TheNewspaper.Com: Front Page

top headlines:

Thursday, May 17, 2012
Texas Judge Strikes Down Red Light Camera Referendum

A Calhoun County, Texas judge on Monday ruled that voters were prohibited from having a say in whether a foreign company can issue red light camera tickets in the city of Port Lavaca because the photo enforcement program's primary purpose is revenue generation.
   "Because city of Port Lavaca Ordinance S-1-08... implicates and involves the city's budget and appropriates money for capital expenditures, it is not subject to the power of referendum as set forth in Article 5 Section 5.03 of the Port Lavaca City Charter," Judge Joseph D. Kelly ruled. "Because [the ordinance] is not subject to the power of initiative or referendum, any petition for referendum seeking to repeal such ordinance is invalid, and the city council of the city of Port Lavaca is without legal authority to place it before the electorate for consideration."
   Judge Kelly issued his final summary judgment after hearing the argument presented by the Texas Traffic Safety Coalition, which sued Port Lavaca to the camera program's survival. Port Lavaca also supports the camera program. The Texas Traffic Safety Coalition is a front group for Redflex Traffic Systems, the Australian company that operates cameras on the city's behalf.
   In filings with the Texas Secretary of State, the Texas Traffic Safety Coalition reported it was run by David Goldenberg, Gregory Goldner and David Smolensky. All three are senior staff for Resolute Consulting, a public relations firm based in Chicago, Illinois that was hired by Redflex to create the appearance that the program had "grassroots" support. The front group's lawyers argued to Judge Kelly that the red light camera ordinance clearly implicated money.
   "Because repeal of the ordinance would greatly affect the city's budget, it is not the proper subject of referendum," attorney Matthew R. Beatty wrote on behalf of the Redflex-funded group. "In the event the ordinance was repealed as directed by the petition (either by reconsideration of the city council or by ballot), the city would be forced to breach its contract with Redflex resulting in significant legal liability greatly exceeding $1,000,000. Funding for that liability... would come directly from the city's budget handcuffing its ability to meet other budgetary obligations and putting the city in a perilous financial condition."
   Port Lavaca's attorney did not dispute the front group's argument. Instead, it asked for the judge to proceed to trial on the issue. Judge Kelly, who will retire on January 1, saw no point in bringing the issue to trial.
   The organizers of the anti-camera petition, who were not given a say in the court proceedings, told TheNewspaper that they will continue the fight until residents have a chance to decide the fate of the automated ticketing machines.
   A copy of the decision is available in a 75k PDF file at the source link below.
Source:

Texas Traffic Safety Coalition v. Port Lavaca (Calhoun County, Texas District Court, 5/14/2012)

Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Oklahoma Speed Trap Town Cheats Motorists, Refuses Refunds

Bernice, Oklahoma trustees voted Monday not to refund illegally collected speeding ticket fines. The notorious Northeast speed trap town of just 500 residents was busted last month by the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector for charging up to $545 for a single traffic ticket when it could only legally collect $50.
   Since January, Bernice has had its own town police force. Prior to that, Bernice paid $5500 per month for contract deputies from the Delaware County Sheriff's Office to set up ticketing operations. As reported on the National Motorist Association's National Speed Trap Exchange, these take place most frequently on the stretch of Highway 85A that passes through the town where the speed limit suddenly drops from 55 MPH to 45.
   Under Oklahoma law, tickets issued under a municipal ordinance cannot exceed $50 unless the jurisdiction follows a strict set of rules regarding the publication of a code of ordinances. The auditor found the town failed to follow these rules and has not properly published its ordinances since 1977. Bernice collected $300,253 from citations issued between January 2006 and July 2011, including $106,308 in excess of $50.
   "It is arguable that the town of Bernice's failure to publish the 2007 amendments to its fine schedule would provide a potential defense to those charged the 2007 fine amounts," wrote David E. Jones, attorney for the town. "However, even assuming, arguendo, that the 2007 fine schedule did not follow the strict technical requirements for publication, the public clearly had constructive notice of the existence of the Bernice Penal Code and, at the very least, the fine schedule adopted in 2005."
   The auditor responded that the town board's publication of a fine and fee schedule in the Grove Sun newspaper in 2011 was inadequate because the town still has not published the actual text of the ordinances themselves.
   The auditor also raised questions about the way Bernice spent the money it collected. In 2000, the town paid Bill's Trucking $4100 for a 1992 Dodge W30 CB truck and $13,110 for a 1999 Ford F350 in 2007. Bernice Mayor Bill Raven owns Bill's Trucking. In what King labeled an "oversight," Bill's Trucking was never billed for the annual occupation tax the town charges in 2010 or 2011.
   "Because of the obvious appearance of a conflict, it is never a preferred practice for even smalltown officials to do business with the municipality that they are serving," state auditor Gary A. Jones wrote. "Raven's business should have been billed for the occupational tax in 2010 and 2011 as all other businesses were. As the long-time mayor, it is reasonable to conclude that he should have known that he had not been billed and taken action to pay the fees."

Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Tennessee: Federal Lawsuit Takes on Automated Justice

A group of motorists have launched a challenge to the Bluff City, Tennessee speed camera program. The class action suit was transferred to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee earlier this month. It alleges that not only is the ticketing automated but the adjudication process is as well.
   "Defendant Bluff City virtually lends its municipal authority to [American] Traffic Solutions, paying little or no other significant role in the operation of the speeding enforcement cameras other than reaping the benefit of the fines," attorney Robert L. King wrote in the original complaint. "Defendant's photo enforcement systems represent a mockery of justice and due process in the legal forum in which most Tennesseans come into contact with the state's court system."
   Ticket recipients are told to mail their payments to the "Bluff City, TN, Photo Safety Program, PO Box 742503, Cincinnati OH." This Ohio office is operated by American Traffic Solutions (ATS), an Arizona corporation whose largest single shareholder is the investment bank Goldman Sachs. The suit claims that the program's true goal must be generating revenue because the appeals process leaves no room for justice.
   "Citations sent out by the defendants indicated that the alleged offender who pays the ticket is admitting guilt or liability," King wrote. "This untrue statement and misrepresentation of the law in Tennessee forced alleged offenders who did accept that they were guilty into making court appearances to protest their tickets rather than admit guilt. Many of these plaintiffs were forced to miss work and travel great distances to contest tickets in Bluff City only to find no court in session."
   Salem, Virginia resident Jerry R. Letterman found this out the hard way after ATS mailed him a ticket stating his car was photographed in April 2010. He later received a formal notice to appear.
   "You have failed to respond in a timely manner to the automated camera notice of violation listed above issued to the vehicle registered in your name," the citation stated. "You must appear in court located at 4391 Bluff City Highway, Bluff City, TN 37618 on December 14, 2010 at 2:30pm."
   When he traveled to Bluff City to fight it, the hearing was canceled without notice because no prosecutor showed up. He received no announcement of a new court date. Letterman later received a "notice of determination" purportedly from the Bluff City Court saying he had been found guilty on December 13, 2010 -- the day before the scheduled hearing that never took place. Another motorist, North Carolina resident Chester R. Holt, was allegedly convicted and fined $130 on Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 6:57am, when the court was closed.
   "This was not an isolated incident in that many plaintiffs are convicted in Bluff City by electronic lottery rather than an actual hearing and judicial proceeding."
   The lawsuit noted one human intervention in the operation of the program. In recorded conversations, the former Bluff City police chief called Chattanooga Police Captain Susan Blaine's boss in an attempt to convince him to force her to drop the lawsuit.

Monday, May 14, 2012
Federal Courts Split on Forgiving Police Use of GPS Evidence

The US Supreme Court in January laid down the final verdict that police may not install GPS tracking devices on automobiles without the sanction of a warrant signed by an independent magistrate. The issue remains far from settled, however. Two federal district courts last week issued contradictory rulings over whether police could get away with the results of warrantless GPS surveillance conducted prior to the US v. Jones ruling.
   Prosecutors insist officers acting in "good faith" should not have their evidence excluded because their was not obviously illegal before the Supreme Court ruling was handed down. Prosecutors cited last year's Davis v. US high court case to argue the exclusionary rule is meant to deter bad conduct on the part of law enforcement, and that sanction ought not apply when the officers acted in accordance with the laws in effect at the time. In two separate cases, the US District Court for the District of Idaho sided with prosecutors last Monday and the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sided with the defense on Wednesday.
   On October 28, 2011, Idaho State Police detectives placed a GPS tracker on Juan Aquilar's gray 2008 Chevrolet Impala. It was monitored until November 24, 2011. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on December 14, 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation installed a tracker on Harry Katzin's Dodge Caravan. The courts considered whether the evidence gathered from the device could be admitted in court given the Jones ruling.
   "At the time the GPS devices were used in this case, binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit established that the warrantless attachment of GPS devices did not violate the Fourth Amendment," US District Court Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote in the Idaho case. "Thus, law enforcement officers, when they placed the GPS tracker on Mr. Aquilar's car in October and November of 2011, were acting in objectively reasonable reliance on the binding appellate precedent provided by McIver and Pineda-Morales. Accordingly, the exclusionary rule will not be applied here because suppression of the evidence obtained would do nothing to deter police misconduct."
   The federal judge in Pennsylvania came to a different conclusion based on facts that were largely similar. The one distinction is that the Third Circuit, which covers Pennsylvania, had not ruled on the legality of warrantless GPS surveillance. The FBI insisted it acted in good faith reliance on a number of federal cases upholding GPS searches.
   "In this case, at the time the GPS device was placed on the Dodge Caravan there were four circuit courts of appeals that arguably could have supported the government's conduct and one that would not have, meaning that fewer than half of the circuits had even weighed in on the question," US District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter wrote. "If law enforcement is permitted to rely on authority from a minority of other circuits to support the constitutionality of its investigatory practices, where does a district court draw the line when binding precedent later renders those practices unconstitutional? Is law enforcement reliance on a significant minority or, somewhat better, a bare majority of circuits to have addressed the topic enough, or is an overwhelming majority, if not unanimity, required? Does it matter which circuits (or which panels in which circuits) support or condemn the investigatory practice? Does it matter how many circuits have squarely addressed the issue? The difficulty presented by the dilemma ought to be manifest."
   Judge Pratter went on to grant exclusion of the evidence gathered against Katzin without a warrant as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
   "Opening to the government the shelter of the good faith exception in this case would encourage law enforcement to beg forgiveness rather than ask permission in ambiguous situations involving the basic civil rights," Pratter concluded. "In the face of Jones, this the court will not do."
   A copy of both decisions is available in a 280k PDF file at the source link below.
Source:

US v. Katzin and Aquilar (US District Courts, Idaho and ED Pennsylvania, 5/9/2012)

Sunday, May 13, 2012
Italy, Poland: Vigilantes Express Displeasure with Automated Enforcement

Vigilantes spraypainted a newly installed speed cameras in Gallarate, Italy this week. Four cameras located along the Viale Lombardia had lens openings carefully covered in blue paint, Varese News reported.
A speed camera in Rimini, Italy remains inactive after vigilantes destroyed it on April 14. Giornale reported the device located on the Via Emilia in Santarcangelo was taken out, though municipal officials did not realize this for several days.
In Kobylnica, Poland four men expressed their displeasure with photo enforcement by mooning a speed camera, according to Glosu Pomorza. The men stood ready as a motorcycle drove past the camera at 134 km/h (83 MPH) in the 50 km/h (31 MPH) zone.

This is a journal covering motoring issues around the world from a political perspective.

search tips | about us | site map

Subscribe
Receive free email or RSS news updates.

Key Documents
Documents, studies and memos about camera enforcement.

Archives
View previous news items.

Feedback
Contact the editors.

View Main Topics:

Popular Stories

-Missouri Cop Harassment Video

-Photo Enforcement Bans

-Most Popular Stories

Popular Studies

-Red Light Camera Study Roundup

-2007 Virginia DOT: Cameras Increase Injury Accidents

-2005 Washington Post: Accidents Doubled with Cameras

-2004 North Carolina: Red Light Camera Study (Burkey-Obeng)

-Majority Leader Armey Red Light Camera Report

-Longer Yellows Reduce Crashes (TX Transportation Institute)

-HOV/Carpool Lanes Cause Accidents

Since 1999, Washington, D.C. cameras have issued 4,500,103 tickets worth $312 million (as of 5/30/10).