Okay, this is going to be against the general consensus but I don't believe quotas are wrong. If he was a traffic officer and sat at a particular intersection for a period of time then he would likely catch someone speeding. (Keep in mind most departments look for high traffic, high accident, or high law breaking areas to focus on). Now if the officer sat there for a shift and wrote way less tickets than other people sitting at the location, then is he doing his job? People driving past him should average out to so many violations per shift. There should be some point where those numbers show reasonable enforcement. If he wasn't reasonably enforcing the laws and thus writing less tickets he is being given a basic quota but also not doing his job. There really aren't that many factors to judge an officer on beyond amount of wrecks, tickets, and warnings if they are on traffic duty.

What we should be worried about isn't quotas but unreasonable quotas. Are they trying to deter speeding or other issues through the issuance of additional tickets in an area (think about what they do in front of schools at the beginning of a year). Or are they trying to fill their coffers.

The only real way to deter this is through performance bonuses that are related to things like the number of reported incidents, deaths, etc. That way the officers are using the tickets to correct actions instead of make money for the department. Merely removing that ticket income from their budget won't work as money is highly fudgable and moving it to other accounts would just lead to cities and states moving the money around to make it the same.