Do cops really have ticket quotas?

TBone2, I live not very far from Linndale Ohio, a town of about 150 people with about a half a mile of I-71 just before you hit Cleveland. Anyone who knows the area slows to 54 mph for the 30 seconds it takes to get through. Almost everyone who forgets gets a ticket (or so it seems).

A few years back there was a lot of friction between the then mayor of Cleveland (Mike White) and the Patrolmen’s union. During an interview the head of the union made a fairly direct threat to the effect that if the city thinks the budget is in such bad shape that they couldn’t find the funds to pay the raises the union was asking for, how bad a shape would the budget be in if the police couldn’t bring in their quotas. This is something of a paraphrase but the word quota was defiantly used.

That’s interesting. A few summers ago, I was stopped by a uniformed officer in an unmarked car while driving through Olathe during rush hour. I was driving from New Mexico to Iowa with my seven-year-old in the back seat, and he thought that she was unbelted because she was bouncing in her seat (my 84 Toyota had lap-only belts in back, but my children never, ever ride without a seat belt). I was a little taken aback - I’d been getting worried because this car was obviously following me, and I’d just been considering whether to leave the freeway to find a cop when his lights came on - but I was pleasant and cooperative, since I’m all in favor of children wearing seatbelts. He questioned me for some time about where I was from, where I was going and why, and he took a good long look at the car. I’ve always wondered why he’d be so interested in a mother and child driving through Kansas from New Mexico in a small car that’s pretty ill-suited for smuggling anything. Maybe he was looking for a ticketing opportunity.

It’s pretty clear there’s QUOTA (Official Police Department Policy, Page 21, Paragraph six, Officer’s Handbook, Copyright 2001) and then there’s quota, implied officers’ performance range.

In other words, for the most part there’s no Official PD Policy, that, say, 10 tickets per shift, per officer, must be written, but you can be assured that, if Officer Jones “only” wrote 2 or somehow managed to write 67, he’d sure as hell get a looking at afterwards.

So yes, there’s an implied quota, a vague ballpark figure that, barring out of the ordinary circumstances, the officer must conform to, but no, there’s no written, typed up, posted, Official Department Ticket Quota Policy.

Seems to me the ticket-writing activity is stepped up near the end of each month, as officers hustle to rack up a higher total for the month. Each time I have been caught by a cop that seemingly pounces out of nowhere, for a silly little violation, it has been late in the month.

There’s at least one on ramp that I know of where cops do the same thing. Sit at the end (in morning rush hour) and pull over people using the carpool lane by themselves. I gather your situation was a bit different, but I always got a little smirk on my face when I’ve been waiting in the line for two and half minutes and some jackass comes flying down the carpool lane all by himself…and then I see the red and blue lights.

According to a CHP friend of mine back in the day, they did NOT have a quota.

But they did have paperwork to fill out that justified their time. Otherwise an officer could attend briefing, then go home for 8-10 hours and then drive back at EOW and just say he didn’t see anyone breaking the law.

Having tickets written helped in that regard.

I’ve heard this argument often, almost without exception about motoring offences.

I’m afraid it’s complete b/s.

If you took its implied argument (that they should concentrate on more major crimes) to its logical conclusion you would have the police spending all their time on murders and rapes and every other form of malfeasance would be allowed to continue unfettered.

If a law exists it should be upheld, no matter how minor, because having people openly abusing any law makes it appear that the law doesn’t matter.

Yea… because if the cops don’t enforce laws regarding wearing amusing fake mustaches to church… it’s going to be total anarchy on the streets. :smack: Some laws don’t matter.

@ OP - Quit whining about your ticket and your sterling driving record. You broke the law and got caught. Pay your fine and move along.

Those laws should be removed from the statute books. They are just as bad at undermining the law as sensible laws that are not enforced.

In fact, they are probably worse because, not only are they not normally enforced, but they provide the opportunity for the legalised corruption of selective enforcement.

Which is it? *All *laws should be upheld, or just the *sensible *ones? Know what I mean? Is it a judgment call on what’s important, or is it a duty to uphold all laws to prevent people losing confidence in the law? I don’t think you can have it both ways.

No, JRR is correct. Both Fierra and I live in a “suburb of Kansas City” and both of us have taken advantage of this system. You do not need a lawyer, all you do is show up at court, and they call your name to come up and talk to an assistant prosecutor or some other person. They tell you the rules are you 1) can only take advantage of the program once per year, and 2) your traffic violation can have no aggravating circumstances - we saw a man being told once they wouldn’t “look the other way” on his speeding ticket because the cop noted on the ticket that he had been “rude.” You pay double the fine plus court costs, and you’re on your way.

And the city is the authority which writes the ticket; they have the authority to let it slide if they so choose.

IIRC Overland Park even has this info on their website, and Channel 9 has done an “expose!” on it once, claiming it was “unfair” to the poor. :rolleyes:

I’ve got a good friend who is a cop (actually now a detective) and this is what he has told me - at one point his supervisor/captain/whatever brought up his relatively low number of tickets. Not a quota, but definitely a measure of performance.

When I went to dumdum school in the eighties, the cop in charge of the class told us that there were quotas, but unlike the myths they weren’t due at the end of the month. Each officer’s quota period was different.

He last logged in here in 2003, dude, and the fine undoubtedly has long since become a fait accompli.

That isn’t what I’m saying. Have a think about it.

Really?

It’s quite simple.

For any given law, either it should be upheld or it should be repealed.

What you shouldn’t have is extant laws that are not upheld or obeyed.

There’s no inconsistency here.

Why the roll eyes?

Of course it’s unfair to the poor.

Do you think it isn’t or do you think it is and it doesn’t matter?

Why can’t it be both? Why can’t they remove laws that aren’t sensible and enforce the existing laws in a sensible manner.
What bothers me about traffic enforcement is that, more often than not, they aren’t enforced to keep the roads safe, but enforced to raise revenue for the state. This is a conflict of interest and, ironically, it often results in the roads being less safe.

As an example, there is a road near my home that is 6-8 lanes, is nearly perfectly straight, and has no lights for roughly a 12 mile stretch. Most of it has a 55 MPH speed limit, and people routinely go 65-70 on the road. Yet, there are some sections which inexplicably drop to 45 MPH, and cops often set up speed traps in those sections, which–surprise surprise–causes backups and accidents. And there are numerous examples of these sorts of situations in this area.

Now, I’m not saying that traffic law enforcement is necessarily a bad thing, but the problem is, because the local government knows they can raise money through traffic enforcement, it provides incentive for them to set up bizarre and non-sensical speed limits and/or enforcement like this. Instead, I’d prefer to see sensible speed limits and enforcement when people are actually driving in an unsafe manner. If the flow of traffic is consistently 10-15 MPH over the speed limit, then chances are the speed limit is set too low, and pulling people at random out of that flow isn’t going to make it safer. In fact, as I point out above, it causes unexpected slow downs (people always hit their breaks when they see a cop, even if they aren’t speeding and he’s obviously pre-occupied), which ultimately makes the roads less safe.

So, the conflict that results in unreasonably low speed limits along with arbitrary and unsafe enforcement of those limits is straight up bullshit. Enforce traffic laws on people driving substantially faster or slower than the flow of traffic, changing lanes erratically, etc. but not for going 5-10 MPH over the speed limit when all the rest of the traffic is going the same speed.

Well gosh, let’s just say that pretty much all things which cost more than other things are “unfair to the poor.” It’s as unfair to the poor as getting a public defender instead of Johnny Cochran as your defense lawyer. Building permits are “unfair to the poor” because poor people can’t afford them as easily. Or dog licenses. Or property tax baseline levies. Or trash pickup. Or sales taxes. Or pretty much everything that costs money in exchange for goods and/or services.

So yeah, “life” is unfair to the poor, big news flash here…

Wow … I didn’t realize there were so many Dopers who lived in the Kansas City suburbs. We should get together some time and say “Hi!”.

Let’s just not speed getting to the meet-up place.