Speed Camera News
South Carolina: Renegade Mayor Issues Illegal Photo Tickets
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3239.asp
(Ban the cams note: We wonder if the town will "lower" the speed limit on I 95 for "safety" next to 55 mph. They seem to think they are their own country. It is only a matter of time before this gets in front of a court where the COURT WILL HAMMER the town! The only question is how long before a judge gets to hear it. Not long I suspect!)
8/23/2010
South Carolina: Renegade Mayor Issues Illegal Photo Tickets
Ridgeland, South Carolina issues photo tickets despite attorney general rulings finding the program violates state law.
The mayor of Ridgeland, South Carolina is taking a stand in defiance of a state law that bans the use of speed cameras anywhere in the state (view law http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3176.asp). Mayor Gary W. Hodges earlier this month began issuing speeding tickets based on evidence provided by an automated traffic system set up in a recreational vehicle parked on Interstate 95 despite warnings from lawmakers.
"The program is up and running," Hodges announced at an August 12 meeting. "There are those at various levels who think this is a bad thing -- I for the life of me can't figure out why people have a problem with this."
The automated speeding ticket issuance system is run by a for-profit company called iTraffic which was established by the founder of Nestor Traffic Systems, which went bankrupt last year. The company is hoping to use Ridgeland as a base to expand throughout the state. Both Hodges and iTraffic hope Ridgeland becomes the start of a trend.
"Once this system is up and running over the long term and it's picked up by other municipalities and counties across the state -- and there are four major ones that are looking at it right now, they just didn't want to get caught up in this publicity vacuum -- once it becomes a common thing as in Florida where they've had signs [that say] 'airplanes enforcing speeds' for years," Hodges said.
Hodges defended the iTraffic program against a number of complaints he has heard, including that the system is nothing more than a modern-day speed trap nabbing travelers making their way on a key north-south interstate route.
"It's a large van -- it's not a police car behind a tree or anything like that," Hodges said. "It's very obvious. It's clearly out in the open."
Residents, however, report the vehicle frequently parks below overpasses, and there are no warning signs placed in advance of the vehicle. Hodges lashed out at the state lawmakers, especially state Senator Larry Grooms and Representative J. Todd Rutherford who championed the law banning photo enforcement.
"We have a couple legislators, they're from other jurisdictions -- one's from Charleston, one from Columbia -- they're still meddling in our local issue down here," Hodges said. "They still do not know the facts."
Both lawmakers had written to state Attorney General Henry McMaster about the speed camera program. Hodges first learned that McMaster's office determined that Ridgeland's program was illegal from reading about the issue on TheNewspaper (view story http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3226.asp). He then attacked the ability of McMaster and his office to issue a proper legal finding. (Ban the cams note, The mayor is really addicted to the potential cash, ain't he!)
"There's two recent attorney general opinions about this -- one late June, one early July -- we did not know this until yesterday," Hodges said. "I got it off this website that there were two fresh attorney general opinions dealing strictly with this issue in the town of Ridgeland... I thought it was pitiful that we got these off the Internet.... We've looked at them. They don't apply... It has nothing to do with what we're talking about. It's just inadequate information based on an inadequate question asked." (Ban the Cams, they "don't apply", makes you wonder what world this mayor is living in. HE reminds me of those IRS Tax protesters who try to declare themeselves immune to the IRS).
Hodges vowed to press forward with his ticketing despite state pressure to terminate the program.
"Why not use technology to save some lives, and to help pay the bills of the town," Hodges said. (Ban the cams note: SAVE LIVES, YOU MEAN LIE to everyone don't you Mayor (IN UK recent reports are showing speed cameras CAUSED 28,000 more CRASHES! http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/191443/Speed-cameras-may-have-caused-28-000-crashes They only truthful statement you made was "pay the bills", which is why you did it!)
written by mh fisher , October 28, 2010
Search the SC attorney general's office for specifics about the Ridgeland speed trap. Clearly states that Ridgeland PD does not have the authority to mail speeding tickets to suspected violators but must present them in person within one hour of the violation. Here is a short copy of his statement:
While R. 3 12 authorizes the use of "photographic evidence ... for violations that occur while
relief from regulations pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 390.22 has been granted due to an emergency", there
is no further authorization for the use of photographic or video camera evidence for traffic violators.
Therefore, in the opinion of this office, photographic or video camera evidence may not be used in
assisting an officer in observing and reviewing a traffic violation except in those limited
circumstances set forth by R. 3 12. Moreover, as specified in R. 3 12, "[a] person who receives a
citation for violating traffic laws relating to speeding or disregarding traffic control devices based
solely on photographic evidence must be served in person with notice of the violation within one
hour of the occurrence of the violation." There is no provision for using other means to serve
violators in such circumstances.
If there are any questions, please advise.
Very truly yours,
Henry McMaster
1-
By: Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Bottom line, contact your state attorney general, SC's attorney general and the Ridgeland Police Dept with a copy of his ruling and a statement to refuse to pay this fine until you hear from the Attorney Genreral's office directly.
Hope this helps.
written by Henry Bentley , September 12, 2010
The sad facts are you most likely wined up in a kangaroo hearings.
Most people do not get off. I choose not to pay the fine.
My hearing was 27 months age. All I got was a couple of bill collectors
trying to make me pay.
In Apopka Florida there is nothing they can do if you do not pay the fine. I heard
yesterday about 30% of the people do not pay the fine.
Good luck.
written by Thom Johnson , September 11, 2010
How do I fight the ticket I received in the mail today 9/11. The citation was for 81/70 on 8/21. The fine is $133.00. If the town is issuing illegal tickets what happens when we do not pay? Also by thier own statement as to targeting "out of state motorist" is bias, selective and illegal.
Find Info
Latest Comments
-
As Use Of License Plate Scanners Spreads, Privacy Concerns Deepen
I like it very much especially the information you have putted here is like trai...
-
IL bill to REQUIRE PLUS 1 second Yellow lights at RLC stalled.
Senator Michael Doherty (R-23), the sponsor of legislation that would result in ...
-
MD SCAMERAS FLOUTING THEIR OWN LAW: Not Independen
tly Certified
What Maryland regulations require a leasing company to notify the lessee that he...
-
SCAMERA ALERT: GULF BREEZE, FL
i got a ticket there and the light just turned yellow, what do they want me to d...
-
Texas: Citizen Activists Target Red Light Camera Expenditur
es
Your mayor and city council are the ones who brought red light cameras to your c...








