The US Public Interest Research Group has released a new study questioning the wisdom of privatizing law enforcement.

An estimated sixty million Americans live in a jurisdiction monitored by an automated ticketing machine. According to a report released today by the left-leaning US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG), the trend of privatizing law enforcement raises a number of issues that put the public in those areas at risk.

Unlike a public entity, a private operator is not subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from the public. It may also seek to prevent public scrutiny by declaring certain information to be a “proprietary business secret.” This should not be allowed.


Privatized traffic law enforcement systems are spreading rapidly across the U. S. As many as 700 local jurisdictions have entered into deals with for-profit companies to install camera systems at intersections and along roadways to encourage drivers to obey traffic signals and follow speed limits.
"Pitfalls can arise when contracts encourage vendors to treat automated traffic enforcement systems as a profit center: by maximizing the number of tickets written, regardless of the impact on public safety; by limiting the ability of governments to set traffic safety policies according to community needs; or by constraining the ability of cities to terminate contracts early in the event that automated enforcement systems are rejected by the electorate or fail to meet safety goals," the study explained.

Contractors who participate in law-enforcement should not use this position to profit from exposure to confidential information about individuals and their vehicles. These photos and other information should not be used for any other purpose than enforcement of safety rules, and must not be sold or leased to other parties. Vendors must have a plan to regularly attest compliance with requirements to eliminate this information as it becomes possible, and they should be held responsible if personal data is stolen, distributed or made available to other private parties.
Under severe budgetary pressures, local jurisdictions often sign contracts with vendors that were presented with a slick marketing campaign. Such deals often contain extremely unfavorable terms. The public is hurt by per-ticket payment systems -- often disguised with "cost neutral" contract language -- that ensure that the system is designed to maximize revenue, not safety. Such provisions provide a monetary incentive to increase the number of tickets issued. That leads to other provisions prohibiting cities from lengthening yellow light duration to improve safety and requiring right on red ticketing and ticket approval quotas.
It is hard to imagine meter readers lobbying for an increase in the number of parking meters in a town, or traffic cops arguing for more stop signs, solely on the basis that doing so would enable them to write more tickets. Yet, that is precisely the dynamic that exists with the privatized traffic enforcement industry.
The industry’s business model depends on more governments adopting their technology and enforcing traffic laws in ways that boost the industry’s bottom line. In other words, when there is profit to be made from enforcing traffic laws, there becomes a lobby for creating more violations. 
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/pirg-rlc.pdf