• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge: Town's speeding cameras are '3 Card Monty' scam

jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I have mixed feelings on this.I believe that if people were not speeding or running red lights then they would not be getting fined,so its their own damn fault they got fined. At the same time people should be able to face their accusers. And maybe I watched Robocop movies one too many times but I believe that law enforcement duties should be carried out only by law enforcement not private companies and machines.

Judge: Town's speeding cameras are '3 Card Monty' scam
Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman on Thursday ruled that the village's ordinance violated due process. He issued an injunction barring its enforcement.
There have been numerous legal challenges across the U.S. to red-light camera laws but observers said this is the first ruling they know of striking down a municipality's speeding-camera law.
"Speed-camera cases have been litigated but we have not come across one where a judge has said, 'Stop this,'" attorney Mike Allen, whose firm brought the case, told MSN News on Friday. "I think it's going to touch off a firestorm around the country. I really do."
Calls and emails by MSN News to Elmwood Place village officials and police Chief William Peskin were not immediately returned on Friday. Allen said he expects the village to appeal.
Ruehlman sprinkled colorful language in his ruling striking down Elmwood's "automated speed enforcement program," which is carried out by Optotraffic, a Lanham, Md.-based company, under a contract with the village. Optotraffic gets a 40 percent cut of the revenues from fines it collects.
The two cameras installed in town reportedly resulted in 6,600 speeding citations — three times the village's population -— at $105 a pop in the first month after enforcement began in September.
The judge, who heard arguments in January, found that the ordinance fails to provide due process to people receiving a notice of fines in the mail. He said the village doesn’t have a sign warning motorists that traffic cameras are in operation, as required by state law.
To challenge the $105 fine, a motorist has to pay $25 for a hearing that is "nothing more than a sham!" the judge wrote. At the hearing, he said, the "witness" for the village testifies from a report produced by the company that owns the speed-monitoring unit. Since the "witness" was not present when the alleged violation occurred, he or she can't be cross-examined, Ruehlman wrote.
 
Last edited:
It's an honesty issue. the radar are set by a company that makes money every time a person is caught speeding, and no one but that company ever tests the machines to make sure they're accurate. It's very easy to reset the radar to give a false reading of higher than the actual speed of the vehicle, and the accused person is sent the fine immediately without even having a way of finding out the name of the person who calibrated the radar, without ever being allowed to send their own experts to test the radar to make sure it's giving an accurate reading. As honesty issues go, when 3,000 people say "no i wasn't speeding" and anonymous (who makes money every time a person is accused of speeding) says "yes you were" It is wildly unlikely that 3,000 people were lying and anonymous was telling the truth.
 
We had a government back in the 90s who instituted "photo-radar" on our provincial highways. The photo-radar was set up in unmarked vans on the side of highways that measured the speed of cars and if speeding it took a pic of the car an license as it passed. It got to the point where accidents were occurring because some drivers were slowing down or slamming on their brakes anytime they saw a van on the side of the road. Eventually, when the government refused to remove them, the people removed the government and installed a government that eliminated the program.

There are similar problems with red-light cameras, where some people are getting rear-ended in intersections when they don't progress through a changing light the way 99% of the driving public normally does because there's a camera there.

The bottom line, in my view, is that there is nothing inherently wrong or right about a particular speed - there is little danger if traffic is smoothly flowing at an advanced speed but if one or more cars are travelling at a speed not consistent or close to those around them, whether too fast or too slow, then you have problems. To determine danger, you need actual law enforcement eyes on the situation. And the judge is right in this respect, almost all traffic "calming" laws are designed to generate revenue for the jurisdiction that institutes them and they have little incentive to reduce a cash cow once the money starts pouring in.
 
all they do is shorten the yellow light to in crease profits.

This is illegal per federal laws and guidelines and results in accidents.

AZ finally got smart and passed laws on min yellow light times to follow Fed DOT standards.

This ended the profits and so ended red light scams.
 
I object to camera tickets but based on different reasoning. The act of speeding or running a red light is a moving violation not a registration violation. Many vehicles are opperated by more than one person. If the owner was not the opperator, then they are being falsely accused. For example, a city bus may be caught speeding, yet the city did not speed, the bus operator did. If the vehicle owner was wise they would go to court and demand that the camera company prove that they were in fact the vehicle operator at the time of the alleged crime. If the camera company fails to do that, then simply sue them civily. Is it not a crime of libel to make false criminal charges? The vehicle owners should then sue the camera company for massive damages, costing the camera company far more than they make from fools that readily pay these tickets. The jury will likely contain many folks that really hate this camera company, thus the awards may be quite large. ;)
 
jamesrage said:
I have mixed feelings on this.I believe that if people were not speeding or running red lights then they would not be getting fined,so its their own damn fault they got fined. At the same time people should be able to face their accusers. And maybe I watched Robocop movies one too many times but I believe that law enforcement duties should be carried out only by law enforcement not private companies and machines.

Judge: Town's speeding cameras are '3 Card Monty' scam
Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman on Thursday ruled that the village's ordinance violated due process. He issued an injunction barring its enforcement.
There have been numerous legal challenges across the U.S. to red-light camera laws but observers said this is the first ruling they know of striking down a municipality's speeding-camera law.
"Speed-camera cases have been litigated but we have not come across one where a judge has said, 'Stop this,'" attorney Mike Allen, whose firm brought the case, told MSN News on Friday. "I think it's going to touch off a firestorm around the country. I really do."
Calls and emails by MSN News to Elmwood Place village officials and police Chief William Peskin were not immediately returned on Friday. Allen said he expects the village to appeal.
Ruehlman sprinkled colorful language in his ruling striking down Elmwood's "automated speed enforcement program," which is carried out by Optotraffic, a Lanham, Md.-based company, under a contract with the village. Optotraffic gets a 40 percent cut of the revenues from fines it collects.
The two cameras installed in town reportedly resulted in 6,600 speeding citations — three times the village's population -— at $105 a pop in the first month after enforcement began in September.
The judge, who heard arguments in January, found that the ordinance fails to provide due process to people receiving a notice of fines in the mail. He said the village doesn’t have a sign warning motorists that traffic cameras are in operation, as required by state law.
To challenge the $105 fine, a motorist has to pay $25 for a hearing that is "nothing more than a sham!" the judge wrote. At the hearing, he said, the "witness" for the village testifies from a report produced by the company that owns the speed-monitoring unit. Since the "witness" was not present when the alleged violation occurred, he or she can't be cross-examined, Ruehlman wrote.
Click to expand...

The two statements in red above are the only problems I have with that kind of enforcement. Once they get that straightened out, they'll be back in business.

I have no problem with independent companies providing that service.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I object to camera tickets but based on different reasoning. The act of speeding or running a red light is a moving violation not a registration violation. Many vehicles are opperated by more than one person. If the owner was not the opperator, then they are being falsely accused. For example, a city bus may be caught speeding, yet the city did not speed, the bus operator did. If the vehicle owner was wise they would go to court and demand that the camera company prove that they were in fact the vehicle operator at the time of the alleged crime. If the camera company fails to do that, then simply sue them civily. Is it not a crime of libel to make false criminal charges? The vehicle owners should then sue the camera company for massive damages, costing the camera company far more than they make from fools that readily pay these tickets. The jury will likely contain many folks that really hate this camera company, thus the awards may be quite large. ;)
Click to expand...

Unless the photographs are taken of the driver, they are not moving violations. They aren't stupid. ;)
 
MaggieD said:
The two statements in red above are the only problems I have with that kind of enforcement. Once they get that straightened out, they'll be back in business.

I have no problem with independent companies providing that service.
Click to expand...

It seems that to be a legal speeding ticket in Ohio that the ticket document must be signed by the issuing officer and presented to the defendent upon the infraction. The ticket must describe the operator, including the ID presented. I can find no provision for exceptions to this rule in Ohio law.

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/traffic/Traffic.pdf
 
MaggieD said:
Unless the photographs are taken of the driver, they are not moving violations. They aren't stupid. ;)
Click to expand...

They have no idea who was driving. They have no face recognition technology. The ticket is issued based on the license plate number of the vehicle and mailed to the address on record for that vehicle registration. If it is not a moving violation then what is the charge?
 
I'd be more inclined to support the cameras if the company making / operating them wasn't getting close to half of the ticket revenue. There is too much incentive for corruption. If the cities purchased them outright and their police departments were the sole operators, I would still hate them, but be more supportive.
 
Why couldn't they get a Company from their Own State? Why does the money have to go to a company in MD. Which BTW is the one State in the entire US that has more Federal Programs than any other state in the Country. They get the most assistance from the Fed.

My thought is if they are going to take a picture then they need to have one as to who the driver is. Just because someone owns the vehicle doesn't mean they are driving it. Yet that's who will receive the ticket in the mail. Example would be someones kid using the car, or a close friend of the family.

Moreover what if one was in an Emergency trying to get their people to the hospital. All a camera does is snap the pic. But if a real Cop is on the scene and discovers there is an emergency. Then one also has an escort to the Hospital. As they will clear the way. Thru intersections and all the way to the hospital.
 
MMC said:
Why couldn't they get a Company from their Own State? Why does the money have to go to a company in MD. Which BTW is the one State in the entire US that has more Federal Programs than any other state in the Country. They get the most assistance from the Fed.

My thought is if they are going to take a picture then they need to have one as to who the driver is. Just because someone owns the vehicle doesn't mean they are driving it. Yet that's who will receive the ticket in the mail. Example would be someones kid using the car, or a close friend of the family.

Moreover what if one was in an Emergency trying to get their people to the hospital. All a camera does is snap the pic. But if a real Cop is on the scene and discovers there is an emergency. Then one also has an escort to the Hospital. As they will clear the way. Thru intersections and all the way to the hospital.
Click to expand...
hell of a solution right there [/s]


our state's constitution requires all traffic fines to be paid over to the public school system
which meant that there was no money available to pay the camera owner/operator; took a single trial to recognize that reality
system dismantled and moved to some other unfortunate state without similar protections
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They have no idea who was driving. They have no face recognition technology. The ticket is issued based on the license plate number of the vehicle and mailed to the address on record for that vehicle registration. If it is not a moving violation then what is the charge?
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that unless there's a picture of the driver? It's not a "point ticket." I do think that most camera tickets include a photo of the driver.
 
MaggieD said:
It's my understanding that unless there's a picture of the driver? It's not a "point ticket." I do think that most camera tickets include a photo of the driver.
Click to expand...

That assumes that the driver is the owner. I have seen traffic court cases where the defense attorney is accompanied by a non-defendent, that sits in the defendent's chair. When the defense attorney asks the arresting officer (the state's witness) if that is who the ticket was issued to, (refering to the person in the defendent's chair), when the officer responds yes - the case is over, dismissed as the non-defendent shows the officer/judge their ID.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That assumes that the driver is the owner. I have seen traffic court cases where the defense attorney is accompanied by a non-defendent, that sits in the defendent's chair. When the defense attorney asks the arresting officer (the state's witness) if that is who the ticket was issued to, (refering to the person in the defendent's chair), when the officer responds yes - the case is over, dismissed as the non-defendent shows the officer/judge their ID.
Click to expand...

That would get the lawyer in a ton of hot water in my state unless the Court and prosecution were informed ahead of time and the Court approved it.
 
Good for the judge!

The redlight cameras are nothing but highway robbery. Speeding cameras might be OK, depending upon how they are administered.

The redlight cameras fine somebody for being in the wrong spot at the wrong millisecond, and there is nothing fair about that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That assumes that the driver is the owner. I have seen traffic court cases where the defense attorney is accompanied by a non-defendent, that sits in the defendent's chair. When the defense attorney asks the arresting officer (the state's witness) if that is who the ticket was issued to, (refering to the person in the defendent's chair), when the officer responds yes - the case is over, dismissed as the non-defendent shows the officer/judge their ID.
Click to expand...

I've "read around" on the internet, and it's hard to find specific information. States are different. It's their purview. The most logical I read is that if the photograph doesn't match the owner, the ticket is dismissed. The owner is then asked who was driving his car that day.

Your tale here? Good luck with that. I could see contempt of court and obstruction of justice if it's discovered. Against the attorney and the fake defendant.
 
Im against red light and speedinf cameras.

They started a red light program in Houston as a revenue booster.

I and many others just refused to pay the fines.

They were taken down eventually.
 
The problem with speeding tickets is that the set speed limits aren't the actual safe speed of movement.
On a rural 4 lane that I travel to work on, the speed limit is set at 65, in some sections and 55 in other sections, with most motorists exceeding those limits by 10 or more mph.
 
I got a red light ticket once. I had stopped in the intersection for a stray dog. Could not get it dismissed because the dog was in front of the car and the camera was behind me. They didn't have video back then. Supposedly now they have video.

My neighbor got one for his daughter's car when her boyfriend ran the red light. He went to the judge and told him who was driving the car and the judge said, and I quote, "You are responsible for the car because it is registered in your name". I wasn't aware of that rule.
 
jamesrage said:
I have mixed feelings on this.I believe that if people were not speeding or running red lights then they would not be getting fined,so its their own damn fault they got fined. At the same time people should be able to face their accusers. And maybe I watched Robocop movies one too many times but I believe that law enforcement duties should be carried out only by law enforcement not private companies and machines.

Judge: Town's speeding cameras are '3 Card Monty' scam
Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman on Thursday ruled that the village's ordinance violated due process. He issued an injunction barring its enforcement.
There have been numerous legal challenges across the U.S. to red-light camera laws but observers said this is the first ruling they know of striking down a municipality's speeding-camera law.
"Speed-camera cases have been litigated but we have not come across one where a judge has said, 'Stop this,'" attorney Mike Allen, whose firm brought the case, told MSN News on Friday. "I think it's going to touch off a firestorm around the country. I really do."
Calls and emails by MSN News to Elmwood Place village officials and police Chief William Peskin were not immediately returned on Friday. Allen said he expects the village to appeal.
Ruehlman sprinkled colorful language in his ruling striking down Elmwood's "automated speed enforcement program," which is carried out by Optotraffic, a Lanham, Md.-based company, under a contract with the village. Optotraffic gets a 40 percent cut of the revenues from fines it collects.
The two cameras installed in town reportedly resulted in 6,600 speeding citations — three times the village's population -— at $105 a pop in the first month after enforcement began in September.
The judge, who heard arguments in January, found that the ordinance fails to provide due process to people receiving a notice of fines in the mail. He said the village doesn’t have a sign warning motorists that traffic cameras are in operation, as required by state law.
To challenge the $105 fine, a motorist has to pay $25 for a hearing that is "nothing more than a sham!" the judge wrote. At the hearing, he said, the "witness" for the village testifies from a report produced by the company that owns the speed-monitoring unit. Since the "witness" was not present when the alleged violation occurred, he or she can't be cross-examined, Ruehlman wrote.
Click to expand...

Well, the intent of these cameras are nothing more than to generate revenue.... I only wish the government(s) that be actually admit it rather than pretend its for safety... They're trying to take as much money from the general public as possible to line their own elitist pockets. What's next? J-walking tickets via camera?

I coated my plates in a super reflective plastic so speeding/red light cameras cant get a usable photo of my plate. I don't even speed or run red lights but sometimes these tyrants who operate these programs change the timers on yellow, or change speed zones just so people DO unintentionally run a light or speed.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Well, the intent of these cameras are nothing more than to generate revenue.... I only wish the government(s) that be actually admit it rather than pretend its for safety... They're trying to take as much money from the general public as possible to line their own elitist pockets. What's next? J-walking tickets via camera?

I coated my plates in a super reflective plastic so speeding/red light cameras cant get a usable photo of my plate. I don't even speed or run red lights but sometimes these tyrants who operate these programs change the timers on yellow, or change speed zones just so people DO unintentionally run a light or speed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and now doesn't Emanuel want to put them up around Chicago schools too? Yet when you heard all the talk about it.....the number one issue cited was public safety. Not that it is meant to draw in revenue. Course with Emanuel he is just trying to figure out a way to create a tragedy until one comes along. ;)
 
MMC said:
Yeah, and now doesn't Emanuel want to put them up around Chicago schools too? Yet when you heard all the talk about it.....the number one issue cited was public safety. Not that it is meant to draw in revenue. Course with Emanuel he is just trying to figure out a way to create a tragedy until one comes along. ;)
Click to expand...

Yep...

Of course it's always about "public safety".... Like the government really cares about people? They want money to keep the machine going so these elitists can live high and mighty off the taxpayer while pretending to give a damn about the average Joe. If these clowns really cared they would let us keep our money...

I'm glad I live in Lake County, not that is much different up here...
 
The stop light cameras in my neighborhood are set up to frustrate the commuters to increase the number of violations after the installation caused the violations to go down to such a low number the company wasn't making enough money. What they do is during the busy times in the morning and afternoon randomly have the lights change after only 2 cars got through a green light. This causes the motorists to get frustrated after waiting through 2 greenlights to run it. It is so bad that I know people that avoid the lights by driving through residential areas rather than get caught up in this ridiculous manipulation.

Anytime crime control becomes a for profit business, you can be sure you will be manipulated into breaking the law if you don't do it on your own. It is time for a Constitutional Amendment saying that for profit crime control, including for profit prisons should be illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom