Jim Speaks Out!: April 2015

Nope, I'm not trying to start the Cold War up again; the Radical Right is doing a good enough job of that.

What I do want to discuss is the use of, (and the ethics of), automatic traffic enforcement technology.

Before I go on with this topic, I want to make it perfectly clear that neither I, nor any other law abiding citizen, can sanely oppose the just, proper, and legal enforcement of traffic safety laws.

What bothers me, and where I do have issues, is with the use of traffic citations for reasons other than maintaining the public safety. More particularly, I strongly object to the use of a jurisdiction's traffic laws simply as a way to generate revenue.

Back when I first heard of automatic "red light" cameras and tickets, I had serious issues with that concept and it really raised the hair on the back of my neck.

Why?

First of all, I had, (and have), serious issues with the concept of a machine generated summons. Knowing full well how fallible even the best, most well trained and highly conscientious police officers can be, I was, (and still am), especially suspicious of some impersonal machine's decision about my guilt or innocence.
When issued a summons, "notice of violation", or whatever you call it, I (supposedly), have the right to face my accuser. How am I going to do that? Climb to the top of a pole somewhere at the corner of Fifth and Main? Or as Ohio state representative Ron Maag said: “You are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. With red-light cameras, you are guilty until proven innocent. ... You are not able to face your accuser because your accuser is a machine." ¹
In almost all of the cases, the person reviewing the video isn't a police officer. Instead it's usually an employee of the company that has been contracted to install and maintain the equipment. Since the company gets a significant percentage of the fines received, there is a very strong incentive to issue the maximum number of violations possible. And as far as I am concerned, that blows the whole concept of "due process" right out of the water.
Even if the person reviewing the video and issuing the citations is an actual police officer, how do I, (or how can he), know that what he is seeing is the actual violation? In other words, how can they absolutely guarantee that the sensor that triggered the camera, and the camera recording the supposed violation, are pointing at the same thing?
How can I tell if the motives are just and proper, or are simply a way to increase revenue?
(i.e. Is it a "real" violation, or just a revenue-grubbing ambush?)

Apparently I am not alone in my questions about the legitimacy and legality of automated traffic enforcement cameras.

The April 4th issue of The Palm Beach Post ran a story about a judge in Boynton Beach who tossed out some two hundred-odd automated "red light" camera citations, citing serious due-process issues. ²
The same article also mentioned an earlier ruling where an appeals judge in Huntington Beach tossed out several hundred automated tickets, citing the same issues.
Broward County judges tossed twenty four thousand automated ticket citations, worth millions of dollars, claiming that they "broke Florida law." ³
On June 13th, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court vacated the convictions of drivers who received machine generated citations issued before July of 2010, and directed the municipalities to refund all collected fines. ⁴

All across the state, judges are looking at these machine generated summonses with greater care, and they are not hesitating to toss out cases that they feel are tainted - and in many cases they are issuing "standing orders" that automatically dismiss machine generated violations. As a result, many jurisdictions in Florida have abandoned the use of these machines to avoid any additional cost or liability.

It's not just Florida who is looking askance at this technology.

New Jersey's "red light" cameras were squashed and dozens of tickets were thrown out when it was determined that they had not been properly calibrated. ⁵
The state of Ohio banned automated traffic enforcement cameras after it was revealed that municipalities were "overusing them to generate profits." ⁶
In November, 2013, a Missouri appellate court ruled that most of the red-light camera laws in the state were invalid. As a result, Kansas City and other municipalities were forced to suspend their red-light camera ticketing programs. ⁷
The city of St. Peters, Mi., has decided not to renew its contract with RedFlex, the company who sold them their automated traffic enforcement system, effective July 2015. ⁸

The "why" of the mad rush to use automated traffic enforcement equipment isn't hard to come by.

An editorial published in The Palm Beach Post on April 2nd, 2015, accused the companies selling the equipment of "counting on municipalities becoming too addicted to red-light revenues" to ever think of stopping.
The same editorial called "unconscionable" the fact that "[t]he Florida Department of Transportation and state municipalities shortened the yellow light intervals across the state by fractions of a second, resulting in more red-light camera tickets and millions more dollars in fines."
In Ohio, during the legislative debate prior to passing the automated traffic enforcement camera ban, State Representative Alicia Reece was quoted as saying “The village of Elmwood (Place) issued 6,000 tickets in 30 days at $105 a pop [that's $630,000 per month, or potentially $7,500,000 in additional revenue annually!] ... with 40 percent of the revenue, [$3,000,000!], going to a company that is not located in Ohio. Folks don’t even want to go to church because they don’t want to drive through the village." ¹ Ouch! And that's just the revenue from one small village!

We spend hard-earned dollars on the taxes and fees that support our municipalities and their police forces. I think it's time for our law enforcement efforts to be spent actually fighting crime, instead of being dissipated on shameful money-grubbing technologies and techniques.

What say ye?

Jim (JR)