Traf­fic tick­ets as rev­enue source

Los Angeles Times - - Opinion -

Re “Cops told to de­fend all tick­ets,” Sept. 19

It seems rather clear that the Los An­ge­les Po­lice Depart­ment pol­icy re­quir­ing of­fi­cers to tes­tify in traf­fic ci­ta­tion cases — even when a tes­ti­fy­ing of­fi­cer has no rec­ol­lec­tion of a spe­cific case — is mo­ti­vated by the need of the city to raise rev­enues. Hardly un­usual. But it is un­fair to the de­fen­dants, and even the of­fi­cers.

Why can’t the city in­stead en­cour­age of­fi­cers in such sit­u­a­tions not to ap­pear at the trial? The city would save money by not hav­ing to pay over­time, and the de­fen­dant would win by de­fault.

S. Ken­neth Kawano

Los An­ge­les

Your ar­ti­cle says the LAPD wants of­fi­cers “to tes­tify to the best of their abil­ity … and, in in­stances in which they can­not re­mem­ber what oc­curred, must base their tes­ti­mony on what they wrote on the ci­ta­tions.” What a field day for of­fi­cers. They can sim­ply write in­crim­i­nat­ing facts on the ticket, then claim at trial they have no in­de­pen­dent rec­ol­lec­tion of the event, so what they wrote can be used to con­vict the de­fen­dant.

Allen P. Wilkin­son

La­guna Woods

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.