Nobody likes getting pulled over by the police, but when even the police officers making the stops are doing it against their will, something is seriously wrong.
Welcome to the world of traffic ticket quotas.
Before Thanksgiving, amid that some police departments in the state were requiring, or strongly recommending, that their officers issue a certain number of traffic tickets each time they were on patrol, the ACLU of Rhode Island departments that they faced legal action if they continued the practice. Rhode Island is one of a number of states that has a statute prohibiting law enforcement from implementing ticket quotas as well as arrest quotas.
Quotas are problematic for a number of reasons. For one thing, they send the message that policing is more about making money than public safety. Like police misuse of civil asset forfeiture laws, or infamous legendary Southern speed traps, ticket quota policies undermine the legitimate purpose of police work and generate public cynicism of law enforcement.
When police are put in the position of choosing which cars to pull over merely for the sake of meeting an arbitrary quota, policies like this can also encourage discriminatory treatment of motorists. Every day, virtually every one of us breaks a traffic law — whether it is going five miles over the speed limit, failing to put on a turn signal, or accidentally crossing the center lane for a moment.
If an officer has to pull over a certain number of people for minor violations, he or she will be able to pick and choose who the “lucky” and “unlucky” motorists are — and we know where that can lead. Years of traffic stop data from Rhode Island a serious problem of racial profiling in many police departments: People of color are stopped more often and searched more often than whites, even though they are less likely to be found with contraband when searched. The national data similar conclusions. Arbitrarily imposed traffic stops can only promote further unequal treatment and undermine police-community relations.
Quotas send the message that policing is more about making money than public safety.
The anxiety and trauma that can be generated by a police stop goes without saying. For most people, it is an unnerving experience, and for people of color, it is particularly fraught. Minor encounters can quickly escalate if the driver fails to show enough “deference,” and suddenly a forced traffic stop over a minor violation or an “investigatory” stop turns into a completely avoidable arrest — .
At bottom, there is no conceivable public safety basis for a quota system. If police chiefs are concerned that their officers are being lazy on the job, they need to find a real means of motivating them. Implementing ticket quotas cannot possibly accomplish this, and regardless, professionalism and commendation in policing should not revolve around the number of traffic tickets issued.
The ACLU of Rhode Island successfully pushed for passage of the in 2010 after the disclosure of documents about one police department’s practice, enacted because some town officials felt not enough tickets were being issued. Legislators and the public rightly condemned the practice then. It is unfortunate to learn that seven years later, not all police departments have yet gotten the message. In short, the implementation of traffic ticket quotas is extremely problematic as a matter of policy, but even more so when it involves a police department itself violating the law.
To be clear, enforcement of traffic laws can serve an important function in protecting the motoring public, but quota policies mock that function. That is why our letter to chiefs made clear that we stand ready to take action against any police department ignoring its obligations under this law.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.