O.C. Cops Guilty of Conspiring to Dismiss Woman's Parking Ticket

L.A. NOW

Southern California

O.C. cops guilty of conspiring to dismiss woman's traffic ticket

December 6, 2012 |  6:44 pm

Jurors on Thursday convicted two Orange County police officers of conspiring to dismiss a traffic ticket given to a woman driver who promised one of them “a bunch of alcohol” in exchange for his help.
Erik Michael Krause, 44, a 22-year veteran of the Huntington Beach police, and Garden Grove Officer Michael John Zannitto, 47, were found guilty of misdemeanor conspiracy to obstruct justice. They could face up to a year in jail when they are sentenced next month.
Prosecutors say Krause ticketed a woman for speeding near a school bus Nov. 9, 2011. Later that month, Zannitto met the woman at Knott’s Berry Farm while off duty after learning she worked in the alcohol industry. The officer told the woman he could have her citation dismissed, prosecutors said. Officials say Zannitto instructed the woman to send him a picture of the citation and told her how to contest the ticket. She sent him the ticket and promised free alcohol in exchange for a dismissal, prosecutors said.
In January, prosecutors said, Zannitto called the Huntington Beach police and said the woman was his sister and asked to speak with the officer who issued the ticket.
Zannitto talked with Krause, who promised to “take care of” the ticket, according to prosecutors. Zannitto then texted the woman that the ticket would be taken care of, prosecutors said.

“Please dismiss in the interest of justice. No notes,” Krause wrote on his declaration, according to the district attorney's office.  A Huntington Beach police lieutenant initiated the investigation, but the district attorney’s office said that because Krause’s declaration was never filed with the court, the woman’s $234 ticket was dismissed.

Physics did not get Krioukov out of ticket

April 20, 2012 1:10 PM

Judge: Physics did not get Krioukov out of ticket

By

Bailey Johnson

Topics

Dmitri Krioukov

(Credit: Dmitri Krioukov)

 

(CBS News/AP) A San Diego court commissioner is denying that a scientist's physics paper had anything to do with her dismissing his $200 traffic ticket. CBSNews.com reported this week that Dmitri Krioukov of the University of California, San Diego, used an equation-filled paper on the physics of a car in motion to successfully appeal a ticket for failure to stop.

As it turns out, all those pages of post-grad mathematics weren't even necessary.

Superior Court Commissioner Karen Riley told U-T San Diego that she listened to the physics argument but much of it went over her head.

"The ruling was not based on his physics explanation," Riley told the San Diego paper. "It was based on the officer's view ... The officer wasn't close enough to the intersection to have a good view."
Even the $400 fine was hyperbole, according to the commissioner.

"He's exaggerating," she told U-T San Diego. "It never would've been $400. Even if he had traffic school, it would've been $287."

Krioukov was unavailable for comment, but is still probably happy to be out of a fine - physics or no physics.

Physicist claims victory over traffic ticket with physics paper

By Justin Hyde | Motoramic – Thu, Apr 12, 2012 11:18 AM EDT

A physicist at the University of California San Diego used his knowledge of measuring bodies in motion to show in court why he couldn't be guilty of a ticket for failing to halt at a stop sign. The argument, now a four-page paper delving into the differences between angular and linear motion, supposedly got the physicist out of a $400 ticket. If you want to use this excuse, you'll have to learn a little math -- and some powers of persuasion.

The paper by Dmitri Krioukov titled "The Proof of Innocence," notes in the abstract that it's "a way to fight your traffic tickets," and was "awarded a special prize of $400 that the author did not have to pay to the state of California." (It's also posted with a date of April 1, so downloader beware.) Krioukov claims he was approaching a stop sign in his Toyota Yaris when a police officer saw him roll through the intersection, apparently without stopping, and pulled him over. Case closed — except that Krioukov says he was able to show a confluence of events that only made it seem he hadn't stopped.
First, the officer was watching the stop sign saw Krioukov's car from the side, distorting his idea of how fast Krioukov was traveling before the stop. At the stop sign itself, Krioukov contended he had stopped — but the officer's view was briefly blocked by a passing car. When Krioukov started again, the officer's sense of Krioukov's speed made it seem he had never stopped at all.
Krioukov told PhysicsCentral that the case and his argument were real, but that he left a flaw in his work for others to find, and sure enough a few commenters found the Yaris-based defect quickly. Leave it to a physicist to create an explanation that ends with people doubting whether the problem explained actually existed at all.

FIXING L.A.'S MUNICIPAL CODE MESS: PILOT PROGRAM

Fixing L.A.'s municipal code mess

It's time for the city to try a pilot program that treats some local criminal code violations the same way it treats parking tickets.

City Atty. Carmen Trutanich proposed the Administrative Citation Enforcement program for some Municipal Code violations. (Los Angeles Times)

• 
  

September 26, 2011

For months now, city officials have been mulling whether to try out an alternative system for enforcing the Los Angeles Municipal Code — the register of offenses that includes nuisances and quality-of-life crimes such as parties that are too loud, and public safety violations such as construction without permits. It takes too long and costs prosecutors too much to go to court on each violation. Can't Los Angeles decriminalize many of these offenses and issue administrative citations much like parking tickets?

That's the idea behind the Administrative Citation Enforcement program, which has been shaped by City Atty. Carmen Trutanich and brought to the City Council on a motion by Councilman Paul Koretz. In its original concept, the program would result in resolution of cases more swiftly. It would treat residents more equally. It would produce more revenue for the city, because the largest cut of administrative fines would be paid into city coffers, unlike criminal fines that go through the court system and are paid to the state. It would provide an alternative to the byzantine and bureaucratic maze of hearings and appeals, differing from offense to offense mostly because of arcane rules about which city department handles the problem (does the appeal go first to the director of the Department of Building and Safety, and then to the obscure board of commissioners, or to a zoning administrator, or to the planning director and one of the many area planning commissions?). It would make better and more efficient use of city personnel, and would help unclog the overburdened and underfunded court system by eliminating criminal hearings in favor of an administrative process.

So what's taking so long? At first, the city departments that would be responsible for processing citations were uninterested and failed to offer any help in shaping the program. Some residents — especially those who have learned to master the current system, and who know which codes will never actually be enforced and which fines will never actually be imposed — opposed any changes. Some council members dismissed the program, inexplicably, as a power grab by Trutanich. Some neighborhood council leaders thought they should be the ones to make decisions about which neighbors are the troublemakers who ought to get cited for fences that are too high and which are the put-upon victims of overzealous code enforcers.

Then, upon crunching some numbers and checking with California's many other cities that have a similar program, officials discovered that there really wouldn't be much new revenue. The concern was rather that the fines collected might not even cover the new costs of administrative law judges and other program expenses. Experience suggests that many city departments — most, perhaps — might not be up to the task of keeping records and examining data to determine whether the program was a success. And as much as politicians, bureaucrats and residents love to gripe about the status quo, no one is really all that fond of change, especially when it requires some effort. So why bother?

There can be only one answer to all the frustrating shoulder-shrugging: Get on with it.

The Administrative Citation Program — ACE, for short — is a good idea. It works in many cities that have their bureaucratic acts together, and it can work in Los Angeles too, especially with some badly needed leadership and administrative competence.

By the time the council's Budget and Finance Committee has finished with the ACE proposal Monday, it may be whittled down to a pilot program that covers only citations issued by the Los Angeles Police Department. The Building and Safety, Animal Services and other departments that respond to public safety and nuisance complaints will probably stick to the broken old ways for now, and that's fine. The LAPD is almost unique among city departments in that it can actually keep records and track data.

Some skeptical council members may demand monthly reports, and that's fine too. The LAPD is up to it. Police officers will still spend the bulk of their time protecting residents against threats of violent crime, but officers who in the course of their duties have the time to respond to noisy parties and similar problems would be able to issue administrative citations. The LAPD can demonstrate for the rest of City Hall that problems can be addressed without resort to criminal filings and court hearings (although residents who have exhausted their administrative appeals would still be able to appeal to the court).

In the short term, costs will be held down by Trutanich's office, which will recruit volunteers to serve as hearing officers. Once the city attorney and the LAPD demonstrate that the program can work, and can produce at least some revenue, the city will have to hire administrative law judges. The pilot program does not tie the city to any later expenses.

Trying out an administrative enforcement program is, almost literally, the least City Hall can do. Much more is required. Los Angeles' enforcement of basic quality-of-life and public safety violations is a mess. People who know how to work the system, or who hire expediters and fixers who know, get special treatment. A Gold Card desk at the Transportation Department, ostensibly open to all, provided privileged service to a select group of knowledgeable parking violators before the city shut it down earlier this year. Drivers caught by so-called red-light cameras either paid the tickets they got in the mail, if they didn't know any better, or ignored them, if they realized there were virtually no consequences for refusing to pay. An extensive federal probe has resulted, so far, in guilty pleas from two building inspectors, and about a dozen more are being investigated.

The crucial ingredient is leadership. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa must set a tone of fairness, efficiency and professionalism in the city's operations, and not merely fire general managers when their departments have proved embarrassing. He must not allow City Hall to remain merely a collection of departments, each scrambling to survive budget cuts while sticking to its operating comfort zone.

Better code enforcement can't solve the city's problems by itself, especially on such a modest scale. But it is a step. It is a start. Get on with it.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

NEW PARKING METER PLAN

New L.A. parking meter plan gets ticking

City will experiment in a downtown area with devices that allow fees to be set once a month depending on demand. The rate would change no more than 50%.

A technician inspects damaged meter on the street in this 2010 file photo. (Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times / August 4, 2010)

• 

By Ari Bloomekatz, Los Angeles Times

August 13, 2011, 8:48 p.m.

One of the most baffling things about parking in downtown Los Angeles can be found near Hope and 9th streets. The meters along Hope charge $4 an hour, but on 9th the cost is only $3.

"You question whether that makes sense," said a facetious Daniel Mitchell, an official with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. A pilot program approved Friday by the City Council seeks to impose some logic and radically change the way meter prices are set for more than 500,000 people who work or shop each day in the city's center. It could also reduce the time drivers spend circling the block for open or cheaper spaces, often double parking, stopping in the middle of the street to wait for other drivers to pull out or parking in prohibited zones.

Researchers say those common practices greatly increase traffic congestion and air pollution, and can be harmful for businesses that need unobstructed access for customers.

Currently, parking meter prices are based on an archaic system set by geographic boundaries. The new program — called ExpressPark — will begin in a 4.5-square-mile zone roughly bounded by the 10 and the 110 freeways, and Alameda Street and Adams Boulevard. It will use sensors and other technology to measure demand at about 6,000 sidewalk meters and 7,500 spaces in public parking facilities such as the Convention Center.

Officials will adjust the cost of meters based on demand at various times throughout the day and on how long motorists stay in each space. Although the price of most meters will be set once a month, in some areas officials will adjust the rates more frequently based on demand.

Meter rates downtown currently range from $1 to $4 an hour and would be adjusted to rise or fall no more than 50%, Mitchell said.

He said the city plans to launch the project next month and hopes to begin the new rates in April 2012. The project is being funded by $15 million in federal grants and $3.5 million from the city.

The so-called dynamic pricing is the latest attempt by transportation officials to improve downtown parking. Last year the city installed thousands of meters that allowed credit and debit card payment in addition to coins. But about 3,500 of those meters will have to be removed and placed in other parts of the city to make room for even newer equipment, Mitchell said.

A spokesman for the transportation department said the meters installed last year have already increased revenue for the city by about 50% for each meter that was upgraded.

Donald Shoup, author of "The High Cost of Free Parking" and a professor at UCLA, said dynamic pricing works because it allows motorists to follow the "Goldilocks principle," which balances supply against demand.

If the cost to park is too low, "all the spaces are full," which means other drivers must circle the block "or they may go somewhere else," he said. If the price is too high and spaces remain vacant "the stores lose customers and employees lose jobs and the city loses tax revenue."

San Francisco recently began a similar parking meter program but has yet to measure the results. Some groups there are worried that it could be unfair to lower-income motorists.

Michael Guerra, a Los Angeles traffic officer who rides a bicycle around downtown to enforce violations, said that in recent years he's seen a decrease in the amount of congestion and parking problems — a condition he attributes to the poor economy.

Guerra said that he generally writes 20 to 30 tickets a day and that despite reduced congestion, some areas are still problematic. "People just assume that they're not going to get caught" and park in a prohibited zone or don't adequately feed the meter, he said.

After 10 minutes of hunting for a curb space Thursday afternoon, Marianne Shabazz, a 39-year-old from Carson, decided that the risk of getting a ticket was not that high. She said she just wanted to make a quick ATM withdrawal and wasn't going to waste her money — or any more of her afternoon — paying for time in a parking lot.

So she cut her steering wheel to the right on South Los Angeles Street and slid her SUV into a "loading only" zone behind a FedEx delivery truck near Olympic Boulevard.

"Don't even get me started, this is crazy. I've been circling around … and they have all these signs that say you can't park," said Shabazz, who raised her clenched fists in the air and took a long, deep breath before looking for any parking enforcement officers and making her dash.

"I have to run quick before they catch me and I get a ticket."

"Yes!" Shabazz exclaimed eight minutes later, when she came back and there wasn't a ticket on her windshield.

ari.bloomekatz@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

State moves to limit cities' ability to impound cars

In response to practices in Bell, the California Senate approves restrictions for DUI checkpoints. The measure goes back to the Assembly for final approval. Brown has not taken a position.

Authorities impound car that was stopped for lack of tail lights. The state Senate on Tuesday voted to restrict cities' ability to impound cars driven by people caught at sobriety checkpoints without driver's licenses. (Steve Osman / Los Angeles Times / May 1, 1997)

By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times

August 31, 2011

Reporting from Sacramento—

The state Senate on Tuesday voted to restrict cities' ability to impound cars driven by people caught at sobriety checkpoints without driver's licenses. The action came as a direct response to the city of Bell, which made it a practice to confiscate vehicles from unlicensed motorists — many of them illegal immigrants — and then charge high impound fees or sell them in order to fill city coffers.

Currently, cities can hold cars taken from unlicensed drivers for 30 days, with impound fees accruing each day. If unclaimed, the vehicles may then be auctioned off, something that often happens when fines and fees exceed the car's value.

Under the legislation, if a sober driver is caught at a DUI checkpoint without a valid license, officers must release the car to a qualified driver representing the registered owner.

If a licensed driver isn't immediately available, the car can be released to one later by the impound yard.

But some Republican lawmakers said that public safety would be jeopardized by AB 353, which was previously approved by the Assembly but must go back to that chamber for action on amendments. The bill would then go to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has yet to take a position on it.

"If we lower this standard, what we are doing is encouraging more people without  driver's licenses to be on the roads," said state Sen. Joel Anderson (R-San Diego).  "There is a reason they don't have a driver's license. It's not because they are a good driver."

Anti-immigration activists also warned that the legislation would remove one deterrent to illegal immigrants driving without a license.

"It seems if there is a law that inconveniences illegal aliens, they [legislators] are willing to change it," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman with the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Bell police officers impounded hundreds of cars because the drivers were unlicensed. But according to the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), and other lawmakers, the practice is not isolated to the troubled Los Angeles suburb.

"What is really going on here is, some local governments, including the city of Bell, are using this impoundment to make money," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) "Folks on the other side of the aisle who rightfully sometimes rail against government running amok and hurting people with its police powers ought to recognize this for what it is — an abuse."

A handful of Republican senators joined in voting to pass the bill, which Democrats said was narrowly tailored to respond to DUI dragnets that are purely predatory.

Steinberg noted that 24,000 cars were impounded in 2009 at DUI checkpoints in California but that only 3,200 of those behind the wheel were charged with driving under the influence.

The impound measure was one of dozens that lawmakers approved Tuesday.

Among them, the Senate voted to bar cities and counties from enacting laws prohibiting male circumcision. Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Silver Lake) had introduced the bill in response to petition drives in two cities. Activists in Santa Monica eventually dropped their effort, and a judge ordered a San Francisco measure off the ballot.

"When you have a situation where a group of extremists is trying to take away the rights of parents and others, I think it is an appropriate role for government to step in and preserve liberty," Gatto said. His bill, AB 768, goes back to the Assembly for action.

The Senate also voted to ban the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) from baby bottles and sippy cups on grounds it is toxic and poses a health threat. Senators sent AB 1319 back to the Assembly, which previously approved a stricter bill, for concurrence on amendments.

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

Marilyn Monroe and John Huston. Magnum Photos "Park It!" Series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RENO, Nev.— Marilyn Monroe (left) and John Huston (center) on the set of The Misfits, 1960.

© Inge Morath / Magnum Photos