Court Decisions

http://fairfield.patch.com/articles/letter-learn-from-la-don-t-install-red-light-safety-cameras
 

Letter: Learn from LA – Don't Install Red Light Safety Cameras

A letter to the editor in response to possible legislation that would mean installing red light safety cameras at intersections.

By justin beck

We just returned to Connecticut from living in Los Angeles for over 20 years and experienced the implementation of red light cameras. In theory, the idea of catching red light runners and increasing safety with cameras at intersections while raising government revenue seems plausible.
 

In practice, not the case.
 

First and most costly: collateral damage -- the intimidation factor while approaching a light with a camera causes a variety of abnormal behaviors and leads to an increase in rear end accidents/injuries as motorists jam on their brakes as it turns yellow. Motorists in an intersection waiting to turn will panic and cause additional accidents.
 

Those are two obvious scenarios, there are more. Less obvious is the negative psychological effect at various levels. The Big Brother effect has deep implications which begin with fear, anger, and frustration, followed by avoidance of the area, and ultimately the potential for moving out of the area and/or the state. Do not underestimate the ramifications of loss of business, property values, and the fear of future government controls and loss of freedom.
Second, the courts will be swamped with motorists who dispute the ticket, and they are disputable. This is a massive waste of time and money for the motorists and the court. It is not cost effective for the state unless a predictable large number of tickets are issued and paid. Which means the vendors and operators of these cameras will set them up in such a way that revenue is maximized, meaning, speed limit alterations, yellow light variances and altered frequency of red light changes, for starters.
 

Third, the ticket prices must be high (in the multiple hundreds) to justify the costs associated with the program. The revenue gets divided up between a variety of entities. The state revenue justification is nonsense. Lastly, whomever is in power if/when this is implemented will not be come next election. It is a lose/lose proposition.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3702.asp

New Mexico Supreme Court Consider Photo Enforcement Cases
Highest court in New Mexico hears argument on constitutionality of speed cameras.

New Mexico's highest court will hear arguments tomorrow in challenge to the legality of the red light camera and speed camera program in Albuquerque known as "STOP." Voters last October rejected the automated ticketing machines http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3604.asp operated by Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia, but the state supreme court's decision could impact other cities that still allow private companies to issue traffic tickets through the mail.

The justices are reviewing a pair of unpublished decisions in which the state court of appeals tossed out class action suits filed against Albuquerque last year. Tuesday's arguments will be based on a November 2006 speed camera ticket that Redflex mailed to Turner W. Branch, an experienced trial lawyer. When Branch did not pay the citation, Redflex sent a notice that demanded a $600 payment and threatened to confiscate his vehicle.

Turner argued that Albuquerque violated the state constitution by setting up its own inferior administrative courts to rule upon violations covered by the state vehicle code. This tribunal treats a criminal violation as a civil matter by declaring it a "public nuisance" to avoid providing full due process protections to vehicle owners accused by a machine. A split three-judge appeals court panel rejected these arguments, citing a March 2011 decision Titus v. Albuquerque.

"The council observed that 'many states and municipalities across the country have experienced decreases in red light violations by using red light cameras' and that this technology 'saves lives,'" Judge James J. Wechsler wrote for the majority. "Accordingly, the council concluded that the use of red light cameras and the implementation of photographic and electronic equipment to enforce speed limits would abate these nuisances... Given the council's findings, we can think of no circumstance where speeding or violating stop lights in Albuquerque would not pose a threat to the safety of the citizens of Albuquerque. Accordingly, we conclude that Albuquerque acted within its municipal authority as provided in Section 3-18-17(A) in enacting STOP and designating speeding and red light infractions nuisances."

Judge Michael E. Vigil strongly disagreed with his appellate court colleagues. He argued the program cannot have safety as its primary motivation because it seeks to collect penalties from individuals who did nothing wrong.

"STOP makes the mere owner of the vehicle absolutely liable for the fine imposed because of another person's act of driving," Vigil wrote in his dissent in the Titus case. "It therefore appears that the purpose of this scheme is to generate revenue income for Albuquerque, and not to abate the nuisance of speeding.... By penalizing a person or entity which does nothing except merely own a vehicle which is driven by another person over the posted speed limit, STOP is contrary to New Mexico law and unconstitutional. Since the majority disagrees, I dissent."

The state supreme court heard arguments on the Titus case on November 16.

A copy of the Titus case is available in a 350k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Titus v. Albuquerque (Court of Appeals, State of New Mexico, 3/9/2011) http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/nm-titus.pdf

http://alerts.motorists.org/nma-e-newsletter-160-variability-and-uncertai

January 29, 2012
NMA E-Newsletter #160: Variability and Uncertainty as Deterrence

Many members call us to ask how they can fight their camera tickets and what to expect in court when they do. The short, but honest, answer is it depends.

Some of the reasons for this include:

• Photo enforcement statutes vary from state to state
• Courts (even within states) interpret the laws differently
• Courts routinely disregard the constitutional rights of traffic defendants
• The system is designed to provide revenue for the jurisdiction not justice for defendants

What results is a capricious patchwork of enforcement practices intended to confuse motorists and to discourage them from standing up for their rights.

At one extreme, there's Arizona and Virginia. In each state, courts have ruled that camera-based traffic citations must be delivered in-person (personal service), otherwise they are deemed to have not been delivered and can be effectively ignored. (However, any acknowledgement of receipt could be deemed as a waiver of the personal service requirement.)

At the other extreme, there's Prince George's County, Maryland http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3645.asp, where at least one judge has warned motorists that common, valid ticket camera defenses won't be heard. A motorist's only acceptable defense, according to the judge, is to state that he/she was not driving and to identify who was. Listen  to the judge's whole statement.

In Washington, D.C. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3670.asp a U.S. Court of Appeals recently rejected a class-action lawsuit that argued motorists were denied their constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law because drivers cited for speeding by metro police faced stiffer penalties than drivers receiving camera citations for the same violation.

In writing for the appellate court, Judge Harry T. Edwards concluded, "The District has decided that the best way to deter speeding is through the creation of some variability and uncertainty in the city's enforcement schemes."

But nowhere has "variability and uncertainty" been more on display than in Palm Coast, Florida.

When Ann Paris and Scott Hunter appeared one after the other before Traffic Magistrate Charles Cino, common sense predicted a similar outcome for each. Each was cited for a red-light camera violation, and each had signed an affidavit stating that another person was driving their car at the time.

According to a news account http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/flagler/2011/12/13/tale-of-two-red-light-citations-in-palm-coast.html, Cino repeatedly pressed Paris to identify the driver of her car, to which she answered, "I don't know." Paris then agreed to pay the original fine of $158 versus the approximately $264 she was facing for taking the case to court. Cino moved to Hunter.

Cino said he would not force Hunter to tell him who was driving and agreed with Hunter's attorney that it was not his client's burden to provide that information. Case dismissed.

The only apparent difference in the cases was that Paris represented herself (pro se), and Hunter had an attorney. Courts routinely treat pro se traffic defendants with disdain (e.g., making them wait until the end of the session to present their cases).

One reason the NMA encourages members to challenge every ticket is to demonstrate the inherent unfairness of the traffic justice system. The more people stand up for themselves, the greater the chance for meaningful reform.

So, given the vagaries of the process, how do you protect yourself? First, don't expect the court to be fair-minded. Second, learn how to fight http://www.motorists.org/fightticket/ your traffic ticket. Third, attend a traffic court session before your appearance so you know what to expect. Finally, don't give up; even if you lost the first round, consider an appeal. ♦
 

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Houston-puts-red-light-camera-settlement-on-hold-2704258.php

Houston puts red-light camera settlement on hold
Chris Mora, Houston Chronicle 

By Chris Moran, Houston Chronicle
Updated 09:02 p.m., Wednesday, January 25, 2012
 

The City Council on Wednesday delayed approval of a $4.8 million settlement with its red-light camera vendor amid questions about the effect of an appeals court ruling that lets two Houston lawyers intervene in the lawsuit.

On Tuesday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that brothers Michael and Randy Kubosh should be allowed to join in the lawsuit.

Though the city and American Traffic Solutions plan to ask for the case to be dismissed if the settlement is approved by City Council, the Kuboshes said they want to keep the case alive to overturn a judge's ruling that invalidated the November 2010 charter referendum they organized to ban the use of cameras in Houston. Their attorney also argued in a hearing after Wednesday's council meeting that the Kuboshes should have standing in the contract dispute. U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes granted them a hearing on Feb. 6 to make their case.

Read more: Houston puts red-light camera settlement on hold

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3697.asp

Houston, Texas Settles Red Light Camera Lawsuit
Houston, Texas will pay $4.8 million to red light camera company to settle lawsuit over voter initiative.

The city of Houston, Texas announced Friday that it would pay American Traffic Solutions (ATS) $4.8 million to settle the lawsuit the company set up after voters rejected red light cameras in November 2010. Upon approval by the city council Wednesday, the Arizona firm will receive $2.3 million up front with another $2.4 million provided as the company collects on unpaid citations over the next three years.

ATS was able to extract this sum from the city for two reasons. First, former Mayor Bill White removed an early termination clause http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3336.asp from the red light camera contract in an attempt to save the camera program through the year 2014 in the event the state legislature passed legislation outlawing cameras. As a result, ATS demanded the share of ticket profits it would have received through that date. Second, ATS had an ally in US District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes, who overturned the election results http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3511.asp and sided with ATS at every step. For example, when ATS lawyer Andy Taylor complained in a November 26, 2010 hearing that the city required ATS to take down its cameras, Hughes came to the rescue.

"I can cure that," Hughes said, ordering the city to keep the cameras up.

The city council did have the power to stop the red light cameras from issuing tickets, so it ordered the systems deactivated on August 24, 2011. Houston came back to Hughes asking him to modify his order so that the cameras could be permanently removed, pursuant to a city ordinance requiring them to come down.

"The city of Houston's motion to compel American Traffic Solutions to remove the red light cameras is denied," Hughes ruled on January 16, 2012.

Hughes has close ties with ATS, having served on the bench for 25 years with Judge David Hittner, the father of ATS General Counsel George Hittner. His ruling is now under review by the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals which heard oral arguments on January 3. Randall Kubosh and Francis M. Kubosh sponsored the anti-camera initiative and want to see the public vote upheld.

"Appellants argue that the Texas Election Code protects the right of Texas voters to intervene in defense of a measure election, a right subverted by the city's collusive filing of a declaratory judgment suit that gave ATS an opportunity to nullify the Proposition 3 election it would never have had without the city's help," the Kubosh attorney David A. Furlow argued in a Friday filing with the Fifth Circuit. "Denial of their right to defend the Proposition 3 election and the no-red-light-camera votes they cast in it would render their constitutional rights meaningless."

Houston and ATS came to a quick settlement in the hopes that this appeal would be dismissed as moot. Current Mayor Annise Parker insisted the multi-million dollar payment represents the best deal that could have been struck under the circumstances.

"I am thankful that traffic violators, not Houston taxpayers, will be paying for this," Parker said in a statement. "This is a reasonable settlement and I thank the city legal department for its diligence in getting it done."

A copy of Judge Hughes' January 16 order is available in a 40k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Houston v. ATS (US District Court, Southern District Texas, 1/16/2012) http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/us-keepupcams.pdf

Thanks to Jim Walker of the NMA www.motorists.org for sharing this with us!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2012-01-23/supreme-court-GPS/52754354/1
 

Supreme Court rules warrant needed for GPS tracking

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – In its first ever review of GPS tracking, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that police need a warrant before attaching a GPS device to a person's car.

By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that when police attached a GPS device it "constitutes a search."

EnlargeClose

By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that when police attached a GPS device it "constitutes a search."

The opinion was unanimous, although the justices split in their views of how the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to such high-tech tracking.

The case, which during November oral arguments had prompted justices' references to George Orwell's futuristic novel 1984 and to "Big Brother" government, ensures that police cannot use GPS to continuously track a suspect before presenting grounds and obtaining a warrant from a judge.

The court reversed the cocaine-trafficking conviction of a Washington, D.C., nightclub owner. In 2005, police secretly attached a GPS device to a Jeep owned by Antoine Jones while it was parked in a public lot. Agents then used evidence of Jones' travels over four weeks to help win the conviction on conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

Civil libertarians and defense lawyers praised the ruling in United States v. Jones. "We welcome the Supreme Court's recognition that the Fourth Amendment must continue to protect against government intrusions even in the face of modern technological surveillance tools," said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, which was among the groups that submitted a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Jones.

Read more: Supreme Court rules warrant needed for GPS tracking

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3696.asp

Washington: Judge Slaps Attempt to Block Anti-Camera Vote
Judge fines Monroe, Washington $10,000 for attempting to keep the public from voting out red light cameras.

The Snohomish County Superior Court on Thursday found Monroe, Washington liable for a fine of up to $10,000 for denying photo enforcement opponents access to the ballot. Although two-thirds of voters in the city voted against the use of red light cameras and speed cameras in November, they were only allowed to consider a measure crafted by Mayor Robert Zimmerman. He asked voters whether they wanted to continue using cameras when the vendor's contract expires in 2013.

The citizens' group Seeds of Liberty had collected signatures from nearly half the city's active voters to place an immediate and binding camera ban on the ballot. Zimmerman sued to keep voters from considering that tougher language. In a letter ruling, Judge George N. Bowden said the city went too far, violating a state statute designed to stop "strategic lawsuits against public participation" or SLAPP.

"I am granting Seeds of Liberty's motion for costs and fees because of the following reasons: Washington's anti-SLAPP remedies are not discretionary," Bowden wrote. "Having secured enough valid signatures to place Section Three on the ballot, the city's lawsuit burdens the initiative sponsors with having to defend the right of voters to express their opinions and weigh in on a matter that will directly affect them. As such, the initiative concerns an action involving public participation and the inherent rights of citizens to petition their government."

Bowden followed the precedent set down by the Washington Court of Appeals in September that struck down the binding portion of an anti-camera initiative in Bellingham while clarifying that an advisory vote section of the measure could stand (view ruling http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3579.asp). As a result, voters will have a chance in April to vote to tell the city council to take down the cameras immediately.

"We are thrilled with this court decision because it sends a clear message to other greedy politicians and sleazy red-light camera companies that such obstructionist tactics will not only fail, but result in substantial financial penalties," initiative co-sponsor Tim Eyman wrote in an email to supporters.

Although 68 percent of the Monroe's electorate rejected automated enforcement, city leaders have stuck by their decision to continue the camera program. Eyman believes the city should accept the inevitable and cancel its photo enforcement contract.

"When are Mayor Zimmerman and the city council going to get the message and take down all the ticketing cameras in the city of Monroe?" Eyman asked. "Every day they leave them up is a slap in the face of the people of Monroe."

A copy of the letter ruling is available in a 210k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Monroe v. Seeds of Liberty (Snohomish County, Washington Superior Court, 1/19/2012)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/wa-monroeslap.pdf

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/01/18/wise-up-court-challenge-fails

Wise Up court challenge fails (COURT refused to let retired police officer testify AGAINST SCAMERAS).  More Court Challenges PLANNED!

By James Turner ,Winnipeg Sun
First posted: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 02:03 PM CST | Updated: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 07:33 PM CST
 

But the real court fight still looms in the weeks ahead, the group’s founder says.

Todd Dube was in court Wednesday hoping to put claims of shady practices by the city in dinging drivers on the court record.

But the group’s expert witness — a retired police radar specialist — wasn’t permitted to testify without proper notice being given to the Crown, and Dube’s own efforts to put Wise Up’s arguments on the court record fell outside the bounds of court procedure.

Ultimately, Ilan Havel’s Oct. 13, 2011 photo radar ticket was upheld and Judicial Justice of the Peace Judeta Cohn ordered him to pay a fine of $191.25 after carving off court costs from the original $241.25 fine. Havel was photographed doing 65 km/h in the 50 km/h zone.

Dube was permitted to address the court as a friend of Havel’s but not as an expert witness.

Havel didn’t testify, leaving Wise Up without anyone to testify on its behalf.

Despite Dube’s efforts to put his arguments on the record, Cohn refused to hear them because they weren’t presented as sworn evidence.

Wise Up maintains because the photo radar car is operated from a service road just north of Grant it creates a possibility of inaccurate radar results. The group also claims obstructions — such as light standards — interfere with radar operation.

A photo of Havel’s infraction shows a light standard smack dab in the centre of the radar camera’s view.

The radar car operator who issued the ticket, Sonny Ayson, testified for the Crown that stationary objects in the path of the radar beam wouldn’t have any effect on its results.

“The radar unit will measure the velocity of a moving object, but not a stationary object,” Ayson testified. “It would have no effect on the reading.”

Outside court, Dube charged the operator wasn’t qualified to make remarks regarding technical findings. An appeal of Havel’s conviction is being considered.

Another court challenge is slated for February. Lawyer Kerry Unruh will appear to handle the legal end of things, Dube said.

http://tdn.com/news/local/former-judge-appeals-traffic-camera-ticket-exposes-flaw-in-system/article_e5e2f0f4-3fe3-11e1-adf8-0019bb2963f4.html

Former judge appeals traffic camera ticket, exposes flaw in system

By Tony Lystra / The Daily NewsThe Daily News Online | Posted: Sunday, January 15, 2012 8:30 pm |
 

A retired Cowlitz Superior Court Judge is challenging Longview's school-zone traffic camera system, saying a speeding ticket he and his wife received in May should have been thrown out because video footage failed to identify who was driving the offending vehicle.
 

Judge Jim Warme, who left court last year, also said in court documents that a Longview Municipal Court judge erred when, because footage of the car showed no driver, she found both Warme and his wife guilty of speeding in a school zone.
 

The appeal stands out because it comes from a judge with two decades of experience on the bench and points out what may be a fatal flaw in the city's controversial traffic camera system. In essence, the case asks how two people can be guilty of simultaneously driving one car too fast.
 

In a brief filed this month with the Superior Court, Warme said that on May 16, a silver Honda Pilot registered to him and his wife, Paula, was captured by a Longview traffic camera driving 31 mph in a 20 mph school zone at Columbia Valley Gardens Elementary school on 30th Avenue in Longview.
 

The Warmes admitted the car was speeding. However, during a Sept. 21 court hearing, Warme pointed out that the traffic camera system does not photograph the faces of drivers, and there is no way to prove who was driving the Honda.
 

Heidi Heywood, a Skamokawa attorney who was acting as a judge pro tem in Longview Municipal Court, "acknowledged that no driver had been identified," Warme said in his brief. "Then in the absence of any evidence of who the actual driver might be, (Heywood) found both defendants guilty of the infraction and entered a judgment against both defendants."
 

In addition, Heywood said that Longview's traffic camera ordinance "made all registered owners liable for an infraction if no one could be identified as the actual driver."
 

Warme said the ticket should have been dismissed because police can't say who was driving the car when it sped through the school zone. In addition, Warme said Heywood's understanding of the city's ordinance is wrong: The ordinance does not hold all registered owners of a vehicle liable for violations committed in the vehicle.
 

"There is simply no statutory authority to make the registered owner of a vehicle responsible for an infraction," Warme wrote.
 

Heywood declined to comment Friday. Interim Longview City Attorney Steve Shuman said Friday he is "in the process of drafting and filing with the court a response brief" and declined to comment further.
 

Longview's traffic camera ordinance does not allow drivers' faces to be photographed. "Why the city adopted such a restriction is beyond my explaining," Warme wrote in his brief. Yet, he wrote, "The burden of proof is on the city to establish by some evidence who the vehicle operator was."
 

Warme did not return a phone call placed Friday to his residence.
 

Traffic cameras were installed at some intersections and school zones in February and have helped the city issue thousands of tickets since. The program has drawn vocal opposition from some community members who, with the help of political activist Tim Eyman, put a ballot initiative aimed at removing the cameras on November's ballot. Voters favored the removal of the red light cameras but decided the school zone cameras should stay.
 

The traffic signal cameras are expected to be removed next month. The school zone cameras will remain at least through May.

Special Thanks to NMA Activist Mike McGuire of Florida for the heads up!

http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/flagler/2012/01/10/flagler-residents-argue-against-red-light-citations.html

Flagler residents argue against red-light citations
BY FRANK FERNANDEZ, STAFF WRITER 
  January 10, 2012 12:15 AM

BUNNELL -- Lloyd Edelman appeared in court Monday to fight two red-light camera citations from Palm Coast. But Edelman doesn't drive, at least not on the streets.
Edelman, 57, suffers from cerebral palsy.

So while he owns a sport utility vehicle he couldn't have been behind the wheel, said his friend Anthony Calarco.

"I want to tell you that Lloyd has been with me for five years and he does not drive the car except in the yard," Calarco said. "He does not take it out of the yard. He was not driving his car that day."

Calarco had driven his roommate Edelman to the Kim C. Hammond Justice Center in Bunnell, and then Edelman pushed Calarco inside in a wheelchair. Calarco said he will be 80 in a few days and cannot stand due to bad knees.

Calarco did almost all the talking as Edelman stood next to him. Each citation could have cost Edelman a fine of $264. Calarco said his daughter uses Edelman's car to go to work as a hairdresser and she probably allowed someone at work to borrow the car on a couple of occasions.

"There's no doubt in my mind that it's his car going through the red light, but it was not Lloyd driving," Calarco said. "I can bring in all my neighbors and they can tell you that Lloyd does not drive. ... You can't hold Lloyd responsible."

Traffic Magistrate Charles Cino agreed that Edelman was not behind the wheel.

"Obviously, it's pretty clear that Mr. Edelman wasn't driving that car that day," Cino said.

Palm Coast Code Enforcement Officer Luis Mendez said the city needed an affidavit from the vehicle owner stating he was not driving before it could dismiss the citation. Otherwise, the vehicle owner is responsible.

"Without an affidavit we have no choice but to go by Florida statutes which means the registered owner of the vehicle," Mendez said.

But Cino said that the fact that Edelman was not driving had been discussed in open court and dismissed both citations against Edelman.

"He's doing it in open court," Cino said. "He's doing it in open court, city, to me that's good enough."

The only other person before Cino on Monday to challenge red light camera citations was Nicholas Puma of Palm Coast. Like Edelman, Puma had also been cited twice.

Cino dismissed the first citation, which Puma received in August as he turned left from westbound Palm Coast Parkway at Belle Terre Parkway. Cino said Puma had reached the stop bar as the light turned red so he gave him the benefit of a doubt.

But Puma was not so lucky on the other citation. On Aug. 2 cameras filmed Puma's BMW turning left on red at Cypress Point Parkway and Belle Terre Parkway. Mendez said Puma made the turn at about 25 mph.

Puma said he had been checking to make sure the intersection was clear of traffic and when he looked up the light was yellow and it was too late to stop.

"It looks like, to me, it turned red before you got there," Cino said.

"I agree with you, yes, it was red before I went through the intersection," Puma said. "Clearly, the camera speaks for itself. But I'm just saying, as a precautionary method, any good driver would slow down and look both ways before they go through an intersection."

Cino reiterated that the light had changed before Puma reached the crossroads.

"But isn't there like a judgment as far as like a reaction time?" Puma asked.

"That's why we have yellow lights," Cino said.
 

WA Appeals Court Denies Right to Challange Scamera Tickets (ironically hurts ATS and Spokane).

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3679.asp

Washington Appeals Court Denies Right to Challenge Traffic Tickets
Second highest court in Washington state refuses to hear any traffic ticket appeals.

Washington state's second-highest court ended the year denying the right of motorists to challenge an unfair or unlawful ruling from a superior court judge. The Court of Appeals declared last Tuesday that it would not hear any appeals for infractions -- not even from city governments.

That came as bad news for the city of Spokane which had sought to overturn a Spokane County Superior Court decision throwing out red light camera tickets as unlawful. Judge Jerome Leveque examined the $124 citations that Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions (ATS) mailed to registered vehicle owners Mark Wardrop, Jennifer Lee, and Susan Annechiarico. He noted that state law requires such legal accusations to be certified true under the penalty of perjury under a signature that "states the date and place of its execution." The red light camera tickets indicated a police officer signed the citation in Spokane, but they were actually "signed" electronically by ATS in Arizona. Judge Leveque ruled in June that this process violated the law.

Read more: WA Appeals Court Denies Right to Challange Scamera Tickets (ironically hurts ATS and Spokane).

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3673.asp

Ohio: Appellate Judge Blasts Judiciary Over Speed Cameras
Respected Ohio appellate judge argues the courts has failed in its duty to ensure speed cameras are reliable.

An Ohio Court of Appeals judge blasted his colleagues Thursday for accepting at face value the accuracy claims of speed camera and red light camera advocates. Judge Sean C. Gallagher used a non-controversial photo enforcement case involving the city of Parma to question why his colleagues refuse to impose the same legal standards on ticketing technology that they impose on breathalyzer machines in drunk driving cases.

"Often, as here, there is a presumption that everything works and is reliable," Judge Gallagher wrote in a concurring opinion. "Unlike OVI enforcement, automated speed technology is not subjected to any independent review prior to implementation. Apparently, in this case no independent judicial review of the information contained in the 'Statement of Technology' covering the reliability of this technology or the equipment occurred. Further, no administrative agency of the local government 'vetted' this technology or the equipment to ascertain its reliability. The city of Parma entered into a contract with a private vendor, and inherent in this contract is the presumption that the science, the equipment, and the operator are apparently infallible."

Read more: Ohio: Appellate Judge Blasts Judiciary Over Speed Cameras

http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics/politics/supreme-court-scheduled-to-decide-on-accepting-traffic-cam-initiative-appeal-march-27/
 

Supreme Court scheduled to decide on accepting traffic cam initiative appeal March 27
 

December 20th, 2011 12 PM PST by jared - The Bellingham Herald
 

From Paben
 

The state Supreme Court is tentatively scheduled to decide whether to accept Transportation Safety Coalition’s appeal on March 27, according to the court clerk’s office.
 

TSC appealed a lower court ruling that the Bellingham initiative restricting traffic-enforcement cameras doesn’t hold the force of law, although the court let it remain on the ballot. It passed in November with 68 percent in favor.
 

The case is American Traffic Solutions v. City of Bellingham, Supreme Court case no. 86594-9.
 

Bellingham doesn’t yet have a fixed date for installing the cameras. The city is under a contract with ATS to install four red-light cameras and two school-zone speed cameras. The contract is being implemented, and the City Council hasn’t taken any kind of action that would affect it, city spokeswoman Janice Keller said.
 

Read more: Supreme Court scheduled to decide on accepting traffic cam initiative appeal March 27

Federal Appeals Court Ignores Constitution, Protects DC Scameras.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3670.asp

Federal Appeals Court Embraces DC Speed Cameras
US Court of Appeals sides with Washington, DC speed camera system.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on Tuesday rejected a class action lawsuit filed against the speed camera program in the nation's capital. Motorists Henry Dixon and Cuong Thanh Phung argued the city violated their constitutional guarantee to equal protection of law by treating drivers pulled over for speeding more harshly than drivers mailed photo tickets for speeding.

Read more: Federal Appeals Court Ignores Constitution, Protects DC Scameras.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/class-31848-light-red.html

Class-action suit brewing over red-light cameras

December 14, 2011 9:28 AM

Brooke Edwards Staggs, City Editor

                          Robert Conaway

VICTORVILLE • A local attorney has sent notice (click here to read the notice http://archive.vvdailypress.com/files/2011/CurranCLRA.1.pdf) that he intends to file a class action lawsuit against the city of Victorville and Redflex Traffic Systems unless changes are made with the way red-light cameras are handled here.
 
Robert Conaway, a criminal defense attorney from Barstow, is demanding that the two parties stop issuing tickets and that Redflex let Victorville out of its red-light camera contract. Otherwise, Conaway said he will sue unless the city begins paying San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies to watch the live video feed and issue tickets as they occur, then appear in court to testify regarding the violations.
 
The request stems from the primary concern cited by Conaway, local tea party members and others who’ve risen up to oppose the cameras: that they violate civil rights because the accused don’t have the opportunity to confront their accuser. And, since employees with Redflex — a private company headquartered in Phoenix — are the ones first viewing the alleged violations, opponents claim testimony from local deputies should be inadmissible as evidence.
 
Conaway filed the suit on behalf of Victorville resident Michael Curran “and others.” Curran, 62, is accused of running the red light at Bear Valley and Hesperia roads on Sept. 26. He has no previous violations in San Bernardino County, according to court records.
 
The city and Redflex have 30 days to respond to the notice. Conaway declined to answer further questions until he receives their responses.
 
“We are confident that any action at this point is without merit,” Tom Herrmann, Redflex spokesman, said Tuesday by phone from the company’s Phoenix headquarters.
 
Herrmann declined to discuss specifics of the claim without having seen the suit, which Conaway sent Friday.
 
“We are unaware of any courts in California that have deemed use of red-light cameras unconstitutional at this time,” Victorville City Attorney Andre de Bortnoswky said via email Tuesday. “Nevertheless, we will review and research the theories raised and respond accordingly.”
 
Victorville isn’t particularly pleased with how the red-light cameras have worked out either, with city officials citing the “excessive” $490 fine and a questionable correlation to increased safety at most monitored intersections.
 
In March, a split City Council approved a partnership between the city attorney’s office and local attorney Brandon Wood to explore strategies for terminating Victorville’s contract with Redflex before it expires in 2014. They’d hoped to have an answer within 60 days, but nine months have passed without any indication Victorville can terminate its contract for 10 red-light cameras without facing litigation from Redflex.
 
Brooke Edwards Staggs may be reached at               (760) 955-5358       or at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Thanks to www.stpetecameras.org for the link!

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/12/05/hearing-tuesday-looks-at-st-louis-city-red-light-cameras/

Hearing Tuesday Looks at St. Louis City Red Light Cameras
December 5, 2011 4:00 AM
 

ST. LOUIS–(KMOX)–Lawyers for and against red light cameras will argue Tuesday before Circuit Court Judge Mark Neill.

The hearing will focus on whether the city acted legally when it set up its web of red light cameras and started collecting $100 fines without permission from the state.

“They have to have special enabling legislation to allow the municipality, or give the municipality the authority, to pass such legislation,” said plaintiff’s attorney Russell Watters.

Attorneys for the city will argue that St. Louis, as a charter city, has the authority to regulate the flow of traffic and set up a red light camera system that “saves lives.”

Watters disputes the claim that red light cameras are motivated by an interest in public safety.  He says it’s all about a cash-strapped city collecting $2 million a year in fines.

“To be honest, I think its about 80 percent of the motivation of the city,” Watters said, “All this talk about safety is a secondary motivation in my opinion.”

City Public Safety Director Charles Bryson wrote a letter to the editor of the St. Louis Post Dispatch last week, arguing that red light cameras do save lives and have led to an 80-percent reduction in violations at the intersections where they are posted.

Bryson noted that a report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that two-thirds of those injured or killed in red-light running collisions were not the red-light runner.  Bryson argues that red-light also help police identify drivers who commit other crimes.

Ban the Cams note:  THAT IIHS "STUDY" flaws can be read here:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3392.asp part 1, http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3393.asp part 2. 

and also http://www.bhspi.org/mauz/Red%20Light%20Cameras%20KILL%20Full%20Length%203.1.2011.pdf or http://www.banthecams.org/Studies-Show/red-light-cameras-kill-summary.html

 IIHS "Lives Saved" Study is a FRAUD!

Quote:  The study is a FRAUD.  IIHS authors carefully cherry picked camera sites (only 14 of 175 choices in 2004) and years of statistics.  The before camera period, 1992-1996, starts with a record safe [recession] year.  The after period, 2004-2008, ends with the next record safe [Great Recession] year, while skipping valid comparison years 1997 – 2003.  Years are NOT listed individually and city camera sites are NOT analyzed separately from the more numerous [safer] non-camera signal intersections.

(Thanks to www.stpetecameras.org for the link!)

http://www.newschief.com/article/20111201/NEWS/112015033/1021/news01?p=1&tc=pg

Red light camera tickets fall to challenge

 By MARY HURST
News Chief staff

Published: Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 7:16 a.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 7:16 a.m.

HAINES CITY - A County Court judge has already thrown out nine tickets issued because of the city's red light cameras. On Jan. 20, Judge Timothy Coon may throw out another 12.

The cases stem from a challenge to the city's red-light camera program by The Ticket Clinic of Orlando, which has mounted a campaign in a number of Florida jurisdictions against photo enforcement.

Haines City's 10 cameras, installed at six intersections along U.S. 27 and at U.S. 17/92 at the Publix shopping center, became active in January after city officials signed a contract with American Traffic Systems of Arizona in June 2010.

Public outcry resulted in the City Commission's voting in April not to ticket those with right-turn-on-red violations but the city still receives considerable revenue from the fees generated by drivers who run red lights.

Lakeland is the only other jurisdiction in Polk County that uses the cameras. The city introduced the cameras in 2009.

Statewide, the use of the cameras has grown and provoked strong opposition. Opponents have been seeking to have the state Legislature repeal the law it passed last year allowing the camera systems.

Haines City Police Chief Rick Sloan said Wednesday that Circuit Court judges in other jurisdictions have ruled that the state law is legal.

He said the city has no plans to abandon its red-light camera program. The city began the program in January, issuing tickets after one month of warnings. "The judges in other circuits asked for what Judge Coon is asking for, but on appeal, everywhere else I've heard about, the state law has been upheld," Sloan said Wednesday.

But Orlando lawyer Joel Mumford, with the Ticket Clinic, said Wednesday he's not aware of any binding Circuit Court ruling in Polk County.

However, the Miami-based Third District Court of Appeal on Wednesday upheld the right of cities to use cameras to catch and fine motorists who run red lights.

Coon has already ruled against how the tickets are issued when he threw out the nine tickets on Oct. 12.

He said the evidence of red-light violations used by the city and ATS did not follow the rules of evidence. That evidence included photo, video and registration information.

A Haines City police officer testified in October that ATS outsources the duties of looking up registration information to another company.

Coon ruled that information was not properly certified as a "self-authenticating" document.

"As a result, any information on the citation relating to the vehicle's registration information is hearsay as it is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted, which is that the person listed on the ticket is the owner of the vehicle," Coon wrote in his order.

Another issue is the use of the photographic and video evidence taken by the cameras at the city's intersections, which Coon's order said was not properly authenticated.

"The (Haines City) officer admits he was not at the scene when they were taken and as a result cannot testify as to whether they fairly and accurately portray the scene on the date and time in question," Coon wrote.

As the process currently stands, Mumford said in October, "It's not fair. Basically you're having video testify. And I can't cross-examine video."

Read more: FL Court: Red light camera tickets fall to challenge

Appeals Court Ignores FL law, sides with RLC in FL on earlier use.  (for now).

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3653.asp

Florida Appeals Court Sides with Red Light Cameras

Divided three-judge appellate panel in Florida upholds the unauthorized use of red light cameras.

The Florida legislature's authorization of red light cameras last year was superfluous, a divided state Court of Appeals panel ruled yesterday. The majority sided with the city of Aventura in overturning a Miami-Dade County Circuit Court http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3059.asp decision from last year that found Aventura had jumped the gun by giving American Traffic Solutions (ATS) a green light to mail out automated tickets without waiting for the state's permission.
   Florida law does not allow a city to adopt an ordinance in conflict with a state statute. The majority argued a provision requiring traffic officers only to issue traffic tickets for violations they personally observed is not in conflict because the same officers can "observe" the infraction on video under the Aventura photo ticketing ordinance.

(Ban the cams comment:  Problem with this line of "reason" by the two juctices 
is THE POLICE ARE NOT REVIEWING THEM IN ALL CASES!  THE VENDOR JUST SENDS THEM OUT to be "approved" or more like RUBBER STAMP!   

(Add to that the US PIRG finding of "APPROVAL QUOTAS" makes the claim of review just a rubber stamp.  IF the officers even "review" it all.   IF THE OFFICERS DON'T approve "enough" "violations", the city can be sued!  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3623.asp)

Just as exposed in this article out of Opa Locka, FL  http://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/helpmehoward/MI92368/

IN fact to "appeal" you have to do it to the vendor. 

quote:  Pedro then filed an appeal with American Traffic Solutions, the Arizona company that runs the cameras. They denied his appeal.)

   "The ordinance allows for a traffic control infraction review officer, who although sharing the qualifications of the type of officer referenced in section 316.640(5)(a), is instead appointed by the city pursuant to the ordinance and for the distinct purposes of viewing recorded images and issuing corresponding citations in accordance with the ordinance," Judge Angel A. Cortinas wrote for the majority. "Accordingly, we find the trial court erred in its determination that section 48-26 allowed the cameras to serve as the sole basis for issuing a notice of violation in direct conflict with section 316.007, Florida Statutes."
   The majority also noted that the state legislature authorized the use of red light cameras in 2010, without mentioning that lawmakers specifically rejected attempts to include retroactive language legitimizing http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2764.asp camera programs that started before 2010.
   Judge Leslie B. Rothenberg disagreed with her two colleagues with a dissent that noted the state specifically abolished municipal courts. She argued Aventura created a different standard of proof and liability for red light violations with penalties conflicting with those set by the legislature. The state punishes the driver with a $60 fine, but the city goes after the vehicle owner with a fine of up to $500. These standards are judged by a Aventura's own special master, not through a judicial officer established by the legislature.
 

  "The city is essentially utilizing the state's uniform traffic control devices (traffic lights), approved and regulated by the state for enforcement of the state's uniform traffic control laws, to punish violators through the city's own enforcement program and to pocket the revenues it collects for its own benefit," Rothenberg wrote in her dissent. "This is exactly the sort of inconsistent application of traffic laws and traffic penalties the people and legislature of this state sought to preclude by abolishing all of the municipal courts and enacting a uniform statewide traffic control system."
 

  A copy of the decision is available in a 140k PDF file at the source link below.
Source:  Aventura v. Masone (Court of Appeals, State of Florida, 11/30/2011)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/fl-rlcappeal.pdf

(Ban the Cams note:  This needs to be appealed to the FL Supreme court).

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3650.asp

US Supreme Court Wrestles with GPS Surveillance of Automobiles
US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in case over legality of warrantless GPS tracking of cars.

The US Supreme Court earlier this month heard oral arguments in a case that will set the legal boundaries for police GPS surveillance of automobiles. Last year, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that police were wrong to spend a month tracking the every move of Antoine Jones, who was arrested on October 24, 2005 for drug possession (view opinion). A tracking device had been attached to Jones's Jeep without judicial approval. The high court judges engaged in heated debate about the rights of motorists in connection with the Fourth Amendment.

"It seems to me the heart of the problem that's presented by this case and will be presented by other cases involving new technology is that in the pre-computer, pre-Internet age much of the privacy -- I would say most of the privacy -- that people enjoyed was not the result of legal protections or constitutional protections; it was the result simply of the difficulty of traveling around and gathering up information," Justice Samuel Alito summarized. "But with computers, it's now so simple to amass an enormous amount of information about people that consists of things that could have been observed on the streets, information that was made available to the public."

The administration, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreben, argued that police do not need to obtain a warrant because location information could have been obtained this information through ordinary surveillance methods. That means anyone could track even supreme court justices without violating their privacy.

"So your answer is yes, you could tomorrow decide that you put a GPS device on every one of our cars, follow us for a month; no problem under the Constitution?" Chief Justice John Roberts said. "Your argument is, it doesn't depend how much suspicion you have, it doesn't depend on how urgent it is. Your argument is you can do it, period. You don't have to give any reason. It doesn't have to be limited in any way."

Roberts suggested the process of obtaining a warrant serves as an effective limit. Scalia seemed to suggest that state legislatures were best suited to decide what limits should be placed on police tracking, not the courts. Other justices worried about the implications of allowing unrestricted tracking.

"[It's] an easy way, to pick someone up for speeding when you suspect something far worse but have no probable cause," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. "It's all in the computer. The police can say, we want to find out more about X, so consult the database, see if there is an indication that he was ever speeding in the last 28 days."

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy compared the GPS tracking to the use of speed cameras and red light cameras for tracking purposes.

"Lots of communities have, including Washington, cameras on -- at intersections on stop lights," Kennedy said. "Suppose the police suspected someone of criminal activity and they had a computer capacity to take pictures of all the intersections that he drove through at different times of day, and they checked his movements and his routes for five days. Would that be lawful?"

Justice Elena Kagan suggested constant police surveillance of an individual isobviously a violation of privacy.

"If you think about this, and you think about a little robotic device following you around 24 hours a day anyplace you go that's not your home, reporting in all your movements to the police, to investigative authorities, the notion that we don't have an expectation of privacy in that, the notion that we don't think that our privacy interests would be violated by this robotic device, I'm -- I'm not sure how one can say that," Kagan said.

The justices are expected to arrive at a decision by spring.

Ban the Cams note:  This article is NOT camera related but it points out what happens when you start making law enforcement about money, not safety.  (Note that UK does use private companies to enforce parking rules (collect cash essentially) as wells as parking scameras.

British justice: Harsh on motorists, soft on real criminals
By James Slack

Last updated at 12:42 PM on 23rd November 2011

Anybody who has ever returned to their car twenty minutes late after getting stuck in a queue at the shops will know the regime.

So will anybody who has ever committed the cardinal sin of leaving a couple of millimetres of tyre on the edge of a yellow line.

You arrive back at your car, find a bright yellow packet plastered to the windscreen and then set about reading the menacing penalty notice contained inside.

 Most people have had the frighteners put on them by a parking penalty charge notice

Pay immediately (within 14 days) it is likely to say, and we will milk you for £30. Dare to wait longer than 14 days and we’ll whack you for £60.

Then you’ll most likely to be directed to the website of whichever money-grasping Town Hall has issued you with the ticket to look for ‘more information’.

Here, they really put the frighteners on. The below is a quote from Aylesbury Vale District Council, but they’re all at it.

Under a section headed, What happens if you ignore a Penalty Charge Notice? It says: ‘You should not ignore a Penalty Charge Notice and hope that it will go away. It won’t!’

It then goes on: ‘If we do not receive your payment or the completed Notice to Owner form within 28 days we will increase the fine by 50% and issue a Charge Certificate. You cannot challenge the Penalty Charge Notice at this stage. The Charge Certificate must be paid within 14 days.

‘If you ignore a Charge Certificate the matter will be referred to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton Court. The centre will send you an Order of Recovery and add a £5 registration fee to the amount you owe.

 Deterrent? Kenneth Clarke's Ministry of Justice is owed nearly £2bn in unpaid fines

‘You must pay the Order of Recovery or complete and return the statutory declaration accompanying it within 21 days.

‘If you do nothing we will ask a bailiff to recover the debt from you. If this  happens you will have to pay the debt and the bailiff’s charges.

In other words, they will follow you to the ends of the earth in order to punish you for whatever minor parking infringement first committed – with the bill rising all the time. There will be absolutely no mercy, even to the extent of sending round the heavies to kick down your door.

Now compare and contrast with the way real criminals – the ones convicted by a court for breaking the law, rather than flouting some arcane parking system dreamt up by a bureaucrat paid to find ever more ingenious ways of fleecing the public – are treated.

A report by the National Audit Office, published today, reveals that criminals owe nearly £2 billion in unpaid court fees and confiscation orders.

Read more: British justice: Harsh on motorists, soft on real criminals (Nt UK uses for profit parking enforce)