A Woman Who Spent Six Years Fighting a Traffic Stop

> Larvadain, who is now 74, worries that young lawyers are less concerned with right and wrong than with chasing dollars. Although Patricia Parker’s lawsuit against Woodworth offered small hope of a big payday, Larvadain agreed to represent her. “Because I saw wrong had taken place. And I knew someone had to take a stand.”

I know a lot of young lawyers who'd love to take on a case like this one. But matching people who need help to lawyers who have the time and institutional resources to take on these projects pro bono isn't easy when you're talking about folks wronged in rural Louisiana.

Also, I think there's something of a hesitancy to for business law firms to add suing municipalities to their pro bono docket. Which is a shame--a few New Orleans firms building up a pipeline of pro bono suits against places like Woodsworth could do a lot of good.

EDIT: If you're interested in (potential) justice porn, it's worth following Fant v. City of Ferguson. The DOJ gave a lot of ammunition to plaintiffs' lawyers when it concluded that the city was systematically using fines and other police actions as revenue sources, particularly against poor black people. It's Woodsworth writ large. The complaint is here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/08/us/ferguson-co.... The docket is available here on Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/missouri/moedce/4:2015cv00.... With her opinion last month on reconsideration, the judge has effectively denied the city's motion to dismiss. Dispositive motions are due May of next year, so we'll likely see by then whether this is granted class status. If so, things will get interesting.

I've always felt that all fines - for any cause - should be turned over to the state. Even simple parking tickets.

The state should fund the court for hearing those cases (but not enforcement).

Then we'll see if cities really care about safety or about money.

It boils my blood to read about such incidences.

US is turning into the India that I came here to avoid. Policemen in India will stop you at their whim and find a reason to fine you (exact a bribe really).

A cop followed my car in Salt lake city for 10 miles before he stopped me for turning on my blinkers for only 2 seconds before changing lanes. Apparently the law in Utah says that it should be 3 seconds. I wish I had recorded that incident, simply because it is so unbelievable.

The incident smelled racist, and made sure I will never live in Utah / Salt Lake City.

“Godwin’s testimony shows a complete lack of knowledge of the restraints imposed upon police conduct by the U.S. Constitution and the laws and Constitution of the State of Louisiana.”

This. The 4th amendment protects against seizure (which a police stop constitutes) without reasonable suspicion of a crime. The problem is, unless you are fined, as the woman was in this case, and then appeal, what recourse do you have?

Is there some way to seek damages for the violation of your constitutional rights? (even if the inconvenience is minor) It seems like this problem would go away if the police department and city had to pay for their violations of the constitution instead of just forfeiting potential money from fines.

Wow. "A woman told the paper that she was pulled over by Woodworth police while in labor — and was kept for more than a half hour."

In case you miss the link inside the article, be sure to read the ruling[0]. It is both thorough and entertaining.

http://www.la3circuit.org/Opinions/2015/03/030415/14-0943opi...

Read the judges findings from the appeal. The article did not even mention the purported signed confession:

"Ms. Parker admitted that she made the initials “PP” but stated that none of the other handwriting was hers. She also indicated that none of the other handwriting was on the document, including Ms. Gunter’s signature, when she filled in the initials “PP.”"

Woodsworth went so far as to commit fraud in order to take money from Parker.

http://www.la3circuit.org/Opinions/2015/03/030415/14-0943opi...

(thx gknoy)

I used to live near a town like this. Thornton, Illinois is the site of a giant limestone quarry and there's one major road you can drive on to get around the quarry if you don't want to get on the expressway (which is a bit out of the way depending on where you're coming from). These streets have 25 or 30mph signs, yet are wide and underutilized enough to easily be 35-45mph streets. Drivers unfamiliar with the area would be taken off-guard by these slow speed zones as they enter from neighboring towns. The police there pull people over for 2 or 3 mph over regularly.

According to IDOT, there were 2,334 traffic stops in Thornton in 2014. This town's population? About 2,300. That's one stop per man, woman, and child in this town! This is naked profiteering and pretty much all small towns in strategic areas turn into police-led profit centers. The real question is why isn't anyone stopping this?

Wow - that's a much more interesting article than the title would imply. I wonder if anything changed in Woodworth in response to the verdict (I doubt that it did, but still).

> On Feb. 18, she provided the documentation. Her license had, indeed, been valid. But the mayor didn’t drop the two license-related charges. Instead, he “asked her how much money she had with her,” an appeals court wrote. “She responded she only had about $300. The Mayor informed her she could at least pay the unlawful use of a driver’s license charge that day.”

> So she did, paying $215.

> But despite what she paid, despite the documentation she showed, despite the registration count having earlier been dismissed, she was presented this same day with a bill of information, saying Woodworth was charging her with all four counts originally written up by the officer. She was given until March 18 to pay whatever money was still owed.

Uh... what? I didn't expect the shakedown to be quite that blatant.

> in fiscal year 2006, each officer wrote an average of 1,539 tickets.

Assuming a 2080 hour work year, that's 1.3 tickets per hour. To my (admittedly naive) idea of how many tickets police write per hour, that's nuts.

Good for Lavardain and the appellate court.

"The case also exemplifies a suspicion that, at times, law enforcement’s motive is profit."

"At times"? Really?

I think they mean all the time for a growing majority of districts.

“You can’t help it that you’re a racist. Your daddy’s a racist. Your children will be racist. It’s in your blood.”

Now, is it me, or does that sound racist?

This is quintessential americana.

Life imitates art? This is straight from 'Nothing But Trouble' (1991)

it is completely unlawful to require non-commercial travellers on public roads to have licenses, insurance, inspections, and registrations, let alone subject them to stops, arrests and tickets or fines when no crime has been committed. unless actual or imminent destruction of property, or violation of anothers' rights has occurred, there is no valid cause of action. no right for a stop. traveling on public roads is not a privilege granted by the government [1].

it's already been adjudicated, by the supreme court, and state supreme courts, many times [2]. it seems, however, that the irrational fear of chaos and harm that might result from people travelling without government licensing and regulation is enough to keep these absurd and sometimes incredibly harmful and costly situations going for the foreseeable future.

ask yourself; would you spend tens of thousands on a vehicle only to crash it into others' property, or use it to intentionally murder or otherwise harm others? no? have you ever met anyone who would? if yes, would having or not having a license in their wallet stop such a person? i don't think so.

police should only be involved when actual crimes occur or are potentially about to occur. see a vehicle hit a mailbox, get in a wreck, with a leaky exhaust disturbing the peace, or someone driving recklessly endangering others, etc. then you can call 911.

search "Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel", for a fuller list of relevant case law.

[1] "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

[2] "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta."

Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)

    "The essential elements of due process of law are ... Notice and The Opportunity to defend."

Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427

    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

    "Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission."

Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra.

    "... the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use ..."

Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

    "We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."

Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389

    "... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

Is this hacker news?

There are loads of general news stories or people being wronged that I would love to post here, but I resist because although interesting and relevant to people (as this article is) it isn't really tech news.

If you want this to stop, presumably you need to step out of the middle age and allow actual automated speed cams as every other country does.

Now, there are two sides here. A matter of fact debtors prison for poor people and a vicious cycle where they keep accumulating more fines through inability of paying is a travesty of law.

But I can hardly sympathize with the discussion on speed traps, in a country where apparently 10mph over is considered a crass misuse of law (here, this nets you a month long driving ban) and tickets need to be written by officers, which naturally drastically limits enforcement, and driving on a suspended license is seen as a violation on the level of failure to use turn signals. Frankly, driving without a valid license should cause your car to be immediately and permanently impounded and any license only reissued on a retest after a ban. We can't get into a situation where having a valid license is more or less immaterial.