You got a good idea there except for your budget part. Maybe you were reading about the Pelosi/Barak Stimulus-Pork programs such as a monorail from Vegas to Disneyland.
Got to think out of the box. Put technology to work for benefit of citizens.
I didn't know the constitution had any value anymore. I am sure such a deep surveillance system could be interpreted as some kind of violation - whether or not a court would do anything about it is another matter - remember, you get the justice you pay for. I am not versed in constitutional law.
I am sure information about speeds on a roadway would be dispatched to a massive bank of public sector employees watching every car at every moment...or maybe just by some kind of transponder system that monitors vehicle position and speed, and monitors it relative to other vehicles on the same road.
I think revenue should be a stated goal - it is simple honesty. We all know it's about money first and foremost, no problem with admitting it. People might be less insulted if the big government has the guts to admit its motives.
That is absolutely a great idea that has worked for USA since our country's creation. No reason to stop now. However, all technology is a double edged sword.
The same government that would implement such asinine technology would not be able to do anything for the benefit of citizens, only for what it claims benefits the citizenry, which in reality will benefit well connected "entrepreneurs" and career politicians.
Please don't bite me or anything else! A discussion is all that's requested.
I didn't know the constitution had any value anymore.
No, it still has great value for all of us.
I am sure such a deep surveillance system could be interpreted as some kind of violation - whether or not a court would do anything about it is another matter - remember, you get the justice you pay for. I am not versed in constitutional law.
Well, I will assume that you do have a sufficiently open mind with the intelligence necessary to evalute matters of law if relevant evidence is presented before you. After all, can I assume that you can serve on a jury?
I am sure information about speeds on a roadway would be dispatched to a massive bank of public sector employees watching every car at every moment...or maybe just by some kind of transponder system that monitors vehicle position and speed, and monitors it relative to other vehicles on the same road.
Well, should that system be voluntary or imposed?
I think revenue should be a stated goal - it is simple honesty. We all know it's about money first and foremost, no problem with admitting it. People might be less insulted if the big government has the guts to admit its motives.
We know that simple honesty is a good concept, but we have a system of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution. How will we ensure honesty with a system of checks and balances?
I think the constitution is given a lot of lip service...but it has been railroaded in the past and it will be again in the future.
I could serve on a jury, but I can think of better uses of my time
The system I dreamed up would have to be imposed. Not that I believe it "should" exist to begin with...but if there is a surveillance grid in place to catch speeders, it would not be much of a stretch to have it track LLCs and slowpokes either. If safety is a true desire of this Orwellian dream, both sides of the coin must be targeted.
Honesty in public sector projects is like flying pigs and hens teeth. Checks and balances are only worth as much as those doing the checking and balancing.
Hoever, we must continue to try and do the right thing. After all, all that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. I am sure I am paraphrasing the old saying, but it is very true in the present context, I am sure you will agree.
Woman's Lawsuit Threatens To Remove Red-Light Cameras
POSTED: 6:34 pm EST February 4, 2007 UPDATED: 7:23 pm EST February 4, 2007
AKRON, Ohio -- NewsChannel5 chief investigator Duane Pohlman has discovered a key lawsuit which may force cities to not only remove red-light cameras, but refund all the fines.
Pohlman said it all started because an Akron woman drew the line.
"I was angry enough to say, "I'm not paying this ticket. You know, they can do whatever they're going to do, but I'm not going to pay it," said Kelly Mendenhall.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
In November 2005, Mendenhall got a ticket from a red-light camera. It stated she was going 39 mph in a 25 mph zone on Copley Road in Akron.
Mendenhall is married to Warner Mendenhall, an attorney known for fighting government.
"He said, 'Well, you're going to have to pay the ticket or I'm going to have to sue somebody.' I said, 'Well, I guess you're going to have to sue somebody,'" she said.
And he did, Pohman reported.
Warner Mmendenhall is now representing his wife in the case before the Ohio Supreme Court, challenging all red-light cameras in the state of Ohio.
"It is big brother absolutely," Mendenhall said.
The Mendenhall case challenges all red-light-cameras on constitutional grounds. He claimed the cameras and the tickets deny due process.
In the suit, Warner and his wife contend the cities have turned a criminal violation in to a civil matter with a sole purpose of making money.
"Cities cannot just take what are crimes and make them civil offenses. People cannot afford these fines. The fine my wife faced was $150," Mendenhall said.
In discovery, Mendenhall revealed thousands of mistakes, Pohlman reported.
Akron's cameras captured speeders 4,000 times, but because of problems or procedure, those tickets were tossed.
Pohlman caught mistakes in Cleveland, too. A ticket issued to the wrong plate, for the wrong vehicles and the wrong speed.
The red-light cameras are now facing a real legal challenge thanks to an attorney, Pohlman reported.
"The red light is a flashpoint of where we're going as a country, as a society about individual liberties," Warner said.
Lawsuit Over Red-Light Cameras Heads To Ohio Supreme Court
POSTED: 6:54 pm EST February 7, 2007 UPDATED: 7:04 pm EST February 7, 2007
CLEVELAND -- There's now more to the big fallout from a 5 On Your Side investigation involving red-light cameras.
A story about a lawsuit filed by an Akron woman is now making headlines across the country as the case heads to the Ohio Supreme Court, reported NewsChannel5 chief investigator Duane Pohlman.
The suit may not only force cities in Ohio to remove red-light cameras but also refund millions of dollars worth of fines.
At the center of the suit is Kelly Mendenhall, the wife of Akron attorney Warner Mendenhall.
The Mendenhalls claim Ohio cities like Akron and Cleveland have turned speeding, which is a criminal act in Ohio, into a civil offense.
Because of that, Warner Mendenhall argues that the red-light cameras are illegal.
"Cities have clearly lost their way they do not understand what their limits are. We are a government where the power is granted from the people to the government, and government isn't just allowed to do anything it wants," Warner Mendenhall said.
There is no word yet on when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments.
Mississippi House Votes to Ban Ticket Cameras; Missouri and Maryland Protest Mississippi state House votes 117-3 to ban red light and speed cameras. Public protest against photo ticketing grows in Maryland and Missouri.
A near-unanimous Mississippi state House of Representatives voted Wednesday to ban red light cameras and speed cameras while anti-camera citizen protest movements gathered steam in other parts of the country. Mississippi state Representative Edward Blackmon, Jr. (D-Canton) inadvertently kicked off the effort when he introduced a measure designed to give legislative approval to the use of photo enforcement so long as ticket records were not shared with insurance companies. Blackmon's proposal was a clever way to encourage the city councils of Columbus, Jackson, McComb, Natchez, Southaven and Tupelo, all of which have approved red light camera ordinances, in the guise of placing limitations on automated ticketing machines.
The state House Judiciary Committee would have none of it. The panel rewrote Blackmon's measure to ban not just the reporting of photo tickets to insurance companies, but also the issuance a photo ticket for any offense other than a toll violation.
"A civil or criminal traffic citation may not be issued as the result of the use of automated recording equipment on state, county or municipal highways, roads and streets, and any evidence obtained from such use shall not be reported to the Department of Public Safety for any purpose, to any person or entity for the use on any credit report or to any insurance company for insurance purposes," House Bill 1568 now states.
Blackmon was one of only three House members who voted against the revised legislation which now heads to the state Senate for its consideration.
In the state of Missouri, a group of concerned Kansas City residents gathered this weekend to protest red light cameras. The event took place at the location of the city's first red light camera which is to be activated later this week. The citizens' group Liberty Restoration Project insisted that red light cameras increase accidents (view studies) and urged passersby to support Senate Bill 211, a measure that would ban all photo ticketing (view details). The legislation will be considered in a state Senate hearing this week.
At the same time in Maryland, a group of citizens gathered on Connecticut Avenue in Chevy Chase, just over the border from Washington, DC, to protest at the site of a notorious speed camera trap. Members of the newly formed DC.CameraFraud.com pointed out that the speed cameras were located on a six-lane boulevard -- not a school zone or residential neighborhood as required by state law -- and that the cameras themselves were hidden behind trees and signs. The group hopes to raise awareness in the Washington, DC metropolitan area as Virginia municipalities begin to re-install red light cameras, the District adds new speed cameras and the Maryland legislature contemplates using photo radar on freeways for the first time.
Article Excerpt: Mississippi Legislature, Regular Session 2009 HOUSE BILL NO. 1568 Version as amended and passed by the House
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT TRAFFIC CITATIONS ISSUED AS THE RESULT OF THE USE OF ELECTRONIC SPEED SENSORS OR CAMERAS FROM BEING REPORTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OR INSURANCE COMPANIES; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:
SECTION 1. (1) A civil or criminal traffic citation may not be issued as the result of the use of automated recording equipment on state, county or municipal highways, roads and streets, and any evidence obtained from such use shall not be reported to the Department of Public Safety for any purpose, to any person or entity for the use on any credit report or to any insurance company for insurance purposes. For the purpose of this section, the term "automated recording equipment" means a camera or optical device designed to record images that depict the vehicle, the vehicle operator, the license plate of the vehicle and/or other images to establish evidence that the vehicle or its operator is not in compliance with a law, ordinance, order or other provision imposed by the state or a political subdivision thereof, or the payment of tolls at toll facilities.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed to prohibit the use of automated recording equipment to enforce the payment of tolls at toll facilities, as provided under Section 65-43-73.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2009.
HB 2106 - 1 - 1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: 2 Section 1. Title 28, chapter 3, article 6, Arizona Revised Statutes, 3 is amended by adding section 28-711, to read: 4 28-711. Photo enforcement system; prohibited use 5 ON A STATE HIGHWAY IN THIS STATE, THIS STATE OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY SHALL 6 NOT USE A PHOTO ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY VIOLATORS OF THIS ARTICLE. 7 Sec. 2. Section 28-1593, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 8 28-1593. Service of uniform traffic complaint 9 A. A traffic complaint may be served by delivering a copy of the 10 uniform traffic complaint citation to the person charged with the violation 11 or by any means authorized by the rules of civil procedure. At the 12 discretion of the issuing authority, a complaint for a violation issued after 13 an investigation in conjunction with a traffic accident may be sent by 14 certified mail, return receipt requested and delivered to addressee only, to 15 the address provided by the person charged with the violation. Service of 16 the complaint is complete on filing the receipt in the court having 17 jurisdiction of the violation. 18 B. The original complaint shall be filed in a court having 19 jurisdiction of the violation within ten court days of the time the complaint 20 was issued. A peace officer, or duly authorized agent or someone paid to act 21 on behalf of a traffic enforcement agency, may issue the traffic complaint.
Minnesota: $2.6 Million in Red Light Camera Tickets Refunded Refunds proceed for illegally issued red light camera tickets in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
More than 14,000 recipients of red light camera citations in Minneapolis, Minnesota will soon receive a refund. The city this week began mailing notices informing those ticketed that they will be sent a refund check unless they choose to opt out of a class action settlement. US District Court Judge Michael J. Davis has set a February 27 date for a hearing to approve the final repayment details.
"Under the settlement, the city will also provide class members with a letter that class members may send to their motor vehicle insurance company to assist them in requesting an insurance premium refund or a reduction, if they believe their rates increased as a result of a Stop on Red conviction," the settlement notice explains.
The problems for Minneapolis began in 2005 when the city decided to issue red light camera tickets without the sanction of state lawmakers. By April 2007 the Minnesota Supreme Court had ruled that the use of automating ticketing machines violated state law and deprived motorists of due process (view ruling). The city was forced to end its program for good, but it had no intention of returning the $2.6 million collected from the program.
In addition to the city's fines, thousand of drivers paid hefty surcharges to their insurance company and about 300 had their drivers' licenses suspended as a result of the illegal photo tickets. The lawsuit was required to force the unwilling city to take action in May to clear the driving records of those affected. The three plaintiffs who brought the successful suit will receive $1500 each, and the city will cover the legal fees accumulated during the lengthy court battle.
A copy of the settlement notice is available in a 35k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: Notice of Class Action Settlement (US District Court, Minnesota, 1/14/2009)
Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.
The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law (read opinion).
The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."
"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
Article Excerpt: STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A06-568 Filed: April 5, 2007
Hanson, J. State of Minnesota, Appellant,
vs.
Daniel Alan Kuhlman, Respondent.
S Y L L A B U S
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances sections 474.620 to 474.670, which make the owner of a motor vehicle guilty of a petty misdemeanor if the vehicle is photographed running a red light, are invalid because they are in conflict with the Minnesota Traffic Regulations, and specifically with Minn. Stat. Section 169.06, subd. 4(a) (2006), and Minn. Stat. Section 169.022 (2006).
Affirmed.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.
O P I N I O N
HANSON, Justice.
In September 2004, the Minneapolis City Council enacted Minneapolis Code of Ordinances sections 474.620 to 474.670, which authorized photo enforcement of traffic control signals. The Minneapolis police began enforcing the new ordinance in July 2005, and on August 11, 2005, one of the cameras photographed a car as it failed to stop at a red light at the intersection of West Broadway Avenue and Lyndale Avenue North. The Minneapolis Police Department mailed a citation to the registered owner of the car, respondent Daniel Alan Kuhlman, for violating the ordinance. Kuhlman challenged the ordinance, arguing that it conflicted with state law and violated the due process rights of registered owners. The district court granted Kuhlman's motion to dismiss without reaching the constitutional issues, holding that the ordinance conflicted with state law. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal. State v. Kuhlman, 722 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Minn. App. 2006). We affirm.
Ordinance section 474.640 penalizes an owner of a motor vehicle whose car is photographed running a red light: "If a motor vehicle is operated in violation of section 474.630 [running a red light] and the violation is detected by a recorded image taken by an automated traffic law enforcement system, the owner of the vehicle or the lessee of the vehicle is guilty of a petty misdemeanor." Minneapolis, Minn., Code art. 1, Section 474.640 (2004) (emphasis added). The ordinance further provides, in section 474.660 entitled "Evidence," that
(a) In the prosecution of a violation, as set forth by section 474.640, captured by an automated traffic law enforcement system, prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the citation was operated in violation of this section, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such violation the owner or lessee of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a rebuttable presumption that such owner or lessee was the person who committed the violation. The presumption shall be rebutted if the owner or lessee:
(1) Provides a sworn affidavit delivered by United States mail to the city or agency that he or she was not the owner or lessee of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation and provides the name and current address of the person operating the motor vehicle at the time of the violation; or
(2) Submits a copy of a police report showing the vehicle had been reported as stolen in a timely manner before the date of the violation.
(b) If the city or agency finds that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation or receives evidence under paragraph (a)(1) of this section identifying the person driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, the city or agency shall issue a citation to the identified driver through the United State mail, no later than fourteen (14) days after receipt of this information.
The Minnesota Supreme Court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded.
The magnitude of the overspeeding is immaterial. Nobody can violate due process protections.
So far it is thank goodness for Texas believing it was a rights issue. Thank goodness for Minnesota for believing it was a rights issue. I am glad to see Arizona will be addressing it as a rights issue but the bill still has to pass. It is supported by the Arizona Governor so it has a chance. I hope this trend begins to sweep the nation.
Step by step, according to the processes laid down by the Constitution, it will happen
Mere hoping is not enough. We must make our voices heard at every level and in every forum.
Let the naysayers say what they may. The use of photo radar as being presently used for ASE is illegal, and soon it shall be proven to be so across the USA by LAW.
"And when they came for the lady, I did not protest because it wasn't MY RIGHTS that were being violated. "
So true, they could have required the lady to place a RED capital S on her blouse for suspect. Better yet she could wear a yellow patch with a C for criminal so the good brown shirts could see who she was. After all why should she avail herself of her constitutional right to defend herself against a camera?
"Arbeit mach frei". The state would never mistreat anyone would they? Follow the rules and you have nothing to worry about.
It is so true, those who forget history are doomed to repete it.
There is no more of a "presumption of guilt" with a photo radar ticket than with a human-issued ticket.
You still have to go to court to fight it either way. You have to convince a judge you were not speeding to win either case.
How are they different?
They are different because the recipient of the photo radar ticket must prove that he/she is not the person who was driving at the time the picture was taken rather than the state having the burden of proof. As I posted about a month ago, I went to court for a photo radar ticket. Although the magistrate agreed that I was not the driver in the picture, he would only toss the ticket if I identified the actual driver (my daughter's boyfriend whom I'd only met once). What about the business owner who owns several vehicles and has dozens of employees who might be driving them at any given time? A traffic cop would issue the ticket to the actual driver (aka the responsible party). The traffic camera doesn't care who's responsible (and neither do the courts).
.... is the difficulty of making it acceptable to the population at large that it purports to help protect.
People in blind, unquestioning and unwavering support of this type of technology can sometimes exhibit what is called a "god complex" which is defined as "A psychosis based in uncontrolled narcissism, inflated arrogance and a perceived need to subjugate and/or ridicule other individuals deemed to be inferior or unworthy." (from: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=God%20complex )
One must therefore be vey careful in making any arguments that may or may not be acceptable to society at large. Merely declaring everybody else wrong over and over again despite clear incontrovertible proof to the contrary does not make for a good argument, and does not make anything true or false.
This just proves another very difficult issue with photo radar, if the lively discussion in this forum is anything to go by.
for vinnyny:
Although the magistrate agreed that I was not the driver in the picture, he would only toss the ticket if I identified the actual driver
So you would have grounds to say that the magistrate accepted your innocence, and that is all that you are required to do. You are innocent. Who else might be guilty is the police's job to find out, not yours without the training or authority.
(What about the business owner who owns several vehicles and has dozens of employees who might be driving them at any given time?
He would be so out of luck and probably go bankrupt, increasing the cost to society of lost jobs and business.
A traffic cop would issue the ticket to the actual driver (aka the responsible party).
That is why police work should be always done by the police, not by private parties relying on machines with a financial interest in fleecing the public.
The traffic camera doesn't care who's responsible (and neither do the courts).
But not all courts. That is why the Minnesota Supreme Court decision is important. Courts will see the light, but only if we keep trying.
A fair question might be: Should the use of photo radar in certain situations such as work zones be okay? However, they cannot remain switched on all the time, especailly when the workers have gone home.
Case in point, indicating that there remain several important issues with phot radar, but we must involve ourselves and the courts in the process:
Stop radar abuse Court ruling puts onus on city to abide by law
By TOM BRODBECK
Last Updated: 8th February 2009, 1:22am
Photo radar tickets for nine Winnipeg motorists have been tossed out of court after a precedent-setting case has ruled it unlawful to use photo enforcement in construction zones when workers are not present.
Judicial Justice of the Peace Norman Sundstrom in a 13-page ruling said Manitoba's Highway Traffic Act -- which sets out the rules for where photo radar can be used -- requires workers to be present in construction zones for municipalities to issue photo radar fines.
Sundstrom dismissed charges in provincial court against nine motorists who were all fined for speeding in construction zones when workers were not present.
At least one of the tickets came from a photo radar vehicle parked southbound at Lagimodiere Boulevard and Knowles Avenue.
"The section (of the act) clearly means that workers must be present for any special speed sign to take effect," wrote Sundstrom.
Sundstrom says the act is clearly intended to protect workers in construction zones, not fine motorists for exceeding the reduced speed after workers have gone home for the day.
He says there are two sections of the act that spell that out.
"These two sections ... indicate a legislative scheme that consistently intends to protect workers in a construction zone and consistently make it an offence to exceed the indicated speed in the reduced speed sign only when 'workers are present,' " he wrote.
Infuriated
City hall's cash-driven strategy of setting up photo radar vehicles in construction zones outside of working hours -- including along stretches of Lagimodiere -- has infuriated many motorists in recent months.
And while many felt they had no option but to pay the fine, at least nine have appealed and won their cases.
"Although some people might feel that the legislation would be wiser to force drivers to slow down even after workers have gone home for the day, this is not in my view a justification for the court to add to or change the law under the guise of interpretation," he wrote.
It's pretty clear that setting up photo radar vans in construction zones at all hours of the day and on weekends when no workers are on the job is nothing but a cash grab.
Mayor Sam Katz and city council insist the photo radar program is about safety, not money. Yet they ignore the very laws that spell out how photo radar can be used, all in the name of gouging motorists.
Obviously the city should protect construction workers while they're on the job. That's why highway traffic authorities erect signs that demand drivers slow down when workers are present.
Money
But nailing motorists outside of working hours who are driving the regular speed limit has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money.
The question now is, will the Crown appeal this case or will the city simply do the right thing and stop nailing people in construction zones when workers aren't present.
Or will the Doer government amend the legislation or regulations?
One thing's for sure, there's going to be a lot of drivers out there who got photo radar tickets in construction zones after-hours who are going to want their money back.
Last Updated: Tuesday, July 3, 2007 | 6:58 PM ET CBC News
More needs to be done to crack down on speeding, but photo radar is not the answer, Dalton McGuinty told reporters Tuesday.
"There seems to be a stronger consensus around making sure that there are tougher penalties associated with speeding," the premier said.
Recent high-profile accidents have renewed calls for a return to photo radar, including from the chief of police in Hamilton.
But McGuinty said there seems to be more interest increasing punishment for people who exceed the speed limit by 50 km/h or more.
OPP commissioner Julian Fantino has recommended increasing punishment and McGuinty said the government is giving it serious consideration.
The radar systems, which automatically photograph and ticket the owners of speeding vehicles, were put on some Ontario roads in the early 1990s by the New Democratic government of the day.
Photo radar was dropped in 1995 by the Conservatives, who had made killing it an election promise. In 2004, McGuinty suggested restoring photo radar, in part as a deficit-fighting tool, but the proposal did not proceed.
Speed camera van busted for DUI in Scottsdale, Arizona.
A speed camera van driver in Scottsdale, Arizona was arrested Saturday at 6:30pm, accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). A retired police officer spotted Roderick Ruffin, 53, driving erratically on Scottsdale Road and dialed 911. Ruffin had been behind the wheel of an official van registered to the Australian photo radar contractor Redflex Traffic Systems and was headed toward Tempe about to begin issuing automated speeding tickets to other motorists on that city's behalf.
"He's weaving all over the place," the concerned motorist explained to the 911 operator. "He's hit the curb twice. He's almost hit other vehicles in the number one lane."
Before Ruffin could reach his destination, however, Scottsdale Police intercepted the photo enforcement van.
"When the officer contacted the driver, he could smell alcohol on the driver's breath," Scottsdale Police said in a prepared statement. "The officer asked the driver to perform the standard field sobriety tests, the results of which indicated impairment."
Ruffin was booked after police testing showed his blood alcohol content (BAC) appeared to exceed 0.15, well beyond the legal limit. Redflex terminated Ruffin's employment upon learning of what the company called an apparent "reckless lapse of judgment."
"The company deeply regrets and apologizes to the community for the incident, and expresses its gratitude to the Scottsdale Police for making the arrest and removing the offending driver from the road," Redflex said in a statement.
Scottsdale city officials are quick to point out that Redflex no longer runs the city's speed camera program having handed the lucrative photo ticketing contract over to rival vendor ATS in 2007. Redflex insists that it conducts thorough background checks on its employees, but this is not the first time that drivers for the Australian firm have had run-ins with the law. Earlier this year a Redflex employee in Lafayette, Louisiana was arrested while using a personal vehicle.
National Motorists Association President Jim Baxter expressed outrage that a contractor running what is supposed to be a public safety program was found drinking on the job.
"While I can understand how depressing and demeaning it must be to fleece my friends, neighbors and other hard-working citizens," Baxter said, "the better solution would be to find a new job and not endanger the traveling public."
Improperly setting up a photo radar to monitor worker speed limit during non-work hours has nothing to do with question of "concept" and practice of a photo radar operating per design intent and laws/codes of responsible government agency.
Drunken photo radar van driver also has nothing to do with this board.
Speeders caught by photo radar who also were DUI, on drugs, had open liquor in car, loaded gun, vehicle infractions, etc., should feel quite lucky that a police officer with a radar gun did not catch them and pull them over. Too bad we don't have technolgy that can ID drunken drivers to then alert for nearest police cruiser for action.
Speeders going 10+ over, and with no other infractions (DUI, gun, etc) ,should stop whinning. They are getting a break. Those speeders with older vehicles might also be written up for vehicle infractions in event of a police officer pulling them over. Photo radar does not catch a non-operating brake light and other non-functional parts.
Ore. court throws out radar speeding ticket By Jason George
The Associated Press
PORTLAND — The state Supreme Court yesterday overturned the conviction of a woman who was issued a $35 speeding ticket under the state's photo-radar law.
But the state Attorney General's Office said the ruling dealt mostly with a technicality and will not have any major effect on the 1995 law.
"It doesn't have anything to do with the constitutional issues of photo radar," said Kristen Grainger, spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office.
The high court ruled no evidence was presented at the 1997 trial of Sara Clay that she was the driver or owner of a car that was photographed speeding in Portland.
The only Oregon agencies that use photo radar are Portland and Beaverton police, said Jay Remy, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Clay received the ticket under a law passed two years earlier that allows police to send a traffic ticket to the owner of a vehicle after the car or truck is photographed in an automated speed trap set by machinery using radar and a camera.
Clay requested a trial and was convicted of speeding.
She appealed the verdict, arguing there was no direct evidence she had been driving when the photograph was taken or that she was the vehicle's registered owner.
The Court of Appeals upheld her conviction, and Clay then took the case to the state Supreme Court.
Grainger said the ruling has "zero impact on photo-radar use in this state."
What the ruling means, she said, is "now we'll hear more detail from the officers who cite people."
Beaverton police started using photo radar because two-thirds of the traffic accidents to which they responded were caused by people running red lights, said Mayor Rob Drake.
"Broadly, regionally, there is just an epidemic of people running red lights," Drake said.
Beaverton uses five photo-radar stations, which cost about $50,000 to $80,000 per intersection, Drake said.
The city will drop one station soon because of restrictions passed during this year's Legislative session.
Harold Blank, Judge (Pretrial Matters); Steven Evans, Judge (Trial).
Argued and submitted January 3, 2001.
Michael E. Rose argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Steenson, Schumann, Tewksbury, Later & Rose, P.C.
Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Lipscomb, Judge pro tempore.
HASELTON, P. J.
Affirmed.
HASELTON, P. J.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for speeding, ORS 811.100, based on a citation issued pursuant to the photo radar statute, ORS 810.438 to ORS 810.439 (1997). (1) She argues that: (1) the photograph and data generated by the photo radar unit were improperly admitted into evidence; (2) the statutory presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the driver at the time of the alleged infraction, ORS 810.439(1)(b) (1997), is unconstitutional; and (3) the delay of over a week between the speeding incident and the citation's issuance violated her due process rights. We affirm.
Yes, and the way the police decide who is driving?
Send a ticket to the registered owner.
The owner comes to court to fight the ticket.
The judge asks the owner who the driver is.
Under oath, the car owner tells the truth.
Now we know who gets the points and pays the ticket.
Owner of the car wants to avoid this hassle?
Tell the people whom you let borrow your vehicle NOT TO SPEED. Tell them if they get a ticket (human or not) that the payment and consequences will be THEIRS to deal with.
Never mind 1984 by George Orwell. Here is a more relvant book directly related to this forum, if anybody's interested. A copy might even be in a place close by you called a library.
The following list shows classifications of drivers (some legal, some not) who cannot be identified/cited or who face a greatly reduced probability of receiving a citation or being convicted:
People with out of state (or country) plates People driving commercial vehicles People driving rental cars People wearing masks People covering their face People who turn or tilt their head away from the camera Cars with temporary plates Cars with missing plates Cars with plate covers Cars with missing plates Cars with dirty plates People with inaccurate address on vehicle or license registration Trucks operating with the tailgate down Trucks with trailer hitches that block the plate Vehicles towing trailers or boats Vehicles with rear-mounted wheel chairs or bike racks Vehicles committing violation with larger vehicle in the line-of-sight to the camera Identical twins Illegal aliens
This is to be contrasted with human law enforcement who are capable of stopping ANY violator they choose. Everyone who drives by a human officer while violating a law stands an equal chance of an officer pulling them over for at least a little chat. How is it that our lawmakers have decided that it's OK to target only local drivers with accurate registration information and plainly visible plates? Why do we accept the limitation that over 75% of the violators are ineligible or unable to receive tickets based on limitations of this system?
Critics: photo radar violates due process to generate revenue A red-light camera looms above pedestrians crossing Rural Road at University Drive. (Damien Maloney/The State Press) By:Matt Culbertson Published On:Thursday, October 9, 2008
Arizona’s speeding and red light cameras violate the right to confront one’s accuser in order to generate revenue for the state and cities, critics of photo radar say.
Bonnie Sesolak, a spokeswoman for the National Motorists Association — a group that lobbies for changes in traffic laws — said photo cameras do not give adequate due process to recipients of tickets. The cameras are used as a revenue generator, Sesolak said, and safety is not the main priority.
“We’re very adamantly opposed to photo enforcement,” Sesolak said. “If it’s not about the money, then what’s it about?”
Arizona was the first state to implement photo radar statewide and will likely have more than 100 traffic cameras deployed across the state by November, Redflex Traffic Systems spokeswoman Shoba Vaitheeswaran said in an e-mail.
The statewide contract was awarded to Scottsdale-based Redflex last year.
Photo radar is estimated to bring $90 million to the state in fiscal year 2009, according to a state budget summary.
But Lt. James Warriner, a DPS spokesman, said safety is the prominent concern in the state’s photo-enforcement program.
“This is a tremendous tool for us,” said Warriner. “It does lessen and decrease the number of fatal and serious injury collisions.”
Warriner said the cameras are proven to reduce speeds and increase traffic safety, according to several studies, including one by an ASU researcher.
And the cameras free up law enforcement to enforce more important laws than speeding, such as DUI laws, Warriner said.
Between May 2007 and July 2008, DPS issued more than 86,000 citations using photo radar, about 48 percent of the approximately 180,600 incidents recorded, according to department statistics.
But Sesolak said that instead of providing safety, traffic cameras are revenue generators for the camera companies and local and state governments.
Warriner said DPS did not yet have numbers available for how much revenue had come in through the state’s traffic-camera program.
Redflex and American Traffic Systems, which operates traffic cameras in Phoenix and Mesa, also said they could not release financial figures because they needed permission from cities to release the data.
To enhance safety, intersections and roads need to have better engineering to accommodate drivers, Sesolak said.
“If it was really about the safety, they would make these simple engineering changes to these intersections,” she said.
She added that the process also denies motorists their legal rights.
“In most cases really, you’re presumed guilty,” Sesolak said of the traffic cameras.
Those accused of receiving a ticket cannot confront their accuser in court, since the accuser is technically a machine, she said.
But a spokesman for Scottsdale-based American Traffic Solutions, Josh Weiss, said there was more than enough evidence from red-light and speed cameras to issue citations.
Weiss said American Traffic Solutions has three separate employees review the video evidence for each traffic violation before sending the information to a police department. Because of the checks and balances within the process, he said, tickets are issued fairly.
The evidence against traffic violators caught on cameras can be more substantial than a human witness, Weiss said.
“In my opinion, there’s more than just an eyewitness,” Weiss said of the cameras.
But Susan Kayler, a Scottsdale-based attorney, said in an e-mail that traffic cameras deny the right of a defendant to cross-examine the evidence.
“The question boils down to due process,” Kayler said. “Does photo radar afford a person cited with due process? I say no.”
Kayler, who wrote the 2004 book “Smile for the Speed Camera! Photo Radar Exposed!” has represented clients who received photo-radar tickets. But she said that because the U.S. Constitution guarantees those accused of a crime — but not necessarily those facing civil violations — a right to confront their accuser, there is a lower standard of proof required for traffic camera tickets.
But even with that lower standard, cross-examining employees of a photo radar company is not enough, she said.
“How can you cross-examine a machine? You can’t,” Kayler said.
“This is a tremendous tool for us,” said Warriner. “It does lessen and decrease the number of fatal and serious injury collisions.”
Warriner said the cameras are proven to reduce speeds and increase traffic safety, according to several studies, including one by an ASU researcher.
Speeders say: WAAH WAAH WAAH Due Process Money Grab "why won't they just LET us run red lights and speed? We are in a HURRY, DANGIT !!!"
Maryland Governor Vetoes Photo Radar Bill Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich vetoed a measure that would have allowed speed cameras in the state. Full text of the governor's veto message.
Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich (R) vetoed a bill on Friday that would have allowed speed cameras to issue tickets to motorists in Montgomery County. At least six jurisdictions in the state currently use red light cameras, but photo radar has never been allowed. The neighboring District of Columbia uses photo radar which helped its combined photo enforcement program to bring in over $100 million in revenue since 1999.
Ehrlich vetoed HB 443 along with two dozen other measures saying doing so was "in the best interest of good policy, sound government and fiscal responsibility for Maryland's citizens." The photo radar bill passed by wide margins in the Democrat controlled House (85-42) and Senate (29-17) in April.
Article Excerpt: Governor Ehrlich's Veto Messages for House Bill 443
May 20, 2005
The Honorable Michael E. Busch Speaker of the House of Delegates State House Annapolis, MD 21401
Dear Mr. Speaker:
In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the Maryland Constitution, today I have vetoed House Bill 443 – Montgomery County – Vehicle Laws – Speed Monitoring Systems .
Bill Summary
House Bill 443 allows in Montgomery County the use of speed cameras in residential areas where the maximum speed limit is 35 miles per hour and in school zones. The owners of motor vehicles detected traveling in excess of 10 miles per hour in these areas are subject to a civil penalty. The civil penalty may not exceed $40 and for purposes of the citation the amount will be prescribed by the District Court. An owner can contest a citation by proving: (1) the motor vehicle was stolen, provided a police report of the theft was filed; (2) that another was operating the motor vehicle, if the owner provides the name, address, and if possible the driver's license number of the operator as well as other corroborating evidence; and (3) any other issues and introducing any other evidence that the District Court deems pertinent. A violation may not be considered a moving violation for purposes of establishing points, may not be recorded on the driving record of the owner, may be considered a parking violation for purposes of refusing to register a vehicle or suspending a vehicle's registration for an unpaid citation, and may not be considered for purposes of motor vehicle insurance coverage.
Veto of House Bill 455 of 2003
In 2003, I vetoed Senate Bill 455 – Vehicle Laws – Speed Monitoring Systems – Radar Cameras . Senate Bill 455 would have allowed statewide the use of radar cameras that House Bill 443 seeks to allow for Montgomery County only. For many of the reasons I vetoed Senate Bill 455 of 2003, I find House Bill 443 to be equally objectionable for Montgomery County.
Trial by Camera
House Bill 443 will allow the State to charge, try, and convict an individual solely through the use of a photograph of a vehicle. This bill takes what has traditionally been a violation of the criminal law, redefines the violation to be a civil offense, lowers the burden of proof to the civil standard, and abridges the right to confront the witnesses against the accused. Further, the procedure that puts the onus on the owner to request the presence of the technician who set up the speed-monitoring device is entirely inadequate.
Privacy Issues
House Bill 443 is another step toward the pervasive use of cameras by the government to monitor and regulate the conduct of its people. There may be times when this type of surveillance is appropriate. I am, however, reluctant to approve its use in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
Safety Issues
Although proponents assert this bill will improve traffic safety, the evidence on this issue is incomplete. There has been little study of the effectiveness of speed cameras on improving traffic safety. At present, the Transportation Research Board is undertaking a comprehensive study of this issue. On a related issue, Virginia recently refused to reauthorize the use of red light cameras based on a study showing that the use of such cameras increased the risk of accidents. Therefore, it is appropriate to await the results of a thorough study before concluding that speed cameras improve traffic safety.
"Local Bill"
House Bill 443 applies only in Montgomery County. It does, however, have profound statewide ramifications. First, it applies to anyone who drives in Montgomery County. Undoubtedly there are many commuters from other parts of the State and from other states who use these roads on a daily basis. Second, Montgomery County would be the first jurisdiction in the State to be granted this authority. This would establish a precedent for other counties to seek this authority and, accordingly, is the first step to a statewide system.
Residential Districts
House Bill 443 applies to residential districts with a maximum posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Section 21-101 of the Transportation Article defines a residential district as "an area that: (1) is not a business district; and (2) adjoins and includes a highway where the property along the highway for a distance of at least 300 feet is improved mainly with residences or residences and buildings used for business."
Information received from the Department of Transportation shows there are many State highways that would qualify as "residential areas" under the bill, some of which are four and six lane highways. These include parts of Connecticut Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue, and Viers Mill Road. Hundreds, if not thousands, of tickets could be issued daily on these roadways to people who are simply traveling with the flow of traffic. In this regard, the District of Columbia government web page contains a statement dated March 18, 2004, boasting that in the first 15 days of operation a single stationary speed camera found more than 10,000 motorists to be speeding.
Revenue Enhancement Issues
The advocates of House Bill 443 are sincere in their desire for increased highway safety, a goal on which we can all agree. It is clear that for governments, however, speed cameras are also an effective revenue raising measure. In January of this year The Washington Times published a letter from District of Columbia Mayor Anthony A. Williams urging the City Council to approve a contract for a speed camera vendor, stating: "There is an urgent need for the approval of this contract to ensure the continued processing of District tickets and the collection of District revenues." There was no mention of traffic safety in his letter. The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department web page states that since the speed camera program began in July 2001, over $72 million has be
over $72 million has been collected. In March 2005 more than 31,000 violations were sent out and nearly $2 million was collected.
The Fiscal and Policy Note to House Bill 443 states that for Montgomery County "revenues would increase significantly and expenditures would also increase." In fiscal year 2006 revenues are estimated to be $6.3 million, with expenditures of $4.6 million. As the experience in the District of Columbia clearly shows, once a jurisdiction begins to use the cameras and receives the increased revenues, expanding the program becomes a logical progression. As the experience with the District of Columbia also shows, the rationale for the expansion may be purely monetary.
Impact on District Court
I am also concerned about the effect House Bill 443 would have on the District Court. The Maryland Judicial Conference opposed this bill before the General Assembly on the basis that it would have "a substantial impact on the District Court." Although the actual number of citations to be issued is unknown, it is clear that a significant number will increase court dockets, trial time, clerical time, and possibly result in the need for costly computer programming changes.
National Use of Speed Cameras
Since my veto of Senate Bill 455 in 2003, the use of speed cameras in the United States remains limited to five states plus the District of Columbia. In the eastern part of the country (in addition to the District of Columbia) only in the state of New York in cities with a population over 1,000,000 are speed cameras authorized. As stated above, Virginia has repealed the use of red light cameras. There is clearly no national trend in support of speed cameras.
For the above stated reasons, I have vetoed House Bill 443.
Photo Radar September 5th, 2008 — 02:39 pm — by Matt Brown I regularly receive calls from people who want to fight their photo radar tickets. They are generally furious about the situation, calling the cameras “the devil’s work,” “big brother watching us,” and other far more colorful things I won’t mention here. Although people caught by the cameras hate them, I’ve found that most people I meet think the cameras are great. If you’ve read this blog much, I’m sure you can guess what I think.
A lot of people justify photo radar because they think it will prevent speeding and free up law enforcement personnel to deal with more serious offenses. In general, I doubt photo radar will really do what its proponents claim, but I’d rather save that argument for a later post. Honestly, I don’t care effective photo radar is.
I’ve heard British people proudly proclaim that there are more CCTV cameras in London than in all of the USA, and that they do an amazing job of preventing crime and permitting effective use of law enforcement resources. I suspect (and hope) that most US citizens who are fine with photo radar would oppose one CCTV camera for every fourteen people in the USA. Why the difference?
If it’s because photo radar supposedly only captures people who break the law, then why not have the CCTV cameras on but only let the police view the recordings after a crime’s been reported in the area. I hope most US citizens wouldn’t stand for that either. I’d like to think that opposition stems from a healthy distrust of those to whom we give power, something that distinguishes our country from a lot of other places.
Another group of people try to justify photo radar by describing all of the ways the government has promised to limit its use. They say there will be no license points or school to attend for a violation, or that the government will only ticket the actual driver, whom they must positively identify. They claim cameras will only be put up on state highways, which apparently means freeways and interstates, not rural roads. There will supposedly be warning signs posted as well.
Do you really think the state will forever spare violators traffic school or points and abstain from forcing the car’s owner to reveal the driver’s identity? Should the rural/urban distinction really make a difference? Couldn’t CCTV too be justified if we just put it in big cities, not suburbs or rural areas? If signs make photo radar okay, couldn’t they also legitimize CCTV all over the state?
Why are we so willing to trust the government to continue to limit itself in using technology against us? When was the last time the government, on any level, limited the scope of a cash cow program? If our rights and some unwritten promises stand in the way of effectively and profitably enforcing traffic laws with these machines, do you really think the government’s going to keep it’s word?
History has shown that the government doesn’t keep its promises. Wasn’t the income tax supposed to be a temporary measure, a “war tax?” We can’t even make the government do the things it’s promised to do explicitly and in writing. If you don’t believe me, have a look at the US Constitution’s sixth amendment right to a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions. If we can’t make the government respect the promises set forth in the Constitution, why do we think the government will honor unwritten promises?
I also recently received an email defending the use of photo radar by claiming that what the government makes from the cameras is not actually “revenue.” Apparently, if you don’t use the cash to balance the budget, but instead use it to deal with public safety issues or increase border security, it isn’t revenue. I understand the definition of revenue technically changes when the government is involved, but I really don’t like the government’s hypocrisy when it comes to this kind of stuff. Do you think the government would be persuaded that I don’t owe any taxes because I had no “revenue” due to the fact I spent all the money I earned on things I thought were important or felt I had to do?
The same email also argued that if we don’t do something as a state, the federal government will begin imposing far worse measures. Using that logic, a state or locality could enact all but the absolute most appalling laws by arguing the federal government will do worse if they do not act.
I haven’t heard a single argument in favor of photo radar that made me even slightly warm up to idea. Quite frankly, it disgusts me that people are so enamored with the promise of safety that they’re willing to let the state profit from them using unmanned machines supplied by the lowest corporate bidder. I challenge anyone to read the Declaration of Independence and with a straight face tell me that the idea of government cameras spying on citizens isn’t plainly and wholly incompatible with the radical ideas of freedom and justice on which this country was founded.
1. Speed cameras are effective at reducing driving speed and accident rates.
Speeding is perhaps the biggest contributing factor to motor vehicle crashes. High rates of speed can also significantly increase the severity of accidents as well. Speed cameras are being used more frequently as a way to deter speeders. While the United States has been slow at implementing speed camera campaigns, they are very prominent in other parts of the world such as Great Britain.
Several studies conducted in Great Britain by the Department of Transport resulted in findings that prove the theory that speed cameras do in fact reduce the number of traffic accidents. In some cases, they saw a 40% reduction in accident rates.
2. Red light cameras are proven to reduce the number of accidents and violations in intersections where they are installed.
There have been several studies conducted that support the fact that red light photo cameras not only reduce the number of accidents but also the number of red light violations themselves. A recent status report released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety revealed the findings of studies conducted on intersections in the city of Philadelphia where red light photo cameras were installed. They found that before any cameras were installed within the intersections, violations ranged anywhere from eight to 251 per 10,000 vehicles. After red light photo cameras were installed and operating for more than a year, violation rates declined 87 to 100 percent. In these intersections studied in Philadelphia, red light violations were drastically reduced because of the red light photo cameras installed.
Arizona State Appeals Court Photo Radar Decision Full text of the 1992 Arizona State Appeals Decision forbidding the mailing of speed camera tickets.
In 1992, the Arizona State Appeals Court ruled that mailing of speed camera tickets to motorists violated the law. It required "personal service", that is, hand delivery, of any violation.
Article Excerpt: Jeffrey J. TONNER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARADISE VALLEY MAGISTRATE'S COURT and Hon. Lester Penterman, a magistrate thereof, Town of Paradise Valley, a municipal corporation, and the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellants
No. 1 CA-CV 90-429 Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department C 171 Ariz. 449; 831 P.2d 448; 1992 Ariz. App. May 12, 1992, Filed
JUDGES: Bolton, Judge.1 Contreras, P.J., and McGregor, J., concur.
OPINIONBY: BOLTON
Defendants-appellants appeal from a superior court judgment vacating an order of civil sanction entered by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court on a civil traffic complaint issued to plaintiff-appellee Jeffrey Tonner. Appellee filed a special action in superior court to vacate the order of civil sanction, arguing that the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court lacked personal jurisdiction when it entered a default judgment against him. The superior court judge found that service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (formerly Rule 4(e)(7)) was not completed prior to entry of judgment and that the judgment entered was void.
On February 11, 1990, the photo radar device operated by the Town of Paradise Valley detected a vehicle registered to General Motors Acceptance Corporation ("GMAC") traveling at an alleged speed of fifty-six miles per hour in a forty mile per hour zone. A summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were mailed to GMAC alleging a violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. ("A.R.S.") @ 28-701 (1989), driving at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent. GMAC forwarded the summons and complaint to appellee and his wife, the lessees of the vehicle. GMAC also sent the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court a copy of its transmittal letter to appellee. The summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were reissued, naming Tonner as defendant and the vehicle's driver at the time of the alleged violation of section 28-701.
On March 7, 1990, a copy of the summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint and two copies of the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint were sent by first-class mail to appellee with a return, postage-paid envelope. The summons directed appellee to appear on March 22, 1990, in the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court. Appellee never signed and returned the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint nor did he appear on March 22, 1990. On that date, based on appellee's failure to appear, the allegations of the complaint were deemed admitted, and an order of civil sanction was entered against him. The Town of Paradise Valley argues on appeal that use of first-class mail for delivery of a summons and complaint is sufficient for service and to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants in civil traffic matters. We disagree.
The requirements for service under Rule 4.1(c) are clear. A summons and complaint may be served by first-class mail along with two copies of a notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint and a postage-paid return envelope, but service is not complete until the acknowledgment of receipt is executed. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(1), (2). If the acknowledgment of receipt is not executed, service is not complete under this method even if there is evidence that the summons and complaint were received. See Worrell v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 845 F.2d 840, 841-42 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3191, 105 L.Ed.2d 699 (1989). Until service is complete, no personal jurisdiction is obtained, and any judgment entered is void. Endischee v. Endischee, 141 Ariz. 77, 79, 685 P.2d 142, 144 (App.1984); Kadota v. Hosogai, 125 Ariz. 131, 134, 608 P.2d 68, 71 (App.1980).
Appellant argues that requiring execution of the acknowledgment of receipt creates a conflict with A.R.S. @ 28-1076 (1989) because that statute requires the civil traffic complaint to state a time and place for appearance before the magistrate, and if the person summoned fails to appear, the allegations of the complaint will be deemed admitted, a judgment in favor of the State will be entered, and a civil sanction will be imposed. We find no conflict between Rule 4.1(c)(2) and A.R.S. @ 28-1076. Section 28-1076(D) provides that a "person served with a civil traffic complaint" must appear at the time directed or "the allegations in the complaint shall be deemed admitted and the court shall enter judgment for this state." (Emphasis added.) To serve a civil traffic complaint, the State must comply with A.R.S. @ 28-1073 (1989), which requires service "by delivering a copy of the uniform traffic complaint citation to the person charged with the violation or by any means authorized by the rules of civil procedure." A.R.S. @ 28-1073(A).
Appellant attempted service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) by complying with the requirements of Rule 4.1(c)(1). Without a defendant's voluntary complaiance with the requirements of Rule 4.1(c)(2), service is not complete, and no personal jurisdiction over a defendant is achieved. In that event, a plaintiff may attempt service by any other method authorized by Rule 4.1 with the costs of service shifted to the defendant who failed to execute and return the acknowledgment of receipt. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(3). Nothing in section 28-1073(A) eliminates or modifies any steps required to complete service. Section 28-1076(A)'s requirement that the summons state a time and place for appearance and section 1076(D)'s provision that failure to appear shall be deemed an admission of the allegations in the complaint, requiring the court to enter judgment for the State and impose a civil sanction are not inconsistent with the rules for service by mail or the rules for service by any other means authorized by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The appellant's recourse when a defendant fails to execute the acknowledgement of receipt is to continue the hearing and serve the complaint by some other authorized method. See Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(3). Until the magistrate's court obtains personal jurisdiction, it has no power to enter an order of civil sanction against a defendant. See Endischee, 141 Ariz. at 79, 685 P.2d at 144; Kadota, 125 Ariz. at 134, 608 P.2d at 71.
We agree with the superior court judge that the order of civil sanction entered against appellee by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court is void for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the superior court.
Footnotes
1. Note: The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, was
This is an interesting presentation from France and is relevant to this forum because photo radar programs are just the beginning of Big Brother at least in France.
The title is:
Automated Speed Enforcement iin France By Jacques NOUVIER, CERTU Chairman of the OECD WG on Speed Management and Jean-François JANIN,MTI French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Spatial Planning
Another case of a driver going 40% over the speed limit.
Why would he think it's OK to drive 56 in a 40 zone?
How is that a reasonable speed?
Why would you try to fight that?
By fighting it, aren't you saying "Well, I think driving 56 in a 40 zone, which is 40% over the speed limit, is just a FINE way to drive !!!" How can anyone feel sorry for these people? I just don't get it.
California: Illegal San Jose Photo Radar Program May End San Jose, California to end illegal speed camera program after a decade of ticketing.
The San Jose, California city council will consider ending speed camera ticketing at a March 6 meeting. The council's Transportation and Environment Committee is recommending that the city only use the system, dubbed "NASCOP," to issue warnings because it violates state law. The California legislature has refused several times to allow photo radar programs to operate.
"Due to activities in the state legislature in the past few years, and recent court cases in Santa Clara County, there are legal concerns regarding the continuation of the NASCOP program in its present form," a committee report stated.
In 2000, the state legislature made its intentions clear by adding the following provision: "The authorization in Section 21455.5 to use automated enforcement systems does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction."
Nonetheless, since 1996, San Jose has teamed with Australian camera vendor Redflex to operate a fleet of white photo radar vans on 177 city streets. Redflex used the vans to mail expensive tickets to motorists driving just a few MPH above the speed limit in 25 and 30 MPH zones, splitting the revenue with San Jose. Last year, the program issued 7000 tickets worth $99 to $350 each.
Former Santa Clara Police Department Lieutenant Roger Luebkeman won a court case against San Jose last year by arguing the ticketing program was unlawful.
San Jose resident John Larson also won dismissal of a ticket by the Santa Clara County Court. He argued that the program violated California's speed trap law which protects motorists from being ticketed in areas where speed limits have been lowered for reasons not justified by sound engineering practices. The court agreed in his case that the city's engineering survey, "does not justify the speed limit." Larson is now pressuring the city to refund the fines it has illegally collected over the years and has started a new website, nascop.com, to gather support for his effort.
Comments
a surveillance grid system that nabs LLCs and slowpokes in general
you mean all violators of highway law, including speerders as well as the people going too slow?
Impose and enforce minimum speeds on higher speed roadways.
that would imply a mechanism to monitor speeds in realtime on all vehicles on the roadway. How would that information be made available?
Punish these offenders as much as the speeders, and add revenue into irresponsible wasteful public sector budgets.
But should revenue be one of the stated goals of such a system?
Got to think out of the box. Put technology to work for benefit of citizens.
I didn't know the constitution had any value anymore. I am sure such a deep surveillance system could be interpreted as some kind of violation - whether or not a court would do anything about it is another matter - remember, you get the justice you pay for. I am not versed in constitutional law.
I am sure information about speeds on a roadway would be dispatched to a massive bank of public sector employees watching every car at every moment...or maybe just by some kind of transponder system that monitors vehicle position and speed, and monitors it relative to other vehicles on the same road.
I think revenue should be a stated goal - it is simple honesty. We all know it's about money first and foremost, no problem with admitting it. People might be less insulted if the big government has the guts to admit its motives.
I didn't know the constitution had any value anymore.
No, it still has great value for all of us.
I am sure such a deep surveillance system could be interpreted as some kind of violation - whether or not a court would do anything about it is another matter - remember, you get the justice you pay for. I am not versed in constitutional law.
Well, I will assume that you do have a sufficiently open mind with the intelligence necessary to evalute matters of law if relevant evidence is presented before you. After all, can I assume that you can serve on a jury?
I am sure information about speeds on a roadway would be dispatched to a massive bank of public sector employees watching every car at every moment...or maybe just by some kind of transponder system that monitors vehicle position and speed, and monitors it relative to other vehicles on the same road.
Well, should that system be voluntary or imposed?
I think revenue should be a stated goal - it is simple honesty. We all know it's about money first and foremost, no problem with admitting it. People might be less insulted if the big government has the guts to admit its motives.
We know that simple honesty is a good concept, but we have a system of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution. How will we ensure honesty with a system of checks and balances?
Would hope that somehow photo radar gets up to Supreme Court soon and their take on use of technology for law enforcement.
We better fear more the interpretation of the Constitution in event of 2-3 Supreme appointments in next 4 years rather than photo radar.
I could serve on a jury, but I can think of better uses of my time
The system I dreamed up would have to be imposed. Not that I believe it "should" exist to begin with...but if there is a surveillance grid in place to catch speeders, it would not be much of a stretch to have it track LLCs and slowpokes either. If safety is a true desire of this Orwellian dream, both sides of the coin must be targeted.
Honesty in public sector projects is like flying pigs and hens teeth. Checks and balances are only worth as much as those doing the checking and balancing.
Because there is NO WAY that it's a Fourth Amendment violation, and once the Court says so, then we can get on with leaving that non-issue behind.
Woman's Lawsuit Threatens To Remove Red-Light Cameras
POSTED: 6:34 pm EST February 4, 2007
UPDATED: 7:23 pm EST February 4, 2007
AKRON, Ohio -- NewsChannel5 chief investigator Duane Pohlman has discovered a key lawsuit which may force cities to not only remove red-light cameras, but refund all the fines.
Pohlman said it all started because an Akron woman drew the line.
"I was angry enough to say, "I'm not paying this ticket. You know, they can do whatever they're going to do, but I'm not going to pay it," said Kelly Mendenhall.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
In November 2005, Mendenhall got a ticket from a red-light camera. It stated she was going 39 mph in a 25 mph zone on Copley Road in Akron.
Mendenhall is married to Warner Mendenhall, an attorney known for fighting government.
"He said, 'Well, you're going to have to pay the ticket or I'm going to have to sue somebody.' I said, 'Well, I guess you're going to have to sue somebody,'" she said.
And he did, Pohman reported.
Warner Mmendenhall is now representing his wife in the case before the Ohio Supreme Court, challenging all red-light cameras in the state of Ohio.
"It is big brother absolutely," Mendenhall said.
The Mendenhall case challenges all red-light-cameras on constitutional grounds. He claimed the cameras and the tickets deny due process.
In the suit, Warner and his wife contend the cities have turned a criminal violation in to a civil matter with a sole purpose of making money.
"Cities cannot just take what are crimes and make them civil offenses. People cannot afford these fines. The fine my wife faced was $150," Mendenhall said.
In discovery, Mendenhall revealed thousands of mistakes, Pohlman reported.
Akron's cameras captured speeders 4,000 times, but because of problems or procedure, those tickets were tossed.
Pohlman caught mistakes in Cleveland, too. A ticket issued to the wrong plate, for the wrong vehicles and the wrong speed.
The red-light cameras are now facing a real legal challenge thanks to an attorney, Pohlman reported.
"The red light is a flashpoint of where we're going as a country, as a society about individual liberties," Warner said.
More on this from: http://www.weathernet5.com/news/10957465/detail.html
Lawsuit Over Red-Light Cameras Heads To Ohio Supreme Court
POSTED: 6:54 pm EST February 7, 2007
UPDATED: 7:04 pm EST February 7, 2007
CLEVELAND -- There's now more to the big fallout from a 5 On Your Side investigation involving red-light cameras.
A story about a lawsuit filed by an Akron woman is now making headlines across the country as the case heads to the Ohio Supreme Court, reported NewsChannel5 chief investigator Duane Pohlman.
The suit may not only force cities in Ohio to remove red-light cameras but also refund millions of dollars worth of fines.
At the center of the suit is Kelly Mendenhall, the wife of Akron attorney Warner Mendenhall.
The Mendenhalls claim Ohio cities like Akron and Cleveland have turned speeding, which is a criminal act in Ohio, into a civil offense.
Because of that, Warner Mendenhall argues that the red-light cameras are illegal.
"Cities have clearly lost their way they do not understand what their limits are. We are a government where the power is granted from the people to the government, and government isn't just allowed to do anything it wants," Warner Mendenhall said.
There is no word yet on when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments.
Mississippi House Votes to Ban Ticket Cameras; Missouri and Maryland Protest
Mississippi state House votes 117-3 to ban red light and speed cameras. Public protest against photo ticketing grows in Maryland and Missouri.
A near-unanimous Mississippi state House of Representatives voted Wednesday to ban red light cameras and speed cameras while anti-camera citizen protest movements gathered steam in other parts of the country. Mississippi state Representative Edward Blackmon, Jr. (D-Canton) inadvertently kicked off the effort when he introduced a measure designed to give legislative approval to the use of photo enforcement so long as ticket records were not shared with insurance companies. Blackmon's proposal was a clever way to encourage the city councils of Columbus, Jackson, McComb, Natchez, Southaven and Tupelo, all of which have approved red light camera ordinances, in the guise of placing limitations on automated ticketing machines.
The state House Judiciary Committee would have none of it. The panel rewrote Blackmon's measure to ban not just the reporting of photo tickets to insurance companies, but also the issuance a photo ticket for any offense other than a toll violation.
"A civil or criminal traffic citation may not be issued as the result of the use of automated recording equipment on state, county or municipal highways, roads and streets, and any evidence obtained from such use shall not be reported to the Department of Public Safety for any purpose, to any person or entity for the use on any credit report or to any insurance company for insurance purposes," House Bill 1568 now states.
Blackmon was one of only three House members who voted against the revised legislation which now heads to the state Senate for its consideration.
In the state of Missouri, a group of concerned Kansas City residents gathered this weekend to protest red light cameras. The event took place at the location of the city's first red light camera which is to be activated later this week. The citizens' group Liberty Restoration Project insisted that red light cameras increase accidents (view studies) and urged passersby to support Senate Bill 211, a measure that would ban all photo ticketing (view details). The legislation will be considered in a state Senate hearing this week.
At the same time in Maryland, a group of citizens gathered on Connecticut Avenue in Chevy Chase, just over the border from Washington, DC, to protest at the site of a notorious speed camera trap. Members of the newly formed DC.CameraFraud.com pointed out that the speed cameras were located on a six-lane boulevard -- not a school zone or residential neighborhood as required by state law -- and that the cameras themselves were hidden behind trees and signs. The group hopes to raise awareness in the Washington, DC metropolitan area as Virginia municipalities begin to re-install red light cameras, the District adds new speed cameras and the Maryland legislature contemplates using photo radar on freeways for the first time.
Article Excerpt:
Mississippi Legislature, Regular Session 2009
HOUSE BILL NO. 1568
Version as amended and passed by the House
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT TRAFFIC CITATIONS ISSUED AS THE RESULT OF THE USE OF ELECTRONIC SPEED SENSORS OR CAMERAS FROM BEING REPORTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OR INSURANCE COMPANIES; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:
SECTION 1.
(1) A civil or criminal traffic citation may not be issued as the result of the use of automated recording equipment on state, county or municipal highways, roads and streets, and any evidence obtained from such use shall not be reported to the Department of Public Safety for any purpose, to any person or entity for the use on any credit report or to any insurance company for insurance purposes. For the purpose of this section, the term "automated recording equipment" means a camera or optical device designed to record images that depict the vehicle, the vehicle operator, the license plate of the vehicle and/or other images to establish evidence that the vehicle or its operator is not in compliance with a law, ordinance, order or other provision imposed by the state or a political subdivision thereof, or the payment of tolls at toll facilities.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed to prohibit the use of automated recording equipment to enforce the payment of tolls at toll facilities, as provided under Section 65-43-73.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2009.
from : http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/az-hb2106.pdf
HB 2106
- 1 -
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Title 28, chapter 3, article 6, Arizona Revised Statutes,
3 is amended by adding section 28-711, to read:
4 28-711. Photo enforcement system; prohibited use
5 ON A STATE HIGHWAY IN THIS STATE, THIS STATE OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY SHALL
6 NOT USE A PHOTO ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY VIOLATORS OF THIS ARTICLE.
7 Sec. 2. Section 28-1593, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
8 28-1593. Service of uniform traffic complaint
9 A. A traffic complaint may be served by delivering a copy of the
10 uniform traffic complaint citation to the person charged with the violation
11 or by any means authorized by the rules of civil procedure. At the
12 discretion of the issuing authority, a complaint for a violation issued after
13 an investigation in conjunction with a traffic accident may be sent by
14 certified mail, return receipt requested and delivered to addressee only, to
15 the address provided by the person charged with the violation. Service of
16 the complaint is complete on filing the receipt in the court having
17 jurisdiction of the violation.
18 B. The original complaint shall be filed in a court having
19 jurisdiction of the violation within ten court days of the time the complaint
20 was issued. A peace officer, or duly authorized agent or someone paid to act
21 on behalf of a traffic enforcement agency, may issue the traffic complaint.
...contd. in the reference......
Minnesota: $2.6 Million in Red Light Camera Tickets Refunded
Refunds proceed for illegally issued red light camera tickets in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
More than 14,000 recipients of red light camera citations in Minneapolis, Minnesota will soon receive a refund. The city this week began mailing notices informing those ticketed that they will be sent a refund check unless they choose to opt out of a class action settlement. US District Court Judge Michael J. Davis has set a February 27 date for a hearing to approve the final repayment details.
"Under the settlement, the city will also provide class members with a letter that class members may send to their motor vehicle insurance company to assist them in requesting an insurance premium refund or a reduction, if they believe their rates increased as a result of a Stop on Red conviction," the settlement notice explains.
The problems for Minneapolis began in 2005 when the city decided to issue red light camera tickets without the sanction of state lawmakers. By April 2007 the Minnesota Supreme Court had ruled that the use of automating ticketing machines violated state law and deprived motorists of due process (view ruling). The city was forced to end its program for good, but it had no intention of returning the $2.6 million collected from the program.
In addition to the city's fines, thousand of drivers paid hefty surcharges to their insurance company and about 300 had their drivers' licenses suspended as a result of the illegal photo tickets. The lawsuit was required to force the unwilling city to take action in May to clear the driving records of those affected. The three plaintiffs who brought the successful suit will receive $1500 each, and the city will cover the legal fees accumulated during the lengthy court battle.
A copy of the settlement notice is available in a 35k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: Notice of Class Action Settlement (US District Court, Minnesota, 1/14/2009)
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp
Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.
The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law (read opinion).
The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."
"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
Article Excerpt:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
A06-568
Filed: April 5, 2007
Hanson, J.
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
vs.
Daniel Alan Kuhlman, Respondent.
S Y L L A B U S
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances sections 474.620 to 474.670, which make the owner of a motor vehicle guilty of a petty misdemeanor if the vehicle is photographed running a red light, are invalid because they are in conflict with the Minnesota Traffic Regulations, and specifically with Minn. Stat. Section 169.06, subd. 4(a) (2006), and Minn. Stat. Section 169.022 (2006).
Affirmed.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.
O P I N I O N
HANSON, Justice.
In September 2004, the Minneapolis City Council enacted Minneapolis Code of Ordinances sections 474.620 to 474.670, which authorized photo enforcement of traffic control signals. The Minneapolis police began enforcing the new ordinance in July 2005, and on August 11, 2005, one of the cameras photographed a car as it failed to stop at a red light at the intersection of West Broadway Avenue and Lyndale Avenue North. The Minneapolis Police Department mailed a citation to the registered owner of the car, respondent Daniel Alan Kuhlman, for violating the ordinance. Kuhlman challenged the ordinance, arguing that it conflicted with state law and violated the due process rights of registered owners. The district court granted Kuhlman's motion to dismiss without reaching the constitutional issues, holding that the ordinance conflicted with state law. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal. State v. Kuhlman, 722 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Minn. App. 2006). We affirm.
Ordinance section 474.640 penalizes an owner of a motor vehicle whose car is photographed running a red light: "If a motor vehicle is operated in violation of section 474.630 [running a red light] and the violation is detected by a recorded image taken by an automated traffic law enforcement system, the owner of the vehicle or the lessee of the vehicle is guilty of a petty misdemeanor." Minneapolis, Minn., Code art. 1, Section 474.640 (2004) (emphasis added). The ordinance further provides, in section 474.660 entitled "Evidence," that
(a) In the prosecution of a violation, as set forth by section 474.640, captured by an automated traffic law enforcement system, prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the citation was operated in violation of this section, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such violation the owner or lessee of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a rebuttable presumption that such owner or lessee was the person who committed the violation. The presumption shall be rebutted if the owner or lessee:
(1) Provides a sworn affidavit delivered by United States mail to the city or agency that he or she was not the owner or lessee of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation and provides the name and current address of the person operating the motor vehicle at the time of the violation; or
(2) Submits a copy of a police report showing the vehicle had been reported as stolen in a timely manner before the date of the violation.
(b) If the city or agency finds that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation or receives evidence under paragraph (a)(1) of this section identifying the person driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, the city or agency shall issue a citation to the identified driver through the United State mail, no later than fourteen (14) days after receipt of this information.
(contd. in the reference....)
The lawsuit lady was going 39 in a 25 !!
That's 56% over the speed limit !!!
She should have just paid it and gone about her day !!!
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded.
The magnitude of the overspeeding is immaterial. Nobody can violate due process protections.
The Minnesota court appears to be wrong.
There is no more of a "presumption of guilt" with a photo radar ticket than with a human-issued ticket.
You still have to go to court to fight it either way. You have to convince a judge you were not speeding to win either case.
How are they different?
If you say photo radar violates due process, then so do ALL types of speed enforcement, do they not?
Why not stop there? We could execute speeders (no repeat offenders) and then charge admission to the executions.
Maybe even do it like in China where the families get billed for the bullet and they harvest the criminals' organs and sell them to rich westerners.
Oh wait, if we kill off the speeders we don't get that continuing revenue stream. Darn, it looked so good on paper.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Mere hoping is not enough. We must make our voices heard at every level and in every forum.
Let the naysayers say what they may. The use of photo radar as being presently used for ASE is illegal, and soon it shall be proven to be so across the USA by LAW.
And when they came for the lady, I did not protest because it wasn't MY RIGHTS that were being violated.
How soon they forget the lessons of history.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
So true, they could have required the lady to place a RED capital S on her blouse for suspect. Better yet she could wear a yellow patch with a C for criminal so the good brown shirts could see who she was. After all why should she avail herself of her constitutional right to defend herself against a camera?
"Arbeit mach frei". The state would never mistreat anyone would they? Follow the rules and you have nothing to worry about.
It is so true, those who forget history are doomed to repete it.
You still have to go to court to fight it either way. You have to convince a judge you were not speeding to win either case.
How are they different?
They are different because the recipient of the photo radar ticket must prove that he/she is not the person who was driving at the time the picture was taken rather than the state having the burden of proof. As I posted about a month ago, I went to court for a photo radar ticket. Although the magistrate agreed that I was not the driver in the picture, he would only toss the ticket if I identified the actual driver (my daughter's boyfriend whom I'd only met once). What about the business owner who owns several vehicles and has dozens of employees who might be driving them at any given time? A traffic cop would issue the ticket to the actual driver (aka the responsible party). The traffic camera doesn't care who's responsible (and neither do the courts).
People in blind, unquestioning and unwavering support of this type of technology can sometimes exhibit what is called a "god complex" which is defined as "A psychosis based in uncontrolled narcissism, inflated arrogance and a perceived need to subjugate and/or ridicule other individuals deemed to be inferior or unworthy." (from: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=God%20complex )
One must therefore be vey careful in making any arguments that may or may not be acceptable to society at large. Merely declaring everybody else wrong over and over again despite clear incontrovertible proof to the contrary does not make for a good argument, and does not make anything true or false.
This just proves another very difficult issue with photo radar, if the lively discussion in this forum is anything to go by.
for vinnyny:
Although the magistrate agreed that I was not the driver in the picture, he would only toss the ticket if I identified the actual driver
So you would have grounds to say that the magistrate accepted your innocence, and that is all that you are required to do. You are innocent. Who else might be guilty is the police's job to find out, not yours without the training or authority.
(What about the business owner who owns several vehicles and has dozens of employees who might be driving them at any given time?
He would be so out of luck and probably go bankrupt, increasing the cost to society of lost jobs and business.
A traffic cop would issue the ticket to the actual driver (aka the responsible party).
That is why police work should be always done by the police, not by private parties relying on machines with a financial interest in fleecing the public.
The traffic camera doesn't care who's responsible (and neither do the courts).
But not all courts. That is why the Minnesota Supreme Court decision is important. Courts will see the light, but only if we keep trying.
Case in point, indicating that there remain several important issues with phot radar, but we must involve ourselves and the courts in the process:
from:
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/columnists/tom_brodbeck/2009/02/08/8307331-sun.h- - tml
Stop radar abuse
Court ruling puts onus on city to abide by law
By TOM BRODBECK
Last Updated: 8th February 2009, 1:22am
Photo radar tickets for nine Winnipeg motorists have been tossed out of court after a precedent-setting case has ruled it unlawful to use photo enforcement in construction zones when workers are not present.
Judicial Justice of the Peace Norman Sundstrom in a 13-page ruling said Manitoba's Highway Traffic Act -- which sets out the rules for where photo radar can be used -- requires workers to be present in construction zones for municipalities to issue photo radar fines.
Sundstrom dismissed charges in provincial court against nine motorists who were all fined for speeding in construction zones when workers were not present.
At least one of the tickets came from a photo radar vehicle parked southbound at Lagimodiere Boulevard and Knowles Avenue.
"The section (of the act) clearly means that workers must be present for any special speed sign to take effect," wrote Sundstrom.
Sundstrom says the act is clearly intended to protect workers in construction zones, not fine motorists for exceeding the reduced speed after workers have gone home for the day.
He says there are two sections of the act that spell that out.
"These two sections ... indicate a legislative scheme that consistently intends to protect workers in a construction zone and consistently make it an offence to exceed the indicated speed in the reduced speed sign only when 'workers are present,' " he wrote.
Infuriated
City hall's cash-driven strategy of setting up photo radar vehicles in construction zones outside of working hours -- including along stretches of Lagimodiere -- has infuriated many motorists in recent months.
And while many felt they had no option but to pay the fine, at least nine have appealed and won their cases.
"Although some people might feel that the legislation would be wiser to force drivers to slow down even after workers have gone home for the day, this is not in my view a justification for the court to add to or change the law under the guise of interpretation," he wrote.
It's pretty clear that setting up photo radar vans in construction zones at all hours of the day and on weekends when no workers are on the job is nothing but a cash grab.
Mayor Sam Katz and city council insist the photo radar program is about safety, not money. Yet they ignore the very laws that spell out how photo radar can be used, all in the name of gouging motorists.
Obviously the city should protect construction workers while they're on the job. That's why highway traffic authorities erect signs that demand drivers slow down when workers are present.
Money
But nailing motorists outside of working hours who are driving the regular speed limit has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money.
The question now is, will the Crown appeal this case or will the city simply do the right thing and stop nailing people in construction zones when workers aren't present.
Or will the Doer government amend the legislation or regulations?
One thing's for sure, there's going to be a lot of drivers out there who got photo radar tickets in construction zones after-hours who are going to want their money back.
I know I would.
Stay tuned.
from: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/07/03/photo-radar.html
Ontario premier says no to photo radar
Last Updated: Tuesday, July 3, 2007 | 6:58 PM ET
CBC News
More needs to be done to crack down on speeding, but photo radar is not the answer, Dalton McGuinty told reporters Tuesday.
"There seems to be a stronger consensus around making sure that there are tougher penalties associated with speeding," the premier said.
Recent high-profile accidents have renewed calls for a return to photo radar, including from the chief of police in Hamilton.
But McGuinty said there seems to be more interest increasing punishment for people who exceed the speed limit by 50 km/h or more.
OPP commissioner Julian Fantino has recommended increasing punishment and McGuinty said the government is giving it serious consideration.
The radar systems, which automatically photograph and ticket the owners of speeding vehicles, were put on some Ontario roads in the early 1990s by the New Democratic government of the day.
Photo radar was dropped in 1995 by the Conservatives, who had made killing it an election promise.
In 2004, McGuinty suggested restoring photo radar, in part as a deficit-fighting tool, but the proposal did not proceed.
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2530.asp
Arizona Speed Camera Van Pulled Over for DUI
Speed camera van busted for DUI in Scottsdale, Arizona.
A speed camera van driver in Scottsdale, Arizona was arrested Saturday at 6:30pm, accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). A retired police officer spotted Roderick Ruffin, 53, driving erratically on Scottsdale Road and dialed 911. Ruffin had been behind the wheel of an official van registered to the Australian photo radar contractor Redflex Traffic Systems and was headed toward Tempe about to begin issuing automated speeding tickets to other motorists on that city's behalf.
"He's weaving all over the place," the concerned motorist explained to the 911 operator. "He's hit the curb twice. He's almost hit other vehicles in the number one lane."
Before Ruffin could reach his destination, however, Scottsdale Police intercepted the photo enforcement van.
"When the officer contacted the driver, he could smell alcohol on the driver's breath," Scottsdale Police said in a prepared statement. "The officer asked the driver to perform the standard field sobriety tests, the results of which indicated impairment."
Ruffin was booked after police testing showed his blood alcohol content (BAC) appeared to exceed 0.15, well beyond the legal limit. Redflex terminated Ruffin's employment upon learning of what the company called an apparent "reckless lapse of judgment."
"The company deeply regrets and apologizes to the community for the incident, and expresses its gratitude to the Scottsdale Police for making the arrest and removing the offending driver from the road," Redflex said in a statement.
Scottsdale city officials are quick to point out that Redflex no longer runs the city's speed camera program having handed the lucrative photo ticketing contract over to rival vendor ATS in 2007. Redflex insists that it conducts thorough background checks on its employees, but this is not the first time that drivers for the Australian firm have had run-ins with the law. Earlier this year a Redflex employee in Lafayette, Louisiana was arrested while using a personal vehicle.
National Motorists Association President Jim Baxter expressed outrage that a contractor running what is supposed to be a public safety program was found drinking on the job.
"While I can understand how depressing and demeaning it must be to fleece my friends, neighbors and other hard-working citizens," Baxter said, "the better solution would be to find a new job and not endanger the traveling public."
What's the problem with that?
Why does it matter WHO it is?
Improperly setting up a photo radar to monitor worker speed limit during non-work hours has nothing to do with question of "concept" and practice of a photo radar operating per design intent and laws/codes of responsible government agency.
Drunken photo radar van driver also has nothing to do with this board.
Speeders caught by photo radar who also were DUI, on drugs, had open liquor in car, loaded gun, vehicle infractions, etc., should feel quite lucky that a police officer with a radar gun did not catch them and pull them over. Too bad we don't have technolgy that can ID drunken drivers to then alert for nearest police cruiser for action.
Speeders going 10+ over, and with no other infractions (DUI, gun, etc) ,should stop whinning. They are getting a break. Those speeders with older vehicles might also be written up for vehicle infractions in event of a police officer pulling them over. Photo radar does not catch a non-operating brake light and other non-functional parts.
Ore. court throws out radar speeding ticket
By Jason George
The Associated Press
PORTLAND — The state Supreme Court yesterday overturned the conviction of a woman who was issued a $35 speeding ticket under the state's photo-radar law.
But the state Attorney General's Office said the ruling dealt mostly with a technicality and will not have any major effect on the 1995 law.
"It doesn't have anything to do with the constitutional issues of photo radar," said Kristen Grainger, spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office.
The high court ruled no evidence was presented at the 1997 trial of Sara Clay that she was the driver or owner of a car that was photographed speeding in Portland.
The only Oregon agencies that use photo radar are Portland and Beaverton police, said Jay Remy, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Clay received the ticket under a law passed two years earlier that allows police to send a traffic ticket to the owner of a vehicle after the car or truck is photographed in an automated speed trap set by machinery using radar and a camera.
Clay requested a trial and was convicted of speeding.
She appealed the verdict, arguing there was no direct evidence she had been driving when the photograph was taken or that she was the vehicle's registered owner.
The Court of Appeals upheld her conviction, and Clay then took the case to the state Supreme Court.
Grainger said the ruling has "zero impact on photo-radar use in this state."
What the ruling means, she said, is "now we'll hear more detail from the officers who cite people."
Beaverton police started using photo radar because two-thirds of the traffic accidents to which they responded were caused by people running red lights, said Mayor Rob Drake.
"Broadly, regionally, there is just an epidemic of people running red lights," Drake said.
Beaverton uses five photo-radar stations, which cost about $50,000 to $80,000 per intersection, Drake said.
The city will drop one station soon because of restrictions passed during this year's Legislative session.
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
CORINNE WEBER,
Appellant.
(PR034689; CA A107263)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.
Harold Blank, Judge (Pretrial Matters); Steven Evans, Judge (Trial).
Argued and submitted January 3, 2001.
Michael E. Rose argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Steenson, Schumann, Tewksbury, Later & Rose, P.C.
Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Lipscomb, Judge pro tempore.
HASELTON, P. J.
Affirmed.
HASELTON, P. J.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for speeding, ORS 811.100, based on a citation issued pursuant to the photo radar statute, ORS 810.438 to ORS 810.439 (1997). (1) She argues that: (1) the photograph and data generated by the photo radar unit were improperly admitted into evidence; (2) the statutory presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the driver at the time of the alleged infraction, ORS 810.439(1)(b) (1997), is unconstitutional; and (3) the delay of over a week between the speeding incident and the citation's issuance violated her due process rights. We affirm.
Send a ticket to the registered owner.
The owner comes to court to fight the ticket.
The judge asks the owner who the driver is.
Under oath, the car owner tells the truth.
Now we know who gets the points and pays the ticket.
Owner of the car wants to avoid this hassle?
Tell the people whom you let borrow your vehicle NOT TO SPEED. Tell them if they get a ticket (human or not) that the payment and consequences will be THEIRS to deal with.
Man, how simple is that?
Beyond Traffic Safety (Hardcover)
by J. Peter Rothe (Author)
Hardcover: 251 pages
Publisher: Transaction Publishers (January 1, 1994)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1560000953
ISBN-13: 978-1560000952
People with out of state (or country) plates
People driving commercial vehicles
People driving rental cars
People wearing masks
People covering their face
People who turn or tilt their head away from the camera
Cars with temporary plates
Cars with missing plates
Cars with plate covers
Cars with missing plates
Cars with dirty plates
People with inaccurate address on vehicle or license registration
Trucks operating with the tailgate down
Trucks with trailer hitches that block the plate
Vehicles towing trailers or boats
Vehicles with rear-mounted wheel chairs or bike racks
Vehicles committing violation with larger vehicle in the line-of-sight to the camera
Identical twins
Illegal aliens
This is to be contrasted with human law enforcement who are capable of stopping ANY violator they choose. Everyone who drives by a human officer while violating a law stands an equal chance of an officer pulling them over for at least a little chat. How is it that our lawmakers have decided that it's OK to target only local drivers with accurate registration information and plainly visible plates? Why do we accept the limitation that over 75% of the violators are ineligible or unable to receive tickets based on limitations of this system?
You stand much more of a chance of getting caught speeding by a human officer.
SO WHY COMPLAIN ABOUT ALL THE ADVANTAGES YOU GET AS A SPEEDER WHEN YOU DRIVE PAST A PHOTO RADAR SYSTEM ????????????????????????
Speeders should LOVE and WORSHIP photo radar.
You know why they don't?
Because they know "it's one more way my illegal speeding habit can make me PAY."
Critics: photo radar violates due process to generate revenue
A red-light camera looms above pedestrians crossing Rural Road at University Drive. (Damien Maloney/The State Press)
By:Matt Culbertson
Published On:Thursday, October 9, 2008
Arizona’s speeding and red light cameras violate the right to confront one’s accuser in order to generate revenue for the state and cities, critics of photo radar say.
Bonnie Sesolak, a spokeswoman for the National Motorists Association — a group that lobbies for changes in traffic laws — said photo cameras do not give adequate due process to recipients of tickets. The cameras are used as a revenue generator, Sesolak said, and safety is not the main priority.
“We’re very adamantly opposed to photo enforcement,” Sesolak said. “If it’s not about the money, then what’s it about?”
Arizona was the first state to implement photo radar statewide and will likely have more than 100 traffic cameras deployed across the state by November, Redflex Traffic Systems spokeswoman Shoba Vaitheeswaran said in an e-mail.
The statewide contract was awarded to Scottsdale-based Redflex last year.
Photo radar is estimated to bring $90 million to the state in fiscal year 2009, according to a state budget summary.
But Lt. James Warriner, a DPS spokesman, said safety is the prominent concern in the state’s photo-enforcement program.
“This is a tremendous tool for us,” said Warriner. “It does lessen and decrease the number of fatal and serious injury collisions.”
Warriner said the cameras are proven to reduce speeds and increase traffic safety, according to several studies, including one by an ASU researcher.
And the cameras free up law enforcement to enforce more important laws than speeding, such as DUI laws, Warriner said.
Between May 2007 and July 2008, DPS issued more than 86,000 citations using photo radar, about 48 percent of the approximately 180,600 incidents recorded, according to department statistics.
But Sesolak said that instead of providing safety, traffic cameras are revenue generators for the camera companies and local and state governments.
Warriner said DPS did not yet have numbers available for how much revenue had come in through the state’s traffic-camera program.
Redflex and American Traffic Systems, which operates traffic cameras in Phoenix and Mesa, also said they could not release financial figures because they needed permission from cities to release the data.
To enhance safety, intersections and roads need to have better engineering to accommodate drivers, Sesolak said.
“If it was really about the safety, they would make these simple engineering changes to these intersections,” she said.
She added that the process also denies motorists their legal rights.
“In most cases really, you’re presumed guilty,” Sesolak said of the traffic cameras.
Those accused of receiving a ticket cannot confront their accuser in court, since the accuser is technically a machine, she said.
But a spokesman for Scottsdale-based American Traffic Solutions, Josh Weiss, said there was more than enough evidence from red-light and speed cameras to issue citations.
Weiss said American Traffic Solutions has three separate employees review the video evidence for each traffic violation before sending the information to a police department. Because of the checks and balances within the process, he said, tickets are issued fairly.
The evidence against traffic violators caught on cameras can be more substantial than a human witness, Weiss said.
“In my opinion, there’s more than just an eyewitness,” Weiss said of the cameras.
But Susan Kayler, a Scottsdale-based attorney, said in an e-mail that traffic cameras deny the right of a defendant to cross-examine the evidence.
“The question boils down to due process,” Kayler said. “Does photo radar afford a person cited with due process? I say no.”
Kayler, who wrote the 2004 book “Smile for the Speed Camera! Photo Radar Exposed!” has represented clients who received photo-radar tickets. But she said that because the U.S. Constitution guarantees those accused of a crime — but not necessarily those facing civil violations — a right to confront their accuser, there is a lower standard of proof required for traffic camera tickets.
But even with that lower standard, cross-examining employees of a photo radar company is not enough, she said.
“How can you cross-examine a machine? You can’t,” Kayler said.
Reach the reporter at matt.culbertson@asu.edu.
“This is a tremendous tool for us,” said Warriner. “It does lessen and decrease the number of fatal and serious injury collisions.”
Warriner said the cameras are proven to reduce speeds and increase traffic safety, according to several studies, including one by an ASU researcher.
Speeders say: WAAH WAAH WAAH Due Process Money Grab "why won't they just LET us run red lights and speed? We are in a HURRY, DANGIT !!!"
Maryland Governor Vetoes Photo Radar Bill
Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich vetoed a measure that would have allowed speed cameras in the state. Full text of the governor's veto message.
Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich (R) vetoed a bill on Friday that would have allowed speed cameras to issue tickets to motorists in Montgomery County. At least six jurisdictions in the state currently use red light cameras, but photo radar has never been allowed. The neighboring District of Columbia uses photo radar which helped its combined photo enforcement program to bring in over $100 million in revenue since 1999.
Ehrlich vetoed HB 443 along with two dozen other measures saying doing so was "in the best interest of good policy, sound government and fiscal responsibility for Maryland's citizens." The photo radar bill passed by wide margins in the Democrat controlled House (85-42) and Senate (29-17) in April.
Article Excerpt:
Governor Ehrlich's Veto Messages for House Bill 443
May 20, 2005
The Honorable Michael E. Busch
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, MD 21401
Dear Mr. Speaker:
In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the Maryland Constitution, today I have vetoed House Bill 443 – Montgomery County – Vehicle Laws – Speed Monitoring Systems .
Bill Summary
House Bill 443 allows in Montgomery County the use of speed cameras in residential areas where the maximum speed limit is 35 miles per hour and in school zones. The owners of motor vehicles detected traveling in excess of 10 miles per hour in these areas are subject to a civil penalty. The civil penalty may not exceed $40 and for purposes of the citation the amount will be prescribed by the District Court. An owner can contest a citation by proving: (1) the motor vehicle was stolen, provided a police report of the theft was filed; (2) that another was operating the motor vehicle, if the owner provides the name, address, and if possible the driver's license number of the operator as well as other corroborating evidence; and (3) any other issues and introducing any other evidence that the District Court deems pertinent. A violation may not be considered a moving violation for purposes of establishing points, may not be recorded on the driving record of the owner, may be considered a parking violation for purposes of refusing to register a vehicle or suspending a vehicle's registration for an unpaid citation, and may not be considered for purposes of motor vehicle insurance coverage.
Veto of House Bill 455 of 2003
In 2003, I vetoed Senate Bill 455 – Vehicle Laws – Speed Monitoring Systems – Radar Cameras . Senate Bill 455 would have allowed statewide the use of radar cameras that House Bill 443 seeks to allow for Montgomery County only. For many of the reasons I vetoed Senate Bill 455 of 2003, I find House Bill 443 to be equally objectionable for Montgomery County.
Trial by Camera
House Bill 443 will allow the State to charge, try, and convict an individual solely through the use of a photograph of a vehicle. This bill takes what has traditionally been a violation of the criminal law, redefines the violation to be a civil offense, lowers the burden of proof to the civil standard, and abridges the right to confront the witnesses against the accused. Further, the procedure that puts the onus on the owner to request the presence of the technician who set up the speed-monitoring device is entirely inadequate.
Privacy Issues
House Bill 443 is another step toward the pervasive use of cameras by the government to monitor and regulate the conduct of its people. There may be times when this type of surveillance is appropriate. I am, however, reluctant to approve its use in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
Safety Issues
Although proponents assert this bill will improve traffic safety, the evidence on this issue is incomplete. There has been little study of the effectiveness of speed cameras on improving traffic safety. At present, the Transportation Research Board is undertaking a comprehensive study of this issue. On a related issue, Virginia recently refused to reauthorize the use of red light cameras based on a study showing that the use of such cameras increased the risk of accidents. Therefore, it is appropriate to await the results of a thorough study before concluding that speed cameras improve traffic safety.
"Local Bill"
House Bill 443 applies only in Montgomery County. It does, however, have profound statewide ramifications. First, it applies to anyone who drives in Montgomery County. Undoubtedly there are many commuters from other parts of the State and from other states who use these roads on a daily basis. Second, Montgomery County would be the first jurisdiction in the State to be granted this authority. This would establish a precedent for other counties to seek this authority and, accordingly, is the first step to a statewide system.
Residential Districts
House Bill 443 applies to residential districts with a maximum posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Section 21-101 of the Transportation Article defines a residential district as "an area that: (1) is not a business district; and (2) adjoins and includes a highway where the property along the highway for a distance of at least 300 feet is improved mainly with residences or residences and buildings used for business."
Information received from the Department of Transportation shows there are many State highways that would qualify as "residential areas" under the bill, some of which are four and six lane highways. These include parts of Connecticut Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue, and Viers Mill Road. Hundreds, if not thousands, of tickets could be issued daily on these roadways to people who are simply traveling with the flow of traffic. In this regard, the District of Columbia government web page contains a statement dated March 18, 2004, boasting that in the first 15 days of operation a single stationary speed camera found more than 10,000 motorists to be speeding.
Revenue Enhancement Issues
The advocates of House Bill 443 are sincere in their desire for increased highway safety, a goal on which we can all agree. It is clear that for governments, however, speed cameras are also an effective revenue raising measure. In January of this year The Washington Times published a letter from District of Columbia Mayor Anthony A. Williams urging the City Council to approve a contract for a speed camera vendor, stating: "There is an urgent need for the approval of this contract to ensure the continued processing of District tickets and the collection of District revenues." There was no mention of traffic safety in his letter. The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department web page states that since the speed camera program began in July 2001, over $72 million has be
The Fiscal and Policy Note to House Bill 443 states that for Montgomery County "revenues would increase significantly and expenditures would also increase." In fiscal year 2006 revenues are estimated to be $6.3 million, with expenditures of $4.6 million. As the experience in the District of Columbia clearly shows, once a jurisdiction begins to use the cameras and receives the increased revenues, expanding the program becomes a logical progression. As the experience with the District of Columbia also shows, the rationale for the expansion may be purely monetary.
Impact on District Court
I am also concerned about the effect House Bill 443 would have on the District Court. The Maryland Judicial Conference opposed this bill before the General Assembly on the basis that it would have "a substantial impact on the District Court." Although the actual number of citations to be issued is unknown, it is clear that a significant number will increase court dockets, trial time, clerical time, and possibly result in the need for costly computer programming changes.
National Use of Speed Cameras
Since my veto of Senate Bill 455 in 2003, the use of speed cameras in the United States remains limited to five states plus the District of Columbia. In the eastern part of the country (in addition to the District of Columbia) only in the state of New York in cities with a population over 1,000,000 are speed cameras authorized. As stated above, Virginia has repealed the use of red light cameras. There is clearly no national trend in support of speed cameras.
For the above stated reasons, I have vetoed House Bill 443.
Very truly yours,
Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
Governor
Photo Radar
September 5th, 2008 — 02:39 pm — by Matt Brown
I regularly receive calls from people who want to fight their photo radar tickets. They are generally furious about the situation, calling the cameras “the devil’s work,” “big brother watching us,” and other far more colorful things I won’t mention here. Although people caught by the cameras hate them, I’ve found that most people I meet think the cameras are great. If you’ve read this blog much, I’m sure you can guess what I think.
A lot of people justify photo radar because they think it will prevent speeding and free up law enforcement personnel to deal with more serious offenses. In general, I doubt photo radar will really do what its proponents claim, but I’d rather save that argument for a later post. Honestly, I don’t care effective photo radar is.
I’ve heard British people proudly proclaim that there are more CCTV cameras in London than in all of the USA, and that they do an amazing job of preventing crime and permitting effective use of law enforcement resources. I suspect (and hope) that most US citizens who are fine with photo radar would oppose one CCTV camera for every fourteen people in the USA. Why the difference?
If it’s because photo radar supposedly only captures people who break the law, then why not have the CCTV cameras on but only let the police view the recordings after a crime’s been reported in the area. I hope most US citizens wouldn’t stand for that either. I’d like to think that opposition stems from a healthy distrust of those to whom we give power, something that distinguishes our country from a lot of other places.
Another group of people try to justify photo radar by describing all of the ways the government has promised to limit its use. They say there will be no license points or school to attend for a violation, or that the government will only ticket the actual driver, whom they must positively identify. They claim cameras will only be put up on state highways, which apparently means freeways and interstates, not rural roads. There will supposedly be warning signs posted as well.
Do you really think the state will forever spare violators traffic school or points and abstain from forcing the car’s owner to reveal the driver’s identity? Should the rural/urban distinction really make a difference? Couldn’t CCTV too be justified if we just put it in big cities, not suburbs or rural areas? If signs make photo radar okay, couldn’t they also legitimize CCTV all over the state?
Why are we so willing to trust the government to continue to limit itself in using technology against us? When was the last time the government, on any level, limited the scope of a cash cow program? If our rights and some unwritten promises stand in the way of effectively and profitably enforcing traffic laws with these machines, do you really think the government’s going to keep it’s word?
History has shown that the government doesn’t keep its promises. Wasn’t the income tax supposed to be a temporary measure, a “war tax?” We can’t even make the government do the things it’s promised to do explicitly and in writing. If you don’t believe me, have a look at the US Constitution’s sixth amendment right to a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions. If we can’t make the government respect the promises set forth in the Constitution, why do we think the government will honor unwritten promises?
I also recently received an email defending the use of photo radar by claiming that what the government makes from the cameras is not actually “revenue.” Apparently, if you don’t use the cash to balance the budget, but instead use it to deal with public safety issues or increase border security, it isn’t revenue. I understand the definition of revenue technically changes when the government is involved, but I really don’t like the government’s hypocrisy when it comes to this kind of stuff. Do you think the government would be persuaded that I don’t owe any taxes because I had no “revenue” due to the fact I spent all the money I earned on things I thought were important or felt I had to do?
The same email also argued that if we don’t do something as a state, the federal government will begin imposing far worse measures. Using that logic, a state or locality could enact all but the absolute most appalling laws by arguing the federal government will do worse if they do not act.
I haven’t heard a single argument in favor of photo radar that made me even slightly warm up to idea. Quite frankly, it disgusts me that people are so enamored with the promise of safety that they’re willing to let the state profit from them using unmanned machines supplied by the lowest corporate bidder. I challenge anyone to read the Declaration of Independence and with a straight face tell me that the idea of government cameras spying on citizens isn’t plainly and wholly incompatible with the radical ideas of freedom and justice on which this country was founded.
Speeding is perhaps the biggest contributing factor to motor vehicle crashes. High rates of speed can also significantly increase the severity of accidents as well. Speed cameras are being used more frequently as a way to deter speeders. While the United States has been slow at implementing speed camera campaigns, they are very prominent in other parts of the world such as Great Britain.
Several studies conducted in Great Britain by the Department of Transport resulted in findings that prove the theory that speed cameras do in fact reduce the number of traffic accidents. In some cases, they saw a 40% reduction in accident rates.
2. Red light cameras are proven to reduce the number of accidents and violations in intersections where they are installed.
There have been several studies conducted that support the fact that red light photo cameras not only reduce the number of accidents but also the number of red light violations themselves. A recent status report released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety revealed the findings of studies conducted on intersections in the city of Philadelphia where red light photo cameras were installed. They found that before any cameras were installed within the intersections, violations ranged anywhere from eight to 251 per 10,000 vehicles. After red light photo cameras were installed and operating for more than a year, violation rates declined 87 to 100 percent. In these intersections studied in Philadelphia, red light violations were drastically reduced because of the red light photo cameras installed.
"I receive a lot of calls from speeders who are MAD they got caught speeding."
Then they should stop speeding and quit complaining when they get caught.
This whole thing reminds me of that old doctor joke:
Patient: Doc, it hurts when I bend my arm back this way
Doc: Then don't bend it back that way.
Speeders: I don't like getting photo radar tickets.
Police: Then stop speeding.
Arizona State Appeals Court Photo Radar Decision
Full text of the 1992 Arizona State Appeals Decision forbidding the mailing of speed camera tickets.
In 1992, the Arizona State Appeals Court ruled that mailing of speed camera tickets to motorists violated the law. It required "personal service", that is, hand delivery, of any violation.
Article Excerpt:
Jeffrey J. TONNER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARADISE VALLEY MAGISTRATE'S COURT and Hon. Lester Penterman, a magistrate thereof, Town of Paradise Valley, a municipal corporation, and the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellants
No. 1 CA-CV 90-429
Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department C
171 Ariz. 449; 831 P.2d 448; 1992 Ariz. App.
May 12, 1992, Filed
JUDGES: Bolton, Judge.1 Contreras, P.J., and McGregor, J., concur.
OPINIONBY: BOLTON
Defendants-appellants appeal from a superior court judgment vacating an order of civil sanction entered by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court on a civil traffic complaint issued to plaintiff-appellee Jeffrey Tonner. Appellee filed a special action in superior court to vacate the order of civil sanction, arguing that the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court lacked personal jurisdiction when it entered a default judgment against him. The superior court judge found that service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (formerly Rule 4(e)(7)) was not completed prior to entry of judgment and that the judgment entered was void.
On February 11, 1990, the photo radar device operated by the Town of Paradise Valley detected a vehicle registered to General Motors Acceptance Corporation ("GMAC") traveling at an alleged speed of fifty-six miles per hour in a forty mile per hour zone. A summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were mailed to GMAC alleging a violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. ("A.R.S.") @ 28-701 (1989), driving at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent. GMAC forwarded the summons and complaint to appellee and his wife, the lessees of the vehicle. GMAC also sent the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court a copy of its transmittal letter to appellee. The summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were reissued, naming Tonner as defendant and the vehicle's driver at the time of the alleged violation of section 28-701.
On March 7, 1990, a copy of the summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint and two copies of the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint were sent by first-class mail to appellee with a return, postage-paid envelope. The summons directed appellee to appear on March 22, 1990, in the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court. Appellee never signed and returned the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint nor did he appear on March 22, 1990. On that date, based on appellee's failure to appear, the allegations of the complaint were deemed admitted, and an order of civil sanction was entered against him. The Town of Paradise Valley argues on appeal that use of first-class mail for delivery of a summons and complaint is sufficient for service and to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants in civil traffic matters. We disagree.
The requirements for service under Rule 4.1(c) are clear. A summons and complaint may be served by first-class mail along with two copies of a notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint and a postage-paid return envelope, but service is not complete until the acknowledgment of receipt is executed. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(1), (2). If the acknowledgment of receipt is not executed, service is not complete under this method even if there is evidence that the summons and complaint were received. See Worrell v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 845 F.2d 840, 841-42 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3191, 105 L.Ed.2d 699 (1989). Until service is complete, no personal jurisdiction is obtained, and any judgment entered is void. Endischee v. Endischee, 141 Ariz. 77, 79, 685 P.2d 142, 144 (App.1984); Kadota v. Hosogai, 125 Ariz. 131, 134, 608 P.2d 68, 71 (App.1980).
Appellant argues that requiring execution of the acknowledgment of receipt creates a conflict with A.R.S. @ 28-1076 (1989) because that statute requires the civil traffic complaint to state a time and place for appearance before the magistrate, and if the person summoned fails to appear, the allegations of the complaint will be deemed admitted, a judgment in favor of the State will be entered, and a civil sanction will be imposed. We find no conflict between Rule 4.1(c)(2) and A.R.S. @ 28-1076. Section 28-1076(D) provides that a "person served with a civil traffic complaint" must appear at the time directed or "the allegations in the complaint shall be deemed admitted and the court shall enter judgment for this state." (Emphasis added.) To serve a civil traffic complaint, the State must comply with A.R.S. @ 28-1073 (1989), which requires service "by delivering a copy of the uniform traffic complaint citation to the person charged with the violation or by any means authorized by the rules of civil procedure." A.R.S. @ 28-1073(A).
Appellant attempted service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) by complying with the requirements of Rule 4.1(c)(1). Without a defendant's voluntary complaiance with the requirements of Rule 4.1(c)(2), service is not complete, and no personal jurisdiction over a defendant is achieved. In that event, a plaintiff may attempt service by any other method authorized by Rule 4.1 with the costs of service shifted to the defendant who failed to execute and return the acknowledgment of receipt. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(3). Nothing in section 28-1073(A) eliminates or modifies any steps required to complete service. Section 28-1076(A)'s requirement that the summons state a time and place for appearance and section 1076(D)'s provision that failure to appear shall be deemed an admission of the allegations in the complaint, requiring the court to enter judgment for the State and impose a civil sanction are not inconsistent with the rules for service by mail or the rules for service by any other means authorized by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The appellant's recourse when a defendant fails to execute the acknowledgement of receipt is to continue the hearing and serve the complaint by some other authorized method. See Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(3). Until the magistrate's court obtains personal jurisdiction, it has no power to enter an order of civil sanction against a defendant. See Endischee, 141 Ariz. at 79, 685 P.2d at 144; Kadota, 125 Ariz. at 134, 608 P.2d at 71.
We agree with the superior court judge that the order of civil sanction entered against appellee by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court is void for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the superior court.
Footnotes
1. Note: The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, was
This is an interesting presentation from France and is relevant to this forum because photo radar programs are just the beginning of Big Brother at least in France.
The title is:
Automated Speed Enforcement
iin France
By Jacques NOUVIER, CERTU
Chairman of the OECD WG on Speed Management
and Jean-François JANIN,MTI
French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development
and Spatial Planning
Would we want this in the USA?
Why would he think it's OK to drive 56 in a 40 zone?
How is that a reasonable speed?
Why would you try to fight that?
By fighting it, aren't you saying "Well, I think driving 56 in a 40 zone, which is 40% over the speed limit, is just a FINE way to drive !!!"
How can anyone feel sorry for these people? I just don't get it.
Because people need to slow down, that's why.
California: Illegal San Jose Photo Radar Program May End
San Jose, California to end illegal speed camera program after a decade of ticketing.
The San Jose, California city council will consider ending speed camera ticketing at a March 6 meeting. The council's Transportation and Environment Committee is recommending that the city only use the system, dubbed "NASCOP," to issue warnings because it violates state law. The California legislature has refused several times to allow photo radar programs to operate.
"Due to activities in the state legislature in the past few years, and recent court cases in Santa Clara County, there are legal concerns regarding the continuation of the NASCOP program in its present form," a committee report stated.
In 2000, the state legislature made its intentions clear by adding the following provision: "The authorization in Section 21455.5 to use automated enforcement systems does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction."
Nonetheless, since 1996, San Jose has teamed with Australian camera vendor Redflex to operate a fleet of white photo radar vans on 177 city streets. Redflex used the vans to mail expensive tickets to motorists driving just a few MPH above the speed limit in 25 and 30 MPH zones, splitting the revenue with San Jose. Last year, the program issued 7000 tickets worth $99 to $350 each.
Former Santa Clara Police Department Lieutenant Roger Luebkeman won a court case against San Jose last year by arguing the ticketing program was unlawful.
San Jose resident John Larson also won dismissal of a ticket by the Santa Clara County Court. He argued that the program violated California's speed trap law which protects motorists from being ticketed in areas where speed limits have been lowered for reasons not justified by sound engineering practices. The court agreed in his case that the city's engineering survey, "does not justify the speed limit." Larson is now pressuring the city to refund the fines it has illegally collected over the years and has started a new website, nascop.com, to gather support for his effort.