Red Light Camera News 2010, Rules differ for Tennessee traffic cameras
Thanks to Bring the Scameras Down for the link.
http://naturaltreasure.net/scameras/?p=1127
For those who live in Tennessee, here is 2010 article dealing with RLC tickets.
Rules differ for Tennessee traffic cameras
By Gary B. Gray Press Staff Writer
http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/News/article.php?ID=82886
Unlike a speeding ticket, motorists can disregard those red light camera enforced citations mailed to their homes up to three times before action is taken — on a person’s credit rating.
No jail time. No knock at the door. No court appearance and no negative effects on driving records.
Johnson City and Redflex Traffic Systems would so far have shared nearly $380,000 from revenues collected between March and August if all revenues were pocketed, but more than 1,700 “violators” haven’t bothered responding to mailed citations.
Here’s the rub: The rules are different for all other red light violations occurring at intersections not equipped with the gizmos. Should an officer stop you and cite you for a red light infraction at any other intersection in town, indifference could cost you your driver’s license.
So why are the rules different for the same violation?
“State law considers the violations at intersections with red light cameras ‘non-moving’ traffic violations, as opposed to an officer-issued citation for a red light violation,” said Maj. Mark Sirois, the Johnson City Police Department’s Photo Red Light Enforcement Program project manager. “If an officer stops someone and issues a citation, the person can pay the fine or contest it. It’s the same for speeding. If you choose to ignore that, it would be ‘failure to satisfy citation.’ In the case of an officer-issued citation for a red light violation, if the violator failed to pay the fine or appear in court, then his/her license could be suspended by the state.”
Sirois said the state statute is “referenced” in Johnson City ordinance 15-1801. The chapter on Automated Traffic Enforcement was added in May 2009. It can be accessed by going to the city’s website at www.johnsoncitytn.org. Click on “departments” then “administration” then “city government” and finally, “city code and charter.”
The code states that a person who receives a citation can either pay the civil penalty in accordance with instruction on the citation, pay the contracted collection agency (which the city does not yet have specifically for video camera violations), or choose to contest the alleged violation.
The section also states: “The city may enforce the civil penalties by a civil action in the nature of a debt,” and the violation “shall not be considered a moving violation and may not be recorded by the police department or the state Department of Safety on the driving record of the owner or driver of the vehicle and may not be considered in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage.”
Though a person’s driving record cannot be sullied, the chain of custody regarding documentation related to the Red Light Enforcement Program includes the Department of Motor Vehicles, according to the contract between Redflex and the city.
In all cases, the violation is considered civil in nature as opposed to criminal.
“We have sent RFPs (requests for proposals) and are in the process of securing a collection agency that would work specifically to collect unpaid fines that resulted from red light traffic camera violations,” Sirois said.
He later added the collection agency would follow up on unpaid traffic safety camera citations and parking citations.
A link on the city’s website to “traffic citations, defensive driving, parking information” opens a message that says the following: “The City of Johnson City has contracted with a collections agency to pursue delinquent parking and traffic citations. Don’t be among those who find themselves dealing with a collections agency.”
Sirois said Johnson City Municipal Court has had 156 hearing requests for traffic safety camera citations.
“Not all of the requests resulted in an actual hearing,” he said. “For example, 60 persons paid their citations on or prior to the hearing date. This was usually the result of these persons having reviewed their video prior to court proceedings and deciding to pay the citation. Thirty-five persons did not show up for their scheduled hearing.”
When you do the math, this leaves 61 people, assuming the people who did not show up were guilty of the violation. If these were thrown out, it would mean slightly more than 39 percent of all people disputing the matter in court may have been wrongfully accused.
Tennessee Code Annotated 55-8-198, from which the city derives its code, became effective in 2008 after Knoxville resident Ronald G. Brown challenged the validity of that city’s ordinance establishing a red light camera enforcement program. Photographed and cited after running a red light in 2006, Brown claimed in a state appeals court that the ordinance violated due process and equal protection of the laws.
Judge Wheeler Rosenbalm remarked that “a traffic citation based solely on evidence obtained from a surveillance camera installed to enforce or monitor traffic violations shall be considered a nonmoving traffic violation.”
This language was added verbatim to TCA 55-8-110.
A Johnson City police officer, who asked that his name not be used, contacted the Johnson City Press on this subject after the newspaper’s update of the city’s crash and revenue data. The following is a sample of his sentiments.
The officer was firm in his belief that the violation should be enforced as a criminal offense, saying there should only be one way to handle this particular violation and that citizens were facing a version of “double jeopardy” by receiving a civil penalty.
The disparity in enforcing the same law is illegal and needs to be addressed, the officer said. And if stopped by an officer and cited for a misdemeanor violation “I have the right to apply for a public defender to fight the charge, and I have a right to face my accuser who observed the violation. None of these ‘rights’ are transferred to the civil process.”
The officer said it was his understanding that the localities using traffic cameras are circumventing the “misdemeanor in the presence of an officer” and “criminal code violations” by bringing the charges as some sort of civil complaint.
“I would like to be in the courtroom when a traffic cam violator brings these facts to the attention of a judge,” he added.
In March, Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper’s office examined whether the admission of photographic evidence violates the “Confrontation Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that citizens accused of crimes have the right to confront their accuser in court.
Cooper’s office sent out a news release that included the opinion that “Photographs are not testimonial statements.”
Meanwhile, the appeals court ruling also upheld a 2001 case, City of Chattanooga v. Davis, regarding the delineation of red light camera violations and whether they are a “civil” or “criminal” in nature under Article VI, section 14 of the Tennessee Constitution.
A state Supreme Court ruling in that case still stands. It basically says the notion of punishment cuts across civil and criminal law. However, citizens are constitutionally protected in that they can receive a fine from a civil action that “does not apply to fines greater than $50,” according to the ruling.
So what is the cost of a photo-enforced red light violation in Johnson City?
The cost of the citation is $50. Court costs are $49. One dollar goes to the Tennessee Department of Safety, which brings the total to $100. If violations are contested, a $13.75 “litigation tax” is assessed and given to the state’s Department of Revenue. But track back, and recall that the “fine” is not greater than $50.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Articles Menu
Find Info
Latest Comments
Member Login
