[chumley]

I really want someone to explain to me why they care at all if there are cameras enforcing the law instead of cops.

I see your question as the same argument that others use in different cases:

Why do you care if we can wiretap terrorists without a warrant? If you're not a terrorist, don't worry about it.
Why do you care if we can demand suspected illegal immigrants provide proof of citizenship? Even if you "look" hispanic, if you're a citizen, don't worry about it.
Why do you care if cameras enforce the law? Don't speed or run red lights and don't worry about it.

Mistakes happen. People can be falsely accused of something. That's why we have a legal system that provides rights to the defendant. Law enforcement uses many tools to solve crimes. As you point out, many of those tools are from profit-driven companies. (Not just labs, but the manufacturers of radar guns or breathalyzers, for example). But they are tools that are used to corroborate evidence against the defendant. And in many cases, those tools/labs/etc. and their procedures are scrutinized in court.

Photo traffic enforcement removes the trained law enforcement officer altogether. In its place, there's a camera and some private-industry employee working on behalf of the state. If the officer was still in the mix, and he used the camera as a tool to gather evidence against you, I'd be less bothered by it. But there's no witnessing officer involved anymore.

If I ever get caught by one of the cameras, I'd like to go to court and ask whomever signed the ticket to describe the physical appearance of the driver of the vehicle. Height, weight, eye color, hair color, etc.

Because that photo is definitely a good piece of evidence against somebody, but there's a lot of people whose faces look similar enough that there could be a mistake made. A face-shot shouldn't be definitive evidence alone. A car registered in the name of the person whose photo resembles the face of the driver? More convincing evidence. Add in a sworn officer as a witness and you've got a solid case.

In the case of a simple traffic citation ... big whoop. Somebody might wrongly be out $200. But its a dangerous legal precedent, and I'm not comfortable with it.

[hikeaz]

I really want someone to explain to me why they care at all if there are cameras enforcing the law instead of cops.

If this is not a rhetorical question read on......

Just that pesky thing called the Constitution is all..... "right to meet and cross-examine your accuser".... "innocent until PROVEN guilty"..........."unreasonable search (surveillance).... "probable cause"......
Need more? I've got 'em......

Or peruse our Constitution and the Bill of Rights...... Specifically the 4th, 5th and 8th amendments. There's a reason (or reasonS) that the OUR Constitution differs from the one of our former oppressors....
US Constitution >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
BOR >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[azbackpackr]

I suspect the cameras cost more money than they earned, and that is the real reason they are going away. The state is looking to save money. Which also means fewer DPS traffic enforcement officers. The municipalities are hurting too, so they are unlikely to add more officers.

I wonder, however, if officers can easily "earn" their pay by writing a lot of tickets, so that they become money-making employees, rather than draining the city or state budget. Some of you undoubtedly know the answer to that one. If traffic officers can make more money in traffic fines for a town than it costs to keep them on the payroll, why not have a lot more traffic officers?

[hippiepunkpirate]

Here's my problem with the cameras:

I was ticketed by a camera on the I-17 traveling southbound near Indian School Road. There are six lanes of traffic each direction at that location, I believe. The camera was placed just after the speed limit changes from 65 to 55. I did not see the speed limit change. I'm not entirely sure why I missed the change, but it's possible there was a semi between me and the speed limit sign, or with driving in six lanes of traffic perhaps I was preoccupied with somebody trying to cut me off, riding my pumpkin, something of that sort. Regardless, I was doing 66 when I got my picture taken, and I thought I was going the speed limit dead on. If a cop would have stopped me, it would have been a warning. Speeding tickets should not be given merely on quantitative reasoning, because there are qualitative factors that alter the situation, and only a human being can judge the qualitative factors.

[Jim_H]

Here's my problem with the cameras:

I was ticketed by a camera on the I-17 traveling southbound near Indian School Road. There are six lanes of traffic each direction at that location, I believe. The camera was placed just after the speed limit changes from 65 to 55. I did not see the speed limit change. I'm not entirely sure why I missed the change, but it's possible there was a semi between me and the speed limit sign, or with driving in six lanes of traffic perhaps I was preoccupied with somebody trying to cut me off, riding my pumpkin, something of that sort. Regardless, I was doing 66 when I got my picture taken, and I thought I was going the speed limit dead on. If a cop would have stopped me, it would have been a warning. Speeding tickets should not be given merely on quantitative reasoning, because there are qualitative factors that alter the situation, and only a human being can judge the qualitative factors.

I hope you don't pay that, but go to court over it. Odds are, no one from Redflex will show up and you'll have it dismissed.

[chumley]

"right to meet and cross-examine your accuser"

The Constitution only guarantees this right in a criminal case. Most traffic violations (all photo ones) are civil cases which do not afford this right.

Now we can discuss when and why traffic violations changed from being criminal misdemeanors to civil violations. Because the history on that would be fun.

[big_load]

Most traffic violations (all photo ones) are civil cases which do not afford this right.

This distinction is important and from what I can tell has been carefully incorporated into how AZ deals with it. There are potential complications, though. NJ (and I assume AZ) has thresholds where a traffic violation goes criminal, either due to a number of accumulated violations or the severity of a particular one.

[chumley]

A long time ago, in my youth.... I was cited on at least 3 occasions for a speed which could be classified as "criminal speeding" (2x in AZ, 1x in CO). All three times, despite "89 in a 55" type of speeds, the officer cited me with a civil penalty rather than the criminal variety. In my experience, it was up to the discretion of the officer involved. I suspect that there are some thresholds or situations that remove the discretion and require a criminal citation.

[hikeaz]

"right to meet and cross-examine your accuser"

The Constitution only guarantees this right in a criminal case. Most traffic violations (all photo ones) are civil cases which do not afford this right.

Now we can discuss when and why traffic violations changed from being criminal misdemeanors to civil violations. Because the history on that would be fun.

Are you certain?

From http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/j ... Rights.asp




Civil Traffic Defendants

You also have the following rights:
The right to have a civil traffic hearing before a justice of the peace or a civil traffic hearing officer.
The right to be represented by counsel at the hearing. If you choose to be represented by counsel you must notify the court in writing at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing date, otherwise you waive your right to be represented by an attorney. The court does not appoint attorneys for civil traffic violations.
The right to question witnesses testifying against you and cross-examine them as to the truthfulness of their testimony.
The right to present evidence on your behalf and the right to have subpoenas issued by the court at no cost to you to compel the attendance of witnesses.
The right to appeal the outcome of the civil traffic hearing. There is however, no right to appeal a judgment entered by default as a result of your failure to appear.



Defendants with Misdemeanor or Criminal Traffic violations
You also have the following rights:
The right to a trial before a justice of the peace, and in some cases, before a jury.
The right to be represented by an attorney at all stages of the case. In some cases, if you are unable to pay for an attorney, the court may appoint an attorney for you. You will have to provide evidence that you are indigent or are unable to afford an attorney. The court may require that you contribute a reasonable amount towards attorney fees.
The right to confront witnesses and cross-examine them as to the truthfulness of their testimony.
The right to have subpoenas issued by the court at no cost to you to compel the attendance of witnesses.
The right to remain silent and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The right to appeal. There is no right to appeal a guilty plea.

[Jim_H]

AZDPS is involved, no more, shortly.

[chumley]

Are you certain?

Yes. I'm quite certain.

When I said "The Constitution", I meant the US Constitution:

Amendment #6

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know about the state law on that. I'm happy to know that Arizona goes above and beyond... (still not sure how anybody can question a camera though).

[hikeaz]

Are you certain?

Yes. I'm quite certain.

When I said "The Constitution", I meant the US Constitution:

Thanks for the info. I didn't know about the state law on that. I'm happy to know that Arizona goes above and beyond... (still not sure how anybody can question a camera though).

This is what you wrote

The Constitution only guarantees this right in a criminal case. Most traffic violations (all photo ones) are civil cases which do not afford this right.

.

The question I replied to was regarding what is wrong with cameras 'enforcing' the laws vs. a cop.
With even simple research, one can find thousands of mistaken photo tickets that were issued, some right here in this thread. (Yes, quite a few more may have paid - but remember, some of THOSE may have been errors that the folks paid anyway). Speaking of that...... why do they care the percentage of tickets that are paid, if it's 'all about safety'?
There's also the issue of unreasonable search, as although you receive a snapshot, there is actually a movie camera taking rolling video all day and night. Where is the 'reasonable suspicion'' of a crime being committed?

Redflex and their counterparts are for profit, so their motive is obvious. All over the country, most recently in PV, they were found to have reduced the yellow light duration in order to increase revenue at intersections where they installed red light cameras. They are so immoral that they reduced them to BELOW the NHTSA guidelines. There are myriad studies proving that collisions actually INCREASE at most redlight-camera-controlled intersections vs. before the camera. Our cities are so money-hungry that they let Redflex, et al, have the 'key to the safe' by allowing them to control yellow light durations (as long as the cities get their cut). All the while, in spite of the mounting evidence of a reduction in safety at these intersections, they all, to a man, say "red light cameras save lives". Personally, I'm insulted that they think that I am dense enough to believe their drivel.

Whether guaranteed by the US Constitution or our State, County or local laws, it is always good to face your accuser, hear the evidence and impeach testimony where applicable.

As this is a Hike ARIZONA forum and the thread title is Redflex AZDPS corruption it seems that what Az. does in these cases would be the most meaningful to folks reading this thread.
I suppose that out-of-state folks may want to start a thread about THEIR state, at least insomuch as some states may have different rights/laws.

[big_load]

As this is a Hike ARIZONA forum and the thread title is Redflex AZDPS corruption it seems that what Az. does in these cases would be the most meaningful to folks reading this thread.
I suppose that out-of-state folks may want to start a thread about THEIR state, at least insomuch as some states may have different rights/laws.

AZ is considered the leader in this field and other states are not only patterning themselves after AZ, but using Redflex as their vendor of choice precisely because of its demonstrated performance in AZ.

Edit: Apart from noting their spread to other states, my comments have been primarily about Redflex operations in AZ. Perhaps that doesn't seem clear, although in most instances I mentioned particular roads, etc.

[Jim_H]

As this is a Hike ARIZONA forum and the thread title is Redflex AZDPS corruption it seems that what Az. does in these cases would be the most meaningful to folks reading this thread.
I suppose that out-of-state folks may want to start a thread about THEIR state, at least insomuch as some states may have different rights/laws.

AZ is considered the leader in this field and other states are not only patterning themselves after AZ, but using Redflex as their vendor of choice precisely because of its demonstrated performance in AZ.

People need to start to get involved with their governments and vote against their representatives that vote to implement these devices. Citizens in other states would also be wise to have a referendum like we will to block any camera enforcement of traffic laws.

[chumley]

I was happy to see that among the new laws that just passed (in addition to getting rid of the state contract for cameras on state highways) is one that requires yellow lights to be timed at least 3-seconds in any intersection that has photo enforcement.

[fotogirl53]

I know that this is slightly off topic, but all bike riders should be aware that if they receive a ticket for a traffic violation while on their bike, the courts and the car insurance companies will treat it just like a violation while driving a car. This happened to my 22 year old son in Tucson for failing to stop completely at a stop sign. He received 3 points on his driver's license and his car insurance went up an ungodly amount! Too bad he works on Saturdays and couldn't get time off work to go to traffic school.

[Jim_H]

I know that this is slightly off topic, but all bike riders should be aware that if they receive a ticket for a traffic violation while on their bike, the courts and the car insurance companies will treat it just like a violation while driving a car. This happened to my 22 year old son in Tucson for failing to stop completely at a stop sign. He received 3 points on his driver's license and his car insurance went up an ungodly amount! Too bad he works on Saturdays and couldn't get time off work to go to traffic school.

Thats too bad he got nailed for a minor infraction like that when just today on my way to Elden I came upon two college aged girls trying to see if I would run them over. I was going north on Lone Tree and had my signal on to turn right onto the road the prison is on by the New Frontier when they decided to dart in front of me going the wrong way into my lane. I think we both know it isn't uncommon to spot bicyclist going the wrong way up a one way street.

[hikeaz]

I was happy to see that among the new laws that just passed (in addition to getting rid of the state contract for cameras on state highways) is one that requires yellow lights to be timed at least 3-seconds in any intersection that has photo enforcement.

Sounds good at the get-go, but the old thumb-rule was one second for every 10 mph of posted speed. (i.e. 4.5 seconds in a 45 mph zone). Of course, it USED to be about saving lives and increasing safety - now it's about good ol greenbacks. We all know that longer yellows have been proven to reduce side impact wrecks (the most deadly kind) at intersections.


According to the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) and Redflex Traffic Systems, a stringent review process guarantees the accuracy of every citation issued under the statewide photo radar program introduced last year. Evidence obtained this week from a confidential Redflex ticket processing manual, however, suggests that the state police and its Australian contractor may be misleading the public with such claims. "Redflex employees under our contract review the civil queue," DPS Lieutenant Jeff King explained in a written presentation on the photo ticketing program. "If a driver can be identified based on comparisons of the license description and 'flash photo,' they accept the violation and a Notice of Violation is automatically printed and mailed. If photo quality is poor or face is blocked, etc., it will be rejected and placed in dormancy." (Typical polotico rhetoric)

This public statement is directly contradicted by the actual procedure described in the Redflex Procedural Manual for the Department of Public Safety, a document dated April 21, 2009 and obtained by the group CameraFraud.com. Under the heading 'Special Notes,' the manual outlines procedures designed to make it possible to issue tickets even when the facial photos are unclear. "Do not reject any incidents for face issues if we can capture the plate image, send to batch," the manual states. "If you can capture the plate image and not the face image, do not reject -- send to batch." The next instruction suggests if more than half of the face is obstructed and the driver "would not be recognizable in person," then the employee should reject the photo. It is important to note the distinction between having a facial photo for the citation and having a correctly identified facial photo.
Redflex is not penalized in any way for accusing the wrong person of an offense. If there is a mismatch between the sex of the driver photographed and the DMV record of the person to be accused of the violation, the Redflex manual says "Issue citation? YES."
Likewise with cases that involve an obvious age mismatch and cases where, for example, the registered vehicle is a Dodge but the violation photograph shows a Ford. "If you have a gender mismatch, check the white box in the 'More' screen to see if there is another registered owner info that matches the gender," the Redflex manual explains. "If there is registered owner info that matches the driver's gender, add that info. If not, mark corporate/incomplete and leave any and all driver's license and date of birth info." In other words, instead of automatically rejecting all tickets with obviously incorrect information -- as the DPS public statements indicate is the correct procedure -- the system is designed so that Redflex sends incomplete tickets to DPS in the hopes that the agency will approve the citation regardless. It is obvious that Redflex, which is compensated on a per-ticket basis, wants to see DPS allow as many tickets as possible to be mailed to vehicle owners.

The concern for maximizing ticket volume is found everywhere in the manual; the word 'safety' is never mentioned. This matches statements made by the company to investors. "High-performance cameras increase prosecution rates and revenue streams," Redflex CEO Graham Davie explained at an Australian shareholder meeting on November 30, 2006. In statements to the press, Redflex has boasted that before any citation is forwarded to DPS, multiple human employees carefully examine the evidence to ensure it is a clear and unquestionable violation. Contract provision 8.10.2 requires "a second employee to review all violation images to ensure no misread registration plates will result in faulty citations."

If the Advanced Quality Assurance third-level review process mentioned in Redflex sales material and contracts actually takes place, it is not described in the work flow chart described in the manual.

[jeffmacewen]

Sorry guys: NO SALE. I wish someone would just say that they hate finally getting busted for speeding. I would admire that kind of honesty and even empathize with it. Oh well, to each his or her own opinion...

[azbackpackr]

Ok, I hate speeding tickets, so I don't speed. Pretty simple.