← Data sources
◢ Chicago Dept. of Administrative Hearings

One officer dismisses 2 tickets out of every 10. Another dismisses 7 out of every 10.

They are judging the same violations, filed the same way, in the same city, in the same years. The strongest predictor of whether a driver loses is not the ticket, the evidence, or the neighborhood. It is the name at the bottom of the ruling.

Obtained under FOIA · counted from the City's own records
2,997,348decisions released under FOIA
14years, 2012–2025
777,715decided mail contests charted
65officers with 500+ of them
The two ends of the range

Same city. Same court. Same way of contesting.

Both are hearing officers with the City of Chicago, deciding mail contests between 2019 and 2025. Each number below is that officer's own record across every case they decided. They did not sit for the same stretch — Hurse's whole 2019–2025 record falls in 2019, Quinn's runs to 2025 — so the fairest read is 2019, the year they overlap. Measured there alone the gap is 53.5 points, against 53.0 pooled. It is not a difference of era.

Lonathan D. Hurse20%of the drivers in front of him had the ticket dismissed. 5,972 decided mail contests.
Michael Quinn73%of the drivers in front of him had the ticket dismissed. 62,803 decided mail contests.

Neither is an outlier. Every other officer on the bench falls somewhere between them.

They are not hearing different tickets, either. 11 violations were decided at least 100 times by both of them. Compared one violation at a time, Quinn dismisses the higher share in 11 of 11 — expired plates, meters, city stickers, street cleaning, red light and speed alike.

Everyone in between

The tipping point moves 53 points across the bench.

All 65 officers who decided 500+ mail contests, ranked. The line down the middle marks the halfway point — where a driver's odds are a coin flip. Officers above it say no more often than yes; officers below it say yes more often than no. This chart pools every violation together; the next two sections hold the violation constant and the spread survives.

Share of decided mail contests dismissed, by hearing officer. 65 officers, 777,715 decided cases, issued 2019–2025. Middle of the range collapsed; full list below.◀ FOUND LIABLEDISMISSED ▶halfLonathan D. Hurse — 20% dismissed, 5,972 decided casesLonathan D. Hurse20%Robert W. Soelter — 29% dismissed, 2,090 decided casesRobert W. Soelter29%Harriet J. Parker — 30% dismissed, 4,077 decided casesHarriet J. Parker30%Marcia K. Johnson — 33% dismissed, 670 decided casesMarcia K. Johnson33%Robert A. Sussman — 34.1% dismissed, 39,418 decided casesRobert A. Sussman34.1%Rodney Stewart — 35.3% dismissed, 8,044 decided casesRodney Stewart35.3%Donna Rizzuto — 38.1% dismissed, 4,354 decided casesDonna Rizzuto38.1%Ewa B. Price — 38.6% dismissed, 1,745 decided casesEwa B. Price38.6%Mary Jo Strusz — 41.8% dismissed, 5,603 decided casesMary Jo Strusz41.8%David Badillo — 42% dismissed, 18,583 decided casesDavid Badillo42%Ralph Reyna — 43% dismissed, 2,648 decided casesRalph Reyna43%Daniel Ruiz — 43.3% dismissed, 3,980 decided casesDaniel Ruiz43.3%Laurie Samuels — 43.3% dismissed, 3,017 decided casesLaurie Samuels43.3%Heather Neaveill — 43.5% dismissed, 2,059 decided casesHeather Neaveill43.5%— 37 more officers, all between — Michael E. Connelly — 57.6% dismissed, 22,711 decided casesMichael E. Connelly57.6%Jean M. Brabeck — 57.7% dismissed, 21,056 decided casesJean M. Brabeck57.7%Elreta C. Dickinson — 57.9% dismissed, 22,564 decided casesElreta C. Dickinson57.9%Taryn Springs — 57.9% dismissed, 4,091 decided casesTaryn Springs57.9%J. Paula Roderick — 59.1% dismissed, 5,497 decided casesJ. Paula Roderick59.1%Zipporah J. Lewis — 59.2% dismissed, 4,567 decided casesZipporah J. Lewis59.2%Kathryn Bailey — 59.6% dismissed, 7,801 decided casesKathryn Bailey59.6%Martin J. Kennelly Jr. — 60.8% dismissed, 26,362 decided casesMartin J. Kennelly Jr.60.8%Eli R. Johnson — 62.2% dismissed, 4,772 decided casesEli R. Johnson62.2%Bernadette Freeman — 63.6% dismissed, 9,245 decided casesBernadette Freeman63.6%Joseph Chico — 64.6% dismissed, 3,861 decided casesJoseph Chico64.6%Casandra Watson — 67.9% dismissed, 546 decided casesCasandra Watson67.9%Karen L. Riley — 70% dismissed, 7,813 decided casesKaren L. Riley70%Michael Quinn — 73% dismissed, 62,803 decided casesMichael Quinn73%
Share of decided mail contests dismissed, by hearing officer. 65 officers, 777,715 decided cases, issued 2019–2025. Middle of the range collapsed; full list below.
Full ranked table — all 65 officers
#Hearing officerDecidedDismissed
1Lonathan D. Hurse5,97220%
2Robert W. Soelter2,09029%
3Harriet J. Parker4,07730%
4Marcia K. Johnson67033%
5Robert A. Sussman39,41834.1%
6Rodney Stewart8,04435.3%
7Donna Rizzuto4,35438.1%
8Ewa B. Price1,74538.6%
9Mary Jo Strusz5,60341.8%
10David Badillo18,58342%
11Ralph Reyna2,64843%
12Daniel Ruiz3,98043.3%
13Laurie Samuels3,01743.3%
14Heather Neaveill2,05943.5%
15Kyra G. Payne1,89943.5%
16Rhonda Sallee83943.5%
17Heather Neaveill-Kramer5,33543.8%
18Julie G. Davis1,27344.5%
19Jorge Cazares5,09246%
20Michael G. Cawley19,65846.2%
21Ricardo Lugo14,80046.3%
22Denis E. Guest15,38146.4%
23Melissa Ortiz1,33446.5%
24Julie Haran-King23,05446.8%
25Dyahanne Ware13,67346.9%
26Joan T. Alvarez20,52246.9%
27Gregory G. Plesha4,27847.2%
28Robert W. Barber6,28447.5%
29Urie R.Clark35,23747.7%
30Mitchell C. Ex4,60347.8%
31Philip L. Bernstein4,26349.2%
32Mark S. Boyle16,75449.3%
33Mable Taylor7,16349.7%
34Jose Padilla27,82250%
35Zedrick T. Braden 3,86150.1%
36Gia L. Morris37,38550.4%
37Jewel Klein16,47850.6%
38Michael J. Dudek30,11650.9%
39Mark Moreno14,06651%
40Karen B. Breashears6,29651.1%
41Hugo Chaviano19,14551.2%
42Boye Akinwande93451.7%
43Mamie Alexander26,76054.9%
44Rhonda L. Walker2,18354.9%
45Alfred Quijano25,50155.1%
46Katie Diggins1,52755.4%
47Rachel L. Berger88155.4%
48Barbara J. Bell6,73156.1%
49Eileen McHugh28,73956.2%
50Evelyn Ginger Mance10,83156.7%
51James Reilly11,06856.7%
52Michael E. Connelly22,71157.6%
53Jean M. Brabeck21,05657.7%
54Elreta C. Dickinson22,56457.9%
55Taryn Springs4,09157.9%
56J. Paula Roderick5,49759.1%
57Zipporah J. Lewis4,56759.2%
58Kathryn Bailey7,80159.6%
59Martin J. Kennelly Jr.26,36260.8%
60Eli R. Johnson4,77262.2%
61Bernadette Freeman9,24563.6%
62Joseph Chico3,86164.6%
63Casandra Watson54667.9%
64Karen L. Riley7,81370%
65Michael Quinn62,80373%
The obvious objection

“The harsh ones just get harder cases.” They don't.

If case mix explained the spread, holding the violation constant would collapse it. Here is the same chart for one single violation — expired plate or temporary registration, 2019-2025, 50 officers with 500+ decided cases each. Same statute, same contest method, same years. The spread does not collapse. It widens to 78.4 points.

EXPIRED PLATE OR TEMPORARY REGISTRATION, mail contests only, 2019-2025. 50 officers with 500+ decided cases each.◀ FOUND LIABLEDISMISSED ▶halfLonathan D. Hurse — 15.2% dismissed, 893 decided casesLonathan D. Hurse15.2%Harriet J. Parker — 30.4% dismissed, 599 decided casesHarriet J. Parker30.4%Heather Neaveill-Kramer — 44.4% dismissed, 556 decided casesHeather Neaveill-Kramer44.4%Donna Rizzuto — 48.8% dismissed, 705 decided casesDonna Rizzuto48.8%Gregory G. Plesha — 51.6% dismissed, 614 decided casesGregory G. Plesha51.6%Dyahanne Ware — 51.9% dismissed, 1,820 decided casesDyahanne Ware51.9%Robert A. Sussman — 53.5% dismissed, 4,983 decided casesRobert A. Sussman53.5%Daniel Ruiz — 54% dismissed, 537 decided casesDaniel Ruiz54%Rodney Stewart — 55.1% dismissed, 1,389 decided casesRodney Stewart55.1%Mitchell C. Ex — 58.7% dismissed, 654 decided casesMitchell C. Ex58.7%Jorge Cazares — 59.1% dismissed, 1,118 decided casesJorge Cazares59.1%Mary Jo Strusz — 60.2% dismissed, 854 decided casesMary Jo Strusz60.2%— 26 more officers, all between — Taryn Springs — 82.3% dismissed, 682 decided casesTaryn Springs82.3%Evelyn Ginger Mance — 83.9% dismissed, 1,906 decided casesEvelyn Ginger Mance83.9%Eileen McHugh — 84.6% dismissed, 4,649 decided casesEileen McHugh84.6%Jean M. Brabeck — 84.8% dismissed, 3,922 decided casesJean M. Brabeck84.8%Hugo Chaviano — 85.6% dismissed, 3,231 decided casesHugo Chaviano85.6%Elreta C. Dickinson — 86% dismissed, 3,893 decided casesElreta C. Dickinson86%Kathryn Bailey — 88.1% dismissed, 1,658 decided casesKathryn Bailey88.1%Alfred Quijano — 89% dismissed, 3,749 decided casesAlfred Quijano89%Joseph Chico — 89.5% dismissed, 765 decided casesJoseph Chico89.5%Bernadette Freeman — 90.3% dismissed, 1,653 decided casesBernadette Freeman90.3%Karen L. Riley — 93.1% dismissed, 1,513 decided casesKaren L. Riley93.1%Michael Quinn — 93.6% dismissed, 10,288 decided casesMichael Quinn93.6%
EXPIRED PLATE OR TEMPORARY REGISTRATION, mail contests only, 2019-2025. 50 officers with 500+ decided cases each.
On the same offense, filed the same way, a driver's odds ran from 15.2% to 93.6% — depending only on who opened the envelope.

Tighter still. That range pools 2019-2025, and the citywide mail dismissal rate moved a long way inside it, so an officer who only sat in a harsh year would look harsh for reasons that are not about them. Collapse it to a single calendar year — 2019, the year Hurse actually sat — and 47 officers decided 150+ of this one violation. The spread is still 71.2 points: 15.2% to 86.4%. One violation, one year, one filing method, nothing averaged.

Full ranked table — all 50 officers
#Hearing officerDecidedDismissed
1Lonathan D. Hurse89315.2%
2Harriet J. Parker59930.4%
3Heather Neaveill-Kramer55644.4%
4Donna Rizzuto70548.8%
5Gregory G. Plesha61451.6%
6Dyahanne Ware1,82051.9%
7Robert A. Sussman4,98353.5%
8Daniel Ruiz53754%
9Rodney Stewart1,38955.1%
10Mitchell C. Ex65458.7%
11Jorge Cazares1,11859.1%
12Mary Jo Strusz85460.2%
13Jewel Klein2,26262.3%
14David Badillo2,93562.8%
15Denis E. Guest2,31264.4%
16Zedrick T. Braden 53764.8%
17Joan T. Alvarez3,32465.4%
18Michael G. Cawley3,64267.7%
19Michael E. Connelly3,77768.7%
20Philip L. Bernstein71568.7%
21Michael J. Dudek4,49171.1%
22Jose Padilla4,61971.2%
23Gia L. Morris6,77172.2%
24Barbara J. Bell1,17272.5%
25Julie Haran-King4,39372.9%
26Mark Moreno2,19273.1%
27Robert W. Barber88073.6%
28James Reilly1,93973.9%
29Eli R. Johnson80274.7%
30Mark S. Boyle2,74476.9%
31Mamie Alexander3,66477%
32Ricardo Lugo2,21477.6%
33Martin J. Kennelly Jr.4,46079.2%
34J. Paula Roderick91679.5%
35Mable Taylor1,00279.7%
36Urie R.Clark5,37580%
37Zipporah J. Lewis70180.3%
38Karen B. Breashears96181.7%
39Taryn Springs68282.3%
40Evelyn Ginger Mance1,90683.9%
41Eileen McHugh4,64984.6%
42Jean M. Brabeck3,92284.8%
43Hugo Chaviano3,23185.6%
44Elreta C. Dickinson3,89386%
45Kathryn Bailey1,65888.1%
46Alfred Quijano3,74989%
47Joseph Chico76589.5%
48Bernadette Freeman1,65390.3%
49Karen L. Riley1,51393.1%
50Michael Quinn10,28893.6%
Not noise

The same officers judge the same way a decade later.

Two FOIA productions cover two eras. 40 officers appear in both and can be matched one-to-one. Each dot is one of them — their dismissal rate in 2012–2018 across the bottom, 2019–2025 up the side. Dots land on the dashed line when an officer judged the same way ten years apart. Hover any dot to name the officer.

Officer dismissal rate 2012–2018 versus 2019–2025 for 40 matched officers; correlation r = 0.88.20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%judged the sameLonathan D. Hurse: 27.4% (2012–18, 68,890 cases) → 20% (2019–25, 5,972 cases)Rodney Stewart: 30.9% (2012–18, 8,912 cases) → 35.3% (2019–25, 8,044 cases)Ricardo Lugo: 35% (2012–18, 3,964 cases) → 46.3% (2019–25, 14,800 cases)Harriet J. Parker: 35.3% (2012–18, 16,677 cases) → 30% (2019–25, 4,077 cases)Donna Rizzuto: 35.7% (2012–18, 3,590 cases) → 38.1% (2019–25, 4,354 cases)Marcia K. Johnson: 35.9% (2012–18, 7,180 cases) → 33% (2019–25, 670 cases)David Badillo: 36.2% (2012–18, 7,507 cases) → 42% (2019–25, 18,583 cases)Melissa Ortiz: 37.6% (2012–18, 2,408 cases) → 46.5% (2019–25, 1,334 cases)Dyahanne Ware: 40.7% (2012–18, 5,983 cases) → 46.9% (2019–25, 13,673 cases)Daniel Ruiz: 41.1% (2012–18, 18,003 cases) → 43.3% (2019–25, 3,980 cases)Ewa B. Price: 42.5% (2012–18, 9,465 cases) → 38.6% (2019–25, 1,745 cases)Laurie Samuels: 43% (2012–18, 6,596 cases) → 43.3% (2019–25, 3,017 cases)Rhonda Sallee: 45.1% (2012–18, 7,567 cases) → 43.5% (2019–25, 839 cases)Ralph Reyna: 45.4% (2012–18, 14,338 cases) → 43% (2019–25, 2,648 cases)Robert A. Sussman: 46% (2012–18, 67,386 cases) → 34.1% (2019–25, 39,418 cases)Urie R.Clark: 47.2% (2012–18, 6,274 cases) → 47.7% (2019–25, 35,237 cases)Joan T. Alvarez: 47.5% (2012–18, 17,817 cases) → 46.9% (2019–25, 20,522 cases)Evelyn Ginger Mance: 47.7% (2012–18, 11,986 cases) → 56.7% (2019–25, 10,831 cases)Alfred Quijano: 47.8% (2012–18, 26,966 cases) → 55.1% (2019–25, 25,501 cases)Gia L. Morris: 48.2% (2012–18, 6,519 cases) → 50.4% (2019–25, 37,385 cases)Rachel L. Berger: 48.7% (2012–18, 6,468 cases) → 55.4% (2019–25, 881 cases)Jose Padilla: 49.1% (2012–18, 21,346 cases) → 50% (2019–25, 27,822 cases)Philip L. Bernstein: 49.3% (2012–18, 5,985 cases) → 49.2% (2019–25, 4,263 cases)Barbara J. Bell: 49.7% (2012–18, 7,149 cases) → 56.1% (2019–25, 6,731 cases)Mark S. Boyle: 50.1% (2012–18, 13,342 cases) → 49.3% (2019–25, 16,754 cases)Jewel Klein: 50.3% (2012–18, 12,323 cases) → 50.6% (2019–25, 16,478 cases)Karen B. Breashears: 51.3% (2012–18, 37,673 cases) → 51.1% (2019–25, 6,296 cases)Zedrick T. Braden : 52% (2012–18, 18,251 cases) → 50.1% (2019–25, 3,861 cases)Rhonda L. Walker: 54.2% (2012–18, 18,710 cases) → 54.9% (2019–25, 2,183 cases)Michael E. Connelly: 57.7% (2012–18, 21,008 cases) → 57.6% (2019–25, 22,711 cases)Joseph Chico: 58.4% (2012–18, 10,121 cases) → 64.6% (2019–25, 3,861 cases)Taryn Springs: 58.7% (2012–18, 5,256 cases) → 57.9% (2019–25, 4,091 cases)Denis E. Guest: 59.3% (2012–18, 34,068 cases) → 46.4% (2019–25, 15,381 cases)Jean M. Brabeck: 59.8% (2012–18, 13,620 cases) → 57.7% (2019–25, 21,056 cases)Elreta C. Dickinson: 61% (2012–18, 9,521 cases) → 57.9% (2019–25, 22,564 cases)Eli R. Johnson: 61.8% (2012–18, 1,841 cases) → 62.2% (2019–25, 4,772 cases)Bernadette Freeman: 61.8% (2012–18, 3,906 cases) → 63.6% (2019–25, 9,245 cases)Zipporah J. Lewis: 63.3% (2012–18, 13,636 cases) → 59.2% (2019–25, 4,567 cases)Casandra Watson: 65% (2012–18, 3,216 cases) → 67.9% (2019–25, 546 cases)Michael Quinn: 70.6% (2012–18, 104,811 cases) → 73% (2019–25, 62,803 cases)dismissal rate 2012–2018 →dismissal rate 2019–2025 →
40 hearing officers present in both FOIA productions. Pearson r = 0.88.

Across these same 40 officers the average barely moved — 48.7% then, 49.4% now — so this is not a citywide drift carrying everyone along together. Individual officers keep their own posture across ten years, two mayors, and a rebuilt hearing system.

Year by year

Most of them keep their distance from the city.

The chart above compares two eras. This one draws every year separately — 30 officers who decided 150+ mail contests in each of at least 8 years, so no dot is a small sample.

The scale is not the raw dismissal rate. The citywide rate swings on its own — 50.7% in 2012, 39.8% in 2020, 61.4% in 2024 — and plotting raw rates draws the city's swing far louder than any officer, so every line dips in 2020 together and it reads as though the system moved everyone. So each dot is that officer's distance from the citywide rate that year. Zero means they judged like the city did. Removing the tide cuts the year-to-year wobble from 5.8 points to 3.7, while the gap between officers stays 9.4 — what is left is the officer. Hover any dot for the officer, the year and both numbers.

Dismissal rate by hearing officer and citation year, mail contests only, 2012–2025. 30 officers with 150+ decided cases in each of 8+ years.-30-20-100+10+20+30MORE LENIENT THAN THE CITY ▲HARSHER THAN THE CITY ▼same20122015201820212024Michael Quinn+19.9 pts careerElreta C. Dickinson+7.2 pts careerJose Padilla-2.1 pts careerRobert A. Sussman-7.4 pts careerRodney Stewart-17.8 pts careerLonathan D. Hurse-23.7 pts career
Dismissal rate by hearing officer and citation year, mail contests only, 2012–2025. 30 officers with 150+ decided cases in each of 8+ years.

“Everyone holds a lane” would be too strong, so here is the count: 12 of the 30 never once cross from one side of the pack to the other in their entire career — not in fourteen years, not in either direction. The other 18 do cross at least once. Sussman and Stewart are picked out in colour precisely because they wander, and a reader should see that as clearly as they see Quinn and Hurse holding station 43.599999999999994 points apart.

Context

And the cheap way to fight a ticket is the losing one.

In all fourteen years, showing up in person beat mailing it in. Most drivers cannot take a morning off work to attend.

Citywide dismissal rate by year, mail versus in-person, 2012 to 2025.40%50%60%70%2012201420162018202020222024In-Person 2012: 63.7% dismissed, 44,193 decidedIn-Person 2013: 66.3% dismissed, 113,810 decidedIn-Person 2014: 61.4% dismissed, 123,089 decidedIn-Person 2015: 63.7% dismissed, 119,281 decidedIn-Person 2016: 60.1% dismissed, 104,025 decidedIn-Person 2017: 63.7% dismissed, 98,059 decidedIn-Person 2018: 61.2% dismissed, 87,525 decidedIn-Person 2019: 56.4% dismissed, 71,503 decidedIn-Person 2020: 50% dismissed, 28,125 decidedIn-Person 2021: 51.6% dismissed, 34,366 decidedIn-Person 2022: 63.9% dismissed, 38,725 decidedIn-Person 2023: 66.8% dismissed, 42,024 decidedIn-Person 2024: 68% dismissed, 43,872 decidedIn-Person 2025: 67.8% dismissed, 27,505 decidedIn-PersonMail 2012: 50.7% dismissed, 62,878 decidedMail 2013: 50.5% dismissed, 155,374 decidedMail 2014: 50.3% dismissed, 164,096 decidedMail 2015: 52% dismissed, 171,360 decidedMail 2016: 48% dismissed, 183,718 decidedMail 2017: 51.5% dismissed, 176,374 decidedMail 2018: 48.9% dismissed, 179,621 decidedMail 2019: 48.4% dismissed, 167,270 decidedMail 2020: 39.8% dismissed, 107,978 decidedMail 2021: 45.3% dismissed, 108,385 decidedMail 2022: 58.4% dismissed, 107,651 decidedMail 2023: 56.9% dismissed, 103,492 decidedMail 2024: 61.4% dismissed, 111,054 decidedMail 2025: 58.3% dismissed, 72,986 decidedMail
Citywide dismissal rate among decided cases, by ticket issue year and contest method.
The data

Everything above, as files.

These are the exact files the charts are drawn from. No registration, no request.

hearing_officers_overall.csvEvery officer, both eras, mail contests — decided cases, dismissals, ratehearing_officers_by_violation.csvOfficer × violation, mail contests — the case-mix control (930 rows)hearing_officers_by_method.csvOfficer × contest method (mail vs in-person)same_officer_across_eras.csvThe 40 officers matched one-to-one across both FOIA productionsofficer_by_year.csvOfficer × year — every officer-year behind the lanes chartcitywide_by_year_method.csvCitywide dismissal rate by year and method, 2012–2025

The underlying releases and the City's own response letters are on our data sources page.

Method

How to check this.

Source. Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings, released under 5 ILCS 140 as FOIA H118909-110325 (citations issued 2019–present) and H150277-083126 (Aug 2012 – Dec 2018). One row per adjudicated case, with the officer, contest method, violation, disposition and reason as recorded by the City.

What counts as a decision. Only Not Liable and Liable. Dismissal rate = Not Liable ÷ (Not Liable + Liable). Continuances, withdrawals and denials are not decisions and are excluded. The officer charts use mail contests only, so the channel is held constant.

Thresholds. An officer needs 500+ decided cases to appear, so no rate here rests on a handful of files.

Names are left exactly as the City recorded them. That means “Heather Neaveill” and “Heather Neaveill-Kramer” appear as two entries, almost certainly one person recorded under two identities. We did not merge them, because deciding that two names are one person is an inference and this should stay faithful to the source. Their rates are 43.5% and 43.8%, both mid-range, so nothing here turns on it — and neither end of the range is affected. It is the only such pair in the 2019–2025 set.

The two productions name officers differently — usernames (quinnm) before 2019, full names (Michael Quinn) after. A naive join returns zero matches and looks like total turnover. We matched only where it is one-to-one in both directions and dropped the two we could not resolve, including a pair of usernames that both fit one person. The decade-persistence chart above uses the 40 that survived.

What this is not. It is not evidence of bad faith by anyone named here, and it does not say the harsh officers are wrong and the lenient ones right — we cannot see the files they saw. It is a measurement of consistency: similarly situated drivers, contesting the same violations the same way, receive systematically different outcomes depending on assignment. That is a procedural-fairness question no matter which direction it runs. Case assignment itself is not in the released data, so we cannot say whether it is random.
Who we are

Autopilot America contests Chicago parking tickets for drivers by mail. We filed these FOIAs to learn what actually wins. We are publishing the officer analysis because it is a fact about the hearing system that drivers cannot see and we can. Reporters are welcome to use, cite, or audit any of it; if a reproduction run disagrees with a number here, tell us and we will re-check the source. Contact randyvollrath@gmail.com.