Page 1 of 22

Redflex Corruption

Posted: Nov 29 2009 12:53 pm
by Jim_H
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"?

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Nov 29 2009 1:12 pm
by nonot
Well at least you're innocent until proven guilty, hope you are able to win in court, looks like they screwed up on this one. That video is a great piece of evidence, how did you get it?

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Nov 29 2009 1:19 pm
by joebartels
They send you a link with the ticket. It's not youtube but you can easily transfer it over. Only reason I know is because I got a ticket in the mail for a truck I sold years ago. Apparently the dealership didn't do the paperwork or the tags were stolen or something. It was pretty easy to clear up.

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Nov 29 2009 6:13 pm
by chumley
joe bartels wrote:They send you a link with the ticket.
By visiting the link, you acknowledge receipt of the ticket. Arizona law requires that citations be served to you personally. If you visit the link, (or sign and return the citation) you are waiving your legal right in the charade. Less than 25% of state-issued photo citations are paid ...

Oh and
Well at least you're innocent until proven guilty
:sl:
Actually, that's the issue with photo radar ... YOU are guilty unless you prove somebody else guilty. There's no innocent involved.

PS My opinion on the shadiness and grey area of the law on photo radar issues is in no way in support of speeding or other vehicular illegalities. Speeding is against the law and I don't condone breaking it.

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Nov 29 2009 7:54 pm
by Jim_H
I wasn't speeding, and certainly not the 79 MPH the photo system claims. I was doing what the rest of the lane of traffic which was lead by a company owned truck was doing, 65 to 67 MPH. The car that was passing me in the video was probably speeding, but he isn't me, yet I got his ticket. There is a serious problem with that. I've heard of guilt by association, but never guilt by proximity.

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Nov 30 2009 8:46 am
by hippiepunkpirate
chumley wrote:Less than 25% of state-issued photo citations are paid ...
I ignored mine for months until they sent somebody out to my house to serve the ticket on me in person.

That's really lame, Jim. I've been an advocate against photo radar since it first came out in Scottsdale. Let's have us a revolution!

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Nov 30 2009 8:52 am
by joebartels
chumley wrote:Less than 25% of state-issued photo citations are paid ...
What is the source of this statistic? It must be interesting.

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Nov 30 2009 10:34 am
by chumley
I've read it in the Republic several times. I'll try to find a link. Basically the state can't hire enough process servers to issue all the citations lawfully. There's just way too many. I've ignored one myself. If they come to my door during the relatively miniscule time that I'm actually home, I'll pay the extra $20 service fee and accept the citation. The likelihood of that happening is worth the potential added fee.

(City-owned cameras have a higher percentage of paid tickets ... still under 50% IIRC ... because the volume of citations is much lower and they can serve more of them within the 120 days required by law).

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Dec 03 2009 10:36 pm
by snakemarks
These cameras take streaming video of the whole road of traffic, then they can 'choose' the citation recipient according to the likelihood of getting a paid fine for their efforts. They will not waste the money to issue citations to drivers with out-of-state plates (Colorado) because they won't send a process server, or to company owned vehicles (the truck) because they can't ID an individual for the ticket by the vehicle registration. The entire legal system is based on revenue... guilt has little to do with it. Seems like your papers were in order, so they picked you.
I have 4 vehicles which are registered under my company name. We don't get photo tickets... or rather, they don't bother sending me any.

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Dec 04 2009 1:32 am
by fairweather8588
I've gotten flashed twice, only one came in the mail though. Ignored it, and a few months later I got another letter saying that the ticket was dropped (they should have known that I'm untouchable : rambo : )

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Dec 04 2009 6:19 am
by azbackpackr
My son got a photo ticket he didn't even know about, since he tends to move around a lot. He isn't even sure he was driving the vehicle at the time, since he never saw the ticket, and had loaned out the vehicle a couple of times. He found out about it because he tried to renew his vehicle registration, and they told him his license had been revoked quite awhile previously. He had to pay a lot of money to get his license renewed. There are several driving jobs he was looking at applying for, which he now can't get for 5 years.

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Dec 04 2009 7:37 am
by hikeaz
If you oppose the photo cameras or want to learn a little about the inside sweetheart deals between the camera operators & Gub'ments... Look here > http://www.camerafraud.com



The Arizona Daily Star had a story yesterday morning about the plight of Jay Taylor, whose personalized license plate says ‘NJOYAZ’. Unfortunately for him, that same plate – the novelty version – is popular. N Joy Az
Recently, a white Dodge truck with the novelty plate attached to its front went through photo radar and a citation was sent to Taylor. It didn’t seem to matter to the DPS knuckleheads that you can’t cite someone for their front plate. It didn’t seem to matter that the plate is registered to Taylor’s red four-door Lexus, as the citation notes, yet the vehicle pictured by the camera cops is a white Dodge truck. (D'oh) DPS sent Taylor a ticket anyway. Doesn’t anybody look at these things before they send them out?

Napolitano.....
"As a liberal, I think Mr. Taylor should simply pay the fine, and any others he is issued. It doesn't matter whether the violations were committed by him or not; the state desperately needs more revenue to pay for important social programs, and it's Mr. Taylor's duty to help out. He can obviously afford it, since he drives a Lexus. As my esteemed colleague Senator Pelosi says” We need to redistribute the wealth in America.”" (tongue-in-cheek)

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
In another chapter of the "It's all about SAFETY, not the money" lie.

Maryland: Vendor Holds Red Light Cameras Hostage

Baltimore, Maryland claims photo enforcement vendor threatened to turn of red light cameras unless demands were met.

According to Baltimore, Maryland officials, a photo enforcement vendor has threatened to unplug the city's red light camera program unless its financial demands are met. The charges were leveled in a federal lawsuit initially filed by Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) against Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions (ATS). Baltimore inserted itself into the lawsuit last month claiming it had more of a stake in the matter.

"The contract between ACS and the city for the operation of the red light camera system generates significant revenues for the city of Baltimore," Baltimore's Chief Solicitor Michael S. Elder explained. "These revenues are utilized to fund other important governmental functions. Any interruption in the operation of the system will deprive the city of revenues that are desperately needed for essential functions in the current economic climate... The city's interest in its ability to fund vital government functions through its share of the revenue stream derived from the red light traffic camera system program is an interest that is plainly not shared by ACS."

The dispute is a complicated contractual matter over just who owns the automated ticketing machines installed at 47 intersections throughout Baltimore. The city contracted with ACS to operate every aspect of the camera program in return for a fixed cut of each ticket generated by the system. ACS, which specializes in handling paperwork and collections, subcontracted the job of providing the equipment to Nestor. Nestor went bankrupt in June and ATS bought all of that company's assets, and none of its liabilities, for $7.1 million in September.

ATS believes that the terms of its purchase included the camera equipment in Baltimore, unencumbered. ACS and Baltimore disagreed, insisting that ATS was bound by Nestor's agreement to transfer ownership of all camera equipment to Baltimore at the end of the contract period. ACS asserted that ATS had made "extortionist-like demands" that Baltimore drop its contract with ACS and switch to ATS to keep the cameras running.

"ATS's claim of ownership of essential system components, and its threats to disable and/or remove them, would cut off this vital source of funding," Elder wrote. "ATS's conduct is improper as it is using the threat of interruption of the operation of the red light camera system for unfair economic advantage in its subcontract negotiations with ACS. Moreover, the removal or disabling of the system without the city's permission is illegal and would involve a trespass, and the threat to do so is thus improper conduct."

ATS has yet to formally answer charges made in the lawsuit. The company is expected to file its response by next Monday.

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Dec 04 2009 8:20 am
by Jim_H
hikeaz wrote:Doesn’t anybody look at these things before they send them out?
According to the company, AZDPS, and the cities that run these cameras, they are inspected for quality assurance to determine the person they claim is breaking the law, actually appears to be breaking it. If that actually were true, this kind of think wouldn't happen. They either don't look at all, or they do such a poor job they might as well not have looked. The "assurance" is issued by an employee of the company, not a sheriff or any kind of police officer, so they might not even have much on the line if they repeatedly issue fraudulent tickets. It all just corruption.

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Dec 04 2009 9:16 am
by chumley
azbackpackr wrote:My son got a photo ticket he didn't even know about, since he tends to move around a lot. He isn't even sure he was driving the vehicle at the time, since he never saw the ticket, and had loaned out the vehicle a couple of times. He found out about it because he tried to renew his vehicle registration, and they told him his license had been revoked quite awhile previously. He had to pay a lot of money to get his license renewed. There are several driving jobs he was looking at applying for, which he now can't get for 5 years.
There was an article in the New Times (which I can't find) a while back about someone in a similar situation.

A woman received a photo ticket in the mail for a car that wasn't hers. Not the same plate, not the same model, make, etc. And definitely NOT a photo of HER! So this is only a story because she was traveling out of the country somewhere and never got the ticket in the mail. Turns out that a corrupt process server brought the ticket to her house and taped it to her door, claiming that there was somebody home (which there wasn't). She never found that ticket either, but the server reported to the court that the ticket had been served.

So here's the problem. The woman obviously never appeared in court (she didn't know she had to), and by default, her license was suspended. A few months later, she gets pulled over in a routine traffic stop, and her suspended license comes up. Sure enough, she's hauled into court to resolve all of this.

She provides all the details of how the original citation was incorrect: her actual license plate, actual vehicle description, actual photo, etc. Even shows documentation (passport stamps, hotel receipts, etc.) of being out of the country at the time of the citation AND the fraudulent process service. But none of it mattered. The judge actually agreed with her. But that's not what was at stake. The judge was forced to find her guilty of driving on a suspended license because her license actually was suspended.

It got suspended by the court in the case months back that she didn't show up for. Case closed. This judge had to abide by the previous ruling, even though she could prove that it was an incorrect ruling.

There is no legal recourse to appeal a court judgement for a ruling which occurs when you fail to appear (and you have been legally served). Nevermind that she could prove that she was NOT legally served. It happened. Its over. That's the end.

And that's just ONE of the things that's wrong with photo enforcement. And if you still think you are "innocent until proven guilty", its time to wake up.

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Dec 04 2009 11:43 am
by snakemarks
chumley wrote: And if you still think you are "innocent until proven guilty", its time to wake up.
That is true across the board, now. Photo tickets are the least of our legal worries. Somewhere along the line when we weren't paying attention, the burden of proof switched from the accuser to the accused, and hearsay is now considered legal evidence in Arizona. We should be very afraid.

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Dec 04 2009 11:50 am
by azbackpackr
While we're on the topic, I hear that Show Low is getting a camera. And, as you no doubt are aware, there is a camera on 260, outside of Payson, I think at Kohl's Ranch or near there. Watch for the signs!

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Dec 04 2009 12:02 pm
by big_load
It seemed like wall-to-wall cameras when I was out there. You'd think speeders were footing the whole state budget.

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Dec 04 2009 12:09 pm
by dysfunction
big_load wrote:It seemed like wall-to-wall cameras when I was out there. You'd think speeders were footing the whole state budget.

That would explain a lot about the state of things in Arizona, wouldn't it?

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Dec 04 2009 1:27 pm
by chumley
azbackpackr wrote:There is a camera on 260, outside of Payson, I think at Kohl's Ranch or near there. Watch for the signs!
There are fixed cameras entering Star Valley both east- and west-bound on AZ-260 (the speed limit there is 45mph). These cameras are operated by the "city" of Star Valley, not by DPS.

DPS does not have any fixed cameras anywhere outside of the valley (yet) but they do deploy the mobile vans across the state. I very rarely see them on the Beeline or 260. But they're often littered by the dozens on I-17 between PHX and Flag, as well as I-10 between Tucson and PHX.

Re: Redflex and AZDPS corruption

Posted: Dec 04 2009 2:22 pm
by big_load
There were 3 cameras set up on 260 two weeks ago when I passed that way, but nothing compared to what I saw on I-10 between Phoenix and Wilcox, I-17 between Phoenix and Flagstaff, and I-40 between Flagstaff and NM.