Taking on the Government

Just The Facts  (ON ATS-NCSR spin on "justifying" short yellows!)

http://retiredpublicsafety.com/wp/just-the-facts/

Just The Facts
Posted on May 15, 2013 by Paul Henry

Here is Sgt. Joe Friday again. Joe worked when lawmen wanted just the facts, not just the dollars. Contrast Joe’s famous line (that he apparently never said in so many words) with that of another former lawman at the end of this posting. Click the links for the documentation of my allegations and decide for yourself.

Yesterday, automated for-profit device vendor ATS via their front group the National Coalition for Safe Roads (which is really more accurately described as Need Cash for Selfish Reasons) sent out a news release mentioned in this news story http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/05/15/4864883/the-national-coalition-for-safer.html that talked of myths and facts for automated for-profit law enforcement. Seeing as how I have some experience and knowledge on the subject, I thought I’d weigh in with some facts based on my law enforcement, research, and legislative experience.

The below facts are from my 25 years of Florida police experience, to include time spent as a trooper, traffic homicide investigator, and line supervisor as well as personal research using government and published data, and my experience opposing the devices in the Florida legislature.

FACT:
The NCSR is a front group http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3585.asp for the for-profit device vendor ATS. All references herein to ATS apply to their front group NCSR.

FACT:
The recent Tampa Bay story is not mentioned in the ATS response, one from some time ago in Orlando is. The reporter in Tampa, Noah Pransky, found shortened times http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316418 to be due to DOT guidelines. That is not addressed in the ATS response.

Speaking of the DOT:
FACT:
In several cities where I pulled state DOT traffic crash data http://retiredpublicsafety.com/wp/red-light-camera-reference-page/, there was no significant reduction in actual red light violation (RLV, not “related”) crashes- these are crashes caused by red light running. Some intersections saw a slight decrease, some saw a slight increase, and some stayed the same. The automated for-profit devices are installed to reduce red light running. They are not installed to reduce rear end or failure to yield (angle or “T-bone”) crashes. Judging their effectiveness using rear end and angle crashes is an invalid means. The devices are ineffective for safety. Pay attention, you’ll see this again.

FACT:
In the 2012 State undocumented survey http://retiredpublicsafety.com/documents/rlc/DHSMV_2012_RLC_Analysis.pdf of local governments using automated for-profit enforcement, between 20 and 30 percent of them failed to furnish any crash data at all, even though the same device law that generates revenue for them requires them to do so. What are these local governments hiding? Could it be that the devices are ineffective for safety?

FACT:
In this same undocumented survey, the RLV crashes were not mentioned. What is being hidden? Could it be that the devices are ineffective for safety?

FACT:
There continue to be new videos of RLV crashes posted by ATS on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/ATSRoadSafety at intersections- captured by the very devices placed there to prevent this type of crash. The devices are ineffective for safety.

FACT:
No city in Florida using automated for-profit law enforcement will tell the public how many RLV crashes they had at device intersections for equal periods of time before and after the use of automated for-profit enforcement. Many will tell how many dollars they are making or provide crash numbers such as “a lot” (Longwood Police Chief Troy Hickson, May 9, 2013 WFTV http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/longwood-could-have-red-light-cameras/nXm3P/).

Speaking of revenue:
FACT:
In a May 10, 2013 news story http://www.weartv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/florida-making-millions-red-light-cameras-31738.shtml, WEAR-TV documented that as of 2011 25 cities in Florida were using automated for-profit law enforcement, which raised $19 million in revenue to the state. As of 2013, the numbers were 70+ cities and $84 million to the state. The number of cities increased by 280%. The revenue increased by 442%. If the devices were effective, the revenue as a percentage would have remained the same as the city/user growth or been reduced. The devices are ineffective for safety.

The above information was translated into graphs for an easier means of visualizing the data. The first graph gives the actual numbers, while the second shows how much revenue should have come in if the devices were effective as compared to what actually came in.

http://retiredpublicsafety.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/WEAR-TV_graph_1.png

http://retiredpublicsafety.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/WEAR-TV_graph_2.png

FACT:
According to state campaign finance records, ATS contributed over $440,000 http://retiredpublicsafety.com/documents/rlc/ATS_contrib_2008-12.xls (click for Excel spreadsheet summary) to Florida politicians and political groups from 2008-2012.

FACT:
Automated for-profit law enforcement is a bad idea, and it breeds corruption. The trail begins at city hall and goes to Tallahassee.
“In the future, there is significant revenue to be generated by this venture” http://retiredpublicsafety.com/documents/rlc/pdf/041311_RLC_Letter_and_costs.pdf- Former Gulf Breeze, FL Police Chief Peter Paulding, who now makes $2,000/month in retirement http://retiredpublicsafety.com/documents/rlc/pdf/Paulding_stepping_down.pdf thanks to an automated for-profit device program he used his official position to implement.
 

HB 7125 turns RLC challanges INTO KANGAROO COURT!  Cost go up, Due Process is cut!

Ban the Cams note:  As many hear realize, the changes hidden in amendments to HB 7125 makes challanges to RLC tickets not only more expensive ($408), but also remove what due process is left by letting the cities "handle" the "appeals" court. 
NO judge, NO DUE PROCESSS.

Paul Henry had this to say on the Kangaroo process HB 7125 SETS UP to make challanges to RLC tickets EXPENSIVE AND STRIPS DUE PROCESS AWAY!

It occurs to me younger folks may not know what a "kangaroo court" is, so here is what Wikipedia calls it:
 

A kangaroo court is "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted". It is essentially where the defendant has already been deemed guilty, and has little if any opportunities to object or defend himself or herself.

If a law has something like this in it:
Formal rules of evidence do not apply,
...
Does this support or refute the above definition? The above is from line 423 of Sen. Brandes' 1:35 AM amendment to the highway safety bill. See also paragraph 91, regarding hearing officers, which I posted here yesterday.

I didn't even mention the base law's guilty until proved innocent aspect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

Murfreesboro CAPE:  They have CLOSE TO HALF OF SIGNATURES NEEDED ON RLC BAN PETITION!

https://www.facebook.com/#!/MurfreesboroCAPE?fref=ts

We're almost halfway to hitting our goal of 1,000 signatures to eliminate photo enforcement. More and more citizens are seeing through the smoke and mirrors and realizing the cameras are only making things worse. Sign the petition at www.murfreesboroCAPE.org and "Like" us on Facebook!

http://michaelsnyder.mensnewsdaily.com/2013/05/americas-roads-have-been-turned-into-a-revenue-generating-surveillance-grid/

America’s Roads Have Been Turned Into A Revenue Generating Surveillance Grid

Posted on May 9, 2013 by Michael Snyder

What do speed traps, parking tickets, toll roads, speed cameras and red light cameras all have in common?  They are all major revenue sources for state and local governments.  All over America today there are state and local governments that are drowning in debt.  Many have chosen to use "traffic enforcement" as a way to raise desperately needed revenue.  According to the National Motorist Association, issuing speeding tickets raises somewhere between 4.5 billion and 6 billion dollars in the United States each year.  And the average price of a speeding ticket just keeps going up.  Today, the national average is about $150, but in many jurisdictions it is far higher.  For example, more than 16 million traffic tickets are issued in the state of California each year, and the average fine is approximately $250.  If you are wealthy that may not be much of a problem, but if you are a family that is barely scraping by every month that can be a major financial setback.  Meanwhile, America's roads are also being systematically transformed into a surveillance grid.  The number of cameras watching our roads is absolutely exploding, and automated license plate readers are capturing hundreds of millions of data points on all of us.  As you drive down the highway, a police vehicle coming up behind you can instantly read your license plate and pull up a whole host of information about you.  This happened to me a few years ago.  I had pulled on to a very crowded highway in Virginia and within less than a minute a cop car had scanned me and was pulling me over because one of my stickers had expired.  But these automated license plate readers are being used for far more than just traffic enforcement now.  For example, officials in Washington D.C. are now using automated license plate readers to track the movements of every single vehicle that enters the city.  They know when you enter Washington, and they know when you leave.  So where is all of this headed?  Do we really want to live in a "Big Brother" society where the government constantly tracks all of our movements?

Back in the old days, the highways of America were great examples to the rest of the world of the tremendous liberties and freedoms that we enjoyed.  Americans loved to hop into their vehicles and take a drive.  But now government is sucking all of the fun out of driving.  The control freak bureaucrats that dominate our political system have figured out that giant piles of money can be raised by turning our roads into revenue raising tools.

At this point things have gotten so bad that even some police officers are admitting what is going on.  Just check out what a few of them told Car and Driver http://www.caranddriver.com/features/more-tickets-in-hard-times...

The president of a state police union isn’t pretending it doesn’t happen. James Tignanelli, president of the Police Officers Association of Michigan union, says, “When elected officials say, ‘We need more money,’ they can’t look to the department of public works to raise revenues, so where do they find it? Police departments.

“A lot of police chiefs will tell you the goal is to have nobody speeding through their community, but heaven forbid if it should actually happen—they’d be out of money,” Tignanelli says.

Police Chief Michael Reaves of Utica, Michigan, says the role of law enforcement has changed over the years. “When I first started in this job 30 years ago, police work was never about revenue enhancement, but if you’re a chief now, you have to look at whether your department produces revenues,” he says. “That’s just the reality nowadays.”

And as the economy has gone downhill, many jurisdictions have massively jacked up traffic fines.  According to the Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/06/opinion/la-ed-fines6-2010feb06, various traffic fines in the Los Angeles area are far higher than they once were...

If you're caught running a red light in Los Angeles, be prepared to shell out $446, up from $271 eight years ago. Make a rolling right turn at a stoplight and the ticket comes to $381 -- more than double what it cost in 2008.

Ban the Cams:  L.A. has discontinued use of RLC in 2011. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3544.asp

Read more: America’s Roads Have Been Turned Into A Revenue Generating Surveillance Grid

Kill Tennessee Traffic Cameras

9 hours ago near Murfreesboro, TN.

"Uh... again, I think, uh, you know you would expect, I think, that you would see a certain type of behavior around the intersections that are [photo] controlled and signed, so I don't have a good explanation for that other than to say the data is what it is." - Murfreesboro Police Chief Glenn Chrisman on 4/9/13, responding to a councilman's suggestion that the cameras are ineffective

BREAKING NEWS:  IOWA CITY PETITION TO BAN RLC and DRONES has the SIGNATURES the city has found!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/BanTrafficCamerasAndDronesInIowaCity/518595018198041/?notif_t=group_activity

Ma Ro Ha

We got enough signatures! The city has found the signatures for our Initiative to ban traffic surveillance in Iowa City to be sufficient! ....

http://wgnsradio.com/murfreesborocape-org-says-tn-code-suggests-non-payment-of-red-light-camera-citations-wont-go-on-credit-report--cms-12671

MurfreesboroCAPE.org Say's TN Code Suggests Non Payment of Red Light Camera Citations Won't Go on Credit Report 
  Published: May 8, 2013

The red light camera’s in Murfreesboro have been the source of a lot of negative conversation. Tim Meredith and Axl David say they would like to see the automated traffic camera system removed.

People who run a red light at an intersection that is lined with the camera’s will receive a bill in the mail for $50. Under Tennessee Code it can’t be called a ticket because it is not written by an officer.

The two men started MurfreesboroCAPE.org and say the cameras have not reduced the number of accidents as suggested by police in past interviews. CAPE stands for Citizens Against Photo Enforcement.

David and Meredith tell us that Tennessee Code cannot do anything about people who refuse to pay the so called fine if they are caught by a camera running a red light.

 Radio MP3: http://bw-2e2c4bf7ceaa4712a72dd5ee136dc9a8-bwcore.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/File4014.mp3

WGNS Looked up the code in question and found that Tennessee Code 55-8-198 stated just that… your non-payment will not be reported to a credit reporting agency.

Want to read the amendment to the code? It is right here…  http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB2872.pdf

Meredith and David said that too much local money is being sent to an out of state company that monitors the camera systems.

Their website is MurfreesboroCape.org.  http://murfreesborocape.org/

As far as the TCA "Code," we will let you decide for yourself on what you should and should not pay...

55-8-198.  Citations based on unmanned traffic enforcement cameras.

  (a) A traffic citation that is based solely upon evidence obtained from an unmanned traffic enforcement camera that has been installed to enforce or monitor traffic violations shall be considered a nonmoving traffic violation.

(b)  (1) Only POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers shall be authorized to review video evidence from a traffic light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred. If a determination is made that a violation has occurred, a notice of violation or a citation shall be sent by first class mail to the registered owner of the vehicle that was captured by the traffic light signal monitoring system. A notice of violation or a citation shall be sent within twenty (20) business days after the occurrence of the violation, absent exigent circumstances arising from registration irregularities. All notices of violation or citations shall have a Tennessee return address and all responses and payments shall be made to an address in this state. A notice of violation or citation shall allow for payment of the traffic violation or citation within thirty (30) days of the mailing of the notice. No additional penalty or other costs shall be assessed for nonpayment of a traffic violation or citation that is based solely on evidence obtained from unmanned traffic enforcement cameras installed to enforce or monitor traffic violations, unless a second notice is sent by first class mail to the registered owner of the motor vehicle and the second notice provides for an additional thirty (30) days for payment of the violation or citation.

   (2) The notice of violation or citation shall state the amount of the fine that is being assessed for the alleged violation. The notice of violation or citation shall state separately any additional fees or court costs that may be assessed if the fine is not paid timely or if the violation or citation is contested and the person is convicted or found guilty of the offense.

   (3) The person cited may elect not to contest the charge and may, in lieu of appearance in court, submit a fine not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) to the address provided on notice of violation or citation.

   (4) If the person cited does not pay the traffic citation within the time specified by subdivision (b)(1), then additional fees or court costs may be assessed.

   (5) If the person cited does not pay the traffic citation as provided in this section and the person cited appears in court at the time specified, or such later date as may be fixed by the court, and the person is convicted or found guilty of, or enters a plea of nolo contendere to the offense, then additional fees or court costs may be assessed.

(c) Effective July 1, 2011, a political subdivision of the state that installs, owns, operates or maintains either a traffic-control signal light located in an intersection or any other unmanned traffic enforcement camera for the enforcement or monitoring of traffic violations shall ensure that:

   (1) The traffic enforcement camera does not identify as a violation of § 55-8-110(a)(3), or any municipal law or ordinance that mirrors, substantially duplicates or incorporates by cross-reference the language of § 55-8-110(a)(3), any vehicle that legally entered the intersection during the green or yellow intervals in accordance with § 55-8-110(a)(1) and (2); and

   (2) Appropriate signage is located not less than five hundred feet (500') but not more than one thousand feet (1,000') in advance of the enforcement area of the unmanned traffic enforcement camera informing drivers as to the presence of traffic enforcement cameras at the approaching location. All regulatory and warning signs relating to the intersection or enforcement area shall meet the conventional road size or larger requirements of the MUTCD. Minimum size signing shall not be allowed.

(d) The following vehicles are exempt from receiving a notice of violation:

   (1) Emergency vehicles with active emergency lights;

   (2) Vehicles moving through the intersection to avoid or clear the way for a marked emergency vehicle;

   (3) Vehicles under police escort; and

   (4) Vehicles in a funeral procession.

(e)  (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (e), the registered owner of the motor vehicle shall be responsible for payment of any notice of violation or citation issued as the result of a traffic light monitoring system.

   (2) An owner of a vehicle shall not be responsible for the violation if, on or before the designated court date, the owner furnishes the court an affidavit stating the name and address of the person or entity that leased, rented or otherwise had care, custody or control of the motor vehicle at the time of the violation.

   (3) If a motor vehicle or its plates were stolen at the time of the alleged violation, the registered owner must provide an affidavit denying the owner was an operator and provide a certified copy of the police report reflecting such theft.

   (4) An affidavit alleging theft of a motor vehicle or its plates must be provided by the registered owner of a vehicle receiving a notice of violation within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of the notice of violation.

(f) No unmanned traffic enforcement cameras shall be permitted on federal interstate highways except for Smart Way cameras, other intelligent transportation system cameras or, when employees of the department or construction workers are present, unmanned traffic enforcement cameras used to enforce or monitor traffic violations within work zones designated by the department of transportation; provided, that the cameras shall be operated only by a state entity.

(g) Prior to implementation of any new unmanned traffic enforcement camera used to enforce or monitor traffic violations, the local governing body shall conduct a traffic engineering study for the area being considered. The study shall follow standard engineering practices as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and shall be stamped by a professional engineer specializing in traffic engineering and licensed to practice in this state. A vendor of traffic enforcement camera systems shall not be allowed to conduct the traffic engineering study, or to participate in the selection of such traffic engineer, to document the need for a traffic enforcement camera.

(h) No citation shall be issued based solely upon evidence obtained from a traffic enforcement camera that has been installed to enforce or monitor traffic violations of § 55-8-110(a)(3), or any municipal law or ordinance that mirrors, substantially duplicates or incorporates by cross-reference the language of § 55-8-110(a)(3), unless the evidence collected shows the target vehicle with its front tire or tires before the stop line when the signal is red, and subsequently shows the same vehicle with its rear tire or tires past the stop line while the signal is red.

(i) A traffic enforcement camera system may be used to issue a traffic citation for an unlawful right turn on a red signal at an intersection that is clearly marked by a "No Turn on Red" sign erected by the responsible municipal or county government in the interest of traffic safety in accordance with § 55-8-110(a)(3)(A). Any other traffic citation for failure to make a complete stop at a red signal before making a permitted right turn as provided by § 55-8-110(a)(3)(A) that is based solely upon evidence obtained from an unmanned traffic enforcement camera shall be deemed invalid.

(j) No more than one (1) citation shall be issued for each distinct and separate traffic offense in violation of a municipal ordinance or a traffic offense as provided in this chapter.

(k) A traffic citation that is based solely upon evidence obtained from an unmanned traffic enforcement camera shall be deemed invalid if the registration information of the motor vehicle for which such traffic citation is issued is not consistent with the evidence recorded by such enforcement camera.

(l) Unmanned traffic enforcement cameras that monitor speed shall not be permitted on any public road or highway within one (1) mile of a reduction of speed limits on such public road or highway of ten miles per hour (10 mph) or greater; provided, that this subsection (l) shall not apply to unmanned traffic enforcement cameras within the designated distance of a marked school zone when a warning flasher or flashers are in operation.

(m)  (1) For the purposes of this subsection (m):

      (A) "Consumer report" and "consumer reporting agency" have the same meanings ascribed to those terms by § 604 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, codified in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a; and

      (B) "Credit report" means any written, oral, or other communication of information, including a consumer report, by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer's creditworthiness, credit standing or credit capacity, which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing a consumer's eligibility for credit to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

   (2) No person having charge, custody of or control over any records or information regarding a violation of this section, including payments made pursuant to receipt of a notice of violation or a citation, whether timely or delinquent, shall disclose these records or information to a consumer reporting agency. In addition, no information regarding a violation shall be disclosed or identified in any credit report.

(n) A local government shall include in any contract involving unmanned traffic enforcement cameras that the contract must conform to any changes in state law. New and existing contracts, as well as contract renewals occurring after July 1, 2012, shall contain a provision that the contract shall comply with all applicable revisions of state law.

HISTORY: Acts 2008, ch. 962, § 1; 2009, ch. 389, §§ 1, 2; 2011, ch. 425, §§ 1-5, 9; 2012, ch. 709, § 1; 2012, ch. 751, § 1.

Source:

Tim Meredith
Axl David
MurfreesboroCape.org
T.C.A. 55-8-198 (sub-section M)
Additional Information HERE  http://legiscan.com/TN/rollcall/SB2872/id/179557
 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4095.asp

California: Privacy Groups Sue LAPD Over License Plate Readers
ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation sue Los Angeles, California law enforcement for refusing to disclose spy camera details.

Privacy groups are upset that law enforcement has been using cameras to track the movements of motorists who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. To investigate how this information is used, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last year formally sought information on automated license plate recognition cameras http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3857.asp (ALPR, also known as ANPR in Europe) from law enforcement agencies around the country. The Los Angeles, California Police Department (LAPD) refused to hand over some related documents, so the ACLU joined on Friday with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in filing a lawsuit to compel disclosure.

Police agencies and politicians claim the high-speed tracking cameras are only used to find stolen cars, but the machines in Los Angeles have already collected 160 million pieces of information on the public, including individuals not suspected of having committed any crime. The ACLU and EFF sought last August to obtain a sample week's worth of the actual data LAPD collected so that the public could judge for itself.

"Location-based information like license plate data can be very revealing," EFF attorney Jennifer Lynch said in a statement. "By matching your car to a particular time, date and location, and then building a database of that information over time, law enforcement can learn where you work and live, what doctor you go to, which religious services you attend, and who your friends are. The public needs access to the data the police actually collected to be able to make informed decisions about how ALPR systems can and can't be used."

In September, LAPD refused to hand over the sample data, claiming it "contains official information" and was part of an investigative file exempt from the public records law. The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was even less responsive, refusing to disclose the number of vehicles on the "hot list" and the generic reason why individuals would ever be added to it. The sheriff's office even lost track of the information it was denying on "investigative" grounds by sending information to EFF that it refused to provide to ACLU. The groups point out that the right to obtain government documents is enshrined in California's constitution.

"The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, ...the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny," Article 1 Section 3 states.

Neither the LAPD nor the sheriff's department has filed a formal response. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge will decide whether these agencies should be forced to hand over the information.

Murfreesboro C.A.P.E.  Reasons to Ban Red Light Cameras

http://murfreesborocape.org/reasons-to-ban-red-light-cameras/

Burden on the innocent: Misidentification

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the registered owner is the driver only 72% of the time. Without consideration for any other shortcomings, over 1 in 4 tickets are issued to the wrong person.

Burden on the Innocent: Equipment Malfunctions

Sensitive photo enforcement electronics are often left unattended and vulnerable in harsh and extreme weather conditions 24/7. No one knows if all of the components of a photo system are working properly at any given moment, or if equipment has started to malfunction intermittently. Equipment vendors refuse to publish their equipment reliability and error rates.

Even when you win, you lose

Every time a driver receives a citation from a traffic camera, they are faced with the decision to take time off work to fight the ticket, or to just pay the fine. So either way, the driver loses.

Leaves Motorists Defenseless

Motorists who receive photo tickets are at a severe disadvantage to make a defense due to the weeks or months that may lapse before a driver is served with a citation. Weeks or months after a “violation,” a driver is unlikely to be able to recall the details of the“violation.” Furthermore, drivers are unable to collect evidence to defend themselves because it is unlikely that signs and road conditions are the same as they were when the alleged violation occurred.

Less Safe

Multiple studies show an INCREASE of accidents with red light and speed cameras. Driving conditions on roads and freeways are made more dangerous by interrupting the free flow of traffic as people respond to the presence of cameras. The same goes at red light camera intersections where drivers slam on their brakes to avoid tickets.

Lack of Audit and Oversight

There is no stated maintenance or audit program by any government authority of the private camera vendors and their equipment and processes to ensure reliability and accuracy.

Uses our money to feed out of state Corporations

Murfreesboro’s camera vendor, American Traffic Solutions (from Arizona), receives an average of 50% of the money that is generated by the cameras.

Conflict of Interest

■Traffic cameras provide lawmakers with a personal financial incentive to protect controversial traffic camera programs.
■Camera vendors provide court administration modules for judges, attorneys, and witnesses that present and assess common dispute tactics and appropriate sound counter- measures required for successful prosecution.
■Camera vendors develop the violation criteria that the cities use to determine what constitutes a violation.

Criminal Activity Has Become a Civil Matter, Not a Crime

Murfreesboro treats photo enforcement citations as a civil fine and not a criminal citation. Therefore, you have none of the constitutional protections that you would normally have; such as the right to be confronted by witnesses, the opportunity to cross-examine or subpoena the camera equipment operators or anyone who handled the evidence, or to examine the design and operation of the equipment itself.

Photo Enforcement Vendors Are Not Trustworthy

■Arizona Secretary of State, Jan Brewer, confirmed that Redflex (ATS’ competitor) documents used in court to convict motorists of speeding in Lafayette, Louisiana had been falsified.
■Many cities have all been caught shortening yellow lights to increase profits from red light cameras.
■In Italy, a speed camera company was caught in a fraud scandal that involved 109 officials and contractors.
■In January 2009, the makers of the T-Red brand of red light cameras were similarly arrested for fraud after prosecutors found motorists were being trapped at intersections with short yellows and improperly certified equipment.
■Redflex violated federal law by using radar units that were not FCC certified.
■Redflex employees have been charged with assault, child pornography, and extreme DUI (while driving a photo radar van). They can observe your car, wife, and children and they can figure out where you live. They have access to your DMV records.

Invasion of Privacy
The cameras are high-resolution video devices that run 24 hours a day. According to officer King with Arizona DPS, “We can just about zoom in and see stuff on the dash.”

Affects Consumer Spending and Tourism
Nationwide, cities have responded to threats from locals and out of towners who have vowed to stop shopping in areas with photo enforcement by removing equipment.

Lucrative Photo Enforcement Favored Over Engineering
Cities rarely conduct engineering studies to determine why a particular intersection experiences more accidents. Officials incorrectly assume that bad drivers flock to these intersections and that their behavior can be cured with the threat of tickets received weeks after the infraction. In reality, the same drivers are present in all intersections, and if a particular intersection has a high accident rate the reason is undoubtedly due to flaws or problems that can be corrected with proper traffic engineering. Such measures may include: adding signs, making signs clearer, more visible signs, changing road striping and indicators, adjusting light timing, and increasing signals more visibility. Until an engineering study is done, it is impossible to understand the underlying factors and thus impossible to objectively evaluate possible solutions.

Doesn’t remove any immediate threat to citizens like drunks, reckless drivers, or speeders.

 Creates distrust and animosity for local officials, law enforcement departments, and makes a mockery of our judicial system.

"Carpe diem":  PA Residents want to help stop RLC and other anti motorists law?  Help the NMA help you!

Ban the Cams   "Carpe diem" –  Latin for SIEZE THE DAY!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpe_diem

Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero – "Seize the Day, putting as little trust as possible in the next (day)[/future]", and the ode says that the future is unforeseen, and that one should not leave to chance future happenings but rather one should do all one can today to make one's future better.

You want to do something to help stop anti motorists bills like RLC, than SIEZE THE DAY! 

http://alerts.motorists.org/nma-pennsylvania-alert-exciting-new-opportunity-for-pa-members/

NMA Pennsylvania Alert: Exciting New Opportunity for PA Members
Posted on May 2nd, 2013 in ALERT, PENNSYLVANIA

With the spread of red-light cameras to more communities, mismanagement within the Turnpike Commission and news of corrupt traffic courts, Pennsylvania has become a critical battleground for motorists’ rights.

The good news is that more and more Pennsylvania NMA members are stepping up to fight these abuses. And you can to. But where do you start?

Why not join the Pennsylvania NMA Member Google email group? When you do, you’ll gain an insider’s perspective on the fight for drivers’ rights in the Keystone State.

All you need to do is send us your name and email address and we’ll sign you up. From there, you’ll be able to stay in touch with other members on issues that directly affect Pennsylvania motorists. Share ideas on important legislation, drivers’ rights, ticket fighting, activism and whatever else you come up with. The goals of the group are to:

•Allow all members to participate equally
•Keep members informed about important driving issues
•Provide a forum to discuss ideas
•Facilitate collaboration among members
•Encourage members to act in their local communities
•Support the development of a strong Pennsylvania State Chapter of the National Motorists Association

The group will be facilitated by a NMA staff member, but we will not take an active leadership role nor will we set the agenda. That’s up to you.

If this sounds like something you would be interested in, send a note to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with your name and email address, and we’ll sign you up.

http://thegazette.com/2013/04/30/iowa-city-traffic-camera-opponents-file-amended-petition/

By Gregg Hennigan
  
Updated: 30 April 2013 | 5:29 pm in Local News
Iowa City traffic camera opponents file amended petition

Organizers aimed at outlawing automated traffic-enforcement cameras, drones file 1,240 more signatures of red-light and speed cameras believe they finally have enough signatures on a petition they hope will lead to the technology being banned in Iowa City.

Organizers of the petition drive, aimed at outlawing automated traffic-enforcement cameras and drones, filed 1,240 more signatures with the city Tuesday. If 394 of those are valid, that would put them over the 2,500 signatures of registered Iowa City voters needed to force the city to take up the issue.

The City Clerk’s Office has 15 days to verify the signatures.

A petition filed a month ago fell short http://thegazette.com/2013/04/15/petition-on-iowa-city-traffic-camera-drones-invalid-city-clerk-says/ of the requirement after more than 1,200 signatures were struck by the clerk’s office. Organizers were given one final chance and a Tuesday deadline to get more.

Martha Hampel of Iowa City, one of the leaders of the effort, said they did checks on some of the new signatures themselves and believe at least 400 of them are valid, but they got as many as possible to be safe.

“When I heard 400 were needed, I thought immediately, we need three times that,” she said.

The City Council voted 4-3 a year ago http://thegazette.com/2012/02/21/traffic-cameras-is-i-c-ready-to-say-%E2%80%98cheese%E2%80%99/ to allow traffic-enforcement cameras, although only red-light cameras have been discussed. But none are installed as city officials wait for the state to create rules for the use of cameras on state routes, a process that may take until next year. Many of the Iowa City intersections marked for cameras are state roads.

The petition proposes an ordinance that would outlaw traffic-enforcement cameras, drones and automatic license-plate recognition systems.

A successful petition could force the City Council to either adopt the ordinance to put it before voters.

But a dispute over what sort of action the petitioners are seeking would still need to be settled. They say they are proposing an initiative, which is defined as a measure for the City Council to consider.

But City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes has previously classified it as a referendum that asks the council to reconsider an existing law. A referendum petition must be filed within 60 days of the adoption of the measure in question or not until two years after adoption. The current petition would fall between those periods and not be timely.

Ban the Cams note:  Expect the scamera side to attempt to DENY democracy by claiming a vote is "illegal".  These attempts are nothing more than DENYING THE VOTERS A CHANCE TO VOICE THEIR THOUGHTS ON SCAMREAS!

THE SCAMERA CITIES AND VENDORS have in many cases have resorted to legal manuevers to DENY DEMOCRACY where they believe they will not likley win.   Which makes you wonder how they can even claim the public "supports" scameras when they are busy trying to deny votes in towns. 

They keep claimng "polls" showing "support" on scameras.  But as was just seen with the IIHS "poll", these can be and have been MANIUPLATED! 

http://www.banthecams.org/Taking-on-the-Government/iihs-gamed-survey-claiming-qsupportq-on-scameras-rigged-with-non-drivers.html  or http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4088.asp

Quote:  The sample did not match up in one critical respect: IIHS targeted non-drivers for the survey. Only 38 percent of respondents used their car regularly, which is the exact inverse of the city's demographics.

Dilkes said that if the petition is deemed sufficient, sheexpects to give a formal opinion to the council in time for its May 14 meeting.

UPDATE on IOWA CITY PETITION TO BAN TRAFFIC CAMERAS.  Additional Signatures been submitted!

This is based on the post below.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/BanTrafficCamerasAndDronesInIowaCity/

Ma Ro Ha
Today was the deadline for our 15 day extension to collect the signatures for our Initiative to ban traffic surveillance in Iowa City. As you know, we submitted 3,322 signatures on April 1st and fell 394 short of the 2,500 VALID signatures required to bring the issue to a vote. Today we submitted 1,240 signatures in an effort to make up the difference of 394 signatures.

Thank you to all of our volunteers! We know this has been a lot of hard work and we appreciate every one of you and every signature you collected. Everyone played an important role not only in collecting but in spreading the word, making phone calls, helping to organize events, sharing our website and facebook… The list of important contributions goes on and on.

Thank you all for everything you've done to help! We’ll let you know when we hear back from the city. They have 15 days to count our signatures.

Ma Ro Ha

And a special thanks to our City Clerk, Marian Karr! She and her office have worked so hard in counting and verifying our signatures.

Aleksey and I tried to verify many of our own signatures this second time around and I couldn't believe how time consuming it is. The city has four clerks working on counting our signatures AND conducting regular city business activities at the same time.

Liz-Tom Bertell

They would have to strike over 2/3rds of the latest batch to hold us short, & I just can't see that happening. Great job team !!

IIHS GAMED SURVEY CLAIMING "SUPPORT" on scameras!  RIGGED with NON DRIVERS despite over half of city driving.

Ban the Cams note:  Just goes to show the lenght the scamera side will go PUSH the PROPAGANDA that SCMAERAS are "supported". 

IF SCAMERAS ARE "SUPPORTED", LET THE VOTERS IN DC VOTE!   COME ON IIHS!  QUIT HIDING BEHIND RIGGING GAMES!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4088.asp

Louisiana: Red Light Camera Tickets Can Increase Insurance Rates
Louisiana Department of Insurance confirms red light cameras can increase premiums for drivers in the state.

In states like Arizona and California where photo enforcement tickets carry license points, insurance rates rise when a red light camera or speed camera ticket is sent to a vehicle owner. It is less well known that the same can be true in states where points are not assessed on photo tickets. On Monday, the office of the Louisiana Department of Insurance clarified that nothing prevents insurers from raising rates on vehicle owners who receive a photo ticket in the mail.

"Most automobile insurance companies will implement the use of factors relative to the existence or non-existence of tickets and other minor violations during the process of generating a premium total for its customers," Deputy Insurance Commissioner Ed O'Brien wrote. "Each automobile insurer has the discretion to establish the category of violations that will be surcharged or not acknowledged. With that premise, any effect on automobile insurance rates due to the issuance of a ticket via a red light camera will vary from company to company."

Ban the Cams note:  Not sure how they can do this in states where there are no points, but it might due to pulling credit reports in some cases (insurance companies have been known to surcharge on bad credit reports).  Could be pulling public records.  Of course given that insurance companies invest their money, those that might be investing drirectly or indirectly (through investment banks like Goldman Sacs, the owner of ATS), might be getting a hold of data.  We don't know absolutely, but obviously the industry would like to do surcharges as this is easy money to them in the case of techinical non safety related "violations".

The hike in insurance premiums lasts several years, so in the states where rates climb for photo ticket recipients, insurers can collect far more net profit per ticket than the cities operating the red light camera program. For that reason, the insurance industry's lobbying and public relations arm, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), has been at the forefront of red light camera and speed camera advocacy.

On Thursday, IIHS released the results of a survey it claimed showed 87 percent of residents in Washington, DC support red light cameras. IIHS has a history of using push polling to create the illusion of public support for cameras that does not actually exist. For example, three years ago IIHS conducted a similar survey that concluded residents of Houston, Texas supported cameras by 57 percent. This figure was disproved when voters had a chance in November 2010 to vote on cameras, and 53 percent tossed the cameras out http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3311.asp. Likewise, IIHS insisted Santa Ana, California http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3521.asp supported cameras by 54 percent, an implausible claim considering 73 percent of voters in Anaheim http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3311.asp, a bordering city of equal size, prohibited the city council from ever installing red light cameras

Mid-Atlantic jurisdictions have very restrictive referendum policies, so no vote on camera use has taken place in the District. An hour away in Sykesville, Maryland, however, 61 percent of voters in 2010 approved a ballot initiative outlawing automated ticketing machines http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3130.asp.

The insurance industry's DC survey was carefully crafted to appear objective. One hundred residents were taken from each of the city's eight wards with the survey sample reflecting the age, race and sex distribution of the general population. The sample did not match up in one critical respect: IIHS targeted non-drivers for the survey. Only 38 percent of respondents used their car regularly, which is the exact inverse of the city's demographics. According to the US Census Bureau's 2011 American Community Survey, 426,372 DC residents commute to work by car, while only 38 percent take public transit. As the IIHS survey showed, non-drivers, who are not subject to traffic fines, support the increased use of cameras of every type. In addition, the phrasing of the questions asked was carefully adjusted to reach the desired result.

"A pilot test of 20 respondents was conducted prior to the start of the survey," the IIHS report explained. "Some questions were changed as a result, and responses from the pilot surveys were excluded from the analyses."

At the ballot box, when voters are asked what they think of photo enforcement, the answer 9 out of 10 times is negative http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3655.asp.

A copy of the Louisiana insurance letter is available in a PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Effect of Red Light Camera Tickets on Automobile Insurance Rates (Louisiana Department of Insurance, 4/29/2013 http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/la-insurancepoints.pdf)

Find out why buy viagra online without prescription , and much more. The meds you need accutane 30mg ,The Lowest Prise! Here you can abilify online at low cost.

Ban Traffic Cameras and Drones in Iowa City on push to complete gathering additional signatures!

https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/BanTrafficCamerasAndDronesInIowaCity/513839568673586/?notif_t=group_activity

Aleksey Gurtovoy
Hi everybody,

As most of you know, we have 3 days left before we have to submit our second set of signatures to the city. We need to submit 400 valid signatures in order for our initiative to be recognized; given the amount of signatures the city struck out the first time around, we need at least 600 total signatures to be reasonably safe. If we fail to submit enough signatures this time, that's it. We don't get a third chance.

So if there was ever a time to put other things on hold and volunteer your time and energy to the cause, that time has come! A couple of us will be collecting throughout the day on both Saturday and Sunday, primarily in downtown. If you can, please come out and join us! It's much easier to collect when somebody else is collecting nearby, and it's also more fun.
...
We'll be starting on Sat around noon at the Ped Mall; if you'd like to coordinate, please message me, Martha, or Sean Curtin. Or you can just come to downtown, start collecting, and chances are we'll bump into each other. You don't have to commit to collecting throughout the day, either. With enough traffic, you can easily get 20-30 signatures in an hour, and that's already a big help.

So again, if you can, please come out and help us make the final push!

See you tomorrow!

IIHS does another propaganda piece.  Says scameras are "liked".  Critique by Jim Walker of the NMA. 

Ban the Cams note:  Recently the IIHS started parading around their "poll" (likely bought and paid style we suspect), claiming the public "liked" scameras.

In the past the scamera vendors have been known pay to produce polls to push their wares.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3222.asp  Quote: "Under the contract, ACS agreed fund at least three public opinion surveys designed to build public support with carefully tailored results."

Fund means pays to produce.  Do you really think whoever a camera vendor hires is likely to produce a report against the payees wishes???

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3079.asp

"Redflex, for example, specifically cited an "APCO nationwide poll" in a press release issued earlier this month, making no mention of its connection to the firm."

Given that IIHS other repsentations on scameras have been discovred to be less than truthful, we wonder who their latest "poll" would do in a real vote??  COME ON IIHS, CALL ON DC TO LET THEIR VOTERS VOTE ON THIS.  BETTER YET, LET EVER TOWN THAT HAS SCAMERAS ALLOW THEIR CITIZENS TO VOTE ON THIS. 

Of course given the scamera vendor and towns blantant actions to DENY democracy in suing to either prevent votes or even non binding referenedums.  WE think the "support" claim by IIHS and others ring a bit hollow, don't you?

NMA activst Jim Walker post this on the "survey" on http://www.autoblog.com/2013/04/26/iihs-survey-says-d-c-residents-like-speed-and-red-light-cameras/ that the IIHS is using to spin the revolt against scameras.

There is a night-and-day difference between an opinion poll and an actual vote on an issue. It is possible to get virtually any result you want from an opinion poll - if the questions are phrased cleverly enough.

This is particularly true in this case when the poll was conducted by a group that financially benefits if the poll favors the red light and speed cameras. IIHS member insurance companies can surcharge policyholders that get camera tickets in some states and their position on this issue is EXTREMELY biased to improve the profits of their member insurance companies.

Note that the University of South Florida found that one IIHS study had major research flaws and concluded that red light cameras often raise accident risks.
http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2013/02/16/study-finds-red-light-cameras-cause-accidents/
http://thenewspaper.com/news/36/3699.asp

There have been about 30 actual votes on ticket cameras and cameras lost about 90% of the time.

If DC held an actual vote on whether to keep the cameras of do away with them, it is essentially certain the cameras would lose. But DC is most unlikely to ever allow a vote and the Council has about $95 million dollars worth of reasons per year to love the predatory speed and red light cameras. They make a fortune for the city, most of it taken from very safe drivers who get tickets due to the deliberately mis-engineered speed limits and traffic lights - traffic parameters mis-set for the express purpose of generating more revenue.

The District is one of the chief offenders in the whole nation in using speed and red light cameras to make money, not to improve safety. Artificially low posted limits set below normal traffic flow speeds are not safer, they are less safe. Traffic lights with yellows too short for actual approach speeds are not safer, they are less safe.

Many drivers who get camera tickets have almost no knowledge of how the scams with cameras actually work. They may assume, falsely, that the speed limits are set for maximum safety - which is NOT true in DC. They may assume the lights are timed for maximum safety - which is NOT true in DC.

Residents and commuters are likely stuck with the predatory ticket camera cash registers because DC is most unlikely to give up the $95+ million dollars per year they bring in from mostly safe drivers. To end the predatory scams will take a total overhaul of Council members, replacing them with honorable people who would value true traffic safety above the predatory revenue stream.

James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association (frequent DC visitor to see family)

Ban the Cams note:  The NMA website is www.motorists.org

http://consumerist.com/2013/04/19/woman-hit-with-traffic-ticket-for-car-shed-sold-to-carmax-months-earlier/

Woman Hit With Traffic Ticket For Car She’d Sold To CarMax Months Earlier

By Chris Morran April 19, 2013

When you sell your car to a used-car operation like CarMax, you’d assume that anything that occurs with that vehicle after that point is not your problem. But a California woman says she was charged with running through a tollbooth in car she’d handed off to CarMax months earlier.

The woman tells CBS Sacramento’s Kurtis Ming she received the ticket several months after selling her vehicle to the used-car chain. She provided proof of sale and release of liability to Fastrak, the operators of the electronic toll service, and the DMV.

She thought the matter was handled, until she then received a letter from the the State Franchise Tax Board saying that it would be taking money out of her tax refund to pay for the ticket and late fees.

After Ming got involved, Fastrak explained that when the woman alerted them that the car had been sold, it transferred the ticket to CarMax. Problem is, CarMax then challenged the ticket, claiming that while it had purchased the car from the woman, CarMax was not the registered owner.

In California, CarMax and other dealers don’t need to register a purchased vehicle in the company name. So even with her release of liability, the DMV considered the former owner to the registered owner of the ticketed vehicle.

“If [CarMax] don’t own it, who does?” asks one attorney who says the former owner can not be held liable for the ticket. “There’s no way [she] can be responsible for a car she does not legally own.”

For its part, CarMax tells CBS Sacramento that it claims to have never communicated with Fastrak about this particular case.

After the media got involved, Fastrak admitted that it was a mistake to transfer the ticket back to the former owner. The company apologized and provided the woman with a refund check.

 

How both private (TO MAKE MONEY) "enforcement" of traffic laws actually hurts both Taxpayers and Business.

Ban the Cams note:  Though not camera realted, many UK towns do use parking cameras to churn tickets.  Such schemes eventually make drivers want to avoid those business and shop elsewhere. 

Note that many towns claim that they don't care if scameras "lose" money.  But the simple reality is that most towns would never do the camera contracts if they were going to lose money.  Most politician who claim they don't really care if they lose money on camera contracts are really lying, don't ya think?

https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/grassroots/2013/04/devon-loses-money-parking-fines.html

Apr  2013 18 .

Devon loses money over parking fines

Tim Newark

Usually seen as a profitable money-spinner, council parking fines are not such good news for Devon’s district councils. A recent report reveals it is costing them much more money to collect than the fines are generating—nearly £800,000—and that’s all taxpayers’ money being wasted.

Devon County Councillors are due to debate the report that shows how their decision to take over parking enforcement duties from the police was a failure from its beginning in 2008. Although its on-street parking fines are making a profit, it is their collecting of Penalty Charge Notices that has made a loss for the last five years, culminating in the £800,000 in 2011/2012. Each district council operates its own team of traffic wardens and it was suggested savings could be made if the operation was centralised.

So, in Devon you not only have the negative impact of high street parking fines on local trades-people and businesses, but Devon County Council is actually managing to lose taxpayers’ money in the process. The irony of this seemed to be lost on the head of the council’s scrutiny committee. ‘I want to make progress towards a healthier turnover, without exploiting car drivers,’ he said http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-21743651, ‘but helping the local economy because that is vital to all our futures.’ Well, yes!

Salt was rubbed into the humiliating wound when it was revealed that the parking fines report itself has cost £22,000 of taxpayers’ money. Just a big hole getting bigger…

In the meantime it has been reported http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22189967 that European car owners are just not paying their parking fines. Just over half a million pounds is owed councils from Portsmouth to Southampton. Some Europeans have cottoned on to the local failure and one foreign car owner has racked up 46 unpaid parking tickets.

To combat this, councils are now employing a Euro Parking Collection company, but this firm is finding European Union co-operation sadly lacking when its comes to collecting fines. The French Vehicle Licensing Authority, for instance, has refused to pass on any car owner details—so for the French it’s free parking in England! At least, it should encourage local tourism…
 

http://wtkr.com/2013/04/17/red-light-camera-company-used-in-virginia-investigated-for-bribery/

Red light camera company used in Virginia investigated for bribery
Posted on: 6:45 pm, April 17, 2013, by Jessica Larche

Virginia Beach, Va — NewsChannel 3 has learned the Arizona-based company that installs and operates red light cameras in every Hampton Roads city with traffic cameras is at the center of a bribery investigation in Chicago.

According to NewsChannel 3′s partners at the Chicago Tribune, RedFlex paid for more than a dozen vacations for a former Chicago transportation employee, and many cities are choosing other vendors because of the ongoing federal investigation into allegations of the $2 million bribery scheme.

“One hundred percent integrity in everything we’re doing here,” said Virginia Beach city councilman Bill DeSteph.  “That’s in Chicago.  As far as we know none of that’s bled over here. We know for a fact it’s not bled over here.”

Virginia Beach’s contract with RedFlex ends in September 2013, and DeSteph said the bribery scandal does not mean they will cut ties with the company.

“Absolutely not,” he said.  “We’re going to look and see whoever does the best job. Period.”

RedFlex is currently installing cameras in Norfolk, and already has cameras up and running in Newport News and Chesapeake.  Norfolk and Newport News officials both said they are keeping tabs on the scandal, but they are not having any issues locally.  Chesapeake city officials did not respond.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced that Redflex will not be allowed to compete when its red light contract is up in June.

Ban the Cams note:  Wonder if anyone in Virgina Beach has been on trips on Redflex dime that were "official".  OH LIKE THIS ONE OUT OF TN:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3282.asp

Quote:  "The police chief in Oak Ridge, Tennessee received an all-expense paid vacation in Arizona, while collecting his on-duty salary, in return for his providing testimony that helped save Redflex Traffic Systems from paying millions in possible damages."

Perhaps this is a "perk" to doing "business" with RLC SIDE????

https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/BanTrafficCamerasAndDronesInIowaCity/510418379015705/?notif_t=group_activity

Ban Traffic Cameras and Drones in Iowa City PRESS RELEASE on Signature Drive

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Signature drive at Rally for Liberty

A signature drive event aimed at collecting the remainder of required signatures will be taking place at Rally for Liberty this Saturday.

Iowa City, Iowa – April 19, 2013 – Iowa City-based non-profit citizens' group StopBigBrother.Org is holding their first big signature drive event since their recent petition filing with the city. The group has originally collected 3,322 signatures in support of their petition to restrict traffic surveillance in Iowa City. The organizers officially submitted the signatures to the city on April 1st, but in the end only 2,106 of the submitted signatures were recognized by the city as valid -- 394 short of the required 2,500.

The organization has promptly filed a "Notice of Intent to Amend", which grants them another 15 days to make up the difference. The upcoming Saturday event aims to help the activists gather the bulk of the remaining signatures.

The signature drive will be taking place at College Green Park in Iowa City this Saturday, April 20th, from 1pm to 5pm, drawing in part on the participants of Young Americans for Liberty's "Rally for Liberty:  Decriminalizing Marijuana in Iowa City".

"We were quite happy to get an invitation from Young Americans for Liberty to host a table and do signature collection at their rally," says one of the group's organizers, Aleksey Gurtovoy. "We were planning our own weekend event, but doing a signature drive at the rally sounded even better".

The group plans to have at least five volunteers actively collecting signatures at the event, and is calling for everybody who hasn't signed their petition yet to come out and do so this Saturday.

Contact: Aleksey Gurtovoy
Co-Organizer, StopBigBrother.org
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
319-936-0565

Media Kit: http://bit.ly/W1tfBk
###

Attachments:

File	Description
StopBigBrother.org Press Release, Apr 19, 2013[1].pdf

Iowa City goverment hostile towards voters who demand a vote!  City thought of voters "How dare you question Council, they seem to be thinking."

City essentially tell voters who pays the taxes:  "Go get your signatures, and THEN we'll tell you whether you wasted your time or not."

http://jdeeth.blogspot.com/2013/04/stop-on-red-light-for-now.html

John Deeth - Too old to be cool, too young not to care
 

Monday, April 15, 2013
   
Stop on Red Light - for now


Iowa City's red light camera vote is stalled for now. For NOW. Gregg Hennigan http://thegazette.com/2013/04/15/petition-on-iowa-city-traffic-camera-drones-invalid-city-clerk-says/:  

The City Clerk’s Office said not enough eligible people signed a petition that would force the City Council to either adopt an ordinance outlawing red-light and speed cameras and drones or to send the matter to voters to decide.

The petition needed to be signed by at least 2,500 registered Iowa City voters. Organizers submitted 3,322 signatures April 1 http://thegazette.com/2013/04/01/petition-filed-on-iowa-city-traffic-cameras-questions-remain/, but City Clerk Marian Karr said Monday that only 2,106 were valid...

“We think we can make up the difference easily,” said Aleksey Gurtovoy of Iowa City.

Iowa City's petition process is unique. All other petitions - to run for office, get a satellite site, demand a recount - require the signer to be an "eligible" elector. That means 18+, citizen, non-felon, resident of appropriate area. Obvious bad signatures like ones with Schaumburg addresses get crossed off, but otherwise a challenge to the petition needs to come from an opponent or other concerned citizen.

 But the city home rule charter requires signers under the initiative/referendum process to be "qualified" electors. With election day voter registration in Iowa, it would seem that 18+ means 18+, citizen, non-felon, resident of appropriate area would be enough. But city staff interprets "qualified" as strictly as possible: already registered at current address. And city staff, at taxpayer cost, checks every. single. signature.

 And using this strict interpretation city staff tossed roughly 1/3 of the signatures, gathered by a hard working well organized campaign, just months after everyone updated their registration address for a record turnout presidential election. Seems... kinda... a lot.

Petitioners have two days after receiving a mailed certificate of insufficiency from the city to declare their intent to get more signatures, and then they would have 15 more days to try to get enough people to sign the petition.

So step one: the petitioners have to get the 394 signatures that they're, in the city's opinion, short. Given their failure rate, that means more like 600 people who haven't signed before. And someone who signed may not know if their signature counted or not. So given that, set the bar X amount higher.

 What then? It all may be in vain:

The petition organizers, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, said they were seeking an initiative by proposing a measure for the City Council to consider. But City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes has characterized it as a referendum that asks the council to reconsider an existing law. A referendum petition must be filed within 60 days of the adoption of the measure in question or not until two years after adoption. The current petition would fall between those periods and not be timely.

Dilkes has said she would re-examine the matter with a successful petition. She said Monday that if a petition is deemed sufficient, she would provide a formal opinion to the council.
In other words: Go get your signatures, and THEN we'll tell you whether you wasted your time or not.

 This isn't just one of those hypotheticals that lawyers don't like to answer; it's a live question. So why not just answer?

 I'm just a clerk, not a lawyer like Eleanor, but I'm smart enough to spot a bad attitude. In my experience, city staff are more or less openly hostile to petitions. How dare you question Council, they seem to be thinking. And that's even more true when petitions are seen as coming from "students" or other undesirables. Rather than playing a strictly administrative role, Karr seems almost to have more of a decision-making authority, one more appropriately played by elected policy makers rather than hired staff.

 Of course, part of that is the manager-driven style of government we get in a city with a part time council and no elected mayor. And, as I often mention, with no student elected since 1979 and no a middle aged energy executive taking a class doesn't count.

 Both these issues - the initiative vs. referendum and especially the "qualified"/"eligible" question - smell like lawsuits waiting to happen. The latter in particular is a fight I've wanted someone to fight since the day election day registration took effect. To be honest, I care more about that than I do about the red light cameras themselves, on which I'm still fairly agnostic, and I'm wrestling with a lot of the same people over the justice center.

 But I signed -- at least I think I did. Maybe Marian crossed my name off. Maybe tomorrow morning I'll call the city clerk's office at 356-5043, that's 356-5043, to verify that my signature was counted. Maybe everyone who thinks they signed should. If they have time to cross-check 3300 names and cross off 1200 of them, they certainly should have time to check yours.

 Yeah, I got an attitude too. Least I admit it.

 Meantime, the city charter is up for review next year. I'm planning to apply for a seat on the charter review commission and I think I'm spectacularly qualified. Any bets on my chances?