Home

Commentary:
The problem with RS32:266 is that it is a "public appeasement bill". It's a common practice to inflate speeds on speeding tickets and altering mile marker numbers. The fact is this will provide enough incentive to traffic cops to do more of the same. Instead of 1 miles per hour it would 11. All money would then stay with the local municipality. Since there is no "due process" in Louisiana involving traffic enforcement you won't win. While the law speaks of what happens to surplus it does not cover penalties for inflating speeding tickets.
You will need to pay your fine.

RS32:266
§266.  Enforcement of speed limit on certain highways; disposition of fines
A.  For purposes of this Section, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:
(1)  "Interstate highway" means a fully controlled access highway which is part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.
(2)  "Local law enforcement body" means any law enforcement body seated in a jurisdiction that is not governed by a home rule charter and has the authority to write civil or criminal traffic citations within that area and all the agents or contractors thereof.
B.(1)  After deposit to the Bond Security and Redemption Fund as required under the provisions of Article VII, Section 9(B) of the Constitution of Louisiana, all fines or penalties collected by or on behalf of a local law enforcement body for citations issued for exceeding the posted speed limit by less than ten miles per hour on an interstate highway, shall be forwarded to the state treasurer and credited to a special fund which is hereby created in the state treasury and designated as the "Louisiana Highway Safety Fund."
(2)  The monies in the Louisiana Highway Safety Fund shall be used solely to fund the costs to purchase and install permanent radar speed displays on interstate highways and only in the amounts appropriated each year to the Department of Transportation and Development by the legislature.  Any surplus monies and interest remaining to the credit of the fund on June thirtieth of each year after all such appropriations of the preceding fiscal year have been made shall remain to the credit of the fund, and no part thereof shall revert to the state general fund.
Acts 2009, No. 188, §1; Acts 2010, No. 806, §1, eff. July 1, 2010.

Commentary
RS 40:2401.1 Prohibition against quotas was intended to protect motorists. The final legislation as you can see does not do that. Rather it protects traffic cops for being held accountable based on ticket quota or arrest volume. However, a traffic cop can use this law to his advantage. If his superior allows him to work overtime on traffic and he goes out and works all day and only brings back 1 ticket, his superior cannot discipline him on it. If his superiors does not allow him work any more overtime because he was not productive then his superior violates this law for not letting him work any overtime. Once his overtime is based on traffic tickets or arrest volume then it is in violation of the prohibition against quota. If overtime is eliminated, then it has to be eliminated for everyone. Any lawyer could dispute that but you can read this in the law.
Section D actually tells a tale. "including an estimate of the amount the court anticipates will be collected in a budget year." Anytime "Fines & Forfeitures becomes a line item in the budget, the stage has been set for abuse. As a budget item you have to know what the "quota" essentially is in order to anticipate what to put in budget.
Fines & Forfeiture should NOT be a line item in the budget. To prevent abuse, it should fall under "other revenue". What happens to the budget if your under budget for "fines and forfeiture"? You have to make it up in other revenue line items or you have to step up the effort to close the gap in that revenue line item.
In short, this statute in terms of protecting motorists is a complete joke!

RS 40:2401.1
§2401.1.  Prohibition against quotas

A.  No municipality or any police department thereof, nor any parish or any sheriff's department thereof, shall establish or maintain, formally or informally, a plan to evaluate, promote, compensate, or discipline a law enforcement officer on the basis of the officer making a predetermined or specified number of any type or combination of types of arrests or require or suggest to a law enforcement officer, that the law enforcement officer is required or expected to make a predetermined or specified number of any type or combination of types of arrests within a specified period.
B.  No municipality or any police department thereof, nor any parish or any sheriff's department thereof, shall establish or maintain, formally or informally, a plan to evaluate, promote, compensate, or discipline a law enforcement officer on the basis of the officer's issuance of a predetermined or specified number of any type or combination of types of traffic citations or require or suggest to a law enforcement officer, that the law enforcement 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.
C.  No state agency, political subdivision, or law enforcement agency shall offer a financial reward or other benefit to a law enforcement officer which is determined by or based on the number of citations issued.
D.  This Section shall 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.
Acts 2008, No. 479, §1, eff. June 25, 2008.