#Law

The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled on January 24 that officers who received speed camera tickets while driving police cars on duty must pay the $40 fine. Montgomery County Officers Dean Cates, Randy Kucsan, Bill Tran, and Dana Way protested after their department reissued citations in their names in 2008. They were found guilty in district court, but a circuit court judge dismissed the charges on the grounds that the officers were denied their due process rights. The state appealed, hoping the court would rule that police officers are not entitled to due process before liability for a speed camera ticket is transferred.

Under county policy, speed camera tickets are re-issued to the policemen, paramedics and firemen who were behind the wheel of police cars, ambulances and fire trucks if the emergency lights on the vehicles were not visibly activated in the photograph. The officers complained that their sergeant would ask them weeks or months after an alleged offense to explain why they were speeding.

In the face on an onslaught by the insurance and traffic camera lobbyists to convince the public that red light cameras and speed cameras save lives, state lawmakers around the country are fighting back. Representatives in Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Washington and Virginia from both the Democratic and Republican parties have noted the lack of effectiveness of automated ticketing machines in their respective states and have proposed severe restrictions or outright bans on their use. Later today, the Virginia House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee will discuss legislation that places a moratorium on further red light camera deployment in the commonwealth.

“No locality shall implement or expand a traffic light signal violation monitoring system on or after July 1, 2011,” House Bill 2327 states.

The North Carolina Appeals on Monday exonerated the owners of the red light camera that killed a twenty-four-year-old. The heavy device had fallen onto the Ford Mustang in which Elizabeth May was a passenger on May 17, 2007. May’s family sued the city of Fayetteville, where the camera was located, and Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), the for-profit company that owns and operates the red light camera program.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety spent all of yesterday touting its report on the effectiveness on red light cameras as if it were the most “comprehensive” study available on the topic. The group emphasized the effects cameras would have had on one hundred of America’s largest cities, but the report itself only looked at accident numbers in fourteen out of the 500 jurisdictions that have active photo ticketing programs. Industry researchers did not even know how many red light cameras were in use in the locations studied.

“Attempts were made to obtain historical information on the number of red light cameras in the study cities, but information on the scope of red light programs could not be obtained for many of the cities,” the IIHS study explained (page 9).

Residents in four cities in Washington state may opt for a ballot vote to ban the use of red light cameras and speed cameras. This week activists launched a coordinated effort to place the future of photo enforcement to a vote of the people in Bellingham, Longview, Monroe and Wenatchee. Each local group is following the battle plan established in Mukilteo where 71 percent of voters last year ousted automated enforcement.

The US Court of Appeal for the Eighth Circuit on Monday overturned the sentence of a man convicted based on questionable testimony about a traffic stop. Despite clear evidence that a police officer contradicted himself regarding the reason he pulled over Ronald Prokupek on February 29, 2008, a magistrate in Nebraska and a federal district court judge still found him guilty. The three-judge appellate panel strongly disagreed, noting the rarity of the situation where it was forced to declare the lower court judges guilty of “clear error” in their decisions.

The accuracy of the speed cameras deployed by Forest Heights on Indian Head Highway (State Highway 210) has been questioned by local residents were claiming innocent drivers were being ticketed. Citation photos appear to show many cases that speed cameras in Forest Heights cited vehicles for speeds far in excess of the speeds the citation images indicate.

First, Forest Height’s speed cameras are a proprietary design by Optotraffic, a division of Sigma Space Corporation. These cameras are neither radar (like most cameras used in Montgomery County) nor are they exactly like traditional police LIDAR. Technical specifications for Optotraffic’s cameras can be viewed here.

To simplify it, Optotraffic’s cameras work by taking two laser sensors into each lane of traffic. The device “records the time when each sensor detected the object.” The speed is then calculated as “Measured Speed = Distance/Time.” If a vehicle is determined to be exceeding a predefined threshold speed, a short distance/period of time later the device snaps two photos a fraction of a second apart.

So why would someone think the devices are inaccurate? Well, because many people have gotten tickets from Forest Heights for speeds they know they were not traveling at. Some of them performed their own distance/time calculations from the citation images which produced an extremely different speed than what they were cited for.

Unable to verify the accuracy of certain speed camera readings, the government of Alberta, Canada announced Monday that it would issue full refunds to motorists. Doubt surrounds speeding citations issued from any of the forty-seven red light camera intersections in the city of Edmonton under a program known as “speed on green.” The refunds cover automated tickets mailed between November 2009 and January 14, 2011.

“This is the right action to take,” Minister of Justice and Attorney General Alison Redford said in a statement. “Our first concern is the fair administration of justice, and we cannot proceed with legal action when there is doubt about the accuracy of the city’s speed on green ticket technology.”

The Tennessee General Assembly, which in past sessions has endorsed the use of speed cameras and red light cameras, is preparing once more to either expand or restrict their use. Bills introduced earlier this month provide the foundation for action that frequently takes a different turn after committee consideration.

Lobbyists for municipalities that use automated ticketing machines have a strong hold over the General Assembly and its committees. In 2008, municipalities joined forces with the camera industry to push through a measure authorizing photo ticketing. To deal with vocal opponents to the idea, then-state Senator Tim Burchett (R-Knoxville) drafted the bill in such a way that its wording appeared to be a ban on cameras. Similarly, attempts at placing limitations on camera use last year were watered down in the committee process to the point where the remaining “limits” merely reflected existing practices.

The city council in Murrieta, California voted Tuesday to expand red light camera ticketing, and residents are not happy. Officials approved a three-year photo ticketing contract extension with American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and directed the private company to set up 24-hour video surveillance at each intersection. Local activists want to force a referendum onto the ballot to let residents decide whether those devices should be unplugged.

“I’m just so fed up with this,” Diana Serafin told TheNewspaper in an interview. “It’s the $500 fine and big brother watching you. To make an intersection safe, you need longer yellows and a longer all-red period. The city says they want the intersection safe, but cameras cause more rear end accidents. So I’m fighting back.”

Red light cameras in League City, Texas have failed to reduce accidents according to preliminary data provided by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Since October 2009, the Australian firm Redflex Traffic Systems has issued citations at three intersections along FM 518. Local activist Byron Schirmbeck analyzed TxDOT reports and found the number of accidents at these locations increased after camera installation. In November, Schirmbeck led the November successful referendum effort twenty miles away in Baytown where voters rejected the use of automated ticketing machines.

The residents of six cities with a combined population of over 2.7 million voted last year to outlaw the use of automated ticketing machines on their streets. The photo enforcement industry is now working overtime to make up for lost ground by expanding operations into states where neither red light cameras nor speed cameras have been well received. Lobbyists are hopeful that Indiana could be the next state to reconsider.

California courts continue to find the evidence provided by photo enforcement citations to be lacking. In both Orange, and San Mateo Counties, appellate division judges found the images presented in court by private vendors to be inadmissible hearsay. Late last month, Kern County joined the growing number of jurisdictions troubled by the quality of traffic camera evidence packages.