The Show Must Go On…


DPS Lt. James Warriner accidentally discharges the sole bullet he's granted by Dir. Roger Vanderpool in an undated file photo

DPS Lt. James Warriner seen accidentally discharging his only bullet, in this undated file photo.

…The show trials and arrests, that is.

Why on earth would a professional policing agency arrest people using evidence specifically deemed unacceptable by the prosecuting county attorney?

Trick question, friends. The politicos at the Arizona Department of Public Safety have shredded their own professionalism faster than a speeding Redflex executive. After all, those in the “Inner Party” of the photo enforcement scheme are exempt from the bounty hunt the rest of us are subjected to.

Sometimes that hunt gets serious. When you’re desperate for good news, you’ll do just about anything to land your automated ticketing boondoggle in any positive light. Case in point: the arrest of State GOP Director Brett Mecum.

The Arizona Republic, notorious for its pro-camera editorial stance and former Redflex executives-turned-writers, immediately ruled Mecam guilty in the article headline: “State GOP director arrested, drove 109 mph on Loop 101.”

The executive director of the Arizona Republican Party was charged with reckless driving and criminal speeding Wednesday after a photo radar camera caught him driving 109 mph on Loop 101… The camera caught him going 44 mph over the posted speed limit of 65.

EVIDENCE? He doesn't seem to be moving very fast in this still picture...

EVIDENCE? He doesn't seem to be moving very fast in this still picture...

That’s it, folks: DPS said it, The Republic believes it, and that settles it. The camera “caught him.” No need for lawsuit-avoiding words such as “allegedly,” “purportedly,” or “supposedly” when you’re in bed with the camera vendor.

We contacted Mr. Mecum by phone to try to get the whole story. Due to the ongoing legal nature of the matter, there was little that he could say.  Editor’s Note: Mecum’s comments have been removed under request. CameraFRAUD stands behind the accuracy of the original report.

Assuming that the speed Mecum is accused of driving is even remotely accurate, it took DPS almost a whopping month to make contact with that individual, further proving that live policing would have been a much more effective method for ensuring public safety.

When will DPS learn that real public safety isn’t a politically-motivated profit-based game?

About these ads

110 Responses to The Show Must Go On…

  1. This is an interesting case and I think it will work against Redflex/DPS. Of all of the people to arrest for a photo-radar ticket, this man should have the means, connections, and support to fight this case as far as necessary and quite possibly far enough to get a high court ruling. DPS/Redflex is into it now – it will be a lot of egg in their face if they back away from prosecution…

    Which of course brings me to the other issue brought up in this article. Thomas won’t prosecute him so why bother? It’s all politics of course. I’m researching why DPS arrests some alleged criminal speeders while only mailing others. I’m sure the results will be enlightening and I will share this when I find out.

  2. Will Kay says:

    I would also say that that could be a discriminatory matter. Arrest him, but not him, and not her. This is going to backfire against the Department of Pure Socialists SOOOO bad! Don’t forget, all of this is public info. This is going to be the case that uncovers everything! I am anxiously awaiting the turnout, ha ha!

  3. Glyph says:

    “EVIDENCE? He doesn’t seem to be moving very fast in this still picture…”

    HAHAHAHAHA…. Good one!

    On another note, crews were out this evening erecting defenses to protect DPS and Redflex’s precious equipment.

    • Will Kay says:

      Costing them more and more money…I love it!

    • I'm Back says:

      What are they constructing now? Is this where they put up cameras to watch the cameras? And cameras to watch the cameras that watch the cameras?

      • Dan G says:

        I saw the cameras at 59th ave now have extra protection in the form of additional wire barriers by the cameras. Extra protection for those heavy flow days. I’d love to know if that was in the contract.

  4. geez says:

    He was doing 109mph… but got arrested for it for political reasons. Right.
    If he was doing 65, he wouldn’t have been arrested.

  5. Mike says:

    I think you mean he was ALLEGEDLY doing 109mph. See, I’m not sure how it works there in Australia but in the US there’s this little thing called “innocent until proven guilty”. Since, you know, Redflex would have no political motivation to allege the leader of the party that wants to take down their cameras was doing something wrong. No sir-ee. Plus the fact that the county prosecutor isn’t pursuing any criminal cases with only cameras as evidence – so the whole arrest thing is just a dog and pony show anyway.

    BTW, I saw the scameras at about 16st & I-10 both directions had “shoulder work” signs and barricades around them today.

    • geez says:

      Sorry Mike,
      Innocent until proven guilty does not start until the court hearing begins.

      • Dan G says:

        Geez, innocent until proven guilty is a concept that applies at all times, not just once you get to court. Your words exactly: “He was doing 109mph”…

        Sounds to me like you already tried and convicted him to me and nothing was proven. Just as well, in order for him to have been arrested 30 days later meant someone arbitrarily made the decision without a trial, witness, nothing more than a photograph. Was he guilty? Perhaps. Probably. But this isn’t the way things are done here in the United States of America!

  6. Louisiana says:

    In a criminal case there must be a “person” who actually witnessed the event……not just a picture of an event for criminal prosecution. This is going to be very interesting to watch.

  7. Joe says:

    Hmm, arrest the top Republican for criminal speeding in a state that is Republican controlled, in a situation where you’re fighting to keep photo radar alive. Seems like a very strage strategy. Did they think this would result in a tidal shift of public opinion? Me thinks that this will backfire on them in a very bad way. It will only serve to get other Republicans in the mood to go that much further in the fight to get rid of the damn things.

    Idiots.

    And to piggy-back on Lousiana’s point, since this is a criminal case, this actually brings the 6th ammendment “confrontation clause” onto the front burner. Every criminal defendant in the United States has a constitutionally protected right to face and cross examine his or her accuser in open court. And by “accuser”, I do not mean the guy who filed the case or evaluated the camera data. The witness to the crime.

    • Dan G says:

      Joe, you seem to be assuming a well thought out strategery on the part of what might be political enemies. Republican controlled state… mostly, but not entirely. Remember the cameras were put up by a Democrat. The mayor of Phoenix is a Democrat. It’s possible this is just a political shot that may not go anywhere.

      • Louisiana says:

        the “accuser” cannot be a camera. Is the camera going to be “sworn in”…on a bible?

        • Will Kay says:

          Excellent point, Joe. These systems not only violate the 6th Amendment, but more specifically Personal Jurisdiction and Due Process.

    • Pro-Camera says:

      I only see one issue with the “Confront the Accuser” argument. A violation is not automatically sent out on every flash of the camera. There is a live human person that looks at the data and then deems the evidence warrants a notice of violation to be sent out.

      Let’s compare to a police officer. An officer on patrol, he uses his radar gun. The gun is not the accuser, it is the officer, who viewed the radar gun evidence, that is the accuser.

      So each and every person has the ability to subpoena the “Accuser” in court. And they can subpoena the maint records of the evidence gathering device (camera/speed detection equipment).

      What’s too bad is this has turned into a political issue where a Republican County attorney says he isn’t going to prosecute the cases, and the Democrat Attorney General says that he will.

      • Walter says:

        When an officer sees a car that he believes is speeding he will check the speed with his radar gun. The officer is the person who witnessed the violation. He witnessed it with his own two eyes. He used his training to help determine the speed of the car. And He will be able to testify to that fact. He will say something to the effect of ” I witnessed a car driven by _____ that appeared to be going at a speed above the posted limit…..” With a camera. There is NOBODY that can testify to the fact that they witnessed you do anything. The only thing that your “accuser” can testify to is that “It appears from the data given by the equipment that you were speeding”. It has been proven many times that the equipment can and will malfunction. There is no way for the average citizen to determine the accuracy of the equipment. And with no one to testify to the fact that they witnessed the violation. It’s Man vs Machine.

        I will agree with you that. It is too bad that this has turned into a political issue. In the end the tax payers are the ones that have to foot the bill.

        • Pro-Camera says:

          With the auditor, they have a person saying,

          “I observed the video that is saved for all violations running 24 hours a day. The video showed the vehicle previous to the accused, and following the accused, were all traveling at a slower rate of speed and did not trigger the photo equipment to take still images of the vehicle. All equipment was tested and here are the logs of the testing and readings of each test.”

          Unlike with an officer, there are people other than the auditor that calibrate and test the photo equipment. With an officer, he not only observes a violation, he is trusted to also test the radar equipment and then testify to it’s accuracy. One person is responsible for observing the incident, issuing the ticket, testing the equipment used to detect the speed, and then testify to it’s accuracy. Even though many of the radar guns are not actually tested by a third party other than once or twice a year.

          With the camera, you have multiple checks and balances that are in place to make sure the ticket is accurate. And you have many opportunities to contest a ticket without need to miss work or go to court. If it isn’t you, simply send in the citation with the driver’s name.

          • Walter says:

            There is still NO ONE that witnessed anyone doing anything. I feel that the equipment malfunctions an a regular basis. However it is the camera companies that calibrate and certify the equipment that they make money from. So they are rewarded for having equipment that does not work properly.And the company is not going to volunteer that kind of info to the public.

            I’m just curious. Which Photo Enforcement company do you work for?

            • Pro-Camera says:

              First, I’m accused of being a DPS officer or Employee. Now I’m accused of being a camera company employee. Nah, It couldn’t be that I just believe the camera’s are a good thing?

              As for malfunctions, radar equipment has the same thing. You ever, and I mean EVER hear of citations being rescinded when a radar device was tested by weights and measures and found to be not functioning properly? Yet when the camera company has a found error in equipment, they pay back citations from that site since the previous test.

              And you think the camera company is corrupt. You do know that the cities get revenue from Officer issued citations as well. And when Chiefs of police are met by City Managers and told that “Citation revenue was down last month”, guess what happens? The Squad SGT’s are told to pass on to the officers to pay more attention to Traffic enforcement (i.e. issue more citations).

              Personally, I would rather receive a ticket from a unbiased camera than a “quota” driven officer.

              • Walter says:

                You seem to have all the wording down pat. And you seem to have info on how the system works that the average Joe does not.

                The cameras themselves may not be biased. But the camera companies definitely are.

      • Will Kay says:

        Pro-Camera, the issue with an Officer with a radar gun vs. a camera is, with a camera there is no Personal Jurisdiction, which falls under Due Process. An officer who witnesses a speed violation with a radar gun as evidence is within Due Process and Personal Jursdiction. These systems are all about money and nothing else.

  8. guttersn1pe says:

    Since DPS can’t prosecute anyone, and Thomas had said he won’t prosecute for criminal speeding (caught by cameras), this will never even go to court.

    DPS knows this and is still wasting people’s time by arresting them. I guess this is the extra police work they’ve been freed up to perform thanks to the cameras.

    I feel so much safer now.

    • Joe says:

      That’s Andrew Thomas (Maricopa County DA), but then there is the State Atty General. I believe the DPS will bypass Andrew Thomas and head straight to the Atty General for prosecution. This won;t go to trial for a long time, as many motions will be filed in advance seeking to dismiss the charges. This prosecution is wromng on so many levels (having nothing to do with politics). And THEN there’s the politics (oh brutha).

      • Doc says:

        Very Well Put, Joe! And I suppose Terry Goddard COULD do it. But, I really believe his political life is on a ventalator as it is. He, like so many before him, USED to be a Great A.G., and politician. But, like so many befor him, He’s been so corrupted by th’ political machine, there’s no hope of him recovering, in my opinion.

        Re-Electing NO-BODY, DAMMIT!-Doc from Prescott

      • guttersn1pe says:

        Somehow I doubt the State AG will prosecute a traffic case.

  9. Stacey says:

    Boy, they have got one dopey dude running DPS. He wants to run with the big dogs, but he is just making an ass out of himself. I guess it is Goddard, Redflex, and Roger Vanderpool against the world!We will see how well that works for Goddard at election time.

  10. Stacey says:

    We now have a foreign corporation doing the job of American DPS officers. Our own law enforcement has been outsourced.

    How far will outsourcing go?

  11. Doc says:

    1st-Geez-I’m not tryin’ to be confrontational…but your quote that “innocent untill proven guilty doesn’t start until th’ court hearing…” wrong-a-mundo! Th’ presumption of innocence is in effect at all times in America. Now, there’s a gajillion C.A.s & D.A.s, & cops & judges that ignore this fact, all th’ time. But, that doesn’t make it right. Those greedy idjits just make life hard for th’ members of th’ constabulary that haven’t forgotten that this is America!

    2nd-As to th’ A2Z mob arresting this guy a month after th’ ALLEGED “crime”…they are just putting on a show, as Gutter, & several others have pointed out. Will Kay types about costing them more money. True enough. What WE, as TAXPAYERS, (in other words, th’ people who pay dps’ SALERIES, & EXPENSES…) should be mad as hell about is that woodward, warriner, etc., KNOW that andy thomas is NOT PROSECUTING these “criminal cases”. So how much of our money did they WASTE on this little dog & pony show?!?! Nevermind th’ fact that a 9th grader could walk into th’ courtroom, & in less than 10 minits have this whole thing thrown out because of it’s UNCONSTITUTIONALITY!

    Lastly, as has been Proven time & time again…these machines are not infallible. I’m not sayin’ th’ guy is or isn’t guilty. But since th’ camera got him allegedly doin’ 109mph, did any sentient human being actually witness th’ event? No. Did a cop stop th’ guy in th’ car & verify his I.D.? No. Did th’ guy get the opportunity to ask th’ camera if he could SEE th’ clocking, as allowed by state law? No. I could go on & on. There is gonna’ be such a lawsuit on this…& hopefully, j-no, woodward, warriner, redflex, etc., etc., etc., will be named. There probably will be criminal charges brought against th’ arresting officer, & th’ A2Z mob for false arrest, false imprisonment, slander, liable, defamation of character, on & on & on it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.

    Remember…It’s AMERICA, dummy! We ain’t takin’ no steenkin’ totalitarianism, DAMMIT!
    Doc from Prescott

    P.S.-Hows all this “change” workin’ out for ya’?

    • geez says:

      Wrong.
      Innocent until proven guilty starts at trial. NOT in effect at all times. If it was at all times, NO one could ever be arrested.
      The presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody—the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer—believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime.

      • Walter says:

        You will never hear the police say that a person flat out DID anything. Even if an officer witnessed it first hand. They always say “We believe____” or “So and So allegedly did____” or something along those lines. Because they know that the innocent until proven guilty is ALWAYS the case. It’s only the biased media, Trying to slant a story towards their way of thinking, That will convict someone before a trial.

      • Doc says:

        geez-Man, that kind of thinkin’, in MY opinion, is why I absolutely stay frosty on any rights being taken away by a totaliarianist regime from my Kids! Th’ citizens of th’ UNITED STATES of AMERICA, are endowed by God 1st, and th’ Framers of the Constitution 2nd, th’ very Presumption of Innocence which you’d have us DENIED. If this presumption is “symbolic” , as you say, and as the current state & federal administrations act, then photo radar is the absolute least thing we have to worry about. I give you my word, that true Americans, & there are many, many of us, KNOW YOU ARE INCORRECT!

        Remember…F R E E D O M ! ! !-Doc from Prescott

        • geez says:

          Well, you both helped my point.
          If a true American killed someone, and innocent until proven guilty was always in effect, the murderer could NEVER be arrested.
          That’s why innocent until proven guilty starts at trial.
          Yes Walter, so DPS believes this guy was doing 109mph on the freeway, so they went and arrested him.
          However the media plays it is not DPS’s fault. I happen to remember a DEM mayor made news for doing just 11 over.

          • Glyph says:

            I imagine you’re talking about Phil Gordon. While I’m aware of his Red Light Ticket, I hadn’t heard that he got another ticket, for driving 11 miles per hour above the speed limit.

          • Geez, you have a lot to learn. Innocence is established until the verdict is read saying otherwise. That doesn’t mean someone can’t be arrested and held under suspicion of comitting a crime.

            DPS is guilty of politics. I have known of a few regular Joe’s who got criminal photo tickets and they were never arrested. Mail service was adequate for them.

  12. J.W. says:

    I’d just like to point out all the other cars/drivers around him in that picture who’s lives he could have been putting in danger if he was was driving 109mph on the 101 that night.

    • Doc says:

      J.W.-HEY, MAN! Dammit, remember…this is all about safety! Scameras are gonna’ save all th’ travelers, & free up th’ A2Z mob so they can play with themselves @ our expense! Don’t you be worryin’ bout th’ other lives put in harms way by a lack of officers on patrol!

      Louie from Da’ Bronx

    • Dan G says:

      Yep J.W. you’re making a point that nobody will dispute, even the anti-camera group. Speeding is illegal and nobody’s advocating that. However, a speeder should be arrested immediately, not photographed and allowed another 30 days or so of continued speeding. If speeding is dangerous, as you seem to believe, then these cameras endangered the lives of the other cars/drivers you mentioned by at least….30 days or so.

      • J.W. says:

        The point I was making was that there ARE NO other cars anywhere near him. There are pictures on other websites that are not as cropped and you can plainly tell that there is no traffic near him on his side of the freeway nor is there traffic anywhere on the opposite side of the freeway either. This happened at 12:30 in the morning not 12:30 in the afternoon during the lunchtime rush. He is driving a car that is designed to handle high speeds, and still no body knows exactly why he was driving above the posted speed limit. Maybe he was trying to come to the aid of a sick or injured family member? Or maybe he saw a wide open stretch of road with no one nearby and wanted to let his car “stretch its legs?” My ultimate point is no one was in any danger, and at the time there may or may not have been a prudent reason for him to be driving above the speed limit. There are officers out on the road that would have pulled him over, checked out his sweet car, check if his license and registration were square and he showed no signs of intoxication they would have let him go on charges of boys will be boys, and no harm no foul.
        On the other hand, had he been pissed out of his gourd and/or there were dozens of people around for him to endanger, only an officer could handle the situation properly by hauling him in then and there instead of letting him continue driving for 30 more days.
        As far as my views on speeding being dangerous, I’ve said it once before and I’ll say it again… “If speed kills, then how is Chuck Yeager still alive?”

        • And maybe the machine was malfunctioning. Who was there to monitor whether or not the machine was working correctly? NO ONE!

        • Dan G says:

          Thank you for clarifying JW. That’s why I said “seem to believe” because I was unsure what your point was. Speed doesn’t kill, stupid drivers kill.

        • geez says:

          I happen to remember the video they showed, clearly shows him blowing by a car to his right.

          • And there always seems to be some blue-hair or high hippie driving 40 or some other ridiculous low speed down the freeway impeding traffic. This may have been the case and you can’t prove that it wasn’t.

    • Stacey says:

      Yeah, where the hell was DPS? I mean really, do you ever see them out on the freeways?

      • Mark S says:

        Very rarely now days do I ever see a DPS vehicle, marked or unmarked.

      • Doc says:

        DPS is still somewhat visable up here. Like you said, mainly on accidents. But for them, it’ kinda’ a target rich environment for ‘em. There’s stretches of open hwy up here…plus white spar road for us Bikers! 158 switchbacks in 14 miles! It’s fun even doin’ th speed limit!

        Plus, they’re findin’ all sorts of places to hide up here! And, they’ll stop ya’ for any little thing they can make up!

        Feelin’ strange-Doc from Prescott

  13. kees says:

    What a joke of a website. There isn’t anybody here who would cry about a bank camera catching a crime – even if the bank were closed for the evening and there were no employees around to witness the event. From the tone of the posters, it sounds like a bunch of adolescents who simply want to break the speed limits. Well, I’m all for well calibrated radar and reliable cameras. If you really like to go fast, do what the rest of us do – pay for track time.

    • Stacey says:

      I never told the DMV that they could allow a foreign corporation access to my information.

      I also don’t appreciate DPS risking my kid’s life to make money. I had a driver almost run into the back of my car because of one of these cameras. She obviously didn’t know that drivers are supposed to slow down to 45 on the freeway when they see the cameras. So, DPS, ADOT, and all these legislators can go to hell in a handbasket as far I am concerned.

    • Dragonflydf says:

      There is a BIG difference with a bank camera catching a crime, vs a scamera. A bank camera does not issue a ticket. The camera is used as a added tool to catch a bank robber, he is usually ID’s thru witnesses, and finger prints. I saw a movie where the bank robbers wore a Jimmy Carter mask, does that mean we have to go arrest Jimmey Carter, if so, I believe he still lives in Plains, GA.

      Scameras are for one purpose only, to make money, they take your pic and mail you a bill, you have no one to confront should you deciede to.

      Oh, the scameras do not work on motorcycles if you ride on the yellow or white lines at a fixed camera location, I know…………

      • Louisiana says:

        Also, the bank camera is on their property. Not in the public domain…..

      • geez says:

        There was a motorcyclist who died (killed himself) doing just the same thing on the old loop 101 camera’s. He went up on the curb trying to bypass the loop sensors and lost it. The media tried to blame the camera flash, but then quickly backed out when the video showed he had bypassed the loop, therefor the flash DIDN’T go off and he decided to do it by going up on the curb and lost it.

    • J.W. says:

      Even if a person were caught on camera committing the bank robbery, there is due process for prosecuting that crime. They would still need more evidence against him than camera footage alone. They would need to find evidence that he has/had the stolen goods in his possession, or finger prints, or dna, or a confession. And even if the only evidence that they could come up with was a video and they still took the matter to court, the guy would have a jury to hear the case, and the ability to face his accuser and present a defense. In photo ticket court it is just you and judge who could really care less if you did it or not. It is your word against a picture. How would you like it if someone took a picture of you kissing your kid/niece/nephew/etc. on the cheek and they submitted it to a judge and accused you of being a child molester? What chance do you think you would stand defending yourself against that picture if the only things in the court room were you, a judge, that picture, and a sworn statement by a person who didn’t even take the picture or watch the event happen but just looked at it and put an electronic signature on it swearing that you committed a criminal offense. The evidence is right there, plain as day. You made sexual contact with a child and you should be thrown in jail. Is that how you want our legal system to work? Because that is how photo speed enforcement works.

      • Pro-Camera says:

        And if you don’t like the judge’s ruling in traffic court, you can take it up to higher courts. You have that ability. traffic court, with a judge only, was designed to quickly process the tickets. You don’t forgo the trial process with traffic tickets. You can go to a jury trial. But good luck with that one. You will have to convince 12 jurors that the still photo of your vehicle with you driving, the video of the incident, the lanes and direction of travel and speeds at time of violation. Then you have the calibration of the equipment, the logs of the calibration. The logs of testing on the equipment and variances between testing. All that will be evidence against your argument that you did not speed.

        Good luck.

        • Walter says:

          “Then you have the calibration of the equipment, The logs of the calibration. The logs of testing on the equipment and the variances between testing.”

          Spoken like a true Photo Radar company spokesman.

        • Stacey says:

          Redflex has got a great program going on here. They issue the ticket, when you go to court to court to fight it the state’s witness is a Redflex employee, and when you are found guilty, the judge, state, and Redflex all profit. What a great state we live in. Move along, people, no corruption going on here.

          • Pro-Camera says:

            City of Phoenix has a great program going here. A Phoenix PD officer issues a ticket using his self tested radar gun as evidence of a violation. When you go to court, the states witness is the officer and his hand held, self tested radar gun. He provides his self entered log books of testing the self-tested radar gun and his own eye witness account of your violation. And when you are found guilty, the judge, city, and patrol officer all make their pay. No way corruption could happen in that process.

            • James S says:

              Except the officer isn’t paid directly based on the number of citations he issues, unlike Redflex.

              And as a REAL police officer, he’s a SWORN OFFICER OF THE COURT.

              You fail.

            • Walter says:

              The parole officer makes the same amount of money if he writes 2 tickets a day or if he writes 200 tickets a day. The camera company make a per ticket commission on every ticket they write. So the officer has no incentive to falsify any records. But the camera company has a huge reason to lie, cheat, and misuse it’s power.

              After all the ONLY reason the camera company is doing any of this is to make money.

              • Pro-Camera says:

                I’m not going to say they have an actual documented quota, but you are pretty naive if you think that officers do not have encouragement to issue more ciations from higher ups. And issueing citations will adversely affect an officers evaluations for promotion and raises.

              • You fail to realize that quotas would be impossible to set and maintain. What if an officer spends all day at an accident or crime scene? Kind of hard to expect citations if they are occupied with other duties.

        • Procam, you obviously haven’t seen http://photoradarscam.com/getout.php – there are so many holes in teh photo radar case no jury would ever convict on a PR ticket.

          And good luck prosecuting a bank robber if your only evidence is a video!

  14. Doc says:

    kees-How do you like your totaliarianism? Poached, Deep Fried, or Al-Dentae? So, you’re sayin’ th’ bank cameras & th’ photo radar cameras are th’ same thing? That’s a pretty worn out argument around here, man.

    Try Again! Don Pardo—What consolation prize do we have for our friend “kees” today?

    That’s right Doc, We’ve got a $181.++ scamera ticket for him! Yes, kees’ll have hours of fun tryin’ to figure out how he got a scamera ticket when he wasn’t speeding! Then there’s the BONUS prize of havin redflex, a foriegn corporation, who’s employees are not certified peace officers, use military grade tracking technology to gain access to what he drives, his address, soc sec#, ALL his & his families personal information. Lock th’ wife & daughters up, kees, cuz’ we don’t know what type of people redflex has hired! Hope they’re honest! A Prize package worth everything you’ve worked hard all your life for! WHOOPEEEEE!!!!!

    • Stacey says:

      Kees loves those corporations. Cus God knows, we can trust them to look out for our health and well being.

      • Dan G says:

        What kees obviously didn’t catch was an earlier analysis of public vs private which is exactly what the argument about banks having cameras entails. Let me elaborate. Nobody has a problem with PRIVATE corporations using photo/video simply because they are private. You have a choice whether or not you want your money there. In direct contrast, we have no choice to pay for highways. Our money is taken from us involuntarily for PUBLIC use.
        That’s not even taking into account the fact that I have yet to hear about anyone receiving a photo enforcement ticket from a bank. Big differences make no difference to kees I guess…

      • Dan – that’s not even it. The bank doesn’t have the camera attached to a tracking system and has no way of identifying the people in the video (in other words, we don’t have license plates on our backs), and they do no automated ticketing.

        • Dan G says:

          PhotoRadarScam, no argument from me. The main point I was making is that the argument of cameras being used on private property should cannot be used to defend photo radar scameras. I was simply giving another reason why it’s an invalid argument.

        • Dan G, I agree. I’d like to see the tracking mechanism mentioned more often, because I would have a problem if say, we all wore bar codes and shopping mall (for example) monitored and tracked who shopped there. Yes it’s private property and I have a choice not to go there, but I don’t want them keeping track of my visits. These would be especially offensive to me if the shopping mall had an arrangement to share the data with the government, like Redflex does.

          • Doc says:

            PRS & ALL- Man, I hate to be th’ bearer of socialist news, but th’ “tracking mechanism” is already in use. Lemmee ask all of yous a question; Do any of you have a ‘Fry’s Card’? Jeez, every store out there’s got some sorta’ ‘savings card’. And to get one, ya’ gotta’ fill out a form, that asks allsorts -o-stuff sorts-0-stuff like, name, address, phjone#, etc. Then, these stores make it so that you’re a foole if you don’t get one. For example, My ‘Safeway Card’ makes th’ savings on a pound of Ground Beef, like, $2.50 A POUND!!! So, folks, sadly I must inform you that we are already being tracked like cattle…

            Feelin’ VIOLATED…Doc from Prescott

            • Doc, that’s why I don’t shop at Safeway. Target and Walmart and Albertsons do not require any cards to shop there. Pay cash and you are untraceable.

              The “savings cards” are BS, and IMO, they are a form of discrimination.

              • Doc says:

                PRS-Great Point! While I’ve got a problem w/Target, Wally-world & Albertsons are both valid.
                My point though, is that the vast population might not realize this. It’s just another type of keeping track of the herd.

                Breakin’ away from th’ pack!-Doc from Prescott

  15. Doc says:

    Gee Whiz, Stacey, I just get a warm, soft, safe feelin’ THINKIN’ about how much I not only trust Private, foriegn corporations, but my local, state AND federal gubments to take care of me & my family, an’ keep us all nice & safe!

    Sorta’ like piss-warm runny mashed potatoes & ketchup!

    Feelin’ th’ need to go puke…Doc from Prescott

  16. Louisiana says:

    I was just thinking. Mr. Mecum was already charged that night with his redflex invoice (civil). Which he may have already paid – thereby admitting guilt. Now they want to charge him again criminally and possibly use his paid ticket as evidence of is guilt, without every telling him about his rights against self-incrimidation….you know those little miranda rights.

    Can anyone say “Double Jeopardy”?

    The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: “[N]or shall any person be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb….” U.S. Const. Amend. V. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three abuses: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) the imposition of multiple punishments for the same offense. United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 1897, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989)

    If he was already punished by a Redflex invoice – then I can’t see how they can punish him again for the same offense.

  17. Crump has reached the same conclusion as I have:

    In the East Valley Tribune:

    “Aside from the inability of those photographed to confront their accuser, Crump said the system violates a state law which requires that anyone other than a law enforcement officer who gathers evidence for use in court must be a licensed private investigator. He said Redflex employees have no such licenses.”

    More info at http://photoradarscam.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/redflex-and-ats-operating-in-arizona-without-a-license/

  18. WestPhoenix says:

    Once again, this alleged incident only underscores the reason these cameras are dangerous to public safety. Set aside the rear-end collisions they cause, etc and think about this – big hypothetical, but allow me to run with it for a sec – what if he was truly going 109 mph? And what if he was drunk? How does the camera stop a DUI driver from going 109 mph and endangering others?
    With DPS’s increasing reliance on cameras (less physical officers on the highways) how does this increase public safety? It seems this is why we need actual officers on our streets/highways and not cameras.

    • Mark S says:

      I can’t agree with you more. The scameras don’t stop drunk drivers, aggressive drivers, or distracted driving. Only a REAL office can stop those behaviors!

      I can see why people who like to drive drunk like the cameras. They don’t have to worry about getting pulled over. I know that IF I got drunk a lot and then drove, I would be a BIG camera supporter.

      DOWN with the scameras!

    • Pro-Camera says:

      Sorry, your logic is flawed.

      Just because some convicted felons, who are prohibited possessors when it comes to firearms, happen to commit armed robbery, that doesn’t mean we should stop arresting convicted felons who violate the prohibited possessor laws.

      Just because the speed camera doesn’t also stop DUI offenders, doesn’t mean we should give everyone a pass on all violations that the camera can help enforce.

      • Walter says:

        Is it really that important that we enforce the speed limit law to the point that there is no tolerance? To the point that we give up our civil liberties? Speeding above the posted limit accounts for a very small fraction of all accidents. And there is also a proven amount of accidents increased by the cameras. It seems to me that the cost of enforce the speed limits with cameras, far outweigh the benefits.

    • Pro-Camera says:

      And the cameras did not replace officers. They complimented officers. They are in addition to the existing workforce of officers.

      • Mark S says:

        The cameras still don’t universally enforce the law. If the vehicle is registered in a corporation, trust or another persons name, they won’t mail a ticket.

        Also, and I like this one, is that motorcycle riders wearing full helmets won’t get tickets from the cameras. I have so far been snapped 9 times by the cameras and have not received a ticket. Half of those would have been criminal speeding. Yes, 95 in a 75 zone on the NB 17 around Moores gulch. Those were over three months ago, so not ticket. A real officer would have pulled me over and given me a talking to and a ticket.

        The cameras are flawed. Also, since being on a MC, I can just avoid the in road sensors for the fixed units.

        • Pro-Camera says:

          Universal enforcement. I agree that all should be enforced. I believe that everyone snapped with their picture should get a ticket. I believe the tickets should be issued to the vehicle like a parking ticket. Smaller fine, smaller cost to enforce, and non-payment will simply suspend the registration on the vehicle. No need to identify the person driving because no points are assessed. Treat them just like a parking ticket. Everyone will have to eventually pay, or they will later receive “Suspecnded Registration” tickets when they can’t renew their registration tabs on the plate. No registration if your fees aren’t taken care of.

          Rental cars, it would be part of the rental agreement that any speed violation received while you are driving will be applied to the security credit card on the account.

          Company cars will have the violation sent to the company. And if a fleet vehicle, the plate is suspended if not paid.

          All the tickets will either get paid, or cause other problems for that vehicle. And if ignored, they become criminal problems for the Registered Owner.

          • Wow, you must love it when government can make more money. You’re definitely not talking about “more safety” when you simply send a fine to the owner of the car. The registered owner is the driver of the car only 72% of the time, according to the IIHS. How can you justify a system that punished people other than the driver more than 25% of the time?

            How can you even justify the current system that selectively targets less than half of the traffic that drives by?

            These are terrible success rates for an alleged “law enforcement system” in a country such as the United states where all is supposed to be fair and equal, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

            I think you would be happier living in China, and I suggest you move there.

      • Joe says:

        Incorrect. The DPS has eliminated speed task forces in certain areas due to the cameras. That means less contact with the public, which means less contact with people they’d pull over. Most people arrested in Arizona for committing crimes are done so after having been pulled over for a traffic offense. By having the speed cameras, we’re losing opportuntities to make contact with criminals that are eactually out there DOING bad things.

        • Mark S says:

          Another GREAT point. Most criminals that have a warrant out for their arrest are arrested during a traffic stop. This opportunity goes away with the scameras. But they are for safety. Whose? The criminals with an arrest warrant?

        • geez says:

          Which would allow them to spend more time working dui’s, drug interdiction, immigration enforcement etc..

        • Pro-Camera says:

          Elimination or reduction in speed task force outings does not mean they fired the officers. It means that instead of a bunch of cops manging out waiting for speeders, they are on the carefree highway waiting for DUI’s driving back from Lake Pleasant. Or on I-10 looking for reckless drivers coming from Tucson. The officer may not be on a speed task force, but they are still there.

          So the officers have just as much “Contact” with the public, they just happen to be pulling people over more fore illegal lane changes instead of speed.

          • You are showing your ignorance again. Are you trying to convince us that DPS on DUI patrol will not pull over someone exceeding the speed limit?

            A DUI stop is the same as any other traffic stop, and most often the PO doesn’t know it’s a DUI until after he has approached the car.

            DPS has a stated policy that they cannot ignore speed violations exceeding 11mph over. Unless you are referring to road blocks, DPS is out patrolling the roads the same as they always have, making the same stops they always have. No one is “freed up” by teh cameras, as you have failed yet again to demonstrate.

            • Pro-Camera says:

              I had said “They (cameras) are in addition to the current workforce of officers.

              Joe replied
              “The DPS has eliminated speed task forces in certain areadue to the cameras.”

              My second comment was saying that DPS officers were not replaced. They simply do not perform “Speed Task Force” duties in areas where cameras happen to be because people actually SLOW DOWN around the cameras. I didn’t say they stopped enforcing speed laws. Just that instead of being on speed task forces near a camera, they are enforcing traffic laws in more needed areas.

              And the fact that you tried to claim I meant DPS was stopping the practice of pulling people over for speeding. Where did that come from. Do you really have that much of a problem in comprehension? Do you really lack that much common sense? I mean, looking at these comments, your whole argument is that “They are not safe because they may cause rear end collisions, all the while ignoring that average speeds have dropped on all the freeways and not just the ones with stationary cameras. Making claims like “Speed doesn’t cause accidents”, but failing to admit that Speed makes avoidable accidents unavoidable by reducing reaction time to adverse conditions. Or more claims of “You can’t face your accuser” but failing to admit that you can’t face a radar gun in court either.

              Sorry, but in the end, common sense will prevail. And sorry to tell you, your side is lacking.

            • Procam – take it easy. There are multiple parties to this thread. My comments were more directed at Geezer than you. Geezer still maintains that police are “freed up” by the cameras. Your assessment is a more accurate. The only difference I’d point out is that unless you’re talking about a DUI roadblock, “DUI patrol” is the same as regular patrol because officers are still going to stop for any traffic offenses, not just those who are weaving or unable to stay in their lane.

              But I must say that you have problems with reading comprehension yourself. I have never claimed that the cameras increase rear end collisions. I could care less about the type of collisions, the real importance is that injury and fatality rates increase where cameras are installed. You must have also missed my reply to our other thread where I discussed the differences in your point about speed and accidents and mine. Speed does NOT cause accidents, and this is made clear in government data (remember the governor’s report?). Your point about speed making some accidents unavoidable is noted and understood, but mostly irrelevant as the data shows that this is not a significant factor. Reference again the repeal of the national 55 speed limit with accident rates subsequently declining. While what you say is true, the overall accident/death rates declined after raising the limits, so your argument has little bearing on the results.

              While I’ve also not been a big champion of the “you can’t face your accuser” argument, you have this one wrong as well. With a regular officer ticket, you can question the accuser (the cop) about his use of his equipment, and who was there to monitor the correct functioning of the equipment, who also made a visual estimate of the speed of travel to compare with the machine results. With photo enforcement, no one is monitoring the machine to ensure that it is operating correctly. Have you never owned an electronic device that was a little flaky? Do you think the desert heat if friendly to electronic devices in sealed metal containers? Have you not read about all of the camera malfunctions on my website? Do you have any idea how often a PO gets a bad reading on his radar gun?

        • I’ll re-post the last response so there’s more room as it’s getting squeezed:

          Procam – take it easy. There are multiple parties to this thread. My comments were more directed at Geezer than you. Geezer still maintains that police are “freed up” by the cameras. Your assessment is a more accurate. The only difference I’d point out is that unless you’re talking about a DUI roadblock, “DUI patrol” is the same as regular patrol because officers are still going to stop for any traffic offenses, not just those who are weaving or unable to stay in their lane.

          But I must say that you have problems with reading comprehension yourself. I have never claimed that the cameras increase rear end collisions. I could care less about the type of collisions, the real importance is that injury and fatality rates increase where cameras are installed. You must have also missed my reply to our other thread where I discussed the differences in your point about speed and accidents and mine. Speed does NOT cause accidents, and this is made clear in government data (remember the governor’s report?). Your point about speed making some accidents unavoidable is noted and understood, but mostly irrelevant as the data shows that this is not a significant factor. Reference again the repeal of the national 55 speed limit with accident rates subsequently declining. While what you say is true, the overall accident/death rates declined after raising the limits, so your argument has little bearing on the results.

          While I’ve also not been a big champion of the “you can’t face your accuser” argument, you have this one wrong as well. With a regular officer ticket, you can question the accuser (the cop) about his use of his equipment, and who was there to monitor the correct functioning of the equipment, who also made a visual estimate of the speed of travel to compare with the machine results. With photo enforcement, no one is monitoring the machine to ensure that it is operating correctly. Have you never owned an electronic device that was a little flaky? Do you think the desert heat if friendly to electronic devices in sealed metal containers? Have you not read about all of the camera malfunctions on my website? Do you have any idea how often a PO gets a bad reading on his radar gun?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,188 other followers

%d bloggers like this: