Six states consider legislation to address ticket quotas

State lawmakers around the country continue to pursue changes intended to discourage the practice of law enforcement agencies pressuring officers to participate in ticket quotas.

About half of all states have acted to discourage the practice. Alabama and Virginia are the most recent, and at least a half dozen others are considering similar legislation.

Illinois

An Illinois House bill revisits the state’s decade-old law intended to thwart overzealous police ticketing.

Since 2014, state law has forbidden any requirement “to issue a specific number of citations within a designated period of time.” Law enforcement agencies are prohibited from evaluating personnel based on the number of tickets written or arrests made.

The rule permits state, county and municipal police departments to continue to use officer contacts as an evaluative tool. This exercise covers any instance where an officer makes contact with someone.

Rep. Bob Morgan, D-Deerwood, is behind a bill that would expand the protection. HB4976 would remove language in statute allowing a municipality to evaluate a police officer based on the officer’s points of contact.

Quotas also would be forbidden from being used as criteria for an officer’s demotion or penalization.

Iowa

One bill halfway through the Iowa statehouse would revise statute on ticket quotas.

Iowa law prohibits a law enforcement agency or local government from imposing a quota on the number of citations issued by officers.

House lawmakers voted 96-1 to advance a bill that would expand the rule to prohibit imposing a quota for the number of traffic stops. Issuance of a citation would not be required to be in violation of the rule.

The Senate Transportation Committee is scheduled to discuss the bill, HF2304, on Wednesday, March 6.

Maryland

In Maryland, a House bill also would revisit statute on ticket quotas.

State law permits law enforcement agencies to use the number of arrests made or citations issued by an officer as criteria, along with other job performance factors, for promotion, demotion, dismissal or transfer.

HB6 would repeal that authorization. Instead, law enforcement agencies would be forbidden from requesting or directing an officer to issue more citations or arrests.

At a recent House Judiciary Committee meeting, Del. Robin Grammer, R-Baltimore, told lawmakers that “behind closed doors, officers are squeezed to produce higher numbers.”

The legislative pursuit is not new to Maryland. In 2023, the Maryland State Police shared concerns with lawmakers about the legislation.

State troopers said it would prevent a police agency from taking any action against an officer for failure to perform basic law enforcement duties.

The Maryland Attorney General’s office has said that “quotas damage the public’s trust in law enforcement.” The office added that public trust “is crucial to effective policing.”

The committee did not vote on HB6.

New York

Multiple New York bills address potential ticket quota abuses.

State law prohibits an employer from transferring or penalizing a police officer for failure to meet established ticket quotas. One bill is intended to remove a gap in the protection against policing for profit.

Bill supporters point out it is possible that an employer could deny a promotion to a police officer who fails to meet a quota. A4799 would outlaw an employer from denying a promotion to an officer for this reason.

Similarly, A5622 would forbid state agencies from imposing or suggesting any enforcement quota. Agencies would be forbidden from using ticketing numbers as the primary criteria for evaluating officers. Ticketing numbers also could not be used to reward performance or to transfer, reassign, dismiss or deny a promotion.

A Senate bill, S169, is described as strengthening the quota penalty provisions. Specifically, a violation would constitute a class A misdemeanor, which could result in jail time up to one year.

Sen. Michael Gianaris, D-Queens, wrote in a bill memo that tickets, summonses, traffic citations and arrests should be utilized by a police officer “when he or she feels that the circumstances are appropriate, rather than in order to satisfy arbitrary quota requirements.”

“To establish a quota for an officer to meet a certain number of summonses or arrests is a disservice to his or her trained and professional judgment, and unfair to those who receive such citations,” he said.

Ohio

An Ohio bill would outlaw an arrest or citation mandate used to evaluate, promote, compensate, transfer or discipline an officer. No requirement or suggestion could be made for an officer to meet a quota, nor could a benefit be offered to an officer based on the officer’s quota.

The House Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on the bill. Speaking at the hearing, Rep. Kevin Miller, R-Newark, said the new rule is necessary because “law enforcement officers need discretion versus an arbitrary quota system used to generate local revenue.”

HB333 clarifies that law enforcement officials or agencies would be permitted to collect and analyze data on the number of arrests made and citations issued by officers. That information is touted to help ensure officers do not neglect their duties or violate legal obligations.

In addition, the state’s attorney general would be required to make available a form for officers to use to anonymously report the use of quotas. The attorney general would be mandated to investigate quota allegations.

If the attorney general determined that ticket quotas were used by an agency, the state office would be required to order that the official or agency cease and desist quota usage.

Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney, D-Westlake, told committee members that “arbitrary ticket or arrest quotas should never be the sole means of evaluating a police officer’s performance.”

Oklahoma

Two Oklahoma bills in committee cover concerns about ticket quotas.

State law prohibits cities and towns from generating more than half of their revenue through traffic fines.

The first bill would go a step further to address concerns. Sponsored by Rep. Justin Humphrey, R-Lane, HB3265 would put a cap on the number of citations the state’s smallest towns could issue over one year.

The bill specifies that the police department of any municipality with a population below 5,000 persons could issue only 50 traffic tickets annually.

A Senate bill, SB1316, would prohibit any political subdivision or agency of the state from establishing or maintaining ticket quotas.

Arizona and Utah legislation fails to advance

While legislation in multiple statehouses covering concern about ticket quotas continues to receive consideration, legislation on the topic in Arizona and Utah has been killed.

In Arizona, a bipartisan pursuit addressed concern about overzealous enforcement policies.

HB2179 sought to prohibit law enforcement agencies at the local, county and state levels from requiring officers to issue a certain number of citations. Departments also would have been forbidden from using the number of citations written by officers to determine rank.

The bill remained in committee at a deadline to advance, effectively killing it for the year.

A failed Utah bill called for revising the state’s law forbidding ticket quotas.

Since 2018, Utah has barred state and local police departments from requiring, suggesting or directing officers to meet an enforcement quota. Efforts to promote, compensate, reward or discipline an officer on the basis of a quota also are forbidden.

Nevertheless, a local news report in the past year found that one Utah city still was using a performance-based system.

HB547 called for prohibiting any municipality or law enforcement agency from requiring or directing an officer to meet an arrest, citation, stop or other quota.

The attorney general also would have been required to investigate potential law enforcement quota violations. LL

More Land Line coverage of state news is available.