What is this about Minneapolis "defunding" its PD?

[woolfe9998]

But isn’t that solved by the meter maid detaining them and calling the actual cops? Are we expecting some epidemic of people fleeing law enforcement or something?

No, LOL we just posted at the same time. You'd have to train the traffic enforcers to conduct the tests but otherwise should work fine. Fleeing while under suspicion of DUI is a crime of refusing to submit to testing, which carries the same penalty as a DUI itself. It's basically an automatic DUI, the same as if you went to the station and failed the test.

But suppose a traffic enforcer pulled someone over for a busted tail light who turned out to be armed and dangerous, such as a fugitive or drug dealer with drugs in the car and a gun in the glove box.

 

[fskimospy]

No, LOL we just posted at the same time. You'd have to train the traffic enforcers to conduct the tests but otherwise should work fine. Fleeing while under suspicion of DUI is a crime of refusing to submit to testing, which carries the same penalty as a DUI itself. It's basically an automatic DUI, the same as if you went to the station and failed the test.

But suppose a traffic enforcer pulled someone over for a busted tail light who turned out to be armed and dangerous, such as a fugitive or drug dealer with drugs in the car and a gun in the glove box.

Why are they searching the car for a routine traffic stop anyway? This is another thing that we should end.

As for if they encounter a dangerous situation, which they will, they should call the real police. Social services are a good example - if they visit someone's home and it turns out they become violent or they see evidence of crimes being committed they call the police. I don't know why we need people with guns giving out tickets for running red lights.

 

[woolfe9998]

Why are they searching the car for a routine traffic stop anyway? This is another thing that we should end.

As for if they encounter a dangerous situation, which they will, they should call the real police. Social services are a good example - if they visit someone's home and it turns out they become violent or they see evidence of crimes being committed they call the police. I don't know why we need people with guns giving out tickets for running red lights.

Sure, they can call the real police, if they aren't shot first. If the person is truly dangerous, they might shoot an unarmed meter maid to avoid apprehension by police.

Another thing which is a more serious concern, what about catching suspected felons who are presumed to be fleeing in their cars. Suppose the cops find a dead woman in her house, and suspect the husband and believe he has taken flight. They have a description of his car and license number. The way it works now is they put out a BOLO, and there is a network of armed police patrolling the streets who can spot the car then make an arrest.

You said earlier the meter maids would have no mandate to enforce other laws. I'm not so sure that works. Some network of patrol cars has to receive and respond to the BOLO. So the meter maids would have to be on the lookout, then call the cops if they spot the vehicle in question, then follow the vehicle until the real police arrive.

Bear in mind that the person in question might be suspected of having abducted a child a short time before, even minutes before. But the cops only know the car say from a witness description, but not where it is, so there must be a network of of patrol vehicles to spot the car. If there isn't a network of armed police, then it must fall to the meter maids.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, they can call the real police, if they aren't shot first. If the person is truly dangerous, they might shoot an unarmed meter maid to avoid apprehension by police.

Well sure, same goes for gas station attendants and everyone else. The idea that we should have armed people enforcing stop signs because some person might go on a murder spree is not compelling to me. Like, at all.

Another thing which is a more serious concern, what about catching suspected felons who are presumed to be fleeing in their cars. Suppose the cops find a dead woman in her house, and suspect the husband and believe he has taken flight. They have a description of his car and license number. The way it works now is they put out a BOLO, and there is a network of armed police patrolling the streets who can spot the car then make an arrest.

You said earlier the meter maids would have no mandate to enforce other laws. I'm not so sure that works. Some network of patrol cars has to receive and respond to the BOLO. So the meter maids would have to be on the lookout, then call the cops if they spot the vehicle in question, then follow the vehicle until the real police arrive.

Bear in mind that the person in question might be suspected of having abducted a child a short time before, even minutes before. But the cops only know the car say from a witness description, but not where it is, so there must be a network of of patrol vehicles to spot the car. If there isn't a network of armed police, then it must fall to the meter maids.

I'm not saying to get rid of the police, just that they don't need to be involved in routine traffic stops any more than they need to be involved in writing parking tickets. You convert some small percentage of officers to full time traffic enforcement and leave the rest to do whatever they were doing otherwise.

It seems as if your argument is that we need a constant patrolling network of armed people regardless so having them enforce red lights and stop signs is just a bonus? I do not agree with this at all, I think their enforcement of routine traffic matters is actively harmful to society.

 

[JD50]

Sure, they can call the real police, if they aren't shot first. If the person is truly dangerous, they might shoot an unarmed meter maid to avoid apprehension by police.

Another thing which is a more serious concern, what about catching suspected felons who are presumed to be fleeing in their cars. Suppose the cops find a dead woman in her house, and suspect the husband and believe he has taken flight. They have a description of his car and license number. The way it works now is they put out a BOLO, and there is a network of armed police patrolling the streets who can spot the car then make an arrest.

You said earlier the meter maids would have no mandate to enforce other laws. I'm not so sure that works. Some network of patrol cars has to receive and respond to the BOLO. So the meter maids would have to be on the lookout, then call the cops if they spot the vehicle in question, then follow the vehicle until the real police arrive.

Bear in mind that the person in question might be suspected of having abducted a child a short time before, even minutes before. But the cops only know the car say from a witness description, but not where it is, so there must be a network of of patrol vehicles to spot the car. If there isn't a network of armed police, then it must fall to the meter maids.

You'd still have armed police, but they'd be patrolling instead of wasting their time writing traffic citations. Win/win/win.

 

[shortylickens]

Why are they searching the car for a routine traffic stop anyway? This is another thing that we should end.

As for if they encounter a dangerous situation, which they will, they should call the real police. Social services are a good example - if they visit someone's home and it turns out they become violent or they see evidence of crimes being committed they call the police. I don't know why we need people with guns giving out tickets for running red lights.

Quotas, they need to look for ANYTHING that will lead to a bunch of tickets, or better a real misdemeanor or felony. they gotta prove they're not goofing off all day.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well sure, same goes for gas station attendants and everyone else. The idea that we should have armed people enforcing stop signs because some person might go on a murder spree is not compelling to me. Like, at all.



I'm not saying to get rid of the police, just that they don't need to be involved in routine traffic stops any more than they need to be involved in writing parking tickets. You convert some small percentage of officers to full time traffic enforcement and leave the rest to do whatever they were doing otherwise.

It seems as if your argument is that we need a constant patrolling network of armed people regardless so having them enforce red lights and stop signs is just a bonus? I do not agree with this at all, I think their enforcement of routine traffic matters is actively harmful to society.

Most of what police do while on patrol is issuing traffic tickets. For this to work without increasing our budget we'd have to substantially reduce patrolling armed police because we'd have to add a substantial number of unarmed meter maids. I'm saying that could be a problem for felony enforcement on the roadways.

Not saying this couldn't work. In fact, it might. I even personally have an affinity for the idea as I'd rather be pulled over by an unarmed meter maid than a cop with a gun which also tends to give him a shitty authoritarian attitude.

Just saying all these issues have to be thought through carefully.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Most of what police do while on patrol is issuing traffic tickets. For this to work without increasing our budget we'd have to substantially reduce patrolling armed police because we'd have to add a substantial number of unarmed meter maids. I'm saying that could be a problem for felony enforcement on the roadways.

Not saying this couldn't work. In fact, it might. I even personally have an affinity for the idea as I'd rather be pulled over by an unarmed meter maid than a cop with a gun which also tends to give him a shitty authoritarian attitude.

Just saying all these issues have to be thought through carefully.

The biggest question on this is:

#1) It will probably result in demise of pay - since these meter maids will only have the responsibility of traffic tickets

#2) You need people who are brave enough to go up to random cars for shit pay while unarmed


... So....

Goodluck finding people that stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

Most of what police do while on patrol is issuing traffic tickets. For this to work without increasing our budget we'd have to substantially reduce patrolling armed police because we'd have to add a substantial number of unarmed meter maids. I'm saying that could be a problem for felony enforcement on the roadways.

Not saying this couldn't work. In fact, it might. I even personally have an affinity for the idea as I'd rather be pulled over by an unarmed meter maid than a cop with a gun which also tends to give him a shitty authoritarian attitude.

Just saying all these issues have to be thought through carefully.

Sure you can’t change it overnight but it’s an absolutely achievable thing and something we should do.

 

[woolfe9998]

Sure you can’t change it overnight but it’s an absolutely achievable thing and something we should do.

Sure, best approach is to have 1 or 2 cities try it as a pilot program. Then see if it works well, works poorly but can be fixed, or the idea needs to be scrapped. The rest of the cities can observe and make decisions accordingly.

 

[fskimospy]

The biggest question on this is:

#1) It will probably result in demise of pay - since these meter maids will only have the responsibility of traffic tickets

#2) You need people who are brave enough to go up to random cars for shit pay while unarmed
... So....

Goodluck finding people that stupid.

I wonder how all those other countries with unarmed people making traffic stops manage.

I assume they just don’t enforce traffic laws at all because they were unable to find anyone to do the job.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I wonder how all those other countries with unarmed people making traffic stops manage.

I assume they just don’t enforce traffic laws at all because they were unable to find anyone to do the job.

Quite simple actually - most of those countries have much less violence and little to no gun rights.

 

[fskimospy]

Quite simple actually - most of those countries have much less violence and little to no gun rights.

Ahh, so we need guns to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government but we also need to arm that government to the teeth to protect it from its armed and violent citizens. Lol.

We can staff these positions easily and you know it. Why resort to making things up?
Also, have you reconsidered the whole ticket signing and mailing thing in light of...well... reality?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Ahh, so we need guns to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government but we also need to arm that government to the teeth to protect it from its armed and violent citizens. Lol.

We can staff these positions easily and you know it. Why resort to making things up?
Also, have you reconsidered the whole ticket signing and mailing thing in light of...well... reality?

It's a state-by-state case thing with each having their own applicable laws. So no - it's not as simple as just quickly changing it and starting to mail everything overnight. Sure, I'm up for changing it - but that would essentially require damn near majority of states to amend their current laws on it. I'm fine with that - I'm just saying it's not easy.

Do you understand why people are served papers for court? It's because mail doesn't work as a burden of proof that something was received.

Also, suspending a license is nothing. So if the meter maids can't arrest people for unpaid tickets or warrants.... and the most that happens if someone doesn't show up to court/pay their fine is a suspended license... How do you enforce it?



To your point on tolls - thats another part that is case-by-case - based on what I could find in my state you can't be arrested or charged with any crimes for running the toll. It's essentially a private business acting on behalf of the government that can send you bills for driving on their private roads.... So other than sending the amounts to collections, I'm not aware of anything legal that can be done. So I don't think that's a fair comparison to an actual traffic stop for actually breaking a law.

Red light cameras were outlawed in our state, so I have no clue there as well.

 

[Vic]

As long as the traffic courts insist on using the preponderance of the evidence standard for guilt, then arrest and/or imprisonment should be considered an unconstitutional method for enforcing payment of any fines or penalties issued under that standard. If they want to be able to arrest and/or imprison people for traffic infractions, or subsequent non-payment of traffic fines, then the traffic courts need to apply the presumption of innocence standard in all cases.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'm not arguing for anything - I'm just asking you questions.

It's easy on paper to say "Okay, axe police on traffic stops - meter maids pick it up with no guns" - sounds great on paper, but these aren't one--off odd-ball questions I'm asking. I'm sure plenty of police officers run into people who get violently belligerent at traffic stops on a weekly basis. I'm sure plenty of police officers run into someone that has a warrant out for their arrest on a weekly basis.

I'm simply saying that plenty of these situations can and will get violent - and do you honestly think meter maids will want to take that risk and enforce those without a gun to protect themselves?

It's one thing to leave parking tickets on someone's car when they aren't in it - it's another to pull someone over and give it to them, run their plates, run their drivers license, etc.

Not exactly true! If all parties knew that it was just a traffic stop witho

I didn't make a strawman - you literally said



So if a drunk driver escalates it - then just drive off?

I mean what are you expecting here? When the meter maid pulls over a drunk driver you tell him "Okay sir, need you to just wait here there is another officer on the way"... then he just takes off and you're left with nothing. How do you account for these kinds of things?

Again, you CLEARLY don't know how laws work in this country - because each state is different - but in general you still have basic rights.

You also don't seem to understand the concept that just because someone sends you something (a ticket in the mail) - doesn't mean you received it. That shit won't fly in our courts.

dude...stop being goofy!! Your embarrassing yourself!!

 

[woolfe9998]

As long as the traffic courts insist on using the preponderance of the evidence standard for guilt, then arrest and/or imprisonment should be considered an unconstitutional method for enforcing payment of any fines or penalties issued under that standard. If they want to be able to arrest and/or imprison people for traffic infractions, or subsequent non-payment of traffic fines, then the traffic courts need to apply the presumption of innocence standard in all cases.

Yes but that is already how it works. There is no arrest or jail, not even if you don't pay. If you don't pay, DMV suspends your license and your credit gets dinged. Only way to go to jail is if, after that happens, you drive while your license is suspended, which is now a misdemeanor, for which you receive the presumption of innocence. But even then, you still won't go to jail unless or until you don't pay the fine for that.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes but that is already how it works. There is no arrest or jail, not even if you don't pay. If you don't pay, DMV suspends your license and your credit gets dinged. Only way to go to jail is if, after that happens, you drive while your license is suspended, which is now a misdemeanor, for which you receive the presumption of innocence. But even then, you still won't go to jail unless or until you don't pay the fine for that.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm almost certain that warrants can be and are issued for your arrest if you don't pay enough tickets.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm not a lawyer but I'm almost certain that warrants can be and are issued for your arrest if you don't pay enough tickets.

My knowledge of this is not from being a lawyer. It's from going through it personally. What they do is issue another citation for failure to appear, sent in the mail. Then DMV sends you a notice that your license is suspended if you don't appear by x date. Then if you don't, the court treats the matter as uncontested and slaps you with a fine in abstentia for both the violation and the FTA, while the DMV suspends your license. Then they report it to your credit, and the county revenue department sends you collection notices for years on end.

If you drive while it's suspended, however, then fail to appear for that, they will issue a warrant and arrest you for failing to appear because now you're at the misdemeanor level.

Yes, I went through literally every single step of that decades ago in college. I was that much of an idiot.

Anyway, this is all in CA. Might be different elsewhere but I tend to doubt it because they don't have space in their jails for everyone who didn't appear or pay their traffic fine on time. Which is why it's a long route from traffic ticket -> jail with many chances to avoid it.

 

[fskimospy]

My knowledge of this is not from being a lawyer. It's from going through it personally. What they do is issue another citation for failure to appear, sent in the mail. Then DMV sends you a notice that your license is suspended if you don't appear by x date. Then if you don't, the court treats the matter as uncontested and slaps you with a fine in abstentia for both the violation and the FTA, while the DMV suspends your license. Then they report it to your credit, and the county revenue department sends you collection notices for years on end.

If you drive while it's suspended, however, then fail to appear for that, they will issue a warrant and arrest you for failing to appear because now you're at the misdemeanor level.

Yes, I went through literally every single step of that decades ago in college. I was that much of an idiot.

Anyway, this is all in CA. Might be different elsewhere but I tend to doubt it because they don't have space in their jails for everyone who didn't appear or pay their traffic fine on time. Which is why it's a long route from traffic ticket -> jail with many chances to avoid it.

According to the super authoritative source of drivinglaws.org judges can and do issue bench warrants for people who haven't paid traffic tickets. I imagine they only do so for people with a big pile of them but it definitely is a thing.

Dealing With Bench Warrants for Traffic Tickets

Find out what to do if there is a warrant issued by the court for not paying traffic fines. How to deal with it to avoid the probable consequences.

www.drivinglaws.org

 

[woolfe9998]

According to the super authoritative source of drivinglaws.org judges can and do issue bench warrants for people who haven't paid traffic tickets. I imagine they only do so for people with a big pile of them but it definitely is a thing.

Dealing With Bench Warrants for Traffic Tickets

Find out what to do if there is a warrant issued by the court for not paying traffic fines. How to deal with it to avoid the probable consequences.

www.drivinglaws.org

I'm not really surprised that they have the legal authority to do it. It's just that I tend to doubt they do it often. Lots of people FTA on traffic tickets. LOADS of people. I know from sitting through traffic court multiple times. And I never see them issue warrants because it's just impractical to jail all those people and they have other options like the DMV suspending your license.

Something else I would point out is that you can avoid the suspension by appearing and agreeing to pay a fine, then not pay the fine and the only consequence is collection notices and a credit ding. Because the DMV suspension is only for failing to appear, not for failing to pay a fine after appearance. This too happened to me about 3 years after the incident I described above. I incurred a fine I never paid.

I had a problem with authority in those days.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not really surprised that they have the legal authority to do it. It's just that I tend to doubt they do it often. Lots of people FTA on traffic tickets. LOADS of people. I know from sitting through traffic court multiple times. And I never see them issue warrants because it's just impractical to jail all those people and they have other options like the DMV suspending your license.

Something else I would point out is that you can avoid the suspension by appearing and agreeing to pay a fine, then not pay the fine and the only consequence is collection notices and a credit ding. Because the DMV suspension is only for failing to appear, not for failing to pay a fine after appearance. This too happened to me about 3 years after the incident I described above. I had a fine I never paid.

I had a problem with authority in those days.

Haha, I also had a problem with authority when I was younger. I almost didn't get my college diploma because I refused to pay a parking ticket. They acknowledged the ticket was given to me in error but wanted to charge me a processing fee for it anyway. BULLSHIT. (They eventually gave in. SWEET VICTORY.)

 

[woolfe9998]

Haha, I also had a problem with authority when I was younger. I almost didn't get my college diploma because I refused to pay a parking ticket. They acknowledged the ticket was given to me in error but wanted to charge me a processing fee for it anyway. BULLSHIT. (They eventually gave in. SWEET VICTORY.)

Yep, that sounds exactly like me in those days. I too had unpaid parking tickets on campus and they threatened to not let me graduate but eventually they just caved. Here's the story of why I didn't appear in that scenario where I eventually spent a few hours in jail until being bailed out by angry parents.

I'm driving on the freeway at night and this cop stops me for going 63MPH in a 55MPH zone (in those days 55MPH was the limit on all CA freeways). Cop walks up to me, shines his flashlight directly into my eyes, and says, "Son, does the speed limit mean anything to you? Me: Uhm, yes officer." Cop points back to his car and says, "Son, does that black and white mean anything to you?" I wanted to flip the guy off so bad, barely restrained myself from doing so.

Then I find out days later that the average speed of motorists on CA freeways back then was 66.5 MPH, so he ticketed me for going slower than the average car on the freeway. I just decided, screw this, I'm not going, I'm not paying. Maybe they'll just let it go after awhile. Needless to say, it did not work out that way.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yep, that sounds exactly like me in those days. I too had unpaid parking tickets on campus and they threatened to not let me graduate but eventually they just caved. Here's the story of why I didn't appear in that scenario where I eventually spent a few hours in jail until being bailed out by angry parents.

I'm driving on the freeway at night and this cop stops me for going 63MPH in a 55MPH zone (in those days 55MPH was the limit on all CA freeways). Cop walks up to me, shines his flashlight directly into my eyes, and says, "Son, does the speed limit mean anything to you? Me: Uhm, yes officer." Cop points back to his car and says, "Son, does that black and white mean anything to you?" I wanted to flip the guy off so bad, barely restrained myself from doing so.

Then I find out days later that the average speed of motorists on CA freeways back then was 66.5 MPH, so he ticketed me for going slower than the average car on the freeway. I just decided, screw this, I'm not going, I'm not paying. Maybe they'll just let it go after awhile. Needless to say, it did not work out that way.

Hahahaha Oh man, learning lessons that way growing in life were the BEST.

Personally never had problems like that. I did get my ignorant speeding tickets when I was driving to/from college a few times... But when possible I dismissed them with defensive driving at least.... Still had to pay court costs of course though.

 

[KMFJD]

Not Minneapolis, but Seattle just voted to defund

https://twitter.com/x/status/1281477324039499776