[dcdoug]

Originally Posted by lovehamr

Doug, I can see the "flawed" thing and being an ex-K9 and firearms guy who hardly ever worked traffic I can understand the sentement. But "unconstitutional"? I'm lost on that one.

Steve

It seems to be that our police departments these days spend an inordinate amount of resources focused on generating revenue, which I believe should not be their primary focus (and doesn't seem like it used to be 20 years ago). Most departments have a mission statement that is something like "Protect and Serve", not "Generate Cash to Cover Budget Shortfalls and Protect and Serve As Time Allows". My guess is that traffic officer headcount is 2x-3x relative to other departments from what it was 20 years ago. I'd love to know that the real answer is if you have it.

As for the Supreme Court case - WDZ had it in his post. Given the variance of this officer's ability to discern speed despite the training, I don't see how the average citizen is protected by a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Where's the proof? The officer's "proof" in this case was actually shown to be unreliable through his own testimony, yet the citizen still gets the ticket. And what about reasonable doubt? That also seems to be in abundance here.

All the more concerning when you consider the revenue pressure that a lot of these officers are probably under. That is not a healthy structure designed to serve and protect citizens. It is a structure that encourages the exploitation of citizens. Might not happen very often as I do believe that most officers out there are fair and honest. But that's why the burden of proof lies with the government, not the citizen. Except apparently with traffic tickets because that might affect government cash flow.