Texas Case Highlights Illegal Red Light Camera Contracts

by The Newspaper

March 16th, 2009 8:06 PM

texas case highlights illegal red light camera contracts

Cities around the country are ignoring state laws designed to curb the financial incentive for private red light camera contractors to generate the greatest number of violations possible. In Texas, for example, the city of College Station signed a deal to allow American Traffic Solutions (ATS) to operate red light cameras and collect fines on the city’s behalf. In return, College Station gives back to ATS a per-ticket fee that is capped at a rate of $4750 per intersection approach per month—in direct conflict with a state law that took effect on September 1, 2007.

“The city’s obligations and the total compensation paid to ATS over the course of this contract shall not exceed the total amount of civil penalties received from defendants,” the contract between ATS and College Station signed November 19, 2007 states. “All payments shall be processed in accordance with AXSIS-BPA Payment Processing Overview, as approved by contractor and city. E-payments shall be charged to the city at the rate of $3.75 per payment.”

The $3.75 per-ticket payment to the contractor applies to all violations paid online or by phone. Billing data obtained by local resident Jim Ash under an open records request show that ATS received a payment of $2246 for 599 tickets issued in the month of September 2008. This extra per-ticket fee accounted for twelve percent of the total ATS compensation for that month. Texas Code 707.003 not only prohibits such payment arrangements, it enforces the prohibition by invalidating any citation issued under an illegal contract.

“(b) A local authority that contracts for the administration and enforcement of a photographic traffic signal enforcement system may not agree to pay the contractor a specified percentage of, or dollar amount from, each civil penalty collected,” the law states. “A local authority may not impose a civil penalty under this chapter on the owner of a motor vehicle if the local authority violates subsection (b).”

So far the College Station cameras have caused an eleven percent increase in collisions. In response, the city will add more cameras according to a pre-established plan known as Phase 2.

“Hey guys . . . I was thinking if Phase 1 of our red light camera project isn’t successful, we could go to Phase 2,” College Station Mayor Ben White wrote in a May 2008 email obtained by Ash.

College Station is not alone in ignoring state prohibitions on per-ticket compensation. More than fifty California jurisdictions use cost neutrality contracts declared illegal by an appellate court in Orange County, but cities have successfully lobbied courts to keep these decisions unpublished which prevents them from being cited in a court proceeding for any purpose.

Maryland cities likewise have flouted the state prohibition on per-ticket compensation for contractors that operate photo enforcement programs by claiming that the contractors are not “operating” the program. In Virginia, the city of Fairfax adopted a cost neutral contract with Redflex in violation of state law.

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 15 comments

RichardD on Mar 17, 2009
@ tesla deathwatcher : Here are the facts: 1. The red light camera cases decided in the appellate division rely on general principles of law, not particular circumstances. E.g. the nature of contingent fee contracts, how to interpret the warning fee, etc. 2. Your statement that it "doesn't matter" whether the decision is published or not is contrary to what the cities themselves argued in Supreme Court and Court of Appeal filings demanding red light camera decisions be unpublished, or else the world as we know it will come to an end. 3. The Court of Appeal ordered the Fischetti red light camera decision published. Then the Supreme Court unpublished it in 2009. The same Supreme Court in 2005 declined to overturn (i.e., upheld) an identical decision involving the same defendant. 4. Thomas Fischetti had to argue the exact same case four times because his case was unpublished in 2005. It's an abuse of the state's power to put a private citizen through that wringer. I suppose as a lawyer it would be bad for your business to eliminate redundancy in the system. copies of the decision here So if it isn't a conspiracy -- it's just the ego of the Court of Appeal/Supreme Court not wanting the little courts to make any law -- then the guys in the fancier robes are derlict in their duty by not taking one of these cases and making statewide precedent.

Like Reply
K5LOT on Mar 25, 2009

IN TEXAS A PEACE OFFICER MUST VIEW THE VIOLATION HE CITES FOR IT TO BE VALID HOW THIS SCAM IS FLYING IS BEYOUNG ME RED LITE CAMERAS ARE ILLEGAL

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Chuck Norton And guys are having wide spread issues with the 10 speed transmission with the HP numbers out of the factory......
Zerofoo "Hyundais just got better and better during the 1990s, though, and memories of those shoddy Excels faded."Never. A friend had an early 90s Hyundai Excel as his college beater. One day he decided that the last tank of gas he bought was worth more than the car. He drove it to empty and then he and his fraternity brothers pushed it into the woods and left it there.
Kwik_Shift There are no new Renegades for sale within my geographic circle of up to 85 kms. Looks like the artificial shortage game. They bring one in, 10 buyers line up for it, $10,000 over MSRP. Yeah. Like with a lot of new cars.
Ribbedroof In Oklahoma, no less!
Ribbedroof Have one in the shop for minor front collision repairs right now,I've seen more of these in the comments than in the 30 years I've been in collision repair.