&gt; Yes, your additional option is to be extorted into paying a 25% fee.<p>How is offering a previously non-existent option extortion, again? Now, if the officers are not stating it as an option, then that is of course a complaint to be made. But nothing in the EFF article indicates this as a problem, so I don&#x27;t know where this language is coming from. The subject (for lack of a better word here) is perfectly welcome to not take the roadside payment option, be detained, and pay after detainment without any additional fee. Which is exactly what would have happened without any of this.<p>&gt; First, the leveraging of state fines, backed by government force, disproportionally affects the poor. The poor are damaged most, because they do not have the money to pay the fines.<p>The fines being discussed are only those related to <i>copias pro fine</i>, which means that a judgement was already delivered through a court and that judgement was not satisfied. If you want to argue for inequality against the poor in judgements, that&#x27;s fine, but it&#x27;s at best a tangentially related point and one I&#x27;m not interested in arguing. This system is purely in the realm of after all that has happened, and has no effect there.<p>&gt; Finally, the most important part of this piece is that the state of Texas has set up a massive dragnet surveillance operation at the state level.<p>The data sharing is of course an issue, and I support the EFF in fighting against that. But that is also a separate issue than the option being provided to extinguish these warrants without being detained.