DPS and ticket quotas

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:23 pm

Interesting story here where I live. Nine of the 13 troopers assigned to my county have either been suspended or fired. There were 14 troopers here, but the sergeant was fired earlier this summer.

The great offense? Changing the dates on warning tickets, in order to comply with daily quotas. Not actual citations, just warnings!

It seems that if they had a surplus on some days and shortfalls on other days, they would shuffle the dates to meet the daily quotas.

A daily quota makes no sense to me. It's obvious they were meeting the daily requirement on average; that's how they were shuffling dates. But there are days when trooper will make 20 stops, and others where he spends his whole shift tied up with a major wreck, a pursuit and arrest, court appearances, etc.

The article:
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/article ... news02.txt

And a letter to the editor (from a retired federal LEO):
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/article ... ions02.txt

I hope one of our DPS types can fill in the blanks here.

Kevin

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:44 pm

Obligatory "the supreme court ruled ticket quotas are illegal".

That said, DPS expects its troopers to make a particular number of violator contacts a day. DPS does not care if they are tickets or warnings. A warning gives as much credit as a ticket as far as contacts are concerned.

I have no idea if it is "common practice" to change the dates on warnings to make light days look better.

Troopers do not work like police officers either. They do not hold briefings. and generally work around court. Their shifts are flexible, to a degree. They are also subject to call out to handle wrecks when off-duty.

I suspect there is more to this than just what we can read in that news clipping.

It will be interesting to follow.

Post by **carlson1** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:47 pm

There are not quotas. They have to make so many contacts during a shift. Working an accident counts for 3 contacts and if it is a fatality then it counts for 8 contacts. The reason for the warning is to show a contact. At one time it was only 1 contact every 30 minutes. To be honest that is not a lot considering all of the traffic and violation. I have known Troopers to receive a letter of reprimand, but I have never known one to be fired for not having contacts. Changing dates on citations would be a violation, thus I could see a a suspension. The termination seems a little harsh. I would think the punish should fit the crime (Justice).

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:32 pm

carlson1 wrote:There are not quotas. They have to make so many contacts during a shift.

Thanks, Carlson. I figured you'd know some details.

I have to point out that being required to make a certain number of contacts is a quota. Evidence of the contact can be a warning instead of a ticket, so they're not technically ticket quotas.

I believe the reason DPS is allowed to have quotas (and I believe they are, at least by Texas law), is that when a trooper writes a ticket, DPS doesn't get the money. The reason for outlawing quotas at the local level was to stop small towns from using traffic tickets for revenue enhancement. That just doesn't apply in the DPS case.

Kevin

Post by **carlson1** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:47 pm

The small towns were terrible at ticket pricing. I know that in the mid 80's they could only charge $2 for every mile over the speed limit plus their court cost. I have no ideal what they do now. I do know that if it was not for having to have so many contacts some guys would do absolutely nothing. In the smaller counties their is not much supervision for DPS, so the "quota" thing keeps them on their toes. Most Sgt. are very understanding in their region.

Glockamolie · Post by **Glockamolie** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:32 pm

Texas law on that subject, from the Transportation Code:

"720.002. PROHIBITION ON TRAFFIC-OFFENSE QUOTAS. (a) A
political subdivision or an agency of this state may not establish
or maintain, formally or informally, a plan to evaluate, promote,
compensate, or discipline:
(1) a peace officer according to the officer's
issuance of a predetermined or specified number of any type or
combination of types of traffic citations; or
(2) a justice of the peace or a judge of a county
court, statutory county court, municipal court, or municipal court
of record according to the amount of money the justice or judge
collects from persons convicted of a traffic offense.
(b) A political subdivision or an agency of this state may
not require or suggest to a peace officer, a justice of the peace,
or a judge of a county court, statutory county court, municipal
court, or municipal court of record:
(1) that the peace officer is required or expected to
issue a predetermined or specified number of any type or
combination of types of traffic citations within a specified
period; or
(2) that the justice or judge is required or expected
to collect a predetermined amount of money from persons convicted
of a traffic offense within a specified period.
(c) Subsection (a) does not prohibit a municipality from
considering the source and amount of money collected from a
municipal court or a municipal court of record when evaluating the
performance of a judge employed by the municipality.
(d) This section does not prohibit a municipality from
obtaining budgetary information from a municipal court or a
municipal court of record, including an estimate of the amount of
money the court anticipates will be collected in a budget year.
(e) A violation of this section by an elected official is
misconduct and a ground for removal from office. A violation of
this section by a person who is not an elected official is a ground
for removal from the person's position.
(f) In this section:
(1) "Conviction" means the rendition of an order by a
court imposing a punishment of incarceration or a fine.
(2) "Traffic offense" means an offense under:
(A) Chapter 521; or
(B) Subtitle C."

Glockamolie · Post by **Glockamolie** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:36 pm

KBCraig wrote:I believe the reason DPS is allowed to have quotas (and I believe they are, at least by Texas law), is that when a trooper writes a ticket, DPS doesn't get the money. The reason for outlawing quotas at the local level was to stop small towns from using traffic tickets for revenue enhancement. That just doesn't apply in the DPS case.

Kevin

Nope. Read above. You can have "contact" quotas, but DPS is included in the law stated above in regards to citation quotas.

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:41 pm

Glockamolie wrote:
KBCraig wrote:I believe the reason DPS is allowed to have quotas (and I believe they are, at least by Texas law), is that when a trooper writes a ticket, DPS doesn't get the money. The reason for outlawing quotas at the local level was to stop small towns from using traffic tickets for revenue enhancement. That just doesn't apply in the DPS case.

Kevin
Nope. Read above. You can have "contact" quotas, but DPS is included in the law stated above in regards to citation quotas.

Thanks, I was acting on some erroneous information.

Kevin

Glockamolie · Post by **Glockamolie** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:48 pm

I just remembered that vividly, as the guy that taught us traffic law in my academy had a full page printout of the law. He suggested to carry copies, so when someone pops off about "filling your quota" of tickets, you could hand them a copy of the law along with their ticket. As an officer, I never did, but I thought it was kinda funny!

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:48 pm

KBCraig wrote:
carlson1 wrote:There are not quotas. They have to make so many contacts during a shift.
Thanks, Carlson. I figured you'd know some details.

I feel so unloved

DPS expects its troopers to make a particular number of violator contacts a day. DPS does not care if they are tickets or warnings. A warning gives as much credit as a ticket as far as contacts are concerned.

Commander · Post by **Commander** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:44 pm

There was much more going on in Texarkana than what is being reported. I don't know where the "Ticket Quota" story came from, but that is not what started the investigation. I don't want to go into much detail, but will say that falsification of reports, (not tickets or warnings) was the central issue.

Post by **carlson1** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:48 pm

S&W6946 wrote:There was much more going on in Texarkana than what is being reported. I don't know where the "Ticket Quota" story came from, but that is not what started the investigation. I don't want to go into much detail, but will say that falsification of reports, (not tickets or warnings) was the central issue.

That sounds more like probably what happened.

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:05 pm

Well, that's what happens with the in-depth reporting of the Texarkana Gazette.

John · Post by **John** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:29 am

I do not know if this has anything to do with the story, and I cannot find any related articles, but Rick Perry was all over the radio yesterday stating that State Troopers should â€œcease and desistâ€? complying with any official or unofficial ticket quotas.

I must have heard this 8 times on the radio yesterday.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:20 am

Well heck...

You'd think that if the troopers out there busting their humps would have a "slow" day, that would be a good thing...But Noooooooooooooo...

And I happen to know they do do their jobs!

Just because they don't log "warnings" or cite enough people in a normal day, doesn't mean they are not out there doing their job!

When did this idiotic "reverse" logic start becoming the "performance" gauge to a Law Enforcement Officers' evaluations???

I mean we all know Houston has a "quota" system

...But not all of those officers jobs are dependent on that particular aspect of the job...

I guess it finally took someone to write this stuff up and actually print it (paper, not the forum) to get me to chime in!

Especially after what happen yesterday in Houston, losing an officer because of some screwed up traffic stop...But yeah, lets aggitate the situation some more by reporting on this kind of stuff...

Makes it harder on everybody I suppose...

I mean I do my best not to get pulled over, and I know I am not a "driving" saint by any means...But when I do, you can guarantee that regardless if I get a citation or not, that Officer/Deputy will go back into service after that stop knowing I was not going to be something to worry about at all...Right from the start...