California driving up traffic fines


By Caroline Chen, Center for Investigative Reporting

Motorist Derick Neal doesn’t remember the April night when he rolled through a right turn at a red light in San Leandro.

The video from the red-light camera clearly shows the violation, he admits. Nevertheless, the 40-year-old software engineer is outraged about the price of the ticket: $490, plus an additional $59 for traffic school.

“It’s one thing if I was barreling through, but you can see my brake lights all the way through,” he said after viewing the video. “I expected it to be $100, $150 at most for the infraction.”

Like Neal, many of the more than 6 million California drivers who get tickets each year experience sticker shock. State records show that traffic citation fines have skyrocketed over the last decade, with some common infractions now costing close to $500.

Derick Neal’s ticket
Base fine
$100
State penalty assessment
$100
County penalty assessment
$70
DNA identification fund
$50
Court construction
$50
State surcharge
$20
Emergency medical services
$20
Emergency medical air transportation
$4
Court operations
$40
Conviction assessment
$35
Night court
$1
Total ticket
$490
Traffic school
$59
Total cost
$549

Running a red light, currently $490, cost $340 in 2003 and $103 in 1993, according to the Judicial Council of California, which sets the base fines for traffic offenses. A ticket for rolling through a stop sign costs $238; a decade ago, it was $130. Speeding up to 15 mph over the limit also comes with a $238 price tag ‒ more than eight times what it cost in 1993. And traffic school can add $60.

Oddly, the base fine for most violations has remained the same for the last 20 years. The growth in fines is due to add-ons known as penalty assessments, which are set by the Legislature. These fees are tacked on to citations, with the money earmarked for projects ranging from court construction to DNA research for solving crimes.

Viewed separately, each assessment might not seem particularly onerous, but the penalties add up. About a decade ago, there was one penalty assessment. Now, there are 10 – and total fines average four or five times the amount of the base fine.

The soaring fines don’t seem to have encouraged Californians to become better drivers. Each year, between 26 and 30 percent of drivers get a traffic citation, records show. But the high price of a ticket has led many traffic offenders to plead not guilty and contest their tickets in court, hoping to have them dismissed or reduced.

In 2003, about 196,000 traffic citations were disputed in California courts, according to Judicial Council statistics. That was 4.5 percent of the total issued. By 2011, that number had nearly doubled to 383,000, 7.1 percent of all the citations issued.

Advocates say the increased fines are especially hard on the working class.

“If you’re a single parent barely making it, one of those (red-light) tickets could really set you back,” said Shane Gusman, legislative representative for the California Teamsters union. “I think folks are doing the math and hoping that it will get dismissed if the officer doesn’t show up. I know our drivers are doing that calculation.”

Some traffic court judges offer community service, rather than fines, to those who plead guilty. Gusman says this isn’t much help for many people. At the community service rate of $10 an hour, it would take 49 hours to pay off a red-light violation ticket.

The courts don’t track whether they are losing revenue because more motorists are fighting their tickets. But some courts around the state are struggling to handle the influx of people contesting tickets.

Trial dates are backed up in San Diego County, where the number of motorists contesting tickets has doubled in a decade, said court spokeswoman Karen Dalton. The current wait is six months.

Those accused of traffic violations in Los Angeles County have been facing waits of nine months or more for a hearing, said court spokeswoman Mary Hearn. But it’s about to get worse. Recently, courts underwent their third round of layoffs in four years.

“With the changes our court was forced to make in the past few months, I expect those numbers will again increase dramatically,” Hearn said.

Derick Neal pleaded not guilty on his red-light violation and went to court in Oakland this month. He was found guilty and must pay the full fine.

Some courts offer discounts to motorists who plead guilty rather than fight their tickets. At the San Francisco Hall of Justice on a recent day, a court officer offered deals to about 80 people who had shown up to dispute their tickets. Motorists could pay $285 to settle any ticket of $400 or more, the officer said, and tickets of less than $400 could be settled for $178. If motorists went to trial and lost, they would pay the full fine, the officer warned.

But there was no such clemency across the bay in Oakland at the Wiley W. Manuel Courthouse, where Commissioner Taylor Culver reigns over his courtroom with sarcastic humor. During a red-light camera trial on a recent afternoon, when one defendant asked for a reduction in his fine, Culver boomed, “Nobody here is special or better than anybody. There’s nobody here special but me.”

In another case, Culver cut off a defendant’s comments by saying, “Just tell me about the money. How are you going to pay?”

Experts say there is little chance that the penalty assessments will stop increasing because it’s an attractive source of revenue for state and county governments. A 2006 report by the California Research Bureau, which studies issues for the governor and Legislature, estimated that traffic violations bring in more than $500 million per year.

“I don’t know we’ll ever have a rollback unless the state had enough money in the general fund,” said Gregory Pagan, chief counsel for the Assembly Public Safety Committee. “It’s an easy way to find a revenue stream to fund (a program). They’ll never stop.”

Print Friendly

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (9)
  1. Dan Stroehler says - Posted: October 1, 2013

    This is preposterous. All the “add-ons” are purely and blatantly revenue enhancement. The intent of monetary penalties (“fines”) were and are meant to be a form of PUNISHMENT for whatever infraction, not the funding of non-related pork.

  2. tahoeadvocate says - Posted: October 1, 2013

    Dan, if you go back and review the South Lake Tahoe paid parking program which was initiated this year, the basis was only to generate revenue.
    It is a parking program which created a parking problem and the stated revenue model was based on more money from citations than from money at the meter.

  3. sunriser2 says - Posted: October 2, 2013

    Need to force those poor and lower middle income people out of their cars.

    They should be riding bicycles and busses were they belong.

    Only the wealthy should be able to drive cars.

  4. Buck says - Posted: October 2, 2013

    We still do not know how much the city gets out of each $55.00 parking ticket in this town. Nobody in the parking lots now so what will our parking program officers do for the next 9 months? No income and no tickets, just asking.

  5. MTT says - Posted: October 2, 2013

    Have any of the SLT Locals gotten a traffic ticket from SLT police?

    I heard its not pretty.
    The outrage does not happen, until it happens to you

    I cannot speak to SLT tickets, but I can say that if you get pulled over in Nevada side its going to cost 200+$ and maybe much more.

  6. tahoe Pizza Eater says - Posted: October 2, 2013

    The last time I was pulled over in South Lake Tahoe was about ten years ago. I was driving up Park Ave and turned right onto Highway 50. As I was in my turn the light turned from yellow to red. I had entered on the yellow. A cop pulled me over and falsely claimed I had entered on the red. Obviously, the traffic on 50 was at a dead standstill as I was in my turn. This was as safe a right turn as any could be. The cop didn’t cite me, but if he did, I would have been presumed guilty by the court. These traffic fines are worse than any laws I’ve ever heard of. I saw this coming many years ago when commute lanes on bay area freeways had $100 fines for a violation. Back then $100 was a lot of money, and that violation didn’t place anyone into danger. It was a pure money grab by corrupt government. This stuff still is.

  7. lakeadvocate says - Posted: October 2, 2013

    This summer the city’s aggressive parking citation program has nailed a fair number of unsuspecting locals. The level of anger is growing against a program that was originally touted as a means of “hitting up the tourists” to save two police positions. The irony here is that 80% of the city’s police employees live in Nevada. Even the parking officer “Amy” lives in Nevada. I wonder how these Nevada residents would like having SLT residents coming to Minden and Gardnerville to write $55.00 tickets for parking at their local parks. This program needs to be eliminated! I just hope the city council has the humility to admit their error.

  8. copper says - Posted: October 2, 2013

    Not sure what your point is, l’advocate, but the reason most police employees live in Nevada is that it’s the only way they can raise their families on SLT Police Department wages which are well toward the bottom of the State. Be glad Nevada’s nearby to pick up the slack; you wouldn’t have nearly the quality of applicants and hires if it weren’t for the ability to live in nearby Nevada communities. Many of us can remember when the PD salaries and benefits were at least competitive with the bottom fifth of California Departments and all the employees lived in California.

    Plus, I’d be surprised if you could find an SLT Police Officer who thinks that the parking regulations are a good idea. The ones I know find the whole concept embarrassing – but quietly since your City Manager, like her mentor before her, is not known to be much tolerant of dissent.

  9. tahoeadvocate says - Posted: October 3, 2013

    Most cities I know of require their employees to live within the city limits, let alone the same State.