Parkin Traffic Court is a "Kangaroo Court" where you will find the officers whispering to the judge about facts that pertain to the defendant, but are not shared with the court room audience. They have an ordinance whereby they can pull you over for a purported violation and threaten you with a major traffic offense- but then -in the same sentence- reduce it to something called inattentive driving. The offer is to give you a "lesser" charge, so that you will go away happier. Until you call the phone number on the ticket and inquire about the fine for "inattentive driving". You will then feel like you've been had. You might have protested the original offense if you had known the consequences would be equally as harsh. And since when is it OK for a law enforcement officer to tell you insurance advice? As if they know for sure that the original speeding ticket will force you to pay a higher premium. I havent had a moving violation in over 10 years, so I doubt that the Parkin ticket wouldve had any effect whatsoever. Its clearly a deceptive practice they are engaging in so that they can ring up the register in Parkin. As I pointed out to the judge- the ticket cites ONE charge not two. Either its speeding or its inattentive driving. Not both. His words were "inattentive driving is IN LIEU OF speeding". How can an ordinance be written in such a way? Any legal scholars in the house? I'm going to follow up with a letter to the AR State Attorney General's office in LR on this one. I can only equate this to any other ordinance - say Jaywalking for instance. It would be like saying: the charge of jaywalking in the City of Parkin will either be enforced at the discretion of the officer or it will be reduced by the officer to a charge of spitting on the sidewalk. Because inattentive driving can be as broad as someone wants it to be - but speeding is going a certain quantifiable rate of speed in a posted, limited roadway. In addition to the arbitrary and capricious nature of the officer's use of various ordinances the officer job is not to make a judges call as to the potential outcome of a decision that is at an insurance company's discretion. What they are doing is not a form of justice- it is pure deception. And the only possible motive is money. Unless the Judge is trying to run for a higher office or is in on the take.