Reassessing Traffic Enforcement: Revenue Over Public Safety

Reassessing Traffic Enforcement: Revenue Over Public Safety

The current enforcement practices for traffic violations, particularly parking citations, raise serious constitutional and administrative concerns. Although the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (NJ MVC) and law enforcement assert that these measures promote public safety, the reality is more complex.

1. Constitutional Foundations and Governmental Authority

Law enforcement officers in New Jersey are sworn to uphold both the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions. The preamble of these documents makes it clear that governmental power originates from the people. When enforcement practices stray from protecting life and property and instead function as mechanisms for revenue generation, they risk deviating from this fundamental principle. In effect, by prioritizing administrative penalties that serve as revenue streams rather than addressing active safety concerns, the state may be misusing the authority granted by the people.

2. Administrative Enforcement Versus Criminal Behavior

Traffic laws—especially those addressing parking violations—are framed as administrative and civil matters, not criminal offenses. The NJ MVC’s definitions, which equate “street” with “highway” and define “roadway” as the improved, designed, or ordinarily used portion of a highway (as outlined in N.J. Rev. Stat. § 39:1-1), focus on regulating travel on public thoroughfares. However, when a vehicle is parked, there is no active threat to public safety. Thus, enforcing parking rules does not address unsafe driving behavior but rather operates as an administrative tool. This raises questions about the proportionality and appropriateness of using such measures for revenue purposes, rather than for preserving safety.

3. The Role of Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion

Traffic stops are often justified by the standards of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. These standards are well established in criminal law, where they are used to identify potential criminal conduct. Yet, many traffic violations—such as failing to stop at a stop sign or running a red light—do not inherently pose immediate risks or indicate criminal intent in the way that other offenses might. Consequently, relying on these standards for minor, revenue-generating infractions stretches the intended scope of police authority and diverges from the original public safety mission.

4. Broader Legal and Equitable Considerations

The use of traffic citations for revenue generation also conflicts with broader constitutional principles:

• Due Process: The imposition of fines for violations that do not directly compromise public safety can be seen as an overreach that undermines the fairness required by due process.

• Separation of Powers: The delegation of authority to issue administrative penalties, when these actions are not tightly linked to preventing injury or harm, risks upsetting the balance between the legislative intent and the executive enforcement. When administrative actions are employed primarily as financial instruments rather than as safeguards for public safety, they challenge the very structure intended by our constitutional framework.

• Common Law and Equity: Traditional common law principles and equitable doctrines insist that legal remedies and punishments must align with the actual harm caused. A parked car that does not endanger pedestrians or other vehicles does not meet the threshold of harm that would justify punitive measures, yet such citations persist under administrative law.

Conclusion

While traffic enforcement is justified in cases where public safety is at risk, the routine issuance of parking tickets and other minor citations appears to be more about generating revenue than protecting citizens. This practice not only raises concerns about administrative overreach but also challenges foundational constitutional principles—including due process, the separation of powers, and the maxim that governmental power is derived from the people. Adjusting these enforcement practices to align more closely with genuine public safety objectives—and not merely as tools for revenue—would be a step toward upholding the integrity of our legal and constitutional system.