There was a good piece by Rich Rifkin in the Davis Enterprise this week, talking about the 172.9 million dollar courthouse that has been approved by the California Judicial Council.
Wrote Rich Rifkin, “One area where the state might save some money without too much pain is with its ambitious plan to build 35 new courthouses and to renovate six old ones. In 2008, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 1407. It provides five billion dollars for these 41 projects.”
“$5 billion is a lot of money — especially when our state is in such dire straits. Any savings generated by defunding SB 1407 would help,” he writes.
He then went on to describe the funding mechanism.
He wrote, “SB 1407 increases the ‘court security fee’ on every criminal conviction — including traffic offenses — by $20 to $60. It also adds $2 to every parking violation statewide and ups the cost of going to traffic school by $40.”
“The money generated from these new fees will not go into the general fund. Instead, it will be deposited in the Immediate and Critical Needs Account (ICNA) of the State Court Facilities Construction Fund,” he continues.
He argued that this is a luxury and that SB 1407 could be temporarily changed.
“Yet in reality, there is no reason SB 1407 could not be temporarily changed,” he argued. “Until we are out of the economic crisis, the legislature could redirect those new court security fees to the general fund. Once our economy picks up, that new money could then be put in the ICNA, where it would finance courthouse projects as needed.”
Rich Rifkin then went on to describe the project itself.
He wrote, “The five-story project will house 14 new courtrooms, each twice the size of the courtrooms in the historic edifice on Court Street. It will include holding cells for inmates in its basement; traffic court and small claims court on the ground floor; family court and juvenile court plus counseling and mediation services on the second floor; and courtrooms on the top three floors.”
We have not talked as much about the Courthouse in existence itself. Do we need a new courthouse? Probably. I am not saying I disagree with Mr. Rifkin’s point and I also am not sure that now is the time.
There are a number of problems with the current courthouse. The first is that it is not large enough. It only has eight courtrooms and we currently use 14 courtrooms and that does not even include Traffic Court. So the arraignment facility is across Third Street, there is another facility that is just built over on Main Street almost by the railroad tracks, and Traffic Court is housed over 1st Street. Small claims court is another facility as well.
Right now they march the in-custody inmates from a facility on the other side of Third Street, across Third, and into the first floor of the courthouse. They are wearing jail garb and chained together into a line. It is not only not ideal from a security standpoint but it is also dehumanizing.
Remember, these people may be accused of a crime, but they are innocent until proved guilty.
The holding cells are tiny and archaic.
So there is no doubt that we really do need another courthouse, whether or not as aesthetically pleasant and classic as the current one is. The question is really when and how to pay it forward.
I think Rich Rifkin’s point is very well taken on the timing issue.
Then there is the funding issue.
He wrote, “One of the arguments put forward for spending all these billions of dollars on fancy new courthouses, now, in the midst of our recession, is that doing so will stimulate new jobs with all the spending.”
“That’s voodoo economics,” he continues.
“It will help the finances of the contractors who win these bids; and it will put money in the pockets of the construction workers who get the work,” he argues. “But at the same time it will be robbing $30 here and $50 there from the guy caught driving 30 miles an hour on W. Eighth Street or the gal ticketed for failing to yield when she turned onto B Street.”
He concluded, “In other words, it’s a zero-sum game. The $184 million going to build the new Family Justice Center in San Jose is coming from traffic offenders who would have used that money to eat at Village Pizza & Grill in Davis.”
This is a good point, but it is actually a lot worse than this.
A good amount of the moneydoes come from increased fees to parking and traffic violators, but also from people who have been convicted of crimes.
Now some can claim that judges will waive fees – and they do occasionally, but not that often, from our experience.
The way this actually works is fairly convoluted. The courthouse fee is, of course, only part of the fine imposed on convicts. It amounts to $30.
Some may say that people who commit crimes should pay. And there is a logic to that argument.
However, if someone goes to prison they get their fees paid off through the serving of time. If, however, they are on probation and do not get prison time, they get hammered with hundreds if not into the thousands in fines.
These are people who are likely not working, if they are working it’s at minimum wage, and even on a monthly payment plan it puts a huge burden on them and their ability to turn their lives around.
We ran a story on part of this last August. The fines are so extensive at times, according to information we got from the Public Defender’s Office last July, that clients are requesting jail time in lieu of receiving a violation of probation for the failure to pay fines. That means that, in effect, the fines are self-defeating to the effort of truly receiving revenue.
So not only does the court not get the fees, but the taxpayers have to pay for the incarceration of the inmate. Which means that at least some of the money the fund generates actually comes at the expense of other items in the budget.
In researching this phenomena, it appears to be a relatively new trend, perhaps introduced in the last twenty years.
In October 2007, the New York Times had an editorial, “Out of Prison and Deep in Debt.”
In it they wrote, “With the nation’s incarcerated population at 2.1 million and growing — and corrections costs topping $60 billion a year — states are rightly looking for ways to keep people from coming back to prison once they get out. Programs that help ex-offenders find jobs, housing, mental health care and drug treatment are part of the solution. States must also end the Dickensian practice of saddling ex-offenders with crushing debt that they can never hope to pay off and that drives many of them right back to prison.”
As the editorial points out, “A former inmate living at or even below the poverty level can be dunned by four or five departments at once — and can be required to surrender 100 percent of his or her earnings. People caught in this impossible predicament are less likely to seek regular employment, making them even more susceptible to criminal relapse.”
In fact, one study found that 12 percent of probation revocations were due not to the individual going back to a life of crime, but simply the failure to pay their debts. And many are thrown back into prison, which makes the system virtually self-defeating as a means to secure revenue.
Even “small” fines of $1000, with a payment plan, put a huge burden on an individual likely to make minimum wage, likely to have treatment obligations that preclude them from working full time, and needing to pay for rent and other living amenities.
The spin coming from those defending the court policies is that the money gets waived for hardship. But, to be honest, that is not what we are seeing. In fact, we see cases where people who are making less than $500 a month are being forced to pay $100 a month to the courts.
If you have been reading our previous articles this week, there is an interesting nexus between charging policies and the need for a new courthouse.
A 2008 California Aggie article actually captured it very well.
They report, ” Yolo County Superior Judge David Rosenberg said there is a shortage of space and judges throughout the state. The Yolo County Superior Court is in particularly dire straits, he said.”
“The workload is such that Yolo Superior Court should have three more judges than we have. In terms of space, we’re still operating in a courthouse that was built 90 years ago. Our facilities are old and we’ve outgrown them,” he said.
The article from 2008 continued, however, arguing, “Increasing crime has compounded the shortage problem. According to the county Superior Court, there were 18,497 new cases filed from January to June in 2007. During the same period this year, there were 23,279 cases – a 26 percent increase.”
The article continues, “Rosenberg said it’s difficult to pinpoint the cause of the increase, but he said it could possibly be attributed to a rising population and a wave of drug crimes. In addition, there’s “certainly an increase in gang-related crimes for Yolo County and California,” he said.”
In fact, if you look at the crime rate in Yolo County, it is has decreased fairly consistently from the middle part of the first decade this century.
Public Defender Tracie Olson disputed that a few weeks ago when she argued, “It is my opinion that the number of jury trials has nothing to do with the crime rate.”
Judge Rosenberg in 2008 did note the problem with security and transporting defendants through the courthouse.
“We have prisoners in custody being transported through hallways where we have witnesses, children, defendants and police officers. It’s like the middle ages,” Judge Rosenberg told the Aggie.
This is not unique to Yolo County either. The Aggie reports, “In fact, 41 percent of the facilities are forced to use public hallways to bring in-custody defendants into courtrooms, according to the governor’s press release.”
However, this is a legitimate concern.
We again return to the discussion made by Tracie Olson, the Yolo County Public Defender, who represented to the Board of Supervisors that there were a large number of jury trials in the last few years.
“It’s absolutely true that we’re having more and more jury trials,” she told the Board. “I think we had 112 last year, 121 each of the two years prior which prior to that I think we had 50 or 60 jury trials. So [our] workload is still very very high.”
Yes, there was a time when there was an administrative backlog in Yolo County that prevented cases from coming forward in a timely manner. That backlog, however, is gone according to Ms. Olson.
Instead, what we are having to finance is not due to a backlog or increased crime, but rather the charging policies of the DA’s Office and their inability or unwillingness to settle cases in a reasonable manner.
Yes, Ms. Olson was diplomatic in her representation to the Board of Supervisors.
“There are some cases that you just have to try because we think the facts are one way and the District Attorney thinks its the other, both are legitimate, and a jury has to figure out for themselves which ones they believe and which witnesses are credible,” Ms. Olson said.
However, she said that there were a lot of jury trials where the two sides should be meeting in the middle. And we can verify that claim, because we have witnessed it.
From our perspective, we do need a new courthouse based on a lot of factors. The fact is even with less cases, there are enough different functions of the court that ought to be brought together. The security issue is a huge problem. But the timing of the build and the manner in which it is funded is questionable.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If you have questions look at it like this. People who are found not guilty don’t pay anything. People who are convicted pay for the new courthouse. It’s like the gas tax (user tax); if you do not want to pay the gas tax then don’t drive. If you do not want to pay for the new courthouse then do not commit a crime.
Hopefully breaking it down into simple terms helps.
That point is understood. But the question goes beyond that. The question really is whether that policy makes it more difficult for people to get back on the right path, which in my view is far more important and the most cost effective option. You could be taxing someone to get revenue now, put them in financial hardship, and end up having to pay more in the long run if they recidivate.
We could use a “means”-based system… my son says it exists in parts of Europe… if you are a minimum wage earner, you would pay 4 hours wage for red-light-running (which puts others potentially at mortal risk)… for others, we could do the same thing… 4 hours wages… or in the interest of being progressive, we could charge those making over 100k per year a month’s worth of salary. Just a thought.
Where is everyone’s priority? The current building could be renovated. Crime has not gone up. It has gone down. Are they planning a huge growth in crime? And perhaps as alluded to at the Board of Supervisors meeting if the DA started practicing law as he is supposed to then cases would go down, costs would go down and we might not need 14 court rooms.
They legislature cuts education, but funds more courts. Wrong priorities!!
dmg: “The article continues, “Rosenberg said it’s difficult to pinpoint the cause of the increase, but he said it could possibly be attributed to a rising population and a wave of drug crimes. In addition, there’s “certainly an increase in gang-related crimes for Yolo County and California,” he said.””
Sounds like the head judge is of the same mind as the DA that gangs and drugs are a problem in Yolo County. As Tracie Olson rightly said, the problem of the increase in trials in Yolo County has to do with all three arms of the Yolo County Court system – the Judge, the DA, the Public defender. And ultimately the Judge is the one w the power to call the shots and demand fewer trials.
Secondly, the Yolo County Courthouse does have problems w security. I remember being in the Courthouse one time, as the police were escorting a prisoner through the main hallway. I was warned to stay against the wall, while the prisoner walked past in shackles. It was very unsettling, but it is the only way to get prisoners to the courtroom. The Yolo County Courthouse is antiquated, and needs some updates for sure. But as Rich Rifkin and Sue Greenwald have pointed out, do we need a full blown fancy new maximum cost facility right now? Sue Greenwald suggested some sort of annex to the old Courthouse as a possible solution.
I would also argue that if court personnel are being laid off, and a lot of petty criminals will have to be let go bc of the budget crisis, there is much less need for new courthouses. Even some judges have weighed in and said the new courthouses can wait. The timing, as Rich Rifkin points out, is just ridiculous in light of the current budget crisis. In fact, I would argue that nonessential projects like these, during a time of economic crisis, makes voters less likely to pass tax increases/extentions and more distrustful of gov’t expenditures.
Yolo County’s hard working judges want a shiny new courthouse to work in. I don’t blame them. I would love to have a shiny new house to live in. But adding new courthouse construction fees to fines levied on traffic violations, which are the bread and butter of the financing for our courthouse costs, creates a conflict of interest whereby judges are virtually always going to find guilty because they need those extra fees to fund their new digs.
In 2008 I protested a citation issued by one of Davis’ four red light camera traps. These traps are run out of conformity with California statute because there is a revenue neutrality clause in the contract between the camera provider and the City.
I had two motion hearings and then a six hour long trial that spanned two days. During both of the hearings and both days of trial my due process rights were repeatedly ignored, by all three court officers. In the end, despite an ignored court ordered for discovery, and no admissible evidence, I was found guilty.
I learned that an appeal would stay with in the Yolo County branch of the California Superior Court, and that the same judge who had ignored my due process, and thus prejudiced my case, would be editing (and thus sanitizing) my proposed settled statement. So I decided my time would be better spent hunting elk in Montana than getting screwed again in Yolo County Superior Court.
I composed a letter to Presiding Judge Dave Rosenberg, explaining in excruciating detail all the ways his judges had ignored my civil right to due process and offering to make available the audio recording of my sessions, which I had demanded the court make. I respectfully requested that he investigate lack of due process in the traffic division.
I explained that the only exposure to the judicial system most law abiding citizens will ever have is in the traffic division, and getting flagrantly violated by judges who just want to collect the fees needed to build their new court house tends to decrease citizens faith in the justice system. He responded with a two sentence letter, confirming receipt of my complaint and assuring me that he would investigate and inform me of the results.
I have never heard back from Judge Rosenberg. What I have seen however, is an article in the local paper quoting Rosenberg as saying that fees attached to traffic and parking infractions would be going up because Yolo County needed the funds to pay for their new court house.
When funding for their new courthouse is directly connected with the number of traffic infractions found guilty, judges have a financial conflict of interest that puts justice second, right behind a shiny new courthouse.
rb: “When funding for their new courthouse is directly connected with the number of traffic infractions found guilty, judges have a financial conflict of interest that puts justice second, right behind a shiny new courthouse.”
Thank you for sharing your experience. I agree there is most definitely a conflict of interest when the very judges presiding over traffic court will use the fines they impose to fund their very own new digs…
[i]”The fines are so extensive at times, according to information we got from the Public Defender’s Office last July, that clients are requesting jail time in lieu of receiving a violation of probation for the failure to pay fines. That means that, in effect, the fines are self-defeating to the effort of truly receiving revenue.”[/i]
This is pretty much the Laffer Curve ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve[/url]). If you can understand why it makes no sense to raise these fees up so high, you should be able to understand why some tax rate increases are self-defeating, especially when it is not all that hard for high income earners to move their income out of state.
I think that we are missing the main point. This new courthouse is going to cost three times what it cost to build the Mondavi Center. The money that it will cost to build the new courthouse is enough money to pay off the unfunded retiree health liability for every city in the county.
It is a question of priorities. The building is funded by a $4.50 tax on every parking ticket, and $5 out of every $10 of every traffic violation, in other words, I assume comes to 50% of every ticket — as in $180 of the ticket if you misjudge the yellow light at an intersection, in addition to a fine on those convicted of crimes.
If the legislature wants to ding people for traffic and parking violations and convicted criminals to that high degree, given the incredibly tight fiscal situation the legislature could pass another bill and cease to issue the remainder of these bonds, redirecting the fines to pay for ongoing court operations and maintenance.
This would free up money for schools, cities and helping the poor and disabled.
We all work in substandard buildings. City councilmembers don’t have offices at all, let alone only token salaries. Our city hall is an old schoolhouse with staff crammed into temporary trailers off he side. Our city departments are also scattered throughout town in inelegant structures.
My concern derives from the amount of money to be spent in a time incredible fiscal hardship. I was in a jury pool recently, and loved being that the historic old courthouse that this incredibly expensive new building will replace. And if Yolo county weren’t doubling its number of new court cases, the existing building would not obviously not be as crowded.
Here is a link to a story about a state that got concerned about what it called a courthouse “Taj Mahal”. This “Taj Mahal” cost one third the price of the Yolo County building (and served a far, far larger district).
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/13/v-print/2014377/backers-of-lavish-courthouse-in.html#ixzz1JOFHENSw
I am for renovating the old courthouse. We won’t get a building as beautiful as it is. And if we make so much on traffic monies, the monies could go to the state or county of city or even school districts. I realize this is impossible because of the silo mentality of budgeting public monies, but why not?
[quote]Thank you for sharing your experience. I agree there is most definitely a conflict of interest when the very judges presiding over traffic court will use the fines they impose to fund their very own new digs…[/quote]
Is it a conflict of interest when welfare recipients vote to put those in power who promise to ensure welfare payments? It’s the same thing.
If you’ve ever pent a day in traffic court you would understand that there are enough people violating the law that the courts are not sitting there twiddling their thumbs waiting for people to come through the door.
When SacBee ran the story on CHP increasing their enforcement of cell phone laws I would say 80% or more of the comments were in support of enforcement.
As for Rodger, the camera tickets in Davis have been tested multiple times, even by attorneys that got tickets, and they’ve been upheld as legal.
“If the legislature wants to ding people for traffic and parking violations and convicted criminals to that high degree, given the incredibly tight fiscal situation the legislature could pass another bill and cease to issue the remainder of these bonds, redirecting the fines to pay for ongoing court operations and maintenance.
This would free up money for schools, cities and helping the poor and disabled. “
Not easy to do Sue because of something called the 2/3 rule that you have historically supported.
Sue, your numbers about the % of fines that go to the court are wrong. It was covered here previously. I agree the Mondovi Center is nice. It was built as a theater, not as a place to contain murderers or over 300,000 visitors a year. I can see why it would be cheaper to build. It would be nice to have more details on the “Taj Mahal”. 50 employees isn’t very many, Yolo Country has more than that. An appeals court building is very different than a county courthouse.
As for the talk on shifting funds paid into this account into something else, that should irritate people on a fundamental basis. So you want to transfer a fine someone paid in to the court fund to the schools. I know I wouldn’t be happy paying more than my property taxes to the schools.
[quote]Mr. Obvious: Sue, your numbers about the % of fines that go to the court are wrong. [/quote]I can provide you with citations to prove my numbers. Can you provide me with citations to prove yours?
[quote]As for the talk on shifting funds paid into this account into something else, that should irritate people on a fundamental basis. So you want to transfer a fine someone paid in to the court fund to the schools. — Mr. Obvious[/quote]I said quite clearly that the revenue stream from the hefty surcharges on parking fines, traffic tickets and fees on convicted criminals that will fund these overly expensive new courthouses should be redirected to court operations and maintenance, thus freeing up money for schools, universities and cities, social services. I would wager you that polls would show a supermajority of citizens agreeing with me on this one.
[quote]Not easy to do Sue because of something called the 2/3 rule that you have historically supported.—Toad[/quote]My dear Toad, I have never supported the 2/3 rule.
[quote]Not easy to do Sue because of something called the 2/3 rule –Toad[/quote]A little background:The new $172.9 million courthouse is funded through Senate Bill 1407, which authorizes lease-revenue bonds. Lease-revenue bonds do not have to go to the voter.
Here is a description of lease-revenue bonds:
[quote]STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE TECHNIQUES FOR BORROWING WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL.
The state could fund construction of a prison by agreeing to lease the prison and selling shares in the flow of lease revenue, an arrangement called a lease revenue bond, a leaseback, or certificates of participation. The state tends to use revenue and lease bonds for projects which are necessary but not particularly popular, such as state office buildings and prisons. Governments typically pay higher rates when they borrow through revenue bonds rather than general obligation bonds.
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_BondFinancingJTF.pdf%5B/quote%5DActually, this bill had a hard time passing back in 2008 because many assembly members felt that it was a lower priority need and that $5 billion was an excessive amount of money. It should be clearer today that now is not the time to spend $5 billion lavish new courthouses around the state.
“My dear Toad, I have never supported the 2/3 rule. “
Sue are you getting a touch of that disease I can never remember the name of?
I remember when you opposed an initiative to lower the votes needed to raise taxes and pass the budget. Did you forget? Are you now taking another position because I think if you are that is more newsworthy than your flippant response suggests.
I believe you opposed prop 56 in 2004 Sue. It would have lowered the vote to pass a budget and raise taxes to 55% from 2/3.
[quote] I believe you opposed prop 56 in 2004 Sue. It would have lowered the vote to pass a budget and raise taxes to 55% from 2/3.[/quote]Toad, this is absolutely not true.
If you want to make libelous allegations, you should man up to it and sign your name.
(There might be filing fee surcharges on civil suits as well that are designated to help pay court construction bond debt service.)
Mr. Toad,
Nobody can prove a negative, so I pulled a couple of comments about the 2/3 rule. If you can prove or corroborate your assertion, by all means post it.
Thanks,
Don
[quote]”SB 1407 increases the ‘court security fee’ on every criminal conviction — including traffic offenses — by $20 to $60. It also adds $2 to every parking violation statewide and ups the cost of going to traffic school by $40.”[/quote]
The above quote was provided by Rifkin
[quote]Traffic Fees and Penalties Increased
Under SB 1407, written by Senator Don Perata (D-Oakland), the penalty for moving violations increases by $35, traffic violator school attendance fees by $25, fix-it-ticket fees by $15 and parking fees by $3. The money goes to court house construction, rehabilitation and maintenance.[/quote]
The above quote was provided in an update by AAA to their members.
You wrote:
[quote]The building is funded by a $4.50 tax on every parking ticket, and $5 out of every $10 of every traffic violation, in other words, I assume comes to 50% of every ticket — as in $180 of the ticket if you misjudge the yellow light at an intersection, in addition to a fine on those convicted of crimes. [/quote]
After looking at several sources, including some experience in traffic court I am unable to come up with $180 of a red light ticket going to build the courts. I do know that base penalties went up and there has definitely been a increase. I was just trying to figure the exact numbers. I think some of the increases simply went to increase state revenue. I would be happy to be proven wrong that $180 of a red light ticket is is going to build the courts, even I think that is a bit steep.
Mr. Obvious,
I am pleased that you are willing to accept Rich Rifkin as a source, since Rich added an addendum to his on-line article in the form of a comment in which he cites the code that lays forth the court construction tax surcharges that I mentioned.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/courtroom-construction-shouldnt-be-a-priority/
Here is the link to the code and the relevant excerpts. These fees and the relevant government code are also listed by Yolo County. [quote](a) (1) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) of Section 70375 and in this article, there shall be levied a state court construction penalty, in the amount of five dollars ($5) for every ten dollars ($10), or part of ten dollars ($10), upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal offenses, including, but not limited to, all offenses involving a violation of a section of the Fish and Game Code, the Health and Safety Code, or the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code. This penalty is in addition to any other state or local penalty, including, but not limited to, the penalty provided by Section 1464 of the Penal Code and Section 76000.
(b) In addition to the penalty provided by subdivision (a), for every parking offense where a parking penalty, fine, or forfeiture is imposed, an added state court construction penalty of four dollars and fifty cents ($4.50) shall be included in the total penalty, fine,or forfeiture.
http://law.onecle.com/california/government/70372.html%5B/quote%5D
Let me try to give you the court construction fee (penalty,tax, whatever) government code in a workable link:
http://law.onecle.com/california/government/70372.html
Let me try again: Court construction fee government code link:
[url]http://law.onecle.com/california/government/70372.html[/url]
David:
I am not an expert on our judicial system and usually do not blog on such matters. However a few observations:
1. I work in a (govt) building built in 1957 that has had no substantial renovations. Architecturally its far worse than the Yolo courthouse. It does seem odd that at a time when schools and other facilities are being cut we would spend a huge amount of money on a new courthouse.
2. A fee on criminals would amount to a regressive tax. Yes, I know don’t do the crime…but undoubtedly a good deal of the burden would fall on the families of the criminals, not the criminals.
3. The literature on hospital use clearly indicates that if you build it they will come–that is more hospitals means more people spend longer time in hospitals. I don’t know that the same rule applies to courthouses (I believe it does with jails) but I suspect it does. A nicer courthouse with more space translates into more convictions which I thought was something you opposed!
We cannot afford this now. Should we spend the money on schools or the courthouse? Don’t say its different because one has a fee on criminals. One way or another there is only so much money we have to spend on government operations. The US has more people incarcerated than any other democracy in the world.
Too bad Don. Sue can simply say it isn’t true. She said it to me in a conversation.
So let me refrase. Sue, didn’t you oppose the 2004 initiative to reduce the 2/3 rule to 55%?
Obvious,
You make my point for me. Numerous red light camera traps, throughout the state have been declared illegal by the courts because the contracts between suppliers and municipality s contain a revenue neutrality clause. Yolo county has failed to make this finding. Could it be that there is a financial incentive (new $178,000,000. courthouse) driving the decision to continue running camera traps with illegal contracts. Note: constitutional law dictates that evidence gathered illegally is inadmissible. See highwayrobbery.org for information on illegally run red light camera traps and the billions generated for municipality’s.
[i]”Let me try to give you the court construction fee (penalty,tax, whatever) government code in a workable link:”[/i]
Sue’s link is correct for all state law regarding court construction fees. However, the bit I used in my column was EXCLUSIVELY the new fees added by SB 1407.
Here is what the official analysis of SB 1407 ([url]http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1407_cfa_20080514_100800_sen_comm.html[/url]) says regarding its new fees, which will pay for the new Yolo Courthouse and 40 other courthouse projects: [quote]This bill would increase the court security fee on every criminal conviction, including traffic offenses, but not parking offenses, from $20 to $60. Two-thirds of the fees collected would be deposited into the ICNA and one-third into the SCFCF. The bill would add $2 for every parking offense where a parking penalty, fine, or forfeiture is imposed; a specified percentage of which would be deposited in the ICNA. The bill would increase the Traffic Violator School fee by $40, 62.5% of which would be deposited into the ICNA.[/quote]
[quote]You make my point for me. Numerous red light camera traps, throughout the state have been declared illegal by the courts because the contracts between suppliers and municipality s contain a revenue neutrality clause. [/quote]
Maybe you should have hired a good attorney.
MO: “Maybe you should have hired a good attorney.”
To do so would have been a Pyrrhic victory. The cost of the attorney would have been more than the cost of paying the traffic ticket. Judges and law enforcement know this…
Elaine/ Obvious,
I have no regrets stemming from my experience in Superior Court in Yolo County. As a pro-per defendant, I got a great education for my seven weeks of preparation and $415.00 fine. I even got Assistant Davis Police Steve Pierce to purger himself on the witness stand, trying to defend Davis’ illegally run camera traps. (Subpeona Duces Tecum) It probably cost the Davis P.D. and the Superior Court about $10,000. to get that $415.00 out of this citizen. Maybe, if more folks stood up for their rights it would deter these “Driver Tax” type of citations.