Radar speed enforcement to return

Early last year, Gwinett County Police and most municipal departments lost their state permits to operate radar speed detection equipment.  This was the result of a lack of agreement between the county and cities regarding the provision of various services.  Following a tentative settlement to the dispute last week, these departments will soon begin nabbing speeders via radar again.  However, the key takeaway of the past year is that we now have concrete evidence of what we all knew all along: speed enforcement is not about safety but about revenue for local governments.

Taking away their ability to enforce speed-limit laws, local officials say, has been a major public safety concern.

Accident data from the past three years doesn't support those concerns. But there has been a significant financial toll on city coffers.

Financial records obtained via Open Records request show city police departments in Gwinnett lost at least $1.6 million in speeding ticket revenue compared to 2010. Lawrenceville, the largest city in the county, does not track those figures.

The biggest losers were Duluth, Lilburn and Suwanee, which lost more than $1 million collectively due to reduced speeding tickets.

Does that surprise you?  It sure doesn't surprise me.  Common sense tells you that other types of traffic violations are far more dangerous than "typical" speeding.  Yet, unless they cannot run speed traps, police departments place relatively less emphasis on these violations.  This is evidenced by significant increases in other categories of citations during the last year.

In Lilburn, citations rose 229 percent for improper and unsafe equipment; 76 percent for red-light violations; 51 percent for disregarding stop signs; 49 percent for no proof of insurance; and 46 percent for driving under the influence.

Don't misunderstand me: traffic enforcement is well within the proper authority and function of a police department.  Excessive speeding is definitely dangerous. I have no criticism for ticketing that driver that is weaving in and out of traffic 20 MPH faster than the flow of other vehicles.  However, when the entire flow of traffic is moving at 12 MPH over the limit, I find it disgusting to watch a police officer, usually from a city department, half hidden behind a bush in a car that violates the spirit of the prohibition of unmarked patrol cars cherry picking cars to randomly "tax" for speeding.

It is an old maxim that if you want to find out a root cause, you follow the money.  We have a case here where, though officials still continue to assert that speed enforcement is about safety, data from the past year shows this not to be true.  

Though Gwinnett's seven major city police departments issued about 17,000 fewer speeding citations in 2011 from the previous year, records show there were only 16 more accidents with injuries and two more with fatalities.

This strongly suggests that speed enforcement is more about government revenue enhancement.  This, in turn, lead to the conclusion that typical speed enforcement is an abuse of authority.  Therefore, why don't we decouple the profit incentive and see if police departments continue the same behavior?

I am not a lawyer so there may well be flaws in this suggestion.  However, I do see it as a starting point for discussion of serious and needed reform.  I would propose that the Georgia General Assembly pass a law that would funnel all traffic citation revenue into a single, state-operated central fund.  Because I recognize that departments have expenses that have to be covered to do the very real police work that is necessary, these expenses could then be funded from this common pool of fines.  There would need to be a mechanism that does not benefit a department's funding requests based on how much it contributes in fines.  To maintain such a link would defeat the entire purpose of this suggestion.

I recognize this raises some questions as to whether the authority of a city or county to enforce their laws is infringed.  However, many departments have shown they cannot be trusted to use their authority fairly within their role of enforcing the law rather than raising revenue.  Basically, they have brought the need for such legislation on themselves.  They made the bed, now it's time for them to lie in it.

If you want to speed in Gwinnett, now is your chance!

Let me first say, I am not advocating that you go out and flagrantly violate speed limits in Gwinnett.  But if you do, the Gwinnett County Police and most municipal police departments won't be able to ticket you using radar or laser speed detection devices.  Due to an ongoing dispute with local cities over the provision of services, the ability of police departments to use radar and laser speed guns has been suspended under a 1998 state law.

I have a hard time having a lot of sympathy on this one.  While I realize that traffic enforcement is a legitimate function of police departments and that there are definitely a minority of dangerous drivers that should be punished, I don't think there is much doubt that, despite the protests of law enforcement officials, a large part of traffic enforcement is all about the money.  While I have no hope this will ever happen, I would love to see the state legislature pass a law that somehow decouples writing traffic citations and the local government directly reaping financial gains from those efforts.  If all traffic fines went into a state fund rather than the local treasury, I firmly believe you would see a significant drop in the excessive, and with some municipal police departments (e.g., Duluth PD), abusive traffic enforcement.  We would quickly find out just how many speeding tickets are about safety.   As they say, follow the money.

In the meantime while the dispute remains unresolved, perhaps local police departments will actually do something like fighting crime.

Bannister blood test comes back negative; Charges dropped

CBS Atlanta has just reported that Commission Chairman Charles Bannister's blood test has come back negative for alcohol in his system.  This result confirms the 0.0 reading on a Breathalyzer test administered to the chairman prior to his arrest for DUI Monday night.  Combine this with the fact that there is no video of Bannister failing a field sobriety test and Bannister's claim that he would be exonerated is looking more and more likely.  (I would note, I do not put much stock in the field sobriety test failure.  If I had a police officer having me recite the alphabet starting at a letter other than A, on the side of a road, my nerves could cause me to get flustered and mess that up as well!)

What is going on here?  Is Bannister being setup for political purposes?  The story does shed some light on why the Sheriff's Department was involved.  Apparently, someone in the restaurant called an off-duty deputy who, in turn, phoned an on-duty deputy.  However, as I questioned previously, why did this tip not get forwarded to Gwinnett Police who normally handle traffic cases in this area?  According to the AJC, the fact that the Sheriff's department handled the arrest is not the only irregularity with this case.

Sheriff Butch Conway has stated that he stands behind his deputy.  So long as there is no evidence of a setup, I cannot argue with this because a good superior backs up his employees.  However, if something starts to look fishy, which certainly is shaping up to be the case here, Conway should absolutely look into this matter very closely.  The question is what he will say during a news conference today regarding the blood test results?  Don't forget that Conway backed Bannister's opponent, former commissioner Lorraine Green, in the last election.  Will the sheriff let politics get in the way of seeking out justice for a political opponent?  Stayed tuned.

UPDATE: Sheriff Conway has announced that DUI charges would be dropped against the chairman.  However, per the irregularities in this case, this should not be the end of the matter.  Someone, whether it be the sheriff or other authorities, should look into whether any laws have been violated in the treatment of Bannister.  Even if no laws have been violated, there should be close scrutiny that no law enforcement official abused their authority in order to humiliate Bannister with trumped up charges.

Bannister charged with DUI

The Buzz has been quiet lately as I have simply not had time to devote to the site (still open to accepting other contributors - let me know if you are interested in writing for the Buzz!).  However, after reading the news of Commission Chairman Charles Bannister being charged with DUI last night, I had to comment.

While I supported Bannister in his race against former Commissioner Lorraine Green two years ago, I have been less than pleased - to put it mildly - with the job performance of the chairman and the rest of the board since that time.  However, despite that, this is not a post to "pile on" the chairman.  Rather, after reading the latest news account of yesterday's events, I wanted to write to urge my fellow Gwinnett residents not to rush to judgment.  There are enough red flags to prompt the fair-minded observer to allow the facts of this situation come to light before forming a hardened opinion on guilt or innocence.

When I received a text from a friend last night telling me that 11Alive had tweeted that Charles Bannister had been charged with DUI, my initial inclination was to believe that he was guilty.  I mean, after all, DUI is pretty cut and dried right?  You get pulled over, you blow a high reading on a Breathalyzer...bam, DUI.  Not really any extenuating circumstances for that in my book.  However, as details of last night's events have emerged, I have begun to think "Hold on...maybe things are not as they seem:"

...the Breathalyzer producing a .000 reading.

Hmm.  Of course, given the description of Bannister's driving, the decision of Gwinnett Sheriff's Deputy M.G. Cummings to ask for a blood test was understandable:

"Once I received the blood kit I explained to the defendant that due to the results of the breath test being inconsistent with someone who had drunk a beer, as he admitted to at the scene of the pullover and at the jail, and his current manifestations, I requested he submit to the state test of his blood. He stated he would."

However, this raises another question to me.  Why was this incident being handled by the Sheriff's Department?  While I know the Sheriff's Department certainly has the authority to conduct traffic stops, in Gwinnett, I normally think of the Gwinnett County Police Department taking on that responsibility.  Could it be because the Sheriff is an elected official and, as such, not a direct report to Bannister?  Is it normal procedure for the GCSD to handle such incidents to avoid a situation where a county employee is arresting his boss?  If anyone knows about this, please post.  If the GCSD handling this is not standard operating procedure, I think asking why the Sheriff's office and not the police department was waiting outside the restaurant for the chairman to leave is a fair question.

While none of the above suggests that Bannister is definitively not guilty of the charge, these facts suggest to me that we be all the more cautious about jumping to conclusions.  Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with Chairman Bannister politically, as an American citizen, he has a right to be treated fairly under the law and not to be immediately assumed guilty due to political unpopularity.

I am absolutely not taking DUI lightly.  In fact, I feel that the justice system is too easy on those convicted of DUI.  This is a serious offense that takes too many innocent lives across our country.  However, before applying strict punishment, any American, including Chairman Bannister, must be proven guilty of a DUI charge.  Once that occurs or if the chairman admits guilt, only then is consideration of whether he should resign his office or any other response appropriate.

Why Peachtree Corners shouldn't have a P.D.

I heard Neal Boortz talking about this story this morning.  Woodstock wants to annex portions of I-575 into the city.  Why?  Well, according to Woodstock mayor, Donnie Henriques, "the only reason they are pursuing it is to improve emergency response."

Uh huh.

We all know, the City of Woodstock would have cops stationed on the interstate running radar and raising revenue the day any annexation goes into effect.  These cities cannot help themselves - aggressive traffic enforcement is like shooting fish in a barrel - it's easy money!   Technically, people are guilty of speeding.  However, we all know that there is legitimate traffic enforcement motivated by safety and abusive traffic enforcement motivated by money.  More support for why I would only support a City of Peachtree Corners so long as the city does not start its own police department.

Does Peachtree Corners really need to be a city?

The United Peachtree Corners Civic Association would like to make Peachtree Corners a city. The association is asking the Gwinnett delegation to the Georgia General Assembly to support legislation that would enable the residents of Peachtree Corners to vote on incorporation. This all begs the question: Why? Does Gwinnett County need yet another small city? Do the residents of Peachtree Corners need another layer of government to create additional cost and complexity for them and for those trying to do business and serve the residents of the city? I say resoundingly, no!

State Rep. Tom Rice said that the association wants to be a “city light” and have three main services: “planning and zoning; code enforcement; and trash service.” I must admit, after the Gwinnett County’s socialized garbage debacle, I can understand the desire to have greater control over trash service. However, the last thing Gwinnett needs is an addition to the patchwork of zoning jurisdictions and code enforcement authorities. This adds complexity and, in turn, cost for businesses that have to deal with yet another jurisdiction as they try to serve local customers. Given the reputation of many small-town zoning boards, this additional layer can result in desirable businesses being prevented from opening shop in these communities. If businesses cannot serve a community, residents suffer by not having sufficient local amenities.  Also, as happened in Milton, GA, potential revenue shortfalls are even possible if enough commercial taxpayers are denied access to the area.

Hopefully, the Gwinnett delegation will not give into another unneeded small city in metro Atlanta. It seems to me that these newly created small cities are primarily good for setting up a police department to generate revenue by running speed traps on the roads and highways in their city. Gwinnett already has Duluth and Lawrenceville engaging in excessive traffic enforcement. County residents and visitors who travel in the Peachtree Corners area do not need to deal with another.  Say no to Peachtree Corners, GA.

They're baaaack!

A few months ago, I wrote about how several municipalities around Gwinnett were scrapping their Big Brother red-light cameras.  Apparently, LaserCraft, a company that provides the cameras as a service, has dropped the per-camera price.  As a result, Duluth will be reactivating the cameras at Pleasant Hill Road and Peachtree Industrial Boulevard.  I came through that intersection this morning and saw a LaserCraft truck working on one of the cameras.

At least now they are giving lip service to the motivation being safety rather than revenue:

Duluth City Manager Phil McLemore said the price dropped from $3,600 per camera to $1,200 per camera.

"We're trying to break even. That's our goal," McLemore said, adding that the economic downturn's impact on the city leaves little room in the budget. "We can't afford to subsidize it and keep our employees at the same time."

Uh huh.  Who is buying that the goal is simply breaking even from the speed trap capital of Gwinnett?  If you weren't already on the look-out for Duluth's revenue enhancement efforts via traffic overenforcement, you have even more reason to do so now.

Commission approves more than $200 million in budget cuts

The Gwinnett County Commission voted last week to approve over $225 million in budget cuts.  As I wrote earlier last week, some residents were unhappy with some of the cuts, especially those targeting the budgets for the police and fire departments.  While automatically opposing budget cuts for public safety is understandable, the key here is at what are these cuts targeted?

First, let's be absolutely clear: deeps cuts were in order. Cuts are more palatable than a tax increase. Where I take issue is where these cuts were targeted.  Prior to the meeting, there was speculation that the Gwinnett "Quality of Life" unit could be on the chopping block.  Given this unit's focus of fighting property rights more so than real crime, I was completely in favor of such a cut.  However, rather than ax the Quality of Life unit, the board opted to cut the DUI task force.  I do not understand this move! One fights property rights - the other fights criminals that could kill you on our highways! The Quality of Life unit should have be at the top of the cuts for the police department.  Of course, I am hardly surprised that retaining funding for the Quality of Life unit was proposed by Mike Beaudreau whose commission track record is hardly one of championing property rights.

Regarding police department funding in general, when I stop seeing police officers parked along the road running radar/laser equipment to catch speeders as opposed to fighting real crime, I might get a little more upset about budget cuts for the department. In the last couple of weeks, I have seen three cops parked along Ronald Reagan Parkway doing speed enforcement. I see others near the Park Place Bridge on US 78. Coupling this with funding Quality of Life to go out worrying about how how far nails protrude and other victimless crimes, I cannot get too upset at at the cuts. When all police department funds are used to fight real, serious crime and not harass property owners or man radar guns, I will get upset at the cuts.

I would like to note, however, that, as critical as I often am of Comissioner Beaudreau, I do find myself in total agreement with one of his proposals.  Beaudreau offered an excellent idea to charge non-county residents for using Gwinnett County parks.  In fact, as a daily user of my local park, I would support a user fee for all those who actually use the parks, whether resident or not. The community does benefit from the parks so a county-funded system is appropriate. However, because those of us who actually go to the park and use the amenities benefit more, we should pay more than someone who does not. A user fee could be a nominal amount, perhaps $25 per year, just to ensure that the cost burden of these facilities is born more by those who use the system. A user fee would also capture direct contribution from those who use the facilities but are not property owners and, as such, do pay not the property taxes that fund the bulk of county government.

One other suggestion for revenue that I have not seen discussed is ads on Gwinentt transit buses.  (I read this suggestion from a Buzz reader, I believe, but I cannot find the reference.  I apologize that I cannot properly credit you for bringing this idea to my attention.)  When the county is in need of every drop of revenue it can get, why has the transit system not exploring selling ads?  MARTA does this, why not Gwinnett?  I do not know how much money this would raise, but whatever it raises would be some decrease in the severity of the county budget cuts.

The fiscal situation that Gwinnett County faces is very serious.  No one said any of the paths that could be taken through the woods would be easy, but I must commend the commissioners for choosing the right path - reigning in the size and cost of government as opposed to siphoning even more dollars out of our pockets.  I would much rather be bickering over what to cut than a tax increase.

Citizens oppose spending cuts

As the Gwinnett County Commission prepares to "vote on $225 million in proposed cuts to the operating budget through 2014," some county residents are opposing proposed law enforcement funding cuts.  I would ask them, what else is the commission supposed to do?  While I have been very critical of this board, they did the right thing by refusing to raise property taxes.  Given that a nontrivial reason we are in this fiscal mess is that monument to government mismanagement, Gwinnett (Taxpayers) Stadium, I absolutely oppose a tax increase.  Had our commissioners kept Gwinnett County focused on the core, limited responsibilities of government, I would be more open to recognizing the need for, and possibly supporting, a tax increase.  However, the commissioners made some very poor decisions in building that unneeded baseball stadium and now they should have to make the hard decisions of finding places to cut spending.

While I do not want to see police funding cut in general, I would be more concerned about these cuts if I did not see police officers parked alongside Gwinnett roads running radar/laser speed detection equipment.  I understand the need for traffic enforcement, but why not redeploy these officers to fighting real crime and let them do traffic stops while engaged in their normal patrols?  I would note that if the cuts are used on Gwinnett's so-called "Quality of Life" unit, then the negative impact to enforcing important laws is lessened.  The Quality of Life unit spends a lot of taxpayer dollars fighting property rights rather than the crime that is all too common in Gwinnett.

Thus, while we may feel some pain in the cuts that are eventually made, they are much easier to swallow than a tax increase in the aftermath of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on the Government-funded Gwinnett Braves new baseball stadium.

Red light cameras - it's all about money

I was under the impression that local governments were implementing red light cameras for safety purposes.  Isn't that what we were lead to believe when these Big Brother elements were introduced by Gwinnett cities?  Well, now that ticket revenues are on the decline, Gwinnett cities are ready to scrap the devices.

Duluth, Lilburn, Norcross, Snellville and Suwanee have either suspended use of the cameras or plan to stop the service altogether.

City officials agree the cameras, which monitor and record red-light violations, are working. Violations, accidents and injuries are down. But so are citations, which help pay for the automated ticketing program that can cost some cities more than $400,000 a year to Norcross-based LaserCraft.

So, I guess if a city does not make money from the Big Brother devices, they are willing to forego the safety benefits.  Don't get me wrong.  I have been opposed to these cameras since day one.  No, I have never been cited by one - I stop for red lights! - and I can certainly see how it would make drivers more careful at monitored intersections.  However, the idea that I can be ticketed for someone else who might be driving my car is absurd.  

When did the police department become a profit center for government?  Granted, there has been strong suspicion that some municipal police departments are often little more than revenue collection agencies, but this story leaves little doubt.  Such motivation is even more reason that the Georgia General Assembly should enact legislation that bans cities under a certain population from having a local police department.  At a minimum, legislators should address how revenues from traffic enforcement are used.  The direct link between enforcement efforts and revenue should be broken.  If it were, I think we would see just how many city speed traps are motivated by safety.