Wired magazine (May) carries this bit of advice from attorney David Brown, author of Beat Your Ticket:

3. Stall. Two weeks before your trial, request a continuance from the court clerk. The longer you delay, the more likely the officer won’t be able to attend, which should result in a dismissal if you ask for one.

Question: is it ethical to advise clients to ask for continuances with the purely tactical aim of increasing the burden on an opponent, as opposed to the more aboveboard reasons one might have for such a request?

Turns out their economic appeal for municipalities isn’t so closely related to whether drivers are plowing through cross traffic against the stop light: “In Los Angeles, officials estimate that 80% of red light camera tickets go not to those running through intersections but to drivers making rolling right turns”. (L.A. Times via Bainbridge and Drum).

But won’t California lawmakers have to consider an exception for emotional support animals? (Steve Geissinger, San Jose Mercury News, May 6)(more).

A study by University of South Florida researchers will give critics new ammunition (USF via Balko; earlier).

The Northeast as a region has been relatively resistant to the revenue-generating law-enforcement mechanism, but Connecticut Gov. Rell is now proposing them for a stretch of I-95. (Mike the Actuary, Feb. 11). In fairness, it might be argued that cameras deployed to auto-ticket speeders may not generate as bad a set of unintended consequences as cameras set up at traffic signals.

More damning evidence on a subject on which there’s been plenty already (Sept. 6, 2001, Sept. 24, 2006, etc.; Oct. 31, 2006): “a study by the Federal Highway Administration and the Virginia Department documented a 12 percent increase in rear-enders at Northern Virginia intersections where cameras enforced red-light violations. Although proponents of cameras contend the number of such accidents decreases as motorists become used to this new enforcement technology, the study says that isn’t so. Meanwhile, simply extending the time that the traffic light stays yellow helps reduce violations and accidents. However, that solution isn’t necessarily popular with towns that see red-light tickets as a revenue source, the [Miami] Herald says.” (Martha Neil, “Traffic Cameras Mean More Rear-Enders”, ABA Journal, Oct. 31; Larry Lebowitz, “Red-light cameras a signal for war”, Miami Herald, Oct. 29).

The city known for ghost voters also has ghost parking signage, it would seem:

[Heather Thome] was dismayed when she returned to find a police officer had just written a ticket for violating a parking ban from 4 to 6 p.m.

“I asked him where the sign was,” said Thome, 35, a temp worker. “He said there used to be a sign on ‘that’ pole, and it hasn’t been there for two years. My logical question was, ‘How can you write a ticket?’ And he told me he doesn’t want to, but his boss tells him he has to go out every day and write tickets.” … She [appealed but] still was found liable.

(Gary Washburn, “City rakes in revenue from tickets”, Chicago Tribune, Aug. 12). More: Cernovich.

Note for future reference: never, never get a vanity license plate reading “NV” (as Californian Nick Vautier did, innocently picking his own initials). Or plates reading XXX, MISSING or NOPLATE. “NV was meter maid code for ‘not visible.’ … Los Angeles, for example, accused him of illegally parking a blue Ford, a silver Hyundai, a blue Chrysler and a blue Chevy truck, all with the same license plate.” (”California: Innocent Man Stuck With 100 Parking Tickets”, TheNewspaper.com, Sept. 17 (via Nobody’s Business); Steve Harvey, “Vanity Plates Backfire on Mr. ‘Not Visible’”, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 17).

The Minnesota appeals court took exception to a provision of the law providing that a car owner would be responsible for traffic infractions caught on camera unless he or should could prove someone else was driving. (Joy Powell, “Court upholds ruling against traffic cameras”, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sept. 23). For more on the evils of traffic-cams and contingency-fee law enforcement, see Sept. 6, 2001, Apr. 8-9 and Apr. 19-21, 2002, Mar. 10, 2004, and Mar. 31, 2005.

…from a former mission of fighting drunk driving to a new mission of just fighting drinking, even when no one is attempting to drive a car, is among topics that “deserve a closer look but won’t get it” in the media, according to Glenn Reynolds (Aug. 15). Lawrence Taylor’s DUI Blog has more (Aug. 10), as does Radley Balko, who charges (Aug. 15) that “not only has MADD’s mission changed from keeping the roads safe to preventing consumption of alcohol, they’ll support a position that cuts down on the latter even when it increases the likelihood of drunk driving fatalities.” See also Jun. 17.

It’s a distraction, the same as using a cell phone while driving, claim state reps John McKeon (D-Essex) and Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), who are co-sponsoring a bill that would impose $250 fines on those caught with lighted cigarettes behind the wheels of their own cars. The bill is given scant chance of passage — this year, at least (”No butts behind wheel? N.J. moves on smokers”, AP/MSNBC, Jul. 25; “Jersey going too far with anti-smoking bill” (editorial), Camden Courier-Post, Jul. 27; Reason “Hit and Run”, Jul. 25; Outside the Beltway, Jul. 25). Blog reaction has been overwhelmingly negative. Mark at Curious Character (Jul. 27) believes “it’s bad policy to pass laws that you can’t (and won’t) be able to enforce”. Functional Ambivalent (Jul. 26) points out that a study of drivers’ distraction-related accidents shows drivers’ fumbling with climate controls and stereo systems causes many more accidents than fumbling with cigarettes, but no one is proposing to ban music in cars (yet). Jeff Goldstein (Jul. 25) sees a Kelo angle, while KipEsquire (Jul. 25) points out that smokers allowed to indulge in their habit make calmer drivers than those suffering from prolonged nicotine deprivation. For more on the ever-widening reach of smoking bans, see our tobacco page, including Jul. 12, 2005 and Jul. 29, 2004 (smoking in apartments and condos), Jun. 24, 2004 (on the beach), and May 29, 2004 (in cars when children are present).

Radley Balko has more (Mar. 22, Mar. 23, Mar. 31, and again Mar. 31) on how the use of these devices tends to turn criminality into a carefully cultivated cash cow. For more, see Mar. 10, 2004 (and links from there) and Jul. 22, 2004.

While at The Agitator, check out the news of legislative proposals to confiscate for a month cars with overly loud radios (Mar. 22; Contra Costa County, Calif.) and (over-)regulate online dating services (Mar. 20; California legislature).