Judge: Many “Not Responsible” In Photo Cases

Judge Gerald A. Williams, North Valley Justice of the Peace, has an op-ed piece in a recent edition of the “Foothills Focus:”

At North Valley, part of the problem was due to highway signs, or the lack thereof. For a significant period of time, people received tickets for going 66 or 67 in a 55 mph zone. The problem was that the temporary 55 mph sign was often after the camera. As such, we have had hundreds of hearing requests. Thus far, drivers in this category have almost always been found not responsible at their hearing.

He continues:

The bottom line is that using photo enforcement tickets as a way to generate revenue has proven to be an extraordinarily bad idea.


13 Responses to Judge: Many “Not Responsible” In Photo Cases

  1. RPr says:

    Judges in Arizona are elected.

    when in doubt vote them out

  2. guttersn1pe says:

    Nice article. Sheds some light on the inequities in the photo enforcement system and the burdens it has created for local courts.

  3. jgunn says:

    There goes the only argument the camera lovers seem to have, “don’t speed and you won’t get a ticket” That adage was just proven a fallacy with that news. How many poor schleps just paid the ticket and are out 200$?

  4. ((-_-)) whut'd_u_expect? says:

    This Redfux Co. must be part deviant in content and/or policy: do wrong then hide behind an ‘adult’ like a child shirking any shred of responsibility. Err, wait, I know children with more credibility… They are violation of the standards of their statute of operation as a rule, misplaced equipment at every turn.

  5. I’d like to see how well those temporary signs are holding up in tonight’s wind!

  6. NoMoreCameras says:

    Hello everyone,
    Thanks for your all of your efforts to ban photo enforcement in AZ!! I am a resident of Utah and last November, we were on our way to Prescott Valley to visit my mother for Thanksgiving. My wife was driving as we went up Highway 69 and got nailed by a fixed camera for driving “approx 11 mph” over the “posted” speed limit. I am appealing the $190 ticket because neither one of us remember seeing a speed limit sign indicating a change in speed. But, most importantly, we don’t remember seeing a YELLOW SIGN indicating a camera was in operation (as requited by Arizona Revised Statutes §28-654). I noticed that someone (on your Flickr photo album) posted some really great photos of the very camera!! (BTW, I don’t see ANY yellow warning signs) But is there any one out there who lives in Prescott Valley or in Prescott who would be willing to shoot some photos between the 169 intersection at Dewey the stationary camera at milepost 287 and e-mail them to me? I want to include some photos, if possible, when I send the county court my memorandum of appeal. Thanks!!

  7. NoMoreCameras says:

    BTW, here are the photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/33011440@N02/3214946588
    Is there any way to copy these without having to sign up for Flickr?

  8. marc says:

    Using for-profit incentives to catch lawbreakers is an old idea, and has never worked out in the long run. It *always* ends up resulting in scandal when making money ends up being more important than justice.

    Aside from breeding corruption, this also leads to people coming to view law enforcement officials as crooked. It’s not good for the community. What is good for the community is a local government that works with the people, not one that sucks money from them. We need to ensure that justice is the priority and that nobody is allowed to view justice as a source of income (whether it’s income for the city or for a private business)….we must do whatever is within our power to hold our leaders accountable and make them govern well.

  9. NoMoreCameras, you can try using your sign argument, but you may have a hard time since they will just stand up and say that the signs were there whether they were or not. Your best bet is to follow the defense outlined here regarding the signage not meeting MUTCD standards: http://photoradarscam.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/mobile-speed-van-signage-illegal/?csspreview=true

    Also throw other defenses at the judge: http://photoradarscam.com/getout.php

    Also, if the van driver that put up the signs isn’t present in court, you can claim that any testimony is hearsay.

  10. David Chet says:

    This is B.S….I went in front of this judge and there was ZERO sympathy. It’s EYEWASH!

  11. Jerry Smith says:

    I was there in this judge’s court one Tuesday afternoon and everyone was found not responsible unless they were going 69 or over. I guess if you are going 72 mph, it doesn’t really matter if you thought the speed limit was 55 or 65.

  12. My friend on Orkut shared this link with me and I’m not dissapointed that I came to your blog.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: