Such bills are automatic in most cities. I doubt if anyone actually looked at the bill except to see that the treatment in the bill had been done (the 12 year old WAS transported in an ambulance). I doubt if anyone looked at the name except to confirm that their were billing the correct family (and that was a check on the Ambulance report that listed his name and family, data most ambulances gather when they pick up someone, or when the family arrives at the hospital they ambulance drivers took the child to.
This is all driven by the desire to keep taxes low, thus Cities will bill people so that the cost of as many acts by the city is NOT paid by the taxpayers.
People tend to forget that outside of the older urban areas, Police are paid NOT through taxes but tickets and that has been the case since Police came into existence (outside of urban areas) in the 1920s (Urban areas had police starting in the 1830s, but those tended to be paid by taxes).
Basically, even the State Police are paid from tickets not taxes. Thus push for Driver's licenses in the 1920s was so Police could pull someone over, give him or her a ticket and then wait for the next victim. Prior to driver's licenses, the Police would have to take the person her stopped to the local Justice of the Peace who would arraign the arrestee and force him or her to post a bond or go to jail. Taking a driver to the Justice of the Peace took the officer from writing tickets, but once a license was required (and a heavy fine if driving without one, including on the owner of the vehicle being driven by the person without a license) the police only had to write down the name and address of the driver mail him or her when to show up for the hearing or to pay the fine.
Without driver's license it is hard to give people tickets. How do you get around the right NOT to incriminate oneself by giving the police officer your name? Various states have passed laws that require you to give your name to Police Officers upon request, but the constitutionality of such laws has NOT been tested. At least one state court has said Police have the right to search you for ID (and another state court ruled such searches unconstitutional).
I bring his all up, for arresting people and giving them tickets has been a revenue source for local government for centuries. Prior to the 1920s, they would take you to a local Justice of the Peace and force you to post a bond equal to the fine, if you did not show up for the trial the fine would be forfeited. Since the 1920s, the Police have come to use Driver's Licenses for it permits the police to pull someone over, give them a ticket without having them post a bond. This means the police did not have to waste time after each arrest to book someone for a ticket-able offense. This free the officer to write more tickets (That most people just paid anyway). Driver's like tickets more then they liked going to a Justice of the Peace to post a bond, for it did not tie them up all day looking for someone to post their bond.
Thus traffic tickets not taxes pay for most police outside of the inner city (and even in cities tickets are a major source of revenue for the Police). Thus sending bills to people police, fire and other emergency workers provided some "Service" for has followed the same track. i.e. it is a major source of revenue and pays for providing such services rather then have taxes pay for such services. Such fees are integrated into the Police and Judicial system and have been since the time of Henry II of England.
I bring this up to show the whole Criminal Justice System is set up to charge Fees and to cost Taxpayers the least and thus fees are almost always charged for no one wants the Taxpayer to pick up the bill.
Side note: Henry II of England (who lived at the time or Robin Hood and was the Father of KIng Richard the Lion-heart) adopted the present Court System of England, a system you PAY to hear your case. Prior to to Henry II the Court System of England was based on tradition but such "Judges" heard cases when they wanted to, they were NOT compelled to hear cases but all judicial issues had to go through them. Henry II did NOT abolish the older court system, but since his Judges under his System were being paid by the litigates, such Judges heard hearings on cases quickly. The older system just faded away but seems to have lasted another 50 years or so (Such Courts were used mostly for local issues thus the exact date they failed to function is unknown, but were replaced by Justices of the Peace is most functions when such courts were set up by Richard I). Justice of the Peace Court are also courts one must PAY to hear your case, thus follows the rules of higher courts.
Please Note, Criminal Charges are generally free, i.e. no fee to file, but in many states must also be filed with the police and District Attorney. Furthermore in such cases the person being charged has to post a bond, thus a "fee" is "charged" but it is the Defendant who pays the money unless the Justice of the Peace decided NOT to require a bond.
so that the payments to the Judges would be made to hear the case. This obligation to pay to file a case has remained a part of the Law ever since Henry II.
= new reply since forum marked as read
?itok=lNXrmgQ_
is wrong with these people?
