FOCUS ON: Tickets or traffic tax?

A tragic death in Tarrant County highlights the need to reform Texas traffic ticket laws.(See: “Tarrant County Jail inmate dies days after complaining about an untreated infection,” June 19)

In Texas, incarceration is not allowed as a punishment for Class C misdemeanors, or tickets. Nevertheless thousands of Texans are jailed annually over traffic violations.

How is this possible? Two ways. The first is when a defendant does not appear at the traffic court date and a failure to appear warrant is issued. Second, failing to pay fines can also lead to a warrant.

These unjust policies are the result of turning traffic enforcement from a public safety concern into a revenue maximizing regressive tax. Traffic tickets are a huge source of revenue for local government.

Massive ticket writing and the huge fines from tickets impact Texas’ poor the most. Those who cannot afford either an attorney or prohibitive fines face jail. Even though these defendants are incarcerated, they are denied access to court-appointed counsel. The state gladly takes their freedom and their money with little regard for their rights.

We have turned our police into collection agents and our county jails into a debtor’s prison. If Texas wants to arrest for ticket cases then defendants should have the right to court-appointed counsel. Barring that, the state should not have the ability to arrest to collect its money. We do not allow it to arrest to collect other taxes such as on property.Why should we arrest those who do not pay their traffic taxes?
No one should be imprisoned for debt. Tickets should not be a death sentence.

— Robert Guest, attorney at law, Kaufman

Comments

[Thomas Sullivan of Bedford]

Believe it or not Mr. Guest, there has never been a recorded fatality from delinquent property tax evasion.

Do you see where this is going?

If it were not for such obvious reasons, I'd stop right there, but seeing how some institution saw fit to confer a law degree upon you, I must continue.

Surely you've heard of privilege versus right, haven't you?

It actually is a privilege to drive, albeit meeting the lawful requisites, in Texas.

I don't know where you practiced law before you made it to our State (maybe Mexico), but traffic fatalities from fleeing scofflaws has, on occasion, occurred.

I am truly grateful that our fine law enforcement agencies ticket and incarcerate people that have no business behind the wheel.

If you want to play Russian roulette with uninsured, unlicensed, impaired or just plain ignorant people, please do so in a country that encourages it.

[Ashley Myrick, Fort Worth]

I never quite see the purpose in responding to comments in a snide manner. To me, it indicates a lack of substance in the response. As a fellow attorney who has practiced entirely in the State of Texas, Mr. Guest makes a valid point, which you appear to have missed entirely in your haste to respond.

[Robert]

Thomas,

Imprisoning those who can not pay ticket fines will not prevent a single traffic fatality. Arguments for public safety are great PR for the State. However, the reality is that greed is primary motivation behind traffic enforcement.

I was a prosecutor in Texas before opening my private practice.

My duties included more than a few days working traffic cases. I wasn't saving lives with those seat belt and speeding ticket, I was collecting taxes for the State.

[Beverly Voss, Fort Worth]

Robert, I agree, a high percentage of
tickets issued are for funding of the
city coffers.

My 65 yr old husband and 30 yr old son
were together, the went in a grocery
store, came out and was going to a gas
station in the same parking lot to get
gas. you could walk the distance in 2
minutes. My son and husband are white.
A black patrolman, sitting in the parking
lot stopped them, and issued each a seat
belt ticket violation. cost $110.00 each
plus attorney fee and time off work.

This is the abuse. The office would not
issue a verbal warning or even have a
discussion about the situation.

I suspect he was bored, maybe had an
argument with his wife, or needed to fill
a quota. Who knows, maybe he is a racist.

These are the kind of tickets that are
abusive and revenue generating only.

[Thomas Sullivan of Bedford]

So Ms. Myrick, you're well aware that traffic offenses are criminal in nature?

And what happens when we commit criminal offenses? We are made to pay? That's right. Pay. So if people don't want to pay, then they must remember not to commit the offense (what's that old saying?).

Now, imprisoning people that have committed traffic offenses undoubtedly has helped relieve our already congested roads from people that can't afford to drive them anyway (if they could, they would've paid the fines and not been arrested).

And insurance institutes have documented evidence showing that financially-irresponsible individuals are a higher risk for every rated category, including driving.

Look what happened to the girl on the back of the motorcycle when the scofflaw ran from the Watauga cops.

He had warrants, sped off and caused her to suffer critical injuries. If this dimwit would've been sitting in jail where he belonged, I doubt that girl would've had any debilitating injuries.

Now I don't have a law degree, only common sense. I break the traffic laws on occasion, am respectful to the professionals that issue my citation, and dispose of them in a timely manner deemed by the respective court.

Like I said, if you can't afford to play by the rules, then be happy on a bicycle or two feet.

[Richard M. Holbrook, Weatherford]

MISNOMER: “TICKETS OR TRAFFIC TAX?”

Inspired, all these attitudes toward just one thing that never really arrived – The ultimate enforcement of legislated law.

I’m guessing that Attorney Guest is a barrister for the defense. Even so, a well-educated and experienced attorney should recall that we are a nation of laws that actually relies on the voluntary compliance by "citizens" to in good faith follow what their elected representatives enact. And factually, there isn’t any “unjust traffic policies” involved.

So, just allow unaddressed traffic tickets and violators to exist unaffected? Then, what's next? What would Guest recommend as solution? Just forget the chain-of-violations and ignore subsequently issued warrants by the court? Oh, I see. Just forget it or in some part help maintain more struggling attorneys by being paid out of tax funds for representing penurious traffic violators that might have obeyed traffic law in the first place?

I also assume that attorneys are aware of the concept, “pro bono publico” when felt appropriate. But maybe some don’t feel it a part of any “personal ethic.”

In the more germane second place, that likely should have been in the first place, the core issue really isn’t about traffic tickets as a tax collector’s fantasy. It’s the competent processing and screening of anyone entering any jail system, and either before or soon after recording the health and medication “needs” of the inmate, then assuring timely treatment and or distribution of necessary medication. Whether all on the public tax bill or not.

Adrienne Lemons apparently didn’t die because of her accumulation of a number of traffic citations and failure to pay them, but in the justice process in being held accountable for them there appeared to be an untimely awareness by authorities that she was also under antibiotic treatment for an existing staph infection.

I can understand an ex-prosecutor getting mundane about the second-tier handling and depth in boring prosecution of loads of "traffic tickets," and the fact that fines are assessed as reminder for an offense, but the legal-logic used to ignore the process of justice toward a rational conclusion, escapes me. Still, the fine and sentence should match the extent of either a civil wrong or a crime.

Of course, experiencing the talents of a number of prosecutors, there seems to be few that have any expertise in the field of traffic enforcement and its visibility as being more than just an educational experiment in reducing or at least maintaining an “acceptable” level of damage and carnage produced by all types of intentional as well as unintentional traffic-law violators.

Statistics tell a more accurate and rational picture.

And “Robert,” you appear to be a very inexperienced person, attorney experienced or not. Contrary to your take on a very complex issue, do a little research, if you can find the relevant statistics. How many incarcerated traffic law violators, seat belt ignorers, and others “captured” so surreptitiously for “tax purposes” on our highways, and once released end up in the morgue from repeating their disdain for highway laws and “legislated” safety policies? You might be surprised. I wouldn’t be.

Education goes far beyond what hangs on the walls granted from the halls of professorial institutions, doesn’t it?

Still, regards,

[Robert Guest]

Thomas,

You propose that people who can't pay tickets shouldn't drive. I may disagree with that point but here are some larger issues.

You seem to believe we should incarcerate those who fail to pay tickets. Such a belief shows a naive view of law enforcement.

You are assuming that ticket police never lie, make mistakes, racially profile, or simply write phony tickets to get promotions (Dallas Fake Ticket Scandal) etc.

If you are serious about incarcerating the poor for failure to pay we must provide due process and court appointed counsel. The innocent, ID theft victims, et al are caught up in a system that cares only about collecting fines.

The vast majority of drivers commit a traffic violation every day. Show me someone who can constantly follow every rule in the traffic code. It doesn't happen. Most Texas wouldn't recognize 1/2 the traffic violations that police can ticket for. This isn't public safety. It's selective enforcement by officer trying to meet a quote, or search for drugs.

The lesson is that our government lacks the competence and honesty to arrest for tickets. When the government uses the criminal courts as a taxing agent, injustice always follows.

RG

[Richard M. Holbrook, Weatherford]

Ms. Voss:

If the law in Texas requires the wearing of seat belts in a parking lot while moving, only then should your son and husband been cited. It factually isn't a matter of whether or not a black officer or a white officer issued the ticket. That's purely an unnecessary speculation, judging from what you've written about it.

In this case, though, if accurately related, it would appear that absent some banal comments from husband or son, the officer more appropriately, if having the discretion, could have issued a verbal warning. Check the policies of that police department as well as asking about the law on seat belt wearing in private parking lots. Some states don't extend traffic law enforcement authority to police on private property, open to public or not.

Good luck, though. Overturning a once issued citation with fine already paid is a time consuming effort. Although it can be done with the right, civil, approach.

[Robert Guest]

Richard,

You seem to miss my point. Arrest and incarcerate for tickets if you want. But first pass a law that allows for arrest and incarceration (instead of relying on Lago Vista vs. Atwater judicial activism) and provide due process for defendants who face incarceration (as Gideon's progeny should require).

Finally, I never cease to be amazed by the disdain for freedom in these forums. We could reduce traffic fatalities if we banned private ownership of cars, or installed police monitors on vehicles to check for violations. However, freedom from the best intentions of government protects us all.

Your argument about my inexperience and the statistics you assume exist is a red herring. I never said we should abolish traffic laws.

We should either abolish incarceration for tickets or quit arresting. If Texas wants to arrest for speeding etc then provide an attorney for the indigent.

Nothing less than the Texas Constitution states that "No person shall be imprisoned for debt." You may consider me inexperienced, but having seen hundreds of tickets cases my experience tells me this protection was repealed by local government greed.

Do you, or Thomas, have an argument against court appointed counsel and other protections for ticket cases?

RG

[Thomas Sullivan of Bedford]

This is getting old and I'm getting tired, so let's keep it simple.

Knowing traffic laws is the responsibility of the driver.

Ignorance is no excuse, so learn and obey our traffic laws.

Most police officers are kind, courteous, and helpful. So being these things in return will be appreciated if you're pulled over. A disrespectful demeanor is the first step toward receiving a citation.

Don't be under the influence of or in possession of illegal substances while driving.

Maintain a clean, safe, inspected, registered, and insured vehicle.

And again, if you can't afford the required criteria for lawful driving, cutting corners is a dumb idea (fake inspection, etc.).

Failure to heed any of the above is a prescription for trouble.

As always, my advice is free. Thanks and have a great night...

[Richard M. Holbrook, Weatherford]

Robert:

I did indeed miss your core point. And thanks for the polite redress. Don't get me wrong. I, for one, welcome any attorney that has the time to offer any personal insight into the justice system in these, too often, contentious discussions. And as I at times, in "defensive and retaliatory mode," sink toward that level myself, though mainly for the possibility of return education mixed with the humor it might offer.

As you're well aware, over the misconduct of any Texas law, the U.S. Constitution requires representation in criminal cases, and competent at that. And I support that. I believe that in every case, traffic or homicide, that at least 50% of all effort should be devoted to discovering all evident of innocence, as well as the other 50% toward proving guilt. For either the rich, well to do or indigent, traffic laws should continue first as some level of crime, as police can neither stop or arrest on their own for a civil tort. Or for that matter, should be actively involved in civil conflict at all. Then during fine or other more civil means such as traffic school, and sans skipping out on paying the fine or attending the “probation” orders if any, keep it where possible a non-criminal event in the end, as contrary to most other crimes, intent to violate driving rules is statistically a minor part of the any sane formula for effective and efficient traffic safety and enforcement policy.

I can’t see any logical alternative to initial arrest through ticketing and at some point possible criminal conviction and incarceration for traffic violators who fail to pay fines or show up in court. But without doubt, all should have the right to counsel, and provided before trial and before any ad hoc judicial sanction couched as just a civil matter to deny legal counsel. If it starts as a crime, it should legally continue to have all the legal trappings afforded any other criminal defendant as a “protected constitutional right.” All due process and legal representation included. And at government (taxpayers) expense for the truly indigent. I don’t believe it’s constitutional to exclude any right because of the high numbers of traffic related cases or that they might or have “plugged up the justice system” as some might otherwise assert.

In my experience, if that’s the main reason for local authority to deny legal representation in traffic cases, then something is very constitutionally wrong in that related overall policy regarding traffic enforcement, traffic engineering, traffic education, and the inability of local political entities to admit that they may be the main reason for the problem. While courts shouldn’t legislate, competent judges would also have the same concern as you, and do “something” judicial about it. But as I have learned about some local jurists, the uniform that collects the fine is needed in a corrupt and rights-avoiding system to feed the plate.

And you're right about less than honest and unbiased police officers and politically enhanced quotas driven for "traffic fine revenue." But that's not the case in every city and hamlet. Is it? What can arise from possible inculcation in isolated circumstances is the thrust to change all when the problem is confined to the head of or internal policies of a single and or adjoining police department, and or a local, but elected body or single official. Find them, and either chastise or fire them all for all I care.

In your rationale, if I don’t already have it at all right in my third paragraph, government should somewhat, or somehow, abandon enforcement of traffic laws with a penalty of incarceration because of the corruption of a few for tax revenue, including the biased kind, and because of the criminal aspects. I've seen other mostly good public policy destroyed because of over-reaction by solving the problem with a sledgehammer rather than a softheaded mallet. I just don’t get the legal-logic that somehow failure or inability to pay a fine for a criminal offense is anything close to the “debt” intended to prevent jailing for overextending ones financial sources. They are two different things stemming from two different problems with different and final solutions.

And maybe, if you checked, I did have your point right in my third paragraph, although I’m still somewhat confused by “Either abolish incarceration for tickets, or quit arresting.” Are you talking about on-the-scene arrests and immediate jailing for things like 100 mph on a public highway that endangers self and others, or the citation issuing process that during the presentation of the ticket is a technical though temporary arrest and release on promise to pay or appear? An arrest at any time, or place, can result in some future “incarceration,” and whether from court or as the result of a no-show warrant. Right? Any arrest without the possibility of jailing, seems futile as far as any future social good or as rehabilitation goes for violators.

I just can’t get past the hopeful notion that as far as traffic safety goes, that the false hope that all will somehow recant their poor driving, registration and insurance ways by rehabilitation on their own. Just where in significance can I find that? Aren’t a lot of other minor crimes treated in the same way? That is, jailing and fines collected to partly assuage government “expense?” And legal representation not in evidence?

And so, I’m back to the commonsense in the third paragraph. And I’m already chiding myself for the long treatise. I can only close with the firm belief that the less government is allowed to intrude in people’s lives, the more freedom we have. That’s always a just and commendable goal.

And in any criminal case, as you have maintained, the right to counsel is an intended, inviolate protection. Still, while constitutional government can violate a right, it is also the entity still needed to assure them. Quite a needed balancing act.

Regards,

[Beverly Voss, Fort Worth]

Neither my husband or son disrespected
this officer in anyway. It's not their
nature.

My husband did want to have an explaination for the violation, however,
the officer refused any dialog.

Husband turned the tickets over to a lawyer, stating his objection and the
circumstances of the citations.Paid the
lawyer fee.

Later, after not hearing from the lawyer
you guessed it, a letter came from the
city, telling them both they had an arrest
warrant.

Husband and son both have clean driving
records. Husband called lawyer, who supposly got the warrants squashed.

Husband feels violated and is standing on
principle on this one. But they both will
probably have to pay to ever dissolve it,
or spend a weekend in Jail on Principle
to satisfy the city. Hope they let husband
take all his meds in with him., so he
doesn't DIE.

[Beverly Voss, Fort Worth]

Mr.Holbrook--Thank You for your comments.

Your right, the racist remark was a cheap
shot. It was done intentionally to point
out to others who use it constantly
against white's, to show them how asinine
they sound, when it's the only excuse
they have against unacceptable behavior.

[Richard M. Holbrook, Weatherford]

Beverly, if I may; I think we've moved on with the Mr. and Ms. I'm Richard, and have answered to nearly any other label as well.

If you care, what police department? I will ask about their policy as well as the specific laws involved. Also, the Texas vehicle code can be found online as you are likely already aware.

Regards,

[Beverly Voss, Fort Worth]

Richard, Thank You. Fort Worth PD.
Tarrant County.

[Ashley Myrick, Fort Worth]

Mr. Sullivan -

Again, unfortunately you overlook the point.

You said: "So Ms. Myrick, you're well aware that traffic offenses are criminal in nature? And what happens when we commit criminal offenses? We are made to pay? That's right. Pay. So if people don't want to pay, then they must remember not to commit the offense (what's that old saying?)."

That seems to be precisely Mr. Guest's point. If we are going to treat these matters as criminal and now incarcerate for Class C midemeanors and tickets, then court appointed counsel must be afforded for those who cannot afford it, just as in other criminal matters.

[Robert]

Ashley,

You nailed it. That is precisely the point. If we want to arrest for these tickets, then provide due process.

Mr. Sullivan,

You seem to have a very optimistic view of law enforcement and a disdain for the poor who can't afford fines, and those who would break our traffic laws.

What you don't realize is our fines and traffic enforcement are not motivated by public safety altruism. We have an system of arbitrary enforcement without safeguards for defendants.

Your advise to just obey all the laws is something I have to reject. Some laws are stupid,(seat belt) or unjust (Lawrence vs. Texas), and not all laws should be enforced all the time. The duty of Texas prosecutors is not to convict, but to see that justice is done. Ticket greed destroys the pursuit of justice.

Finally, the police are not systematically corrupt. Most cops are honest.

However, the truth is that some cops lie. The Dallas Fake Ticket Scandal should have taught us all the danger of ticket enforcement without protection for defendants.

Great discussion. Thanks for reading.

RG

[Thomas Sullivan of Bedford]

I understand you both agree with each other, but Mr. Guest's point is just that-his point.

Seeing how I've been rear-ended three times by these poor people who don't bother with insurance, I'm sure it's added to my disdain.

And again, driving is a privilege, which shouldn't be extended to some socialist degree for everybody.

If these deadbeat individuals can't pay for the traffic fines that they racked up, then by all means make their lives very difficult with the laws already in place.

And following your logic, some lying police officer cites a poor person for a traffic violation they didn't commit, and their subsequent demise ensues? Chalk that up to natural selection if you want.

For the remaining deadbeats: Did they not choose to get behind the wheel? Did they not choose to disregard traffic laws and be cited for such?

These decisions are theirs and theirs alone, and they should suffer the consequences of their actions.

Of the many, and I mean many, tickets I've had, not once did the officer lie to give it to me. On occasion, I was let go with just warnings.

And of course cities use traffic citations to boost their coffers. I've even heard that most officers get paid, have equipment to pay for, and often use their bravery and equipment to save peoples' lives.

You two are going on and on for court-appointed counsel. Say what? For traffic tickets? You've got to be kidding.

Listen, if you can't afford to pay a $180.00 fine for running a red light, I've got three suggestions: A. Don't run the light. B. Get a better paying job. C. Take the bus or ride a bike.

The people that go to jail for traffic-related offenses have ZERO business being behind the wheel of a vehicle, and the threat of incarceration should dissuade said individuals from thoughts of driving.

Why? Because, again, traffic-related accidents and injuries cause billions in medical/property damage every year, and driving should be reserved for people financially responsible enough to drive and actually pay for the damage they cause.

How is a poor person supposed to pay for damage they caused if they have no money?

I'd like to see how many officers support your opinion, and how many support mine.

The last thing we need is to make driving cheaper. Half the idiots in D/FW can't even use a turn signal (and yes, I use mine ).

[Brent Justin Fort Worth]

Hey, I once got hit in the Ridgmar mall parking lot by some scum bag who was here illegally and didnt have insurance. The Fort Worth cop would do NOTHING. Nothing because it was on private property.A few months later, Same parking lot. Some dirt bags break into my girl friends car. Cameras show who it was. We knew who they were too.They worked at the mall. FWPD wouldnt do a damn thing. Who is the scum again? So for them to give your family a ticket just....I cant tell you how much that angers me, and this was almost 15 years ago. I know there are racist cops of both colors. If it goes to a trial, play the race card. I works so well for others. Good luck to you.

[Richard M. Holbrook, Weatherford]

OH WHAT, OH WHAT TO DO?

The last time I checked there were over six initial ways to report or complain about police misconduct: Directly to the officer about the relevant policy involved, to a police supervisor, the on-duty lieutenant or watch commander, the division commander, the chain-of-command between there and the Chief, internal affairs of that department, the city counsel, the mayor's office, the mayor, the city attorney, the county attorney, the State Attorney General, the State police, the FBI, the local U.S. attorney, and politicians of all sorts. And that doesn't complete the list.

But the first problem in contesting a traffic citation and or an arrest in court, as the judge must or should follow what has been legislated and its relevant decided cases, that process precludes legal judicial change of what has already been decided in law.

And anyone who believes that an arrest of any kind, including traffic citations, isn't a criminal process that must hold to the Constitutional protections of due process and right to counsel in the U.S. and its territories, in all cases, has little if any experience or pertinent understanding that's relevant to our true justice system and its direct guide, the Constitution.

Personal experiences of the misapplication of commonsense and the law, of course, skews circumstances and solution from subjective opinion.

Both Robert Guest and Ashley Myrick are absolutely right about the right to counsel in all arrest cases emanating from traffic citations.

[Richard M. Holbrook, Weatherford]

Beverly Voss:

This initial information was provided by the Traffic Division and Enforcement of FWPD and is paraphrased:

“The seat belt law does not provide for enforcement for not wearing a seat belt on private property, including locations like Wal Mart. That is, provided that a vehicle is not about to enter a public highway with occupants not wearing seat belts, as then it is interpreted, at least by FWPD, as a kind of probable cause that the violation was about to actually occur.” It was explained that just recently that issue was reviewed by FWPD, and according to the Traffic Division, has no related policy on this issue.

Further, upon checking the State traffic codes, I could find no requirement to wear seat belts on private property or “exceptions” regarding private property and the seat belt law. Normally, exceptions are only an issue when there is a related law where exceptions are appropriate, in my limited experience. That is, since there were many other exceptions to wearing a seat belt on the public highways, and none for circumstances like shopping at the main Wal Mart store, then driving directly to its gas station while still on the Wal Mart lot, it would be inappropriate for law enforcement to issue a citation for not wearing seat belts. This doesn’t mean that there may be some amendment or case law that would require a deeper search and may reveal some relevant private property inclusion. But as far as FWPD is concerned, “no citation should have been issued in the circumstances” you described.

It was also indicated that the judge, if apprised of the circumstances, should have dismissed the citation.

It appears that it may or may not be too late to present the circumstances to either the court or the Traffic Division and ask that the citations be nullified, and that the court be notified that the citations were issued “in error” and the fine and sentence be voided.

It appears, if the information is accurate, it shouldn’t take an attorney to correct the "mistake."

Regards,

[Beverly Voss, Fort Worth]

Richard, Thank You for the information.

Will try to put it to good use. Also,

it's good to let the public know this

information.