It is not a defense to a speeding ticket to claim that you are sovereign, the Texas Court of Appeals ruled last month. Austin Police Officer Tammy Barrett had pulled over Justin Wayne Gray after he passed through a school zone while allegedly driving 44 MPH in a 20 zone on December 4, 2008. When Barrett asked Gray for his license and registration, his response was unusual.

“I am Texas Republican sovereignty,” Gray said. “I do not recognize this as a legal traffic stop.”

Gray then handed Barrett a piece of paper with his name and date of birth. Barrett verified this information and found that Gray’s driver’s license had been suspended. Barrett then arrested Gray. Before the trial, Gray filed an “Affidavit of Truth” that asserted he was a “sovereign man” and “a living, flesh and blood son of God by the Christian name of Justin Wayne Gray.” As a sovereign, he argued that the state of Texas had no jurisdiction to put him on trial. A Travis County jury found Gray guilty, and Judge Carlos Humberto Barrera sentenced him to 45 days in jail and a $250 fine. On appeal, Justice Bob Pemberton found no merit in Gray’s argument.

“Gray characterizes himself as a sovereign exempt from the laws of this state,” Pemberton wrote. “We disagree. A ‘person,’ as that term is defined by statute, means an individual, corporation, or association. An ‘individual’ means a human being who is alive. Gray is a person subject to the laws of this state. We overrule Gray’s third issue.”

The appeals court also found that Barrett had probable cause to conduct a traffic stop. Once stopped, the arrest for driving on a suspended license was justified because Gray’s license was, in fact, suspended at the time of the stop. The court overruled Gray’s objection to the use of his name which was misspelled in court documents as “JUSTIN WADE GRADY.” Gray insisted that the all-capital letters could not apply to him because only the initial letters of his name are capitalized.

“The record reflects that at the beginning of the proceedings, the state misspelled Gray’s middle and last names in the manner indicated above,” Pemberton wrote. “However, Gray brought the misspelling to the attention of the trial court and the misspelling was subsequently corrected. The amended information, jury charge, and judgment of conviction all reflect the correct spelling of Gray’s name…. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”

A copy of the decision is available in an 85k PDF file at the source link below. Source

Traffic Tickets

The citizen-led groups that want the public to decide the future of red light cameras are racist, according to lawsuits filed by American Traffic Solutions (ATS) in a pair of Texas cities. The Arizona-based photo enforcement firm filed in a state court in Baytown on Thursday and then an ATS-funded front group filed an identical case in a federal court in Houston on Friday. Residents in both cities signed petitions placing a ban on automated ticketing machines onto the November 2 ballot, but ATS cites the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 as a reason to block these votes.

“Because the camouflaged referendum has been improperly placed on the ballot, a potential for racial discrimination exists,” Houston lawyer Andy Taylor wrote on behalf of ATS. “More specifically, minority voters may lose their ability to elect candidates of their choice in local, statewide and federal offices.”

The company used the same argument in Baytown.

“The city has created a scenario whereby voters who oppose the safety camera program — a group that historically tends to vote in a conservative manner — will vote in greater numbers than would otherwise have turned out for a November 2, 2010 election,” Taylor wrote.

The ATS claim may come as a surprise to the diverse groups behind anti-camera petition efforts elsewhere in the country. In East Cleveland, Ohio the group Black on Black Crime led the effort to gather signatures for a referendum. In Cincinnati, the anti-camera coalition included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Green Party. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also battled cameras in Iowa and Rhode Island. Baytown initiative sponsor Byron Schirmbeck suggested the traffic camera industry was disguising its true aim with the racism charge.

“For ATS to claim that they are only concerned with the rights of minorities when their abusive and dangerous camera systems disproportionately attack a larger portion of the minority community’s income smacks of hypocrisy,” Schirmbeck told TheNewspaper. “They don’t care about minorities, or the majority of voters who oppose their systems and tactics. Like any corporation their primary obligation is to profitability. Across the country, wherever we see citizens rising up to say no to the cameras we see the camera companies trying to stop them for the sole reason of protecting their revenue.”

ATS is also using the media to tar the initiative sponsors, with success in major outlets like the Houston Chronicle.

“On the other hand, the financial heft and organization behind the camera opponents comes largely from traffic-court attorneys,” a September 4 editorial stated. “Since camera-generated citations are based on car ownership and are more difficult to challenge in court than officer-issued traffic tickets, they bite into the lawyers’ business.”

The Chronicle has no evidence to support this claim first developed by ATS hired gun Jim McGrath. The Baytown referendum is headed by Byron Schirmbeck, who is not a lawyer and depends on donations from residents and visitors to the SaferBaytown.com website. Of the ten successful anti-camera petitions around the country, only the one in Steubenville, Ohio was organized by an attorney — except that lawyer’s practice focused on personal injury. The number of regular traffic citations has not decreased in Houston as a result of automated enforcement. Source

Traffic Tickets

In Macerata, Italy vigilantes grabbed a speed camera from the side of the provincial road 571 at around 6am this morning. Police arriving on the scene found glass shards on the ground from smashed lenses and the radar equipment removed from the housing, ANSA reported. Officials have no idea who was responsible.

Vigilantes in the former Soviet Republic of Latvia shot a speed camera on August 12. The automated ticketing machine had been located in Daugavpils, the second largest city next to Riga. The device, the country’s only speed camera, will be repaired, TVNET reported. Police have no idea who is responsible. Source

Traffic Tickets

In Macerata, Italy vigilantes grabbed a speed camera from the side of the provincial road 571 at around 6am this morning. Police arriving on the scene found glass shards on the ground from smashed lenses and the radar equipment removed from the housing, ANSA reported. Officials have no idea who was responsible.

Vigilantes in the former Soviet Republic of Latvia shot a speed camera on August 12. The automated ticketing machine had been located in Daugavpils, the second largest city next to Riga. The device, the country’s only speed camera, will be repaired, TVNET reported. Police have no idea who is responsible. Source

Traffic Tickets

Fighting speed camera and red light camera tickets in federal court is becoming increasingly difficult as yet another US district court judge yesterday embraced the use of automated ticketing machines. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey dismissed the class action lawsuit that Gregory Mills had filed against the city of Springfield and Lasercraft, a private vendor that has since been bought out by American Traffic Solutions. Mills argued that because the Missouri Supreme Court in March struck down the city’s program as illegal (view decision), those who received tickets were entitled to a refund.

Under the program, Lasercraft mailed tickets to the owners of vehicles who in many cases were not behind the wheel at the time of the offense and consequently had not violated any law. The suit argued that these individuals were denied a meaningful right to contest the $100 punishment imposed because challenges to the citation were heard not in a court with constitutional protections, but in an administrative hearing operated by an employee of the city that receives the proceeds from payment of any fines. Judge Laughrey dismissed the notion that anyone could be wrongly accused and assumed anyone mailed a ticket by Lasercraft was a scofflaw who should not have been running red lights.

“The freedom to run a red light is not a fundamental right that is deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition,” Laughrey wrote. “Under the lenient rational basis test, the city of Springfield’s red light camera ordinance is rationally related to the legitimate government interest in public safety. Clearly, a legislative body could find that improved surveillance and enforcement of red light violations would result in fewer accidents.”

Laughrey went on to insist the fine imposed was not a punishment and the mere declaration by Springfield city leaders that the program was “civil” deprived ticket recipients of any meaningful constitutional protection.

“The court finds that a mere $100 fine does not rise to the level of an intent to punish,” Laughrey wrote. “As a civil ordinance, Section 106-161 need not provide the heightened procedural protections required by the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.”

Laughrey finally ruled that the fact that the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Springfield’s program was illegal did not affect her analysis under federal law.

“The due process clause does not require a state to implement its own laws correctly, nor does the Constitution insist that a local government be correct in its interpretation of what is permissible under state law,” Laughrey wrote. “Thus, plaintiffs’ attempt to convert violations of state law into federal due process claims improperly bootstraps state law into the U.S. Constitution. It is implausible that Section 106-161 could have denied plaintiffs substantive due process.”

Cases against Springfield are pending in state courts. A copy of the federal decision is available in a 125k PDF file at the source link below. Source

Traffic Tickets

Fighting speed camera and red light camera tickets in federal court is becoming increasingly difficult as yet another US district court judge yesterday embraced the use of automated ticketing machines. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey dismissed the class action lawsuit that Gregory Mills had filed against the city of Springfield and Lasercraft, a private vendor that has since been bought out by American Traffic Solutions. Mills argued that because the Missouri Supreme Court in March struck down the city’s program as illegal (view decision), those who received tickets were entitled to a refund.

Under the program, Lasercraft mailed tickets to the owners of vehicles who in many cases were not behind the wheel at the time of the offense and consequently had not violated any law. The suit argued that these individuals were denied a meaningful right to contest the $100 punishment imposed because challenges to the citation were heard not in a court with constitutional protections, but in an administrative hearing operated by an employee of the city that receives the proceeds from payment of any fines. Judge Laughrey dismissed the notion that anyone could be wrongly accused and assumed anyone mailed a ticket by Lasercraft was a scofflaw who should not have been running red lights.

“The freedom to run a red light is not a fundamental right that is deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition,” Laughrey wrote. “Under the lenient rational basis test, the city of Springfield’s red light camera ordinance is rationally related to the legitimate government interest in public safety. Clearly, a legislative body could find that improved surveillance and enforcement of red light violations would result in fewer accidents.”

Laughrey went on to insist the fine imposed was not a punishment and the mere declaration by Springfield city leaders that the program was “civil” deprived ticket recipients of any meaningful constitutional protection.

“The court finds that a mere $100 fine does not rise to the level of an intent to punish,” Laughrey wrote. “As a civil ordinance, Section 106-161 need not provide the heightened procedural protections required by the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.”

Laughrey finally ruled that the fact that the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Springfield’s program was illegal did not affect her analysis under federal law.

“The due process clause does not require a state to implement its own laws correctly, nor does the Constitution insist that a local government be correct in its interpretation of what is permissible under state law,” Laughrey wrote. “Thus, plaintiffs’ attempt to convert violations of state law into federal due process claims improperly bootstraps state law into the U.S. Constitution. It is implausible that Section 106-161 could have denied plaintiffs substantive due process.”

Cases against Springfield are pending in state courts. A copy of the federal decision is available in a 125k PDF file at the source link below. Source

Traffic Tickets

While red light camera firms are facing significant legal peril as vehicle owners in California and Florida are fighting citations in court through class action lawsuits, the stakes are even higher when the companies themselves battle one another in the courtroom. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is now reviewing a number of issues brought in the suit filed by American Traffic Solutions (ATS) against its Australian rival, Redflex Traffic Systems.

ATS had sued Redflex for advertising speed camera operations using radars that were illegally imported into the country. As reported by TheNewspaper in May, lost the case on all counts before a jury with the judge expressing the view that the ATS argument was “weak at every point.” Nonetheless, ATS has filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, Redflex is attempting to recover the $4.3 million it spent on the litigation after the firm’s lead attorney, E. Jeffrey Walsh, claimed he had spent 12,782 hours on the case. Redflex insists it is entitled to attorney’s fees because ATS filed the lawsuit in bad faith.

“ATS chose to use the courtroom as a forum to embarrass Redflex by, under the guise of proof of willfulness, accusing Redflex officials of lying to federal and state authorities,” Walsh wrote in a July 27 filing. “ATS provided salacious fodder for bloggers and other media personnel who attended the trial and damaged Redflex’s reputation and integrity… ATS unleashed a crusade against Redflex, its biggest competitor in the photo traffic enforcement industry, to damage it.”

ATS countered that it not only acted in good faith, but that company president Jim Tuton sat down and arrived at an agreement in principle on a settlement with Redflex Holdings Board Member Karen Finley. Finley, however, was unable to convince the rest of the board to approve the deal.

“This court repeatedly chastised Redflex for motion practice that the court termed ‘abusive,’” ATS lawyer Randy J. McClanahan replied in an August 16 filing. “After denying over ten motions filed by Redflex at the pretrial hearing, the court stated: ‘I hate to think of what you’re charging your clients for all of this. But if I were your client, I wouldn’t pay you.’”

Redflex filed a retaliatory lawsuit against ATS that is scheduled for a pre-trial conference on September 27 before US District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton. Already, ATS has racked up a victory by convincing Bolton to disqualify the Redflex lawfirm Greenberg Traurig — and Walsh — from the case because it has inside knowledge of ATS operations from working on legal matters for the Arizona company.

“The court finds that Greenberg’s prior representation of ATS was substantially related to the instant matter, Bolton ruled. “Redflex claims that ATS fraudulently obtained government contracts by, among other things, inflating the percentage of contracts it had won from other municipalities. As Greenberg represented ATS in its efforts to secure at least two of the contracts at issue, the relationship between the claim in this case and the prior representation is obvious and substantial.”

On August 13, the Ninth Circuit slammed the door on Redflex after it asked to overturn Bolton’s decision.

“Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus,” the three-judge appellate panel ruled. “Accordingly, the petition is denied.”

A copy of the order is available in a 40k PDF file at the source link below. Source

Traffic Tickets

While red light camera firms are facing significant legal peril as vehicle owners in California and Florida are fighting citations in court through class action lawsuits, the stakes are even higher when the companies themselves battle one another in the courtroom. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is now reviewing a number of issues brought in the suit filed by American Traffic Solutions (ATS) against its Australian rival, Redflex Traffic Systems.

ATS had sued Redflex for advertising speed camera operations using radars that were illegally imported into the country. As reported by TheNewspaper in May, lost the case on all counts before a jury with the judge expressing the view that the ATS argument was “weak at every point.” Nonetheless, ATS has filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, Redflex is attempting to recover the $4.3 million it spent on the litigation after the firm’s lead attorney, E. Jeffrey Walsh, claimed he had spent 12,782 hours on the case. Redflex insists it is entitled to attorney’s fees because ATS filed the lawsuit in bad faith.

“ATS chose to use the courtroom as a forum to embarrass Redflex by, under the guise of proof of willfulness, accusing Redflex officials of lying to federal and state authorities,” Walsh wrote in a July 27 filing. “ATS provided salacious fodder for bloggers and other media personnel who attended the trial and damaged Redflex’s reputation and integrity… ATS unleashed a crusade against Redflex, its biggest competitor in the photo traffic enforcement industry, to damage it.”

ATS countered that it not only acted in good faith, but that company president Jim Tuton sat down and arrived at an agreement in principle on a settlement with Redflex Holdings Board Member Karen Finley. Finley, however, was unable to convince the rest of the board to approve the deal.

“This court repeatedly chastised Redflex for motion practice that the court termed ‘abusive,’” ATS lawyer Randy J. McClanahan replied in an August 16 filing. “After denying over ten motions filed by Redflex at the pretrial hearing, the court stated: ‘I hate to think of what you’re charging your clients for all of this. But if I were your client, I wouldn’t pay you.’”

Redflex filed a retaliatory lawsuit against ATS that is scheduled for a pre-trial conference on September 27 before US District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton. Already, ATS has racked up a victory by convincing Bolton to disqualify the Redflex lawfirm Greenberg Traurig — and Walsh — from the case because it has inside knowledge of ATS operations from working on legal matters for the Arizona company.

“The court finds that Greenberg’s prior representation of ATS was substantially related to the instant matter, Bolton ruled. “Redflex claims that ATS fraudulently obtained government contracts by, among other things, inflating the percentage of contracts it had won from other municipalities. As Greenberg represented ATS in its efforts to secure at least two of the contracts at issue, the relationship between the claim in this case and the prior representation is obvious and substantial.”

On August 13, the Ninth Circuit slammed the door on Redflex after it asked to overturn Bolton’s decision.

“Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus,” the three-judge appellate panel ruled. “Accordingly, the petition is denied.”

A copy of the order is available in a 40k PDF file at the source link below. Source

Traffic Tickets

A team of experienced class action lawyers is taking on California’s red light camera industry, and photo enforcement companies are expressing unease. Last month, the law firm of Pearson Simon Warshaw and Penny, LLP filed suit in San Mateo County Superior Court arguing that tickets issued throughout the Golden State since January 1, 2004 should be refunded where the photo enforcement contracts violated a state law mandating flat-rate compensation to companies like Redflex Traffic Systems. Redflex referred to the case as a particular business risk in an August 25 filing with the Australian Securities Exchange.

“The level of litigation industry‐wide has continued to be widespread with the majority of suits testing the constitutionality or administrative legitimacy of road safety enforcement programs,” Redflex explained. “A number of class action lawsuits involving others in our industry and Redflex have been filed challenging the pricing models used in several states alleging violation of cost neutrality laws as well as the admissibility of business records in court. We continue to aggressively defend against these claims.”

An aggressive defense will not come cheap. The firm spent $4.3 million to fend off a lawsuit filed by competitor American Traffic Solutions (ATS), even though the Australian firm won the case. Should this class action make it to trial, Redflex and co-defendant ATS could end up financially responsible for contracts in the fifty-nine jurisdictions identified as having the questionable language.

In the city of San Mateo, for example, Redflex is paid $120 for each $446 ticket issued at each red light camera intersection up to a monthly cap of $6030 per intersection. This so-called cost neutrality arrangement allows the city to have a guarantee that the cameras will never under any circumstances lose money. The class action suit argues that such clauses violate a state law prohibiting per-ticket compensation arrangements for automated ticketing contracts.

“Through their employees and agents, RTS, ATS and the Doe defendants, as defined below, entered into illegal contracts with public entities in California, operated automated traffic enforcement equipment in California and caused tickets to be issued to plaintiff and class members throughout California,” attorneys Bruce L. Simon and William J. Newsom wrote in the court filing.

The suit does not ask that existing convictions be overturned, but that Redflex and ATS pay damages for the amount of revenue the companies have collected from their unlawful business practices. The appellate divisions of both Orange County (view ruling) and San Mateo County (view decision) courts have already ruled “cost neutral” contract provisions are illegal, but the decisions have not been published. Only a handful of cities like San Mateo and San Carlos have dropped the cost neutral provisions. Contractors in these cities would still be sued for the amount of revenue generated prior to the contract revisions.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare all cost neutral contracts illegal and issue an injunction against all programs operating under such arrangements. It also asks for a full refund of all fines paid, plus appropriate punitive damages. Source

Traffic Tickets

A team of experienced class action lawyers is taking on California’s red light camera industry, and photo enforcement companies are expressing unease. Last month, the law firm of Pearson Simon Warshaw and Penny, LLP filed suit in San Mateo County Superior Court arguing that tickets issued throughout the Golden State since January 1, 2004 should be refunded where the photo enforcement contracts violated a state law mandating flat-rate compensation to companies like Redflex Traffic Systems. Redflex referred to the case as a particular business risk in an August 25 filing with the Australian Securities Exchange.

“The level of litigation industry‐wide has continued to be widespread with the majority of suits testing the constitutionality or administrative legitimacy of road safety enforcement programs,” Redflex explained. “A number of class action lawsuits involving others in our industry and Redflex have been filed challenging the pricing models used in several states alleging violation of cost neutrality laws as well as the admissibility of business records in court. We continue to aggressively defend against these claims.”

An aggressive defense will not come cheap. The firm spent $4.3 million to fend off a lawsuit filed by competitor American Traffic Solutions (ATS), even though the Australian firm won the case. Should this class action make it to trial, Redflex and co-defendant ATS could end up financially responsible for contracts in the fifty-nine jurisdictions identified as having the questionable language.

In the city of San Mateo, for example, Redflex is paid $120 for each $446 ticket issued at each red light camera intersection up to a monthly cap of $6030 per intersection. This so-called cost neutrality arrangement allows the city to have a guarantee that the cameras will never under any circumstances lose money. The class action suit argues that such clauses violate a state law prohibiting per-ticket compensation arrangements for automated ticketing contracts.

“Through their employees and agents, RTS, ATS and the Doe defendants, as defined below, entered into illegal contracts with public entities in California, operated automated traffic enforcement equipment in California and caused tickets to be issued to plaintiff and class members throughout California,” attorneys Bruce L. Simon and William J. Newsom wrote in the court filing.

The suit does not ask that existing convictions be overturned, but that Redflex and ATS pay damages for the amount of revenue the companies have collected from their unlawful business practices. The appellate divisions of both Orange County (view ruling) and San Mateo County (view decision) courts have already ruled “cost neutral” contract provisions are illegal, but the decisions have not been published. Only a handful of cities like San Mateo and San Carlos have dropped the cost neutral provisions. Contractors in these cities would still be sued for the amount of revenue generated prior to the contract revisions.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare all cost neutral contracts illegal and issue an injunction against all programs operating under such arrangements. It also asks for a full refund of all fines paid, plus appropriate punitive damages. Source

Traffic Tickets