Redflex Corruption

Moderator: HAZ - Moderators

Linked Guides none
Linked Areas none
User avatar
Jim_H
Posts: 4713
Joined: Sep 08 2006 8:14 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Redflex Corruption

Post by Jim_H » Nov 29 2009 12:53 pm

I got a ticket in the mail yesterday. Here is the "evidence" against me. If I were doing 79 in the 65 as claimed, I would have been in the trunk of the car in front of me. I am car #2 behind the truck. A car from Colorado is passing me, and he may have been going 79, but I don't know. If he was, it looks like I got his ticket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH3NTQrE12k

AZDPS and Redflex are clearly lying about the quality control they claim to do, and they have no problems sending a ticket to an innocent victim to help tighten the budget problem and fatten the corporate profits. If they looked at the videos as they claim to do, I never would have gotten this.

Something tells me I am not the first person to whom this has happened. Is anyone interested in starting a class action lawsuit against a company which gathers evidence for the state without a private investigators license, and has profit as its motive behind "law enforcement"?
Nothing more enjoyable than a good hike out of town.

User avatar
big_load
Posts: 4347
Joined: Oct 28 2003 11:20 am
City, State: Andover, NJ

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by big_load » Apr 19 2016 2:33 pm

I guess Scottsdale couldn't go cold turkey. I expect draconian parking enforcement by my next visit.

User avatar
hikeaz
Posts: 1891
Joined: May 13 2002 10:07 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by hikeaz » Apr 19 2016 3:18 pm

chumley wrote:
tyranny
Tyranny is a noun that describes a repressive and arbitrarily cruel regime. Don't accuse your mother of tyranny just because she won't let you play video games all weekend long.

One of the root words of tyranny is the Latin tyrannia which means the "rule of a tyrant" and a tyrant is a "cruel master."

Today, it can mean the repressive regime of a dictator or it can also mean being controlled by something metaphorically harsh like time or work.
tyranny
n a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/tyranny

I hate the concept of photo-enforcement, and I personally think it treads in some very murky legal waters. I also think that to assign words like tyranny to this overreach -- which could easily be fought through due process -- truly cheapens actual tyranny.
:STP:
:M2C:
As usual you are partially accurate.
"a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny
"dominance through threat of punishment and violence" https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/tyranny.

Think that either is in play here? Yep, me too.

This Az. photo surveillance was never voted on by the citizenry - in fact in every instance that I have been able to locate, its institution has been defeated by the citizens when a vote was brought to them.
The tyranny further comes into play in 'our' gub'ment's unwillingness/resistance to being listed on a ballot, in other words "handed down from 'on high''. Nappy rammed this crap down Arizonans throats years ago - funded in great part by Redflex. You-all may remember her - she secured our southern border tight as a drum.

Redflex (more so ATS locally, now) spends millions both legally and illegally to attempt to kill every referendum attempt AND keep its minions in power, in the position to further their money-grab. Locally, Redflex went so far as to pay a shill to masquerade as a citizen's advocate - a former, I believe, DPS bureaucrat. They have no moral boundary. Maybe we should call Saul.

It should be obvious to even the least-informed citizens that this is collusion by the money-grabbers and the gub'ment. Becoming and staying informed is our best bet against being railroaded.

This has been a public service announcement.
Image
kurt

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 6892
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by chumley » Apr 19 2016 3:48 pm

It's good to be informed. There are definitely shady goings on that are worth exposing.

FWIW I don't think that writing traffic tickets is a rigorous condition, nor do I think it constitutes an attempt at dominance, just to highlight the words that you chose not to italicize. But I do think it's completely wrong and totally shady and absolutely worth exposing. Thus, thanks for the PSA.

I also think that many points today are oversold with inflammatory language in order to elicit a strong reaction and be "louder" than the other noisemakers. (And yes, I think that using the word tyranny in this case qualifies).

IMO, perspective is important in order to have a reasoned argument. I personally disregard the ones who yell the loudest when there's little reason for it. Of course that's my choice, and while I don't respond to it, facts show that most people do.

Then again I generally ignore email that has a "high priority" exclamation point. Priority is a value I get to choose, not the person sending the email! :)
Highway to hell

User avatar
CannondaleKid
Posts: 1250
Joined: May 04 2004 8:39 pm
City, State: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by CannondaleKid » Apr 19 2016 7:02 pm

hikeaz wrote:This Az. photo surveillance was never voted on by the citizenry
Hmmm, if it weren't for referendums and propositions, how many times have the citizenry voted on laws?

Let's find out:
The Declaration of Independence? Nope. (voted on by representatives of the citizenry, but not directly)
The US Constitution? Nope. (ditto)
Bill of Rights? Nope. (ditto)
Constitutional Amendments? Nope. (ditto)
Declaring War? Nope. (ditto)
Patriot Act? Nope. (ditto)
Affordable Health Care? Nope. (ditto)
etc., etc., etc......

So why should we expect anything different in this case?
I suppose if we want anything done to our satisfaction, it's time for a referendum.
CannondaleKid

User avatar
JasonCleghorn
Posts: 470
Joined: Nov 11 2014 1:03 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by JasonCleghorn » Apr 20 2016 3:33 pm

chumley wrote:
tyranny
Tyranny is a noun that describes a repressive and arbitrarily cruel regime. Don't accuse your mother of tyranny just because she won't let you play video games all weekend long.

One of the root words of tyranny is the Latin tyrannia which means the "rule of a tyrant" and a tyrant is a "cruel master."

Today, it can mean the repressive regime of a dictator or it can also mean being controlled by something metaphorically harsh like time or work.
tyranny
n a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/tyranny

I hate the concept of photo-enforcement, and I personally think it treads in some very murky legal waters. I also think that to assign words like tyranny to this overreach -- which could easily be fought through due process -- truly cheapens actual tyranny.
:STP:
:M2C:
Agree. Not tyranny. I hate them, but not tyranny.
Follow me on Instagram: hikingjason
"It's not the mountains that we conquer, but ourselves"
"HAZ is not a meet-up group. Unless you're in the IN group, then its a meet-up group"

User avatar
hikeaz
Posts: 1891
Joined: May 13 2002 10:07 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by hikeaz » Apr 26 2016 11:21 am

Missouri House To Give Voters A Say On Red Light Cameras (What a concept)

Posted: 26 Apr 2016 01:17 AM PDT

Missouri House of Representatives last week advanced legislation that would turn the controversial question about what to do with red light cameras over to the people of the Show Me State. The ballot measure introduced by state Representative Bryan Spencer (R-Wentzville) advanced on a voice vote last Wednesday. After fiscal review, the bill is scheduled to receive a final vote in the state House. (Cross you fingers, but you can bet a whole lot of $$ will change hands before the vote)

If passed by the state Senate and signed into law, Spencer's measure would ask voters whether they wish to prohibit cities from making new deals with red light camera or speed camera companies. Jurisdictions that have existing automated ticketing programs would have a year to wind down their contracts and shut the cameras down. As an extra protection, the amended proposal would prohibit the mailing of automated citations.

"Any motorist charged with a traffic violation in this state or any county or municipality of this state shall receive notification, in person, within twenty-four hours of the violation from a law enforcement officer employed by the law enforcement agency issuing the violation," House Bill 1945 states.

The bill excludes parking tickets, open investigations, hit and run cases and "any other situations in which in-person notification is not possible" from the prohibition on mailed traffic tickets. The proposal also explicitly allows the use of automated license plate readers.

A similar bill cleared the Missouri House a year ago by a 140 to 9 vote, but the measure was not taken up in the state Senate. Should the effort make its way through the legislative process this year, a vote on the cameras would take place on November 8.

The ban would have a good shot at securing a majority among voters if the results in St. Charles, Missouri's second largest county, is any indication. Voters there adopted a charter amendment prohibiting automated ticketing machines in 2014. Last November, a court rejected the attempt of the cities of St. Peters, O'Fallon and Lake Saint Louis to nullify the public vote and reinstate their ability to use automated ticketing machines.
(view ruling http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/48/4834.asp ).

Would attempting to sue/reject their consensus of your own voters after they have spoken constitute 'tyranny' or maybe merely attempted tyranny?
kurt

User avatar
hikeaz
Posts: 1891
Joined: May 13 2002 10:07 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by hikeaz » May 17 2016 10:58 am

Another California City Poised To Dump Red Light Cameras

Posted: 17 May 2016 01:35 AM PDT
The city council in Marysville will decide later today whether it will join more the than sixty California towns that have tried red light cameras and decided to cancel their program. Marysville Police Chief Aaron Easton is advocating for termination of the contract with Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia, telling the city council that it was no longer worth using the cameras given the difficulty of generating a guaranteed profit.

Problems begin three years ago when the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) began working on the two state highways that run through Marysville. Cameras had to be shut down while these high-volume routes were repaved. Caltrans has rejected requests for permission to reinstall the devices.

"For more than a year, we have had applications for new encroachment permits waiting for Caltrans' approval to reactivate cameras at each of the highway intersections, along with a new intersection at 12th and B Streets," Chief Easton wrote in a memo to the council. "Those permits have not been issued, and, in fact, have recently been denied."

Loss of the cameras has had no impact on safety. If anything, it has helped.

"Interestingly (actually predictably), in the two plus years that the cameras on state highways have been dark, we have not witnessed a resurgence in collisions at monitored locations, and, in fact, collision incidents for the year 2016 are on pace to be the lowest in at least the last ten years," Chief Easton wrote.

Loss of the cameras, however, has had a major financial impact. The number of tickets issued plummeted 65 percent from 6066 worth $2.9 million to just 2101 worth $1 million in 2013. All of those tickets are processed through the state court system, and Marysville is upset that the court refuses to provide a line-by-line breakout of the city's cut of all those fines. Marysville has no way of knowing whether it is being ripped off by Redflex. (What about the 'safety'?)

"Our continuing inability to precisely account for fine revenues attributable to the photo red light enforcement program presents us with an ongoing concern that we may actually be paying more in monthly equipment lease fees for the red light camera equipment than we receive in fine revenue to cover those costs," Chief Easton wrote. "It goes without saying that that's a fiscal worry for us, given the overall condition of our general fund." (No one ever seems to mention the lives that are being saved by the absence of the cameras; I wonder why? We aren't 'selling' the well-being of the citizenry; are we?)

The two cameras located on city-owned streets do not generate the high volume of out-of-town traffic that the highway cameras once did. Since 2010, Redflex has generated over $10 million worth of tickets, and it has issued another $17 million worth of "snitch tickets." Snitch tickets are notices that Redflex sends when a red light camera photo does not have a clear image of the driver. Under California law, such tickets cannot be prosecuted, but Redflex sends a notice meant that looks like a ticket in the hopes that the recipient will think he has to pay or identify the driver. (Also known as the 'shotgun approach')
kurt

User avatar
Alston_Neal
Posts: 1681
Joined: Apr 19 2008 5:53 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by Alston_Neal » May 17 2016 11:23 am

Paradise Valley has it's photo vans back out today.
In Japan they say only old people and crazy people hike mountains...........yep


Our humble abode..
http://www.oldterritorialshop.com

User avatar
hikeaz
Posts: 1891
Joined: May 13 2002 10:07 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by hikeaz » May 17 2016 12:24 pm

Alston_Neal wrote:Paradise Valley has it's photo vans back out today.

Phoenix goes back online tomorrow and Chandler & Mesa will have their cameras back up shortly.
When it comes to our 'safety' (read $$) these cities can move like lightning - just don't ask em for a building permit or to answer their phone(s) ...... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
kurt

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 6892
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by chumley » May 17 2016 12:26 pm

Is this the #2 thread on HAZ behind the weather thread?
:-k
Highway to hell

User avatar
Alston_Neal
Posts: 1681
Joined: Apr 19 2008 5:53 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by Alston_Neal » May 17 2016 3:14 pm

chumley wrote:Is this the #2 thread on HAZ behind the weather thread?
Oh poo!
In Japan they say only old people and crazy people hike mountains...........yep


Our humble abode..
http://www.oldterritorialshop.com

User avatar
Jim_H
Posts: 4713
Joined: Sep 08 2006 8:14 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by Jim_H » May 19 2016 5:44 am

So to be clear: the red light and other traffic camera photo enforcement things were off from some time in the last month or two, until May 18th? Good to know!
Nothing more enjoyable than a good hike out of town.

User avatar
hikeaz
Posts: 1891
Joined: May 13 2002 10:07 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by hikeaz » May 19 2016 6:29 am

Also- the pesky ones in Star Valley go back online tomorrow (just in time to get warmed up for the Memorial Day rush- $$$$).
kurt

User avatar
hikeaz
Posts: 1891
Joined: May 13 2002 10:07 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by hikeaz » Jun 21 2016 2:01 pm

Texas Judge Arrested Over Illegal Speed Camera Contract

Posted: 21 Jun 2016 01:22 AM PDT

Texas Judge Joel Patrick Baker was arrested Friday for arranging a deal with American Traffic Solutions (ATS) to install speed cameras during a meeting held in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured the indictment on Thursday.

During a closed-session, August 12, 2014 meeting, Judge Baker discussed the ten-year speed camera contract that included an "exclusivity" clause prohibiting the county from doing business with any firm that competes with ATS. In response, the group Grassroots America last year filed the open meetings complaint that landed Baker in hot water.

"Citizens have a reasonable expectation that elected officials will obey the law -- all of the law, all of the time when conducting the people's business," Grassroots America said in a statement Friday. "A community is known for what it tolerates. In Smith County, Texas, we should never accept disrespect for citizens, abuse of the public trust, and selective application of the rule of law."

Under Texas law, no municipality may implement a speed camera system. The state legislature banned speed cameras in 2007 in response to the speed trap towns of Rhome and Marble Falls, which had decided to set up automated speed traps on their own authority. Baker decided that a "county" is not a municipality, so the speed camera prohibition would not apply to him. Baker will not provide further details on his indictment.

"In order to protect the integrity of the judicial process I will not be trying this case in the media," Baker said in a statement. "I will prove my innocence and not allow a certain political faction to label me as a criminal for adhering to advice of legal counsel."

Baker was released on a $2000 bond. Grassroots America is also suing to remove Baker from his position as county judge. In addition to the speed camera meeting charge, the group accuses him of sending sexually explicit text messages from the bench. Baker resigned as vice chairman of the State Commission for Judicial Conduct after the scandal broke.
kurt

User avatar
big_load
Posts: 4347
Joined: Oct 28 2003 11:20 am
City, State: Andover, NJ

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by big_load » Jun 21 2016 8:19 pm

hikeaz wrote:Baker resigned as vice chairman of the State Commission for Judicial Conduct after the scandal broke.
It's nice to know that NJ hasn't totally cornered the market on corruption.

User avatar
hikeaz
Posts: 1891
Joined: May 13 2002 10:07 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by hikeaz » Jun 29 2016 1:51 pm

Texas Judge Declares Red Light Camera Program Illegal

29 Jun 2016
Richardson, Texas
Cities that operate red light camera programs often refer to individuals who receive tickets as "scofflaws." The tables turned for Richardson, Texas on Monday as Dallas County District Court Judge Dale B. Tillery effectively shut down the city's renegade photo enforcement system over several flagrant violations of state law.

On November 28, 2014, Richardson's red light camera vendor, Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia, sent Russell J. Bowman a letter calling him a "scofflaw" and informing him that a hold had been placed on the registration of his 2010 Hyundai Sonata. This was the first time that Bowman had ever heard about the violation that allegedly occurred two years previously.

"That just ticked me off when I got that thing," Bowman told TheNewspaper in an interview. "I have no reason to go to Richardson."

Bowman concedes that a family member might have been behind the wheel, but he decided to fight the notice on principle. As an attorney, Bowman knew he could maintain a log of the time he spent on the phone with Redflex and Richardson dealing with the notice. In total, it took over 96 hours to generate over 700 pages of documents and legal argument that laid out the legal shortcomings of Richardson's automated ticketing endeavor. According to Bowman, Richardson's photo enforcement ordinance conflicted with the Texas state constitution's enhanced protection of due process rights.

"The red light camera laws created by Chapter 707 and the Richardson ordinances make it to where a registered owner of a vehicle like Bowman will always be liable for the $75 civil penalty, with no chance to disprove same, have the case tried by an impartial jury, or have the case be able to be appealed to an impartial appellate court, all in violation of clear and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Texas Constitution," Bowman wrote.

Bowman tried several times to get Richardson to release the traffic engineering studies that the city is required by state law to perform before installing a camera. The source of the reluctance became apparent after Judge Tillery ordered the city to hand over the documents: no studies had ever been performed, aside from the Redflex calculation of how many tickets it could issue at each location. Texas law also requires the formation of a citizen's advisory committee to review any location selected for red light camera enforcement. Again, the city did not comply.
(Because.... remember... it's all about safety ;) )

"Our [city] council served as the citizen's committee and reviewed and approved all of the information and installations," Dave N. Carter, a former Richardson engineer testified. (What a crock of pumpkin)

After reviewing the evidence, Judge Tillery granted summary judgment for Bowman. He also ordered Richardson to pay Bowman $27,500 for the time he spent preparing the case, plus an additional $10,000 should the city attempt to appeal the case to the Texas Supreme Court.
kurt

User avatar
hikeaz
Posts: 1891
Joined: May 13 2002 10:07 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by hikeaz » Jul 20 2016 12:20 pm

Cerritos, California Abandons Red Light Cameras
Lack of profit and safety benefits prompts Cerritos, California officials to dumps red light cameras.

Mayor George Ray
Red light cameras have fallen on hard times in California. On Thursday the Cerritos city council decided in a 4 to 1 vote to join the growing ranks of municipalities that have pulled the plug on photo enforcement.

Since 2003, Cerritos had allowed a private vendor, now American Traffic Solutions (ATS), to issue $477 tickets at three intersections. Last year, ATS issued 3821 tickets worth $1,822,617. Unfortunately from the perspective of Cerritos officials, the state's share of the profit was $911,308, the county took $309,844 and ATS took $429,034. That left Cerritos with far less cash than expected, and the city became upset.

"Recently staff became aware that a few other agencies had gone out for bids to obtain these services and received far more favorable pricing than ATS is currently providing," public works director Kanna Vancheswaran told the city council on Thursday.

ATS attempted to save its deal with Cerritos by offering a new pricing structure if the city locked in five-year deal. Under the new plan, per-ticket fees that started at $77.75 per ticket in the first year of the contract would have dropped to $65 per ticket by year five. One of the problems the city identified was the difficulty of knowing what a good deal would have looked like.

"How do we really know how much money we're collecting?" Councilman Naresh Solanki asked.

Because the photo ticketing money is collected through the court system, which is operated by the state, the city does not know exactly how many citations are paid and how many are dismissed by the courts. In addition to this, the promised reduction in accidents failed to materialize.

"I cannot confidently tell you the red light camera program by itself is reducing accidents at these three locations," Vancheswaran said.

Mayor George Ray pointed out that there were 10 collisions at the camera locations in 2010 (before the cameras), a figure that jumped to 25 accidents in 2015, despite a significant reduction in traffic volume at the photo enforced locations.

"It doesn't look like the cameras are working," May said. "We have more accidents today than we had then, and it looks like less revenue. So how can we say these cameras are effective from a safety standpoint? I can't make that conclusion... This program is a loser for the city."

Councilman Mark E. Pulido pointed out that nine out of ten of his constituents hate the cameras and most California cities that once used red light cameras have reversed course.
kurt

User avatar
hikeaz
Posts: 1891
Joined: May 13 2002 10:07 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by hikeaz » Jul 29 2016 10:53 am

Texas Appeals Court Restores Right To Vote On Camera Ban

Posted: 29 Jul 2016 01:49 AM PDT
The public has a right to outlaw the use of red light cameras by referendum, the Texas Court of Appeals decided on Thursday. The ruling was a blow to American Traffic Solutions (ATS), which successfully used a lower court injunction to block the May 10, 2014 public vote on camera use that had been scheduled in the city of Cleveland.

ATS lawyer Andy Taylor convinced (I wonder how? $$?) Liberty County Judge Carroll Wilborn Jr to pull the measure from the ballot by insisting that state law prohibits any effort to ban cameras. Justice Leanne Johnson led the unanimous three-judge panel that said Judge Wilborn had no authority to stop the election. The appellate panel went on, in a footnote, to register their fundamental disagreement with the ATS argument.

"Were we to address the merits of the claim, we also note that [ATS] failed to establish and the findings of the trial court fail to identify an independent wrongful act, injury, exigent circumstance, or harm to [ATS] that would be sufficient to show irreparable harm which is a necessary element for a permanent injunction," Justice Johnson wrote. "The mere physical or theoretical possibility that the complaining party may be subjected to the same action again is not sufficient to establish irreparable harm."

The lower court had imposed a permanent injunction preventing any red light camera ban. This meant that, even though the election date has already passed, residents of Cleveland would have an opportunity to vote on the issue in the future. The appellate panel rejected this move.

"To be entitled to a permanent injunction against a municipality in what are inherently legislative tasks, the party must show irreparable injury," Justice Johnson wrote.

The panel found that ATS could not ask for permanent relief against the hypothetical possibility that an anti-camera initiative might be introduced again in the future, and that the lower court judge lacked the power to grant such a request.

Texas voters used the ballot box to oust red light cameras in Dayton, Houston, Baytown, League City and College Station by margins as great as 77 percent against.
kurt

User avatar
hikeaz
Posts: 1891
Joined: May 13 2002 10:07 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by hikeaz » Jul 29 2016 11:00 am

big_load wrote:
hikeaz wrote:Baker resigned as vice chairman of the State Commission for Judicial Conduct after the scandal broke.
It's nice to know that NJ hasn't totally cornered the market on corruption.
Seems you guys have all sorts of freedoms....... You can even use your high-beams on an empty road!

New Jersey Supreme Court Allows High Beams On Empty Roads
7/26/16
The High court in New Jersey finds it unreasonable for police to pull over motorists for using high beams when there is no oncoming traffic.

Driving on a deserted road with high beams on is perfectly legal in New Jersey, according to a ruling from the state's highest court. The justices last week unanimously decided to drop charges against Al-Sharif Scriven, who had been pulled over on November 3, 2013 for driving with her headlights on the brightest setting.

Essex County Sheriff's Officer David Cohen initiated the disputed traffic stop, "just to basically, educate the driver to advise her that her high beams [were] on... you can't drive with your high beams on," he testified. New Jersey law, however, only requires that drivers dim their high beams when there is oncoming traffic.

Officer Cohen was stopped on the side of the road waiting to have another vehicle towed away when he saw Scriven's automobile, which was neither speeding nor doing anything else out of the ordinary. The officer, however, was irritated at being "blinded" by the light, so he ordered the vehicle to pull over so he could issue a ticket for unlawful use of the high beam. The state Supreme Court rejected the officer's conclusion that a law had been broken.

"The high-beam statute is unambiguous in its language and meaning to both the public and police," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the court. "We reject the state's argument that an unoccupied police vehicle parked on a perpendicular street and a police officer on foot, collectively or individually, count as an 'oncoming' vehicle under the statute. We also do not find the state's argument to be an objectively reasonable interpretation of the statute."

Prosecutors had argued that the US Supreme Court's Heien decision allows officers to conduct searches even when they pull over a motorist who has done nothing wrong (view case). The Heien precedent, however, only applies to reasonable interpretations. The court found the officer's explanation that car thieves commonly drive with high beams on to "dazzle" law enforcement to be unpersuasive.

"That generalization, standing alone, would justify the stop of any car using high beams at nighttime in an urban setting," Justice Albin wrote. The suspicion necessary to justify a stop must not only be reasonable, but also particularized."
kurt

User avatar
hikeaz
Posts: 1891
Joined: May 13 2002 10:07 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ
Contact:

Re: Redflex Corruption

Post by hikeaz » Jul 29 2016 11:00 am

hikeaz wrote:
big_load wrote:
hikeaz wrote:Baker resigned as vice chairman of the State Commission for Judicial Conduct after the scandal broke.
It's nice to know that NJ hasn't totally cornered the market on corruption.
Seems you guys have all sorts of freedoms....... You can even use your high-beams on an empty road!

New Jersey Supreme Court Allows High Beams On Empty Roads
7/26/16
The High court in New Jersey finds it unreasonable for police to pull over motorists for using high beams when there is no oncoming traffic.

Driving on a deserted road with high beams on is perfectly legal in New Jersey, according to a ruling from the state's highest court. The justices last week unanimously decided to drop charges against Al-Sharif Scriven, who had been pulled over on November 3, 2013 for driving with her headlights on the brightest setting.

Essex County Sheriff's Officer David Cohen initiated the disputed traffic stop, "just to basically, educate the driver to advise her that her high beams [were] on... you can't drive with your high beams on," he testified. New Jersey law, however, only requires that drivers dim their high beams when there is oncoming traffic.

Officer Cohen was stopped on the side of the road waiting to have another vehicle towed away when he saw Scriven's automobile, which was neither speeding nor doing anything else out of the ordinary. The officer, however, was irritated at being "blinded" by the light, so he ordered the vehicle to pull over so he could issue a ticket for unlawful use of the high beam. The state Supreme Court rejected the officer's conclusion that a law had been broken.

"The high-beam statute is unambiguous in its language and meaning to both the public and police," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the court. "We reject the state's argument that an unoccupied police vehicle parked on a perpendicular street and a police officer on foot, collectively or individually, count as an 'oncoming' vehicle under the statute. We also do not find the state's argument to be an objectively reasonable interpretation of the statute."

Prosecutors had argued that the US Supreme Court's Heien decision allows officers to conduct searches even when they pull over a motorist who has done nothing wrong (view case). The Heien precedent, however, only applies to reasonable interpretations. The court found the officer's explanation that car thieves commonly drive with high beams on to "dazzle" law enforcement to be unpersuasive.

"That generalization, standing alone, would justify the stop of any car using high beams at nighttime in an urban setting," Justice Albin wrote. The suspicion necessary to justify a stop must not only be reasonable, but also particularized."
kurt

Post Reply

Return to “Political”


cron