TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub

BTW, where does all that money go from the traffic cameras that catch people running red lights or speeding? Doesn't that mostly go to the company that the cameras belong to or came from? I seem to remember that it doesn't go to the city.

C-dub

cb1000rider wrote:
C-dub wrote: If Texas were to pass a law that all traffic citation fines go into some kind of state fund instead of to the city the officer is employed by or where the infraction occurred, as Charles has stated should happen, then I would begin to believe that an officer has no incentive to not tell the truth for traffic violations. Yeah, I've been a victim of this type of "lack of incentive to not tell the truth."
I think that re-directing the underlying funds that are associated with citations might encourage PDs to police for safety and effectiveness rather than revenue. It'd probably put an end to municipalities that write more citations than they have citizens.

I believe in traffic enforcement if it's safety related.

I don't think it would impact a LEOs propensity to tell the truth on the stand. I don't see how that's a revenue issue - it's not like they're paid a bonus for more citations. I believe there is an issue with truthfulness on the stand.... An officer that did something he/she shouldn't - has big liability issues in a court room. So choosing a course of action such as an arrest really needs to be followed all the way through to the end.

Cameras worn by law enforcement would put an end to a lot of this and would protect good officers from bad guys who otherwise get away with things that they shouldn't. Use of force goes down, sometimes by significant amounts. Someone remind me why this isn't mandatory for all departments?

You're probably onto something there. Whether an officer is truthful on the stand may be a moot point if they don't even write the ticket in the first place. And if their city isn't getting the revenue, they may not be making up stuff that didn't happen hoping that the victim will think that it is easier to just pay the fine than trying to fight it in court.

C-dub

cb1000rider wrote:Good lesson. I've seen a few cases (real life) where it's officer vs public testimony. And DA's argue that the officer has no incentive to not tell the truth, while a defendant has a great reason not to tell the truth. This is an immediate shift from guilty until PROVEN innocent. Seeing a judge accept that scared the heck out of me.

On the other hand, a camera can only capture so much perspective and a minor little action out of the field of view can totally alter an interaction...

What do I take away? More cameras = better protections for good guys.

If Texas were to pass a law that all traffic citation fines go into some kind of state fund instead of to the city the officer is employed by or where the infraction occurred, as Charles has stated should happen, then I would begin to believe that an officer has no incentive to not tell the truth for traffic violations. Yeah, I've been a victim of this type of "lack of incentive to not tell the truth."

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 3 matches

Re: Indiana Supreme Court - 'Officer Testimony' > Video Evid

Re: Indiana Supreme Court - 'Officer Testimony' > Video Evid

Re: Indiana Supreme Court - 'Officer Testimony' > Video Evid