Cops hunt drivers so their city can profit

Getting Cops Paid, Citizens Fined

Justin along with Leah Nelson and Priya Sarathy Jones

Investigative reporting from AL.com sparked a swift transformation in this small town. Police Chief Mike Jones recently retired, and Alabama’s Lt. Governor requested a state investigation into the Brookside Police Department.

It’s clear that Jones, who seemed to turn the Brookside Police Department into a revenue-generating operation, needed to go. (CNN's attempts to secure a statement from Jones were unsuccessful, and Brookside declined to comment on what it called "personal matters.")

Yet, Jones wasn't alone in his pursuit of financial gain. In numerous U.S. court systems, the practice of fining based on evidence collection is entrenched. As we saw in Ferguson, Missouri, in recent years, court penalties and fees (largely traffic-related) have become a significant revenue source for the city. Municipalities have had free rein to profit from fines and fees for decades.

In the United States, criminal justice policy and tax policy are two sides of the same coin. Relying on law enforcement to maintain a steady income flow is a bet on public safety — if crime rates decrease, so too does income. A 2019 report in the Stewardship Journal revealed that, in nearly 600 court systems, fines and recoveries accounted for more than 10% of general fund revenues. The most severe violations tend to occur where residents can least afford them: in areas with fines and fees making up over 20% of overall revenue and per-capita incomes below $40,000.

Since the misuse of police and debt collection practices was exposed in Ferguson, Missouri, it's become clear that the issue is not limited to that city. Californian fines once cost $100, but now typically run around $500. Doraville, Georgia, a city with just over 10,000 residents, generates an average of $3 million annually through fines and fees. Washington, D.C. issued traffic and parking fines totaling $1 billion over the past three years.

If people can't pay immediately, harsh collection and enforcement tactics can trap families in a cycle of punishment that is hard to escape. Transforming law enforcement into debt collectors further erodes trust between communities and law enforcement agencies.

In the United States, it's illegal for a court to imprison someone for failure to pay fines, but in reality, people are detained daily due to unpaid traffic fines and court fees. In 2018, one of our sister organizations, the Alabama Appleseed Law and Justice Center, worked with social service providers across Alabama to assist nearly 1,000 individuals — either with their own court debts or by aiding others in payments. An analysis revealed that:

• Almost half of those surveyed who had court debts were incarcerated because they couldn't pay.
• Many respondents made desperate decisions to forgo basic needs like rent, utilities, or medication.
• Forty-four percent took out expensive short-term loans.
• Thirty-eight percent turned to crime to raise the funds they needed (most often drug sales, theft, or sex work).

To curb win-oriented policing, legislative changes are necessary in Brookside and towns across the nation. To deter predatory policing, police and courts must be held accountable for their actions, and the harm caused by excessive fines and taxes must be mitigated. We must separate criminal justice policy from tax policy.

We can begin by abolishing court fees, which represent a highly regressive tax. Although fines serve to hold people accountable, fees primarily generate income to support essential government operations.

States should also require that all fines and fees be deposited into the state's general fund and redistributed to cities based on need, rather than ticket revenue. This would eliminate the direct incentive to use unnecessary or problematic parking as a means to increase revenue, while allowing cities to prioritize public safety needs.

Furthermore, legislators should limit local government profits through the budget. According to AL.com, half of Brookside's total budget comes from fines and recoveries. Although these limits would not completely eliminate profits, they would nevertheless provide guidelines to curb abuses seen in Brookside and similar court systems nationwide.

Sign up for our free weekly newsletter ###

• Join the new CNN Opinion newsletter.
• Follow us on Twitter and Facebook At least, in addition to eradicating corruption and bribery in a city, the abolition of court fines and fees does not address the root of the problem: court fines and fees as hidden taxes. To achieve this, legislative changes are necessary. Legislators must work to curb perverse incentives that promote predatory policing. Justice demands it.

Further Reading:

Financially profiting from traffic and court-related fines is a significant issue in numerous U.S. court systems. With fines, authorities collect funds that may become crucial resources for cities. In Ferguson, Missouri, for instance, court penalties and fees (predominantly traffic-related) provided funding for essential city services in recent years.

However, this system has several problems. When people can't pay immediately, harsh enforcement and collection practices can trap families in a cycle of punishment they struggle to escape. Due to these concerns, many have advocated for fairer and more equitable imposition and collection of fines and taxes to ensure they don’t negatively impact low-income communities. A 2019 report in the Stewardship Journal highlighted that in nearly 600 court systems, fines and recoveries accounted for more than 10% of general fund revenues. (Efforts to curb these practices include reforms like defunding police departments and transferring funds to community-led safety initiatives, education, housing, and mental health services.)

Source:

Enrichment Data:

The practice of financially benefiting from traffic and court-related fines is a significant issue in the United States, particularly in urban areas. Here are some key points regarding its prevalence and impact:

1. Asset Forfeiture and Fines:
2. Prevalence: Asset forfeiture, where law enforcement agencies seize citizens' assets without charging them with a crime, is a widespread practice in the U.S. This practice has been criticized for disproportionately affecting minority communities and generating revenue for law enforcement agencies.
3. Impact: Asset forfeiture can result in substantial financial burdens on individuals and communities, especially those who are already disadvantaged. Furthermore, it contributes to high incarceration rates among minorities — leading to issues related to disenfranchisement, recidivism, and generational poverty.
4. Excessive Fines and Fees:
5. Prevalence: Excessive fines and fees imposed by law enforcement agencies are common as well, generating revenue for local governments. However, they often disproportionately affect low-income communities.
6. Impact: Excessive fines and fees can lead to financial hardship for individuals and families, potentially causing them to fall into debt or even lose their homes. This exacerbates poverty and reduces access to essential services like education and healthcare.
7. Community Impact:
8. The financial burden of traffic and court-related fines can impact the broader community as well. It can lead to increased stress and anxiety, particularly among vulnerable residents, and undermine trust in law enforcement and the justice system.
9. Efforts to Reform:
10. Efforts to reform these practices have emerged, such as calls to "defund" police departments and redirect funds to community-led safety initiatives, education, housing, and mental health care. Some jurisdictions have also implemented measures to reduce police funding and invest in alternative services.