Police "Highway Robbery" Bill.

[tvc184]

This seems to be an interesting topic on facebook and other locations. A legislator has again submitted a bill to allow cops to take fines on the side of the roadway. This has evoked a huge response with calls of it being unconstitutional, highway robbery, taking the legal judiciary out of the law, police corruption, etc. 

Like usual, it seems like most of the protesters have no clue what the law is about or what it says (why read the bill, right?). 

 

I have read the actual proposal but would like to see some responses. Do you think this is a good idea or not. Why?

 

This is the article from Houston that has apparently caused the uproar. 

 

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/fletcher-bill-proposal-called-highway-robbery-12976011

 

This is the actual text of the proposed law. You will have to click on "Texts" and then "Introduced" under Bill Drafts to see the wording.

 

http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB121/id/1050829

[5GallonBucket]

hey they do this in Mexico................ to foreigners. 

[CraigS]

This seems to be an interesting topic on facebook and other locations. A legislator has again submitted a bill to allow cops to take fines on the side of the roadway. This has evoked a huge response with calls of it being unconstitutional, highway robbery, taking the legal judiciary out of the law, police corruption, etc. 

Like usual, it seems like most of the protesters have no clue what the law is about or what it says (why read the bill, right?). 

 

I have read the actual proposal but would like to see some responses. Do you think this is a good idea or not. Why?

 

This is the article from Houston that has apparently caused the uproar. 

 

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/fletcher-bill-proposal-called-highway-robbery-12976011

 

This is the actual text of the proposed law. You will have to click on "Texts" and then "Introduced" under Bill Drafts to see the wording.

 

http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB121/id/1050829

Admitting having not read the provided links....I will say this. There will always be fraud, bad cops, blah blah blah....with that said I believe the super majority of law enforcement are stand up citizens.

 

Based on what you wrote - I'd say not a bad idea...I've been pulled over for violations that I KNOW without a doubt I was guilty (speeding, slow rolling stop signs, inspection or registration out, headlight out, etc)...having the opportunity to just pay the fine on site would be great, it wouldn't waste anymore of my time having to go in to pay. 

 

I wouldn't think this law would take away one freedom to challenge in court if you in fact disagree with the charges, only to simplify you payment process if you know you're guilty and just wish to pay on the spot and move along with life....

 

Now I'll go read it, and see if my opinion changes due to fine print.........

[CraigS]

Now that I have read both links - I still like it.

 

When I was younger working the summer offshore in the oilfield I got a speeding ticket while home, forgot to take care of it, by the time I returned home from being offshore for 6 weeks, a warrant had been issued.

 

Being the irresponsible young adult I was, I was pulled over for yet ANOTHER speeding ticket....needless to say I was arrested for the outstanding warrant on the previous ticket. I then spent the night in jail, saw the judge the next day, paid all fines and went about my business......with this new law, I could have simply paid the warrant, AND the new ticket preventing the inconvienience of my previous experience.

 

I really can't see the "other sides" argument...no one is taking due process away from anyone....you still have the choice of being arrested and going to jail, waiting your court date and appealing the citation/warrant. This only gives you the opportunity to simply plead guilty, pay, and move along....it's your choice!

[PhatMack19]

Tvc, during the warrant round ups they have been doing around town, aren't you able to pay off your warrant at the time you get pulled over?

[tvc184]

Tvc, during the warrant round ups they have been doing around town, aren't you able to pay off your warrant at the time you get pulled over?

I have no clue but I have never heard of an officer in TX being able to take money at the side if the road. If they allow that there may be some kind of arrangement like a court clerk is on hand to accept any money.

[bullets13]

two thoughts- 1. this would have to be credit card only. If not, there would no doubt be a few crooked cops out there pulling over everyone in sight and finding ways to scam the system. 2. I wouldn't have a problem with being able to pay on sight, although I probably would not because I'd want to do defensive driving, in which I'd end up having to go through the court and all that anyway.

[tvc184]

Here is the stuff on the bill as written. As always, things are subject to amendments in committee or on the floor during a debate but I am not sure what much can or will change in this one.

 

This bill is about a "capias" only or more specifically, a capias pro fine. A capias is really just a warrant but can be used for several reasons. In TX we most commonly call it just a capias but meaning capias pro fine. In Latin capias means "to take" or "that you take" or in this case, taking a person into custody (same as warrant). Pro in Latin means "for" so capias pro fine means to take into custody for a fine. 

 

That is very important in this case. Every person has a chance at their day in court from a simply jaywalking charge to Capital Murder. In the case of  a capias pro fine, the person has already had his day in court. That means a person has usually been given a citation (or any Class C misdemeanor like theft, public intoxication, etc.), gone to court, pleaded guilty in front of a judge and not having the money on hand, was given an extension to pay or maybe even a payment plan.  

 

So you get a ticket for speeding and with court costs, it comes to $175 fine. You tell the judge that you don't have the money but can get it by your next paycheck. He then gives you 30 days to pay. Remember at this point that you have had your day in court, you pleaded guilty (or maybe found guilty by a jury), were given a fine and were then given an extension to pay. All constitutional requirements have been fulfilled. 

 

Guess what, you did not pay the fine as agreed. Now the judge issues not a warrant for your arrest by a CPF. There is no need for a standard warrant to have you brought to trial as that has been done. You stood in court and said you were guilty and accepted the punishment (remembering that you can appeal a traffic citation to the DA and did not use your appeal). There is no need for a trial, there is no need for a warrant, there is only the need to pay off your agreement. With the CPF you can either pay your fine at that time or sit it out in jail at $100 a day. 

 

All that is required knowledge in my opinion to understand the bill and its proposed law.

 

Here is the scenario of the bill. You got that citation, you told the judge that you were guilty, he fined you and gave you time to pay.You did not pay and he issued a CPF. 

 

The cop stops you today and you have basically one choice. You are taken into custody and if there is not another licensed driver in your car (assuming the cop stops you while driving which is the typical contact) then your car will be towed at an additional expense (usually around $200) which comes out of your pocket in addition to the fine that you have already agreed to pay. You will be brought to the jail in handcuffs and there you will sit until you come up with the money or sit out your time. When you get out you had better have a ride because your car has been towed. If you have the money in your pocket, the officer cannot take it as he is not allowed to by law. 

 

Under the proposed law, at the discretion of the person about to be arrested and for a CPF only, he can swipe a credit or debit card on the side of the road and pay his fine that he has already agreed to pay. The person is not required to pay and can essentially demand to be taken to jail the current way even if he has a credit card. 

 

The officer cannot take bond money or a credit card on a regular warrant where you have not been to court and he cannot take money or a credit card on the reason he stopped you such as running a stop sign. To that extent it would be no benefit to the officer to stop you simply to take money because he is not allowed to. 

 

So there it is. IF you had a previous violation, IF you went in front of the judge, IF you pleaded or were found guilty and given a fine, IF the judge or jury gave that fine, IF you got an extension, IF you fail to pay and IF the judge issues a CPF, that is the only reason an officer can take a card only (no cash payments). 

 

To do so could save you a lot of time, maybe save money from a car not being towed, maybe save you some other grief like being late for work and perhaps fired and save you from being booked into the county jail with fingerprints and mug shot. That option is not available today.

 

That is what some are calling highway robbery, corruption, unconstitutional, etc. What most people probably do not know is that some states already have this option including (not in the TX bill) paying a citation that is issued at that time. Louisiana is famous for stopping out of state cars and taking the driver straight to jail to pay a fine at that moment or be booked and remain in the parish or city jail. Even if not guilty, how many people paid a fine simply to keep from being locked up in some dungeon in LA?

 

I see it as a no brainer but I also know that it will never pass in TX due to the previously mentioned and in my opinion, bogus complaints. 

[tvc184]

two thoughts- 1. this would have to be credit card only. If not, there would no doubt be a few crooked cops out there pulling over everyone in sight and finding ways to scam the system. 2. I wouldn't have a problem with being able to pay on sight, although I probably would not because I'd want to do defensive driving, in which I'd end up having to go through the court and all that anyway.

 

Read my response above and then look at yours. 

[bullets13]

gotcha.

[tvc184]

gotcha.

 

My point was about the misleading articles (both headlines and poorly written stories) and then the people looking only at headlines or other comments and coming to a conclusion. 

 

When you see claims of it being unconstitutional because cops can't assess fines and you can clearly read that it has to be a fine previously set by a judge, you can tell that the person posting (a majority of them that I read) has no clue. 

[CraigS]

Here is the stuff on the bill as written. As always, things are subject to amendments in committee or on the floor during a debate but I am not sure what much can or will change in this one.

 

This bill is about a "capias" only or more specifically, a capias pro fine. A capias is really just a warrant but can be used for several reasons. In TX we most commonly call it just a capias but meaning capias pro fine. In Latin capias means "to take" or "that you take" or in this case, taking a person into custody (same as warrant). Pro in Latin means "for" so capias pro fine means to take into custody for a fine. 

 

That is very important in this case. Every person has a chance at their day in court from a simply jaywalking charge to Capital Murder. In the case of  a capias pro fine, the person has already had his day in court. That means a person has usually been given a citation (or any Class C misdemeanor like theft, public intoxication, etc.), gone to court, pleaded guilty in front of a judge and not having the money on hand, was given an extension to pay or maybe even a payment plan.  

 

So you get a ticket for speeding and with court costs, it comes to $175 fine. You tell the judge that you don't have the money but can get it by your next paycheck. He then gives you 30 days to pay. Remember at this point that you have had your day in court, you pleaded guilty (or maybe found guilty by a jury), were given a fine and were then given an extension to pay. All constitutional requirements have been fulfilled. 

 

Guess what, you did not pay the fine as agreed. Now the judge issues not a warrant for your arrest by a CPF. There is no need for a standard warrant to have you brought to trial as that has been done. You stood in court and said you were guilty and accepted the punishment (remembering that you can appeal a traffic citation to the DA and did not use your appeal). There is no need for a trial, there is no need for a warrant, there is only the need to pay off your agreement. With the CPF you can either pay your fine at that time or sit it out in jail at $100 a day. 

 

All that is required knowledge in my opinion to understand the bill and its proposed law.

 

Here is the scenario of the bill. You got that citation, you told the judge that you were guilty, he fined you and gave you time to pay.You did not pay and he issued a CPF. 

 

The cop stops you today and you have basically one choice. You are taken into custody and if there is not another licensed driver in your car (assuming the cop stops you while driving which is the typical contact) then your car will be towed at an additional expense (usually around $200) which comes out of your pocket in addition to the fine that you have already agreed to pay. You will be brought to the jail in handcuffs and there you will sit until you come up with the money or sit out your time. When you get out you had better have a ride because your car has been towed. If you have the money in your pocket, the officer cannot take it as he is not allowed to by law. 

 

Under the proposed law, at the discretion of the person about to be arrested and for a CPF only, he can swipe a credit or debit card on the side of the road and pay his fine that he has already agreed to pay. The person is not required to pay and can essentially demand to be taken to jail the current way even if he has a credit card. 

 

The officer cannot take bond money or a credit card on a regular warrant where you have not been to court and he cannot take money or a credit card on the reason he stopped you such as running a stop sign. To that extent it would be no benefit to the officer to stop you simply to take money because he is not allowed to. 

 

So there it is. IF you had a previous violation, IF you went in front of the judge, IF you pleaded or were found guilty and given a fine, IF the judge or jury gave that fine, IF you got an extension, IF you fail to pay and IF the judge issues a CPF, that is the only reason an officer can take a card only (no cash payments). 

 

To do so could save you a lot of time, maybe save money from a car not being towed, maybe save you some other grief like being late for work and perhaps fired and save you from being booked into the county jail with fingerprints and mug shot. That option is not available today.

 

That is what some are calling highway robbery, corruption, unconstitutional, etc. What most people probably do not know is that some states already have this option including (not in the TX bill) paying a citation that is issued at that time. Louisiana is famous for stopping out of state cars and taking the driver straight to jail to pay a fine at that moment or be booked and remain in the parish or city jail. Even if not guilty, how many people paid a fine simply to keep from being locked up in some dungeon in LA?

 

I see it as a no brainer but I also know that it will never pass in TX due to the previously mentioned and in my opinion, bogus complaints. 

Isn't this the same thing as my actual situation in a long "legally termed" response? ...I personally like the law - as Bullets stated, if you so choose to go visit the judge and ask for defensive driving or payment options, etc.... so be it...if I so choose to "plead guilty" or "no contest" on the spot  - just pay the fine and forget about it!

[Bigdog]

So basically to summarize TVC and use myself as an example:

 

I received a ticket two weeks ago, (i actually did)  and I intend to do defensive driving so the officer would not collect a fine on the road.

 

IF I do not turn in my paperwork or make my court date and a warrant is issued, if I am pulled over I can pay the officer at that point and the whole thing is done correct?

[tvc184]

So basically to summarize TVC and use myself as an example:

 

I received a ticket two weeks ago, (i actually did)  and I intend to do defensive driving so the officer would not collect a fine on the road.

 

IF I do not turn in my paperwork or make my court date and a warrant is issued, if I am pulled over I can pay the officer at that point and the whole thing is done correct?

 

Not exactly. 

 

If you take DDC or pay the fine, the officer cannot get involved. 

 

If you agree to take DDC and fail to do so, the judge will issue a warrant. Again, the officer cannot get involved. 

 

The ONLY time an officer can get involved is in all of this sequence of events in its entirety. IF you go to court, plea guilty to a judge, get fined, ask for an extension to pay the fine that you just stood in open court and pleaded guilty to and THEN fail to pay for it in the allotted time frame. If "all" of that happens, the judge will then issue a Capias Pro Fine meaning you will be arrested and taken to jail until you sit out your time or pay the fine.

 

In that single situation, the officer can give you the option to pay the fine that you "already agreed to" pay when you made arrangements with the judge or go to jail.

 

A citation on the side of the road? The officer cannot collect a credit/debit card for payment.

 

A warrant because you never showed up after signing a citation? The officer cannot take a credit/debit card for payment.

 

You want to take DDC, pay the fine or fight in in court? You have to sign the citation and then go see the judge.

 

In none of those situations can the officer get involved other than writing a citation or serving a standard warrant.