Sac Area CHP AirOps

[mkewman]

CHP Sac Office has been doing a lot of AirOps Lately (antelope area on I80)

and can be heard on CHP Blue. I have heard them do some air ops before but lately it seems like they've been relying on it a lot. Anyone know what's up?

mark

[Ben96cal]

Probably just the normal out to make more revenue air stings. That area up and down 80 corridor has always been notorious for spotter planes. maybe their just using that freq more.

[mkewman]

yeah, unfortunatly the chp seems like it's turned from "protect and serve" to "serve the state to help with making money" lately,

i know that placer county courts (among others) has been inundated (sp?) with traffic related cases.

on their website:

Due to the significant increase in the number of traffic infractions in Placer County over the last two years and State budget reductions, we do not have the staff to answer telephone calls to the degree expected by the public.

it goes on to say...

If you are charged with an infraction the Roseville Traffic Court will be sending you a new Courtesy Notice that indicates an appearance date for your compliance and will list your fine (bail) amount and information regarding Traffic School. You will receive a notice within 6 to 8 weeks of the original date of the ticket. If you are charged with a misdemeanor (indicated at the top of your citation) you must appear on the date and time that the officer has indicated. All other information about your options are listed in this Web site.

i don't think it's the number of infractions thats increased, i think it's the increase in chp's traffic stops.

i'm sure that the state budget crisis has a lot to do with the ticket increases.

[RolnCode3]

Here we go again.

[Mick]

Just to let you know, the CHP or the State does not earn even one cent on any traffic citations the officers issue.

Originally Posted by mkewman

yeah, unfortunatly the chp seems like it's turned from "protect and serve" to "serve the state to help with making money" lately,
i don't think it's the number of infractions thats increased, i think it's the increase in chp's traffic stops.
i'm sure that the state budget crisis has a lot to do with the ticket increases.

[Tweekerbob]

The number of infractions has increased. It's almost an exponential function to the increase in traffic (which is related to the exponential function of the increase in population in Sacto).

Also, it's not just CHP. You are obvioulsy forgetting that other agencies in Placer have the authority to issue traffic citations as well - Roseville PD, Auburn PD, Placer SO, Rocklin PD, USFS, Park Rangers, etc.

Because Placer county, as well as Sacto county is growing by leaps and bounds in population, it means more cops. More cops = more tickets. Apparently, the general population values police more than courts, hence if there is a budget crisis, then cops are gonna get the dinero more quickly than the courts. This has held true even for my county, El Dorado. The SO has been hiring and the courts had decreased their staff along with court hours.

The Air Speed Traps are dictated based on need. They will focus on whatever stretch of highway "needs" it more. But don't worry-they don't fly in bad weather. So furnish your Ferrari with Aquatreads and tear it up when the next major storm hits.

[mkewman]

Originally Posted by Mick

Just to let you know, the CHP or the State does not earn even one cent on any traffic citations the officers issue.

then maybe i'm wrong. disregard.

[DPD1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Just to let you know, the CHP or the State does not earn even one cent on any traffic citations the officers issue.

Why is that? You mean it's all offset by them paying for the various costs associated with processing the tickets?

Dave
-DPD Productions - Custom Scanner, MURS, & Ham Antennas-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

[Mick]

The location of the violation determines where the money from the fines go to. If it's within the city limits the money is shared by that city and the court. If it's within the unincorporated area the money is shared by the county and the court. The money is also used to pay for the officer's overtime if he goes to court on his own time. However no money goes to the State.

[Kirk]

I've received three tickets in my lifetime. Two were issued by the CHP, and they were as righteous as can be. One was for performing what is known as a California Stop, and I was guilty as sin.

The second was for going 65mph in a 55mph. I was guilty. Although three months later the speed limit in that area was changed to 70mph. Grr...

My latest ticket was issued by a municipal officer in the city in which I reside. This ticked was insanely unjust, and was clearly a revenue enhancement scheme.

I'm very much pro-cop, and have worked alongside many of them. But I do know that rookie cops can tend to get a bit badge heavy, and issue citations when a simple warning would have accomplished the same result.

[RolnCode3]

Originally Posted by Kirk

. . . But I do know that rookie cops can tend to get a bit badge heavy, and issue citations when a simple warning would have accomplished the same result.

That's called discretion. "Badge heavy" is a term people have invented when they feel an officer has not been "kind" to them, and they feel he's throwing his authority around. It's true, new officers have not developed the discretion that older officers have. Doesn't mean they're wrong. I remember as a new officer, everyone got tickets. The first time I wrote a citation to somebody, twice, for the exact same offense...well, that was a real eye-opener. I knew what I was doing was the way most likely to have people not repeat the offense. How could warnings really work when a citation didn't always?

[Kirk]

Perhaps badge heavy is not the proper term in this case. The bottom line is, I felt it was a pretty unjust situation, but there wasn't a heck of a lot I could do about it.

For what it's worth, the violation was 22101(d) of the CVC.

22101. (a) The Department of Transportation or local authorities in
respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, may cause
official traffic control devices to be placed or erected within or
adjacent to intersections to regulate or prohibit turning movements
at such intersections.
(b) When turning movements are required at an intersection notice
of such requirement shall be given by erection of a sign, unless an
additional clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach
to the turning movement, in which event notice as applicable to such
additional traffic lane shall be given by any official traffic
control device.
(c) When right- or left-hand turns are prohibited at an
intersection notice of such prohibition shall be given by erection of
a sign.
(d) When official traffic control devices are placed as required
in subdivisions (b) or (c), it shall be unlawful for any driver of a
vehicle to disobey the directions of such official traffic control
devices.

I was stopped at a red arrow in a left turn lane. I was looking at the light on the far left corner of the intersection. When it went green, I cleared the intersection, made a U-turn, and pulled over in front of the post office to go get my mail. A traffic cop (slicktop car, lots of strobes, not well marked) practically ran into the back of me as it roared up to make the stop. I honestly had no idea what I was being pulled over for.

Turns out the overhead arm with the light on it had a sign on it with a big picture of a left arrow, to indicate that it was a turn lane. In small letters underneath, it said "No U Turn". I never saw it. I was traveling 3-5 mph as per my ticket (seems accurate), the intersection was mine as per the green arrow, and I made the u-turn without difficulty. Apparently some larger vehicles can't turn that tight, and end up in a 3-point turn, which can snarl traffic. There was no universal no turn sign (red circle with slash), only the plain white text reading no U turn.

I was courteous, respectful, and there was never discussion of warnings. Just blam, cited.

I researched the sign requirements, and found that California had adopted the Federal standard for traffic warning signs, which specify a universal no turn sign (red circle with slash) rather than a text only sign (which IMHO blends in). I also found that in CA's infinite wisdom, we've also said "Yeah, we adopt the Federal standard, with this whole book of exceptions and differences." Pathetic.

The reality is, I probably could have got off in court. Which would have meant a day off work (at least, assuming I didn't get continued to a different day), which would have cost me more than just paying the fine and doing online traffic school. If they ran my DL (I'm sure they did), they'd know I hadn't had a cite in 10+ years. I'm not exactly a habitual offender. No contacts in LS, nothing. I am curious if firearm registration comes back when they run a DL, but I don't think that mattered either way.

While there are no "quotas" it is common knowledge that municipal police departments make good money from traffic operations. I've been told by more than one cop that when they worked traffic, they were told that while there was no quota, reality was that if the department didn't have enough income, they wouldn't be able to continue to fund a traffic safety program.

Did I break the law? Yeah, I guess I did. Did I deserve a ticket? I guess that depends on why cops issue tickets. If it's to prevent dangerous behavior, then I fail to see how what I did was dangerous. If it's to keep me from repeating my mistakes, then honestly a warning would have been fine. Although I'm a law abiding citizen, I still prefer to see the red and blue lights somewhere other than my rear view mirror. If it was to continue to support a traffic safety program, then maybe they should focus a little harder on DUI, speed, running red lights, etc.

Just my opinion. I don't think cops are all out to get me. Quite the contrary. I just wish FTO's would spend a bit more time on discretion. Part of the problem where I live is that the cost of housing is so high, and the pay of cops is so low, it's rare to see a cop with more than five years on the job anymore before they move someplace affordable and open up a spot for a new rookie.

I also think $300 for a non-safety related infraction is a bit steep.

[mkewman]

It seems that they had undercover vehicles today, along with 3+ marked units and 1 or more choppers today along 80 to sac around the penryn/rocklin area.

they were catching people like mad.

[RolnCode3]

Originally Posted by mkewman

It seems that they had undercover vehicles today, along with 3+ marked units and 1 or more choppers today along 80 to sac around the penryn/rocklin area.

they were catching people like mad.

You mean "low profile" (slick top, all white, etc...) or totally unmarked? I doubt they'll do traffic enforcement totally unmarked (can't remember if that's even legal), because if they fail to yield it isn't prosecutable till there's a marked unit...

Don't forget, "air" units are the cessnas..."H" units are the helos. Both fly in the Sac area.

[NWTSCL]

Originally Posted by Kirk

There was no universal no turn sign (red circle with slash), only the plain white text reading no U turn.

I worked for several years on a Caltrans Sign Maintenace crew, so I know the sign well. It's referred to as an R73-3. And actually, the text is black on a white background. White lettering on regulatory signs was done away with years ago -- except for Stop, Wrong Way/Do Not Enter signs, and a small few others.

Originally Posted by Kirk

I researched the sign requirements, and found that California had adopted the Federal standard for traffic warning signs, which specify a universal no turn sign (red circle with slash) rather than a text only sign

Actually the type of signage is left up to the engineer's discretion.

Studies have shown that the type of sign you speak of, which is used at most -- not all, but most -- intersections, is used because the alternative is actually more obscure and confusing. To mark it with symbols, first a black-on-white left arrow sign must be placed with a no U-turn black-on-white surrounded by red placed next to it. (Proper hardware is rarely seen to mount them on top of each other on a cantalever.) Again, studies have shown this to be very difficult to discern.

Originally Posted by Kirk

The reality is, I probably could have got off in court.

No you would not have. Again, the sign you saw is the proper sign in the State of California for this type of situation.

Originally Posted by Kirk

I also think $300 for a non-safety related infraction is a bit steep.

This is a regulatory sign installed for safety reasons. But a judge may have reduced it.

[NWTSCL]

Originally Posted by RolnCode3

I doubt they'll do traffic enforcement totally unmarked (can't remember if that's even legal)

They can make traffic stops. But such a vehicle cannot be used if traffic enforcement is that officer's primary duty.

But I never knew a failure to yield is not enforceable unless a marked unit is present. I'm not an expert on this subject, but that doesn't seem right. Is that part of the Penal Code or Vehicle Code? Do you know what section?

[RolnCode3]

Originally Posted by NWTSCL

They can make traffic stops. But such a vehicle cannot be used if traffic enforcement is that officer's primary duty.

Correct. That's what I meant, even though it didn't really come out that way. Detectives, gang units, etc... usually are unmarked and make stops.

[RolnCode3]

Originally Posted by NWTSCL

But I never knew a failure to yield is not enforceable unless a marked unit is present. I'm not an expert on this subject, but that doesn't seem right. Is that part of the Penal Code or Vehicle Code? Do you know what section?

Vehicle Code

2800.1. (a) Any person who, while operating a motor vehicle and
with the intent to evade, willfully flees or otherwise attempts to
elude a pursuing peace officer's motor vehicle, is guilty of a
misdemeanor if all of the following conditions exist:
(1) The peace officer's motor vehicle is exhibiting at least one
lighted red lamp visible from the front and the person either sees or
reasonably should have seen the lamp.
(2) The peace officer's motor vehicle is sounding a siren as may
be reasonably necessary.
(3) The peace officer's motor vehicle is distinctively marked.

[Exsmokey]

I researched the sign requirements, and found that California had adopted the Federal standard

I assume you mean the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. I don't think this is a Federal standard per se, but a nationwide effort by transportation officials at all levels coordinated by the Federal Dept. of Transportation.

[mkewman]

Originally Posted by RolnCode3

Correct. That's what I meant, even though it didn't really come out that way. Detectives, gang units, etc... usually are unmarked and make stops.

the unmarked units were not making stops, they were just trailing the offenders to keep track of them or to keep an eye on their speed. i forget the technical term for this... my mind has gone ablank.