fighting. First off, there's no proof who was behind the wheel. Second, traffic cites must be witnessed by the issuing officer. I think an officer witnessing a violation and issuing a violation is fare game. After that, I think it's all just revenue hunting. I mean how many people know cameras are being used at that intersection, and because of that, how can that possibly reduce accidents. If it's a traffic infraction then the only deterant is having an officer at the intersection. The average person can't see a camera there and will be blind-sided by a photo-cite. If you didn't fight it this time I hope you will in the future and encourage others to do so. Just so you know, most CHP officers believe in fareness. Revenue has NOTHING to do with it. Anytime an agencie braggs about revenue I question motives. The only ethical motive is SAVING LIVES.

A little history lesson regarding revenue from tickets: Back in the 40's CHP officers were assigned to Counties and their pay was based on the number of cites they wrote. This, of course, was the basis behind the stereotypical officer sitting on a motor behind a billboard or the old 'speedtrap.' It was obviously seen as a conflict of interest and in the 50's we were removed from the revenue collecting process. Interestingly, other state HP agencies write the fine on their cites (or summons if you're from back East). We don't and aren't supposed to quote fines in the field. I've watched graveyard partners do so which can cause a verbal 415 on the shoulder. I have always told violators I simply don't know what the fine will be. I have also ignored bail schedules and don't bother to read the current bail schedules if the County court gives them out to allied agencies. The whole point, of course, is to protect lives, NOT collect revenue for Counties. One interesting point is that the majority of revenue collected by Counties through traffic cites was generated by CHP officers. You'd think we'd get more respect from the County. I know that on a ski-night in Inyo County I issued 20 cites easily for 85 mph or above. If the fine was $250 or more I just earned $5K for the County that night.

[redhead]

....Anytime an agencie braggs about revenue I question motives..... Key reason I didn't use that one word in my post :smile:

[SB 405]

Mentor,A friend of mine was cited at the same intersection for the same reason as I was and when he went in to fight it because he was positive he had stopped,he found out these cameras also run a video of your violation...he lost! As far as proof it was me driving,four little 3x3 color photos attached to the notice took care of that. Hell,they didn't even get my good side.:lol: Funny this ticket deal happened to me in September 2004 and it still chaps my ass when I think about it.

[Your Mentor]

It chaps mine as well SB 405. I don't like the photo enforcement and think it serves only to exact revenue. It has NOTHING to do with saving lives.

[Darth Choke]

I am in traffic court weekly.

Every time an officer (PD) testifies to a photo-enforced violation he wins. The know the speed of the violator, the distance they were from the prolongation before the light went red, and the necessary distance needed to stop.

The fine has never been below $350.

Mentor...

I agree - builds revenue and little to do with saving lives!!

I, on the other hand, cite for 80, 85, 90, and 95 routinely and that only incures a fine of $200 or so max!! HMMM

I went to traffic court the other day for a person who blew threw a road closure, disregarded the stop sign and flagman IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE. He got out of stopped traffic 6-7 cars back and blew right by him and the stop sign. There were workers IN THE ROADWAY and this knucklehead's defense is he didn't see the flagman.

He was fined a little over $200. WTF?!?!?!

So much for the 42009 enhancement!!

Whatever....I was paid the same.

[bcjack]

Darth:

Don't let it get to you....The system is set up to fail!!!

What does it take to get a fine/law changed???

I would love to see the situation you described having a NON-DISCRETIONARY fine of like $1,000. NON-DISCRETIONARY in that the Judge CANNOT reduce or suspend any part of it, AND no community service to work it off.

I'm sure it will never happen though, as most of the drug-related laws that have been proposed with NON-DISCRETIONARY clauses in them have been opposed by Judges.