|Home >Camera Enforcement > Red Light Cameras > Pennsylvania House Keeps Red Light Coverup Legislation|
Florida Considers Red Light Camera Reform
Louisiana Court Of Appeal Approves Anti-Redflex Lawsuit
California Court of Appeal Blocks Red Light Camera Lawsuit
Texas: Judge Rejects Traffic Camera Company Attempt To Block Public Vote
Florida: Appellate Ruling Hits Cities, Traffic Camera Firm
View Main Topics:
Subscribe via RSS or E-Mail
Back To Front Page
12/7/2005Pennsylvania House Keeps Red Light Coverup Legislation
The Pennsylvania House adopts legislation allowing release of red light camera statistics, but not important reports and documents.
The Pennsylvania House approved legislation yesterday that may continue to shield its private red light camera vendor from public and judicial scrutiny. The legislation, approved by a 185-6 vote, repeats a prohibition already signed into law that forbids "written records, reports or facsimiles" from being "discoverable by court order or otherwise." Instead, the new legislation merely allows statistical numbers on camera operations to be released and adds a statement that, "The restrictions set forth in this paragraph are intended to protect the privacy of individuals."
The vague language leaves in place a provision that can be used to shield camera vendor Mulvihill Intelligent Control Systems from release of documents pertaining to the operation of the camera system unrelated to any personal information. The law could simply have required redaction of personal information as a means to protect privacy.
Instead, the original red light camera law was written in such a way as to favor vendor ACS by specifying only obsolete wet film technology could be employed in the camera program. ACS is one of the few companies that still use film, and happened to have donated $135,000 to state and local officials and spent an additional $175,910 on lobbying. ACS also had lost millions in 2001 when a court ordered the release of confidential company memos that proved ACS (then Lockheed Martin IMS) targeted downhill intersections with short yellow times for camera placement. This led a San Diego, California judge to rule evidence produced by the company untrustworthy and inadmissible.
The information shield law specifically prevents any such court oversight of Philadelphia's red light camera program.
Relevant Excerpt from HOUSE BILL No. 1993 Session of 2005
Front Page | Get Updates |
Site Map |
News Archive |
theNewspaper.com: A journal of the politics of driving