League City, Texas has lost $130,500 in red light camera ticket refunds and cancellations after a local motorist discovered the city had been ignoring state law. Byron Schirmbeck drives through the intersection of Interstate 45 and FM 518 every day on the way to work. He noticed the amount of yellow time given to motorists seemed a bit on the short side, so he decided to check. Armed with a stopwatch, Schirmbeck clocked the interval between the green and red lights at just four seconds — 0.7 seconds shorter than the minimum required under Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) regulations at an intersection with a posted 50 MPH speed limit.

A study by the Texas Transportation Institute found that violations jumped 110 percent when yellow light timing was reduced by one second under the bare minimum amount (view study). Conversely, the addition of one second beyond the bare minimum yielded a 40 percent collision reduction. The doubling of violations, and revenue, is what attracted Australia’s Redflex Traffic Systems, which runs the photo enforcement program, to the intersection.

“The camera company installed cameras here like they have done elsewhere where they knew they could take advantage of the poor engineering and short yellow change intervals,” Schirmbeck told TheNewspaper. “Instead of fixing the problem and seeing what effect that has they choose to profit from a dangerous situation.”

Schirmbeck was impressed by the honest and swift response of Chief Michael Jez to his emailed complaint. Jez immediately called in Redflex and TxDOT to investigate. After TxDOT agreed with Schirmbeck, Jez ordered the refund or cancellation of every ticket issued between October 1 and March 4 while the light should have been yellow — a total of 1740 tickets worth $130,500. Schirmbeck was less impressed by the lack of oversight that led to the problem in the first place.

“The questions are still there, why was the light so low for so long?” Schirmbeck asked. “League city said the timing was the same as when the cameras went up. Where were the engineering studies that should have identified the problem? With the camera company, the city and TxDOT all looking at the intersection why didn’t someone catch it?”

Schirmbeck lives in Baytown where he is leading the charge to get a referendum on the ballot to ban red light cameras. He has also caught Baytown shortening the duration of yellow lights at camera intersections. Unlike League City, however, Baytown’s actions have been deliberate.

“[Baytown] claims that since paying a ticket is an admission of guilt they are not legally able to refund tickets,” Schirmbeck said. “Clearly League City does not agree with this opinion. Why is it that in just a couple of weeks League city can correct short yellow timing, issue refunds and dismissing other tickets prompted by someone who isn’t even a League city resident but Baytown can’t do the same?” Source

Traffic Tickets

League City, Texas has lost $130,500 in red light camera ticket refunds and cancellations after a local motorist discovered the city had been ignoring state law. Byron Schirmbeck drives through the intersection of Interstate 45 and FM 518 every day on the way to work. He noticed the amount of yellow time given to motorists seemed a bit on the short side, so he decided to check. Armed with a stopwatch, Schirmbeck clocked the interval between the green and red lights at just four seconds — 0.7 seconds shorter than the minimum required under Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) regulations at an intersection with a posted 50 MPH speed limit.

A study by the Texas Transportation Institute found that violations jumped 110 percent when yellow light timing was reduced by one second under the bare minimum amount (view study). Conversely, the addition of one second beyond the bare minimum yielded a 40 percent collision reduction. The doubling of violations, and revenue, is what attracted Australia’s Redflex Traffic Systems, which runs the photo enforcement program, to the intersection.

“The camera company installed cameras here like they have done elsewhere where they knew they could take advantage of the poor engineering and short yellow change intervals,” Schirmbeck told TheNewspaper. “Instead of fixing the problem and seeing what effect that has they choose to profit from a dangerous situation.”

Schirmbeck was impressed by the honest and swift response of Chief Michael Jez to his emailed complaint. Jez immediately called in Redflex and TxDOT to investigate. After TxDOT agreed with Schirmbeck, Jez ordered the refund or cancellation of every ticket issued between October 1 and March 4 while the light should have been yellow — a total of 1740 tickets worth $130,500. Schirmbeck was less impressed by the lack of oversight that led to the problem in the first place.

“The questions are still there, why was the light so low for so long?” Schirmbeck asked. “League city said the timing was the same as when the cameras went up. Where were the engineering studies that should have identified the problem? With the camera company, the city and TxDOT all looking at the intersection why didn’t someone catch it?”

Schirmbeck lives in Baytown where he is leading the charge to get a referendum on the ballot to ban red light cameras. He has also caught Baytown shortening the duration of yellow lights at camera intersections. Unlike League City, however, Baytown’s actions have been deliberate.

“[Baytown] claims that since paying a ticket is an admission of guilt they are not legally able to refund tickets,” Schirmbeck said. “Clearly League City does not agree with this opinion. Why is it that in just a couple of weeks League city can correct short yellow timing, issue refunds and dismissing other tickets prompted by someone who isn’t even a League city resident but Baytown can’t do the same?” Source

Traffic Tickets

A federally funded ticketing blitz in the state of Virginia landed a total of 6996 traffic tickets this weekend. The blitz, dubbed “Operation Air, Land & Speed” coincided with frantic efforts by state officials to close a$2.2 billion budget deficit. Supervisors ordered state troopers to saturate Interstates 81 and 95 to issue as many tickets as humanly possible over the space of two days.

“The safety of Virginia’s highways begins the minute a vehicle is put in ‘drive,’” Virginia State Police Superintendent W. Steven Flaherty said in a statement. “Those split second decisions to choose not to drive drunk, to choose to wear a seat belt and to choose not to speed or drive aggressively really do make a difference in preventing and/or surviving a crash.”

Officers had no trouble delivering the requested number of speeding tickets with a total of 3536 ordinary speeding citations written. In addition, another 717 “reckless driving” tickets were filed, although these most often are simple speeding tickets that happen to carry a fine of up to $2500. Driving as little as 10 to 15 MPH over the limit can qualify for this enhanced punishment. On the other end of the scale, some 310 tickets were handed to drivers who either forgot to wear their seatbelts or made a choice not to do so.

Activists with the National Motorists Association pointed out that enforcement efforts may have concentrated on areas where speed limits are expected to rise to 70 MPH following Governor Bob McDonnell’s signature on legislation raising the state’s maximum speed limit (view law). This would mean a significant number of tickets were issued for conduct that will be perfectly legal in a matter of months. The group also indicated that state police tactics may run afoul of state law.

“All officers making arrests incident to the enforcement of this title shall be paid fixed salaries for their services and shall have no interest in, nor be permitted by law to accept the benefit of, any fine or fee resulting from the arrest or conviction of an offender against any provision of this title,” Virginia Code Section 46.2-102 states.

Under the federal grant application process, state officials explained that they would pay officers overtime — at least one-and-a-half times their normal salary — to participate. This special reward for ticketing operation participants appears to violate the spirit of state law.

Since 2006, a total of twenty-three ticketing blitzes have taken place, generating 120,977 traffic tickets. Source

Traffic Tickets

Police may not search a vehicle merely because its driver has been issued a valid concealed carry permit, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday. A three-judge appellate panel weighed the actions of Indianapolis Police Officer Danny Reynolds who pulled over Melvin Washington for driving with a burned-out headlight on September 17, 2008 at 12:30am.

On that morning, Reynolds first asked Washington whether he had a gun, and Washington said he had one under his seat. Washington also carried a valid concealed carry permit. At this point, Reynolds ordered Washington out of the car and handcuffed him so that he could conduct a search under the seat of Washington’s vehicle. Reynolds spotted a small bag of marijuana and issued Washington a court summons and a ticket for the defective headlight. Washington was then released with his handgun placed in the trunk of his vehicle, unloaded.

Washington moved to have the evidence against him suppressed because the warrantless search, he argued, violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. A lower court disagreed, insisting that “officer safety” justified the search. The court of appeals did not buy the safety argument.

“In the present case, prior to the search for the handgun, Officer Reynolds did not express any concerns for officer safety,” Judge James S. Kirsch wrote for the majority. “Although Washington admitted that a handgun was present inside of the car, he was at all times totally cooperative with Officer Reynolds The testimony at the suppression hearing indicated that, during the traffic stop, Washington made no furtive movements, answered the officer’s questions, and showed no disrespect to the officer. At the time he searched for the handgun, Officer Reynolds had no information that any crime or violation of law had been or was about to be committed, except for the inoperable headlight infraction. Further, at the suppression hearing, Officer Reynolds did not testify that he had any specific concern for officer safety during his traffic stop of Washington.”

Because no legitimate safety exception to the Fourth Amendment applied in this case, the court ruled the search was improper. Judge Melissa S. May added in a concurring opinion that the majority’s ruling created a subjective element — cooperation — that could serve as a loophole allowing searches. To solve this problem, May cited the US Supreme Court case Arizona v. Gant where a warrantless vehicle search was overturned because the suspect had no access to his car (view decision).

“While we are dealing here with a traffic stop, rather than an arrest, the fact remains that Washington, like Gant, was removed from his car and handcuffed,” May wrote. “Accordingly, Washington’s statement there was a gun under his seat simply could not justify a search of his car based on concern for officer safety.”

A copy of the decision is available in a PDF file at the source link below. Source

Traffic Tickets

A speed camera van in North Wales caught fire last Monday at around 12:30pm. The van had been parked in Gwynedd to issue tickets on a narrow road in the area. A North Wales Fire Service emergency crew arrived on the scene to extinguish the blaze, leaving the vehicle heavily damaged.

“The firemen were very quick in putting the fire out but there were just a few smiles on their faces afterwards,” one witness told the North Wales Daily Post newspaper. “I think quite a few people around here had a bit of a giggle as well.”

Investigators told the Daily Post that an electrical fault in the van caused the blaze. Last month, a speed camera van in Tennessee caught fire and burned down a barn under similar circumstances.

In Ferrol, Spain a 24-year-old student mocked the overuse of speed cameras in the city last week by creating a “fixed mobile radar” costume. Standing in the median of the AC-566 he used an attached pocket camera to photograph passing motorists while a group of friends filmed from the other side of the road.

View the speed camera impersonation video on YouTube:

Source

Traffic Tickets

The private company that operates speed cameras in Denver, Colorado is ignoring the provisions of state law designed to protect the public. Motorist Bill O’Neil used his cell phone camera to document the lack of warning signs around a photo radar van issuing tickets on First Avenue in January, KMGH-TV reported. City officials entrust Redflex Traffic Systems, an Australian company compensated based on the number of tickets it is able to issue, with the responsibility of placing the signs. A police spokesman told KMGH that signs were out, just on the other side of the road.

Similar tactics are used in the city of Fort Collins, where a speed camera van was hidden behind a bridge abutment on Tuesday. The warning sign was placed on the ground, partially obscured by a planter, the Coloradoan newspaper reported.

In Genoa, Italy a local judge has ruled that average speed cameras are illegal. Justice of the Peace Elena Paolicchi canceled a ticket issued on the A7 between Genoa and Milan after motorists organized by the website strademulte.it challenged the reading of the system known as Tutor. A written ruling has not been issued in the case, but the challenge was filed questioning the system’s accuracy and the integrity of the evidence. Red light camera systems known as T-Red caused such a controversy with the shortening of yellow lights and corrupt, backroom deals that Italy’s Ministry of Interior last year banned private companies from operating photo enforcement devices. Source

Traffic Tickets

The Supreme Court of Hawaii is serious about not allowing police to merely assert that their methods to detect speeding are accurate. The court insisted that this accuracy must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and, to show the court meant what it said, the “excessive speeding” case against motorcyclist Zachariah I. Fitzwater was thrown out on Wednesday.

In this case, Honolulu Police Officer Neal Ah Yat claimed that he paced Fitzwater driving at 70 MPH in a 35 MPH zone on January 24, 2007. On that day, Yat had been unable to get a laser speed reading on Fitzgerald’s sport bike because it was too small. Yat fired up his cruiser and caught up to the motorcycle to begin pacing its speed from six car lengths behind.

At trial, the officer produced a five-month-old card that purported to certify the accuracy of his patrol car’s speedometer. These “speed checks” are conducted once a year as part of a cruiser’s routine maintenance cycle at Jack’s Speedo Shop. Yat could not testify that he took the vehicle to be checked nor did he have any knowledge of how the accuracy was verified. The high court found this insufficient.

“In order for the results of speed checks to be admissible, the state must establish: (1) how and when the speed check was performed, including whether it was performed in the manner specified by the manufacturer of the equipment used to perform the check, and (2) the identity and qualifications of the person performing the check, including whether that person had whatever training the manufacturer recommends in order to competently perform it,” Justice Mark E. Rectenwald wrote for the majority. “The required information was missing from the record here. It was not established by Ah Yat in his testimony. Nor was it established by the speed check card.”

Without this essential element, the supreme court vacated the lower court judgment against Fitzwater which had imposed a $630 fine, 36 hours of community service and a thirty-day license suspension.

In September, the high court had struck down a speeding ticket because the state failed to produce evidence beyond the assertion of a manufacturer that a laser speed gun produced accurate readings (view decision). Since then, two appellate court rulings have overturned citations because the state has yet to mount a case sufficiently convincing to the judges.

A copy of the supreme court case is available in a 255k PDF file at the source link below. Source

Traffic Tickets

A US District Court judge for the Western District of Washington on Tuesday threw out a class action lawsuit filed against nineteen cities operating speed cameras and red light cameras in the state. Although the case had been filed in the King County Superior Court and was based on state laws, lawyers for the cities and photo ticketing companies succeeded in having it transferred to a federal court.

Lawyers for affected motorists opened with the argument that the forms used to process a photo citation are invalid. Under state law, such tickets are processed as parking tickets, which require a certain type of technical approval which camera tickets do not receive. This, the lawyers contended, rendered the photo tickets invalid.

“Not so,” ruled Judge John C. Coughenour. “The code does not require a traffic camera infraction to be treated like a parking infraction in every single respect…. Although NOIs from traffic cameras are processed like parking tickets, the forms are to be drafted in compliance with rules for traffic tickets.”

Coughenour also defended the municipal practice of charging between $101 and $124 for each photo ticket, despite the state law limiting photo ticket fine amounts to no more than “the amount of a fine issued for other parking infractions within the jurisdiction.” Such fines are typically $20. Because parking in a disabled spot can cost $250, Coughenour reasoned that it was “more plausible” that the legislature meant photo tickets could be set as high as $250.

The camera opposition’s final argument was that cost neutrality arrangements between the private vendors and the cities violated the legislature’s intention to eliminate the financial incentive for vendors to issue more tickets. The lawyers argued that up to a certain level, the contracts pay vendors on a per ticket basis. The judge disagreed.

“The contracts contain ’stop-loss’ provisions,” Coughenour opined. “These provisions allow the municipalities to defer payment until the cameras generate enough revenue to cover their expense. But they do not change the amount that the municipalities must eventually pay the camera companies… Under this system, it is the payment schedule, not the amount of compensation, that is based on a portion of revenue generated. The stop-loss provisions have allowed the municipalities to purchase traffic enforcement on a layaway plan, but not to change the price.”

In California, this has proven to be untrue in practice. The city of Ventura, for example, has escaped paying over $1.7 million to the Australian red light camera vendor Redflex Traffic Systems (view invoices). The terms of many contract provisions insist that the client city will “never” pay more than the amount of revenue generated.

Coughenour also insisted that when the city of Lynwood made a $5 per-ticket payment to American Traffic Solutions, it was a “service charge” and not payment “based upon a portion of the revenue generated by the equipment,” which is prohibited by law.

A copy of the ruling is available in a 50k PDF file at the source link below. Source

Traffic Tickets

A US District Court judge for the Western District of Washington on Tuesday threw out a class action lawsuit filed against nineteen cities operating speed cameras and red light cameras in the state. Although the case had been filed in the King County Superior Court and was based on state laws, lawyers for the cities and photo ticketing companies succeeded in having it transferred to a federal court.

Lawyers for affected motorists opened with the argument that the forms used to process a photo citation are invalid. Under state law, such tickets are processed as parking tickets, which require a certain type of technical approval which camera tickets do not receive. This, the lawyers contended, rendered the photo tickets invalid.

“Not so,” ruled Judge John C. Coughenour. “The code does not require a traffic camera infraction to be treated like a parking infraction in every single respect…. Although NOIs from traffic cameras are processed like parking tickets, the forms are to be drafted in compliance with rules for traffic tickets.”

Coughenour also defended the municipal practice of charging between $101 and $124 for each photo ticket, despite the state law limiting photo ticket fine amounts to no more than “the amount of a fine issued for other parking infractions within the jurisdiction.” Such fines are typically $20. Because parking in a disabled spot can cost $250, Coughenour reasoned that it was “more plausible” that the legislature meant photo tickets could be set as high as $250.

The camera opposition’s final argument was that cost neutrality arrangements between the private vendors and the cities violated the legislature’s intention to eliminate the financial incentive for vendors to issue more tickets. The lawyers argued that up to a certain level, the contracts pay vendors on a per ticket basis. The judge disagreed.

“The contracts contain ’stop-loss’ provisions,” Coughenour opined. “These provisions allow the municipalities to defer payment until the cameras generate enough revenue to cover their expense. But they do not change the amount that the municipalities must eventually pay the camera companies… Under this system, it is the payment schedule, not the amount of compensation, that is based on a portion of revenue generated. The stop-loss provisions have allowed the municipalities to purchase traffic enforcement on a layaway plan, but not to change the price.”

In California, this has proven to be untrue in practice. The city of Ventura, for example, has escaped paying over $1.7 million to the Australian red light camera vendor Redflex Traffic Systems (view invoices). The terms of many contract provisions insist that the client city will “never” pay more than the amount of revenue generated.

Coughenour also insisted that when the city of Lynwood made a $5 per-ticket payment to American Traffic Solutions, it was a “service charge” and not payment “based upon a portion of the revenue generated by the equipment,” which is prohibited by law.

A copy of the ruling is available in a 50k PDF file at the source link below. Source

Traffic Tickets

The supreme court of Missouri sent photo enforcement companies scrambling on Monday after it declared the red light camera administrative hearing process in the city of Springfield to be void. The high court moved with unusual speed, handing down a strongly worded, unanimous decision about one month after hearing oral arguments in the case.

“This is a $100 case,” Judge Michael A. Wolff wrote for the court. “But sometimes, it’s not the money — it’s the principle.”

At first glance, the court’s decision appeared to be limited to a technical legal issue regarding Springfield’s authority to adjudicate a photo ticket against motorist Adolph Belt in an administrative hearing. The court indicated that this was plainly not permitted under state law. Section 479.010 of the Missouri Code requires ordinance violations of this type to be heard in a circuit or municipal court. Springfield had argued that its administrative hearing officer was the first and last word on all judgments, with no appellate courts — not even the supreme court itself — having any jurisdiction over the matter.

A closer look at the ruling shows that the high court judges expressed a dim view toward the legal arguments often cited by municipalities to justify their red light cameras programs. For example, the court made it clear that no city had any authority to treat red light violations in the same manner as a parking ticket.

“The administrative system at issue here is created for a violation of a red light ordinance, which typically is considered a moving violation,” Wolff wrote.

That means no city in Missouri, including Kansas City and St. Louis, has the authority to issue civil violations that carry no points. A footnote explained further that charter cities have no power to act in areas limited by state law. Both premises are key rebuttals to the argument that municipalities in the state have the authority to create red light camera programs without the sanction of state law. The high court also called into question Springfield’s use of short yellows.

“Undeniably a traffic expert, Belt timed the yellow caution light at the intersection and found that it was rather quick,” Wolff wrote. “He also concluded that the stoplight and the cameras needed to be synchronized.”

Another footnote cited three articles by TheNewspaper that Belt had brought to the court’s attention.

“Another article he found stated that a study in Texas had found that adding an additional second to yellow lights corresponded to a 40-percent reduction in crashes [view study],” Wolff wrote. “Even so, the city of Springfield had chosen to reduce its yellow-light timing at more than 100 intersections prior to starting red light camera ticketing [view article].”

State supreme courts are now evenly split on the issue of photo enforcement. Missouri’s supreme court joined the Minnesota high court which struck down red light cameras as illegal in 2007, explaining that cities may not water down the due process protections of motorists simply for the ease of issuing tickets (view ruling). On the other hand, the Ohio Supreme Court (read opinion) and Iowa Supreme Court (read opinion) declared camera use consistent with state laws.

The Missouri Supreme Court judges voided Belt’s citation without remanding proceedings to a lower court. A copy of the decision is available in a 50k PDF file at the source link below. Source

Traffic Tickets