Case Dismissed

Mecum (left) was the target of a DPS show trial/arrest

Mecum (left) was the target of a DPS show trial/arrest

From the we-told-you-so department:

The reckless driving case against the executive director of the Arizona Republican Party has been dismissed.

In May, Brett Mecum was arrested by state police at his office in GOP Headquarters for allegedly driving 109 mph in a posted 65 mph zone on Loop 101. A judge dropped the charges against Mecum this week with prejudice, which means the state can’t re-file the charges.

Mecum reportedly ignored the speed camera ticket he received in the mail, and DPS took the step of arresting him at work. The case was dismissed by Judge John Keegan with Arrowhead District Court, who has dismissed every speed camera ticket in his court.

Keegan had earlier issued an order that the state’s speed camera system is unconstitutional.  The judge has dropped over 400 speed camera charges.

CameraFRAUD has learned that legal documents involved with this case (Judge’s ruling?) may make a specific claim that this was a politically-motivated move by the Department of Public Safety against Mecum. We are working to obtain the files and will follow up when we have more information.

97 Responses to Case Dismissed

  1. Stacey says:

    Maybe, those lazy ass DPS officers can get out to the Loop 101 and do their damn jobs.

    • AZGov says:

      Or maybe people can be responsable for there own action and obey the laws so that DPS can protect people like you from a-holes who break the laws. and not be tied up, with you guessed it speeders.

      • James S says:

        Perhaps you forgot that DPS is Highway Patrol. Catching “speeders” is their job.

        What are you hoping to “free” highway patrolmen up to do?

        • Law A.Biding Troll says:

          get a clue james… they do more than just that!!! if you really are that ignorant then just read and dont reply!!!

          • James S says:

            Highway Patrol does just that: Patrol the highway.

            Why are you so inept?

            • Law A.Biding Troll says:

              really smart guy… how does protecting the governor have anything to do with a highway!!

              now if i was you i would have that foot surgically removed from my mouth…it is in very deep!!!

              as i said before… dps does many more things than just highway “patrol” as they are LE for the state !!

              • camerafraud says:

                Executive Protection isn’t part of Highway Patrol.

                The vast majority of what DPS does is not Exec. Protection.

            • AZGovTroll says:

              Really because i am sure they do many other functions than just that if you go on there web site or ask a DPS officer you will find out. And make sure you tell them that all they do is write tickets i am sure they will have a good laugh before they kick you in the nuts.

            • DPS has several divisions. James specifically referred to the highway patrol division of DPS. HP is limited to patrolling the highway. Other divisions provide other services.

  2. Joe says:

    Expect appeals to be filed, Andrew Thomas trying to move the case to superior court, etc. This is 100% politics and these are political players here.
    I’m actually amazed that this case went to the Arrowhead Justice Court at all. Do they even try any criminal cases there? Weird!

    Or perhaps these dismissed charges are just the $181 “speeding” charges that usually go to this court.

  3. There you go again DPS!

  4. Mike says:

    In before the trolls! lol

    • Law A.Biding Troll says:

      kind of funny…. 1600 members and about 5 trolls and you are celebrating that you beat us to the first few posts? who do you think wins the race the rabbit ot the turtle?

      the turtle of course…. the rabbit gets multiple speeding tickets FROM THE CAMERAS and tires before the finish line… when the turtle catches and goes past him…. without any fines at all!!!


    • Mike says:

      Well some of us don’t get paid to sit at our Redflex desk and troll forums like you.

  5. Law A.Biding Troll says:

    this is not politics…. this is a person rather fool that committed a criminal act… I dont fault him for what the idiot unqualified JP did… but he knows this is not over and not because of who he is… you people make it out that the camera singled this guy out!!

    in other news.. this will not look good for anti camera crowd especially if you celebrate… people… all people do not like it when criminals get off when they should have had the book thrown at them… this is a classic example….

    but by all means celebrate away!! just remember others are reading your celebration of someone getting away with a crime…

    • James S says:

      “this is not politics…. this is a person rather fool that committed a criminal act… ”

      Where’s the proof? Just because Redflex said he violated it doesn’t mean he did.

    • guttersn1pe says:

      Innocent until proven guilty. He allegedly committed a criminal act.

  6. Glyph says:

    Yeah, before people start screaming ‘special treatment,’ let’s remember that the JP in this jurisdiction has been dismissing pretty much all of the photo enforcement tickets that have been challenged in his court. DPS is just spinning their wheels.

  7. Joe says:

    For Vanderpoole to press this case, it puts him in the same maturity zone as Joe Arpaio. An embarrassment to all Arizonans.

  8. metelhed says:

    LAB: I read your drivel almost every day and it makes me laugh. You remind me of a t-shirt I saw that said “Hyperbole is the best thing ever!”. You’ve already presumed Mr. Mecum’s guilt without due process, which is what happens every time someone receives a notice of violation in the mail. Your statements fit exactly into the spin DPS was trying to put on this case and every show arrest they make.

    From every comment I’ve seen from you, you refuse to see or admit any negatives with these cameras, and I have a great suspicion you profit from these cameras in some fashion, otherwise you wouldn’t spend so much time here. If you say you don’t, I will refuse to believe you, because I will apply your line of reasoning and presume you guilty. You want your day in court? Prove me wrong.

  9. […] See the original post: Case Dismissed « – The Cameras are Coming Down […]

  10. AZGov says:

    Alright, yes wooo hoo, man i am so happy i am going to celibrate by going 150 on the 101 and i will stopr of in some cities to run some red lights. Man i am so happy that we can all be dipshits and break the law as bad as that guy. Good job CF you won the case for him.

    To Be Cont…..

    • jgunn says:

      AZGOV, why don’t you celebrate by breaking law AZ 28-721:

      “On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.”

      Oh wait, they don’t ever enforce that law because there is no profit to be made. Come to think of it they only enforce a couple laws speeding and sometimes red light running (no red light camera, go ahead and break it) because those are the only 2 profitable ones to enforce. How many traffic laws are there? Thousands? Must be nice to only enforce .001 percent of those and expect there to be some kind of results.

      • Will Kay says:

        Excellent point jgunn. I see people breaking that law almost EVERY DAY! I drive I-17 frequently and always see people doing less than 65 or 75, where it is the limit, in the left lane. It is called impeding the flow of traffic AND IT IS AS ILLEGAL AS SPEEDING!!!! It is also the reason for traffic backups and the precursor to rear end collisions.

        Troll, I will also apply your line of reasoning here and presume you guilty of this. You reap what you sow!

    • Stacey says:

      Honey, if you got the money, it is okay to speed in Arizona. Just pay up and all is well. For that matter, don’t pay up and it is okay too.

      • jgunn says:

        You don’t even need to go that far. Without sounding like an advertisement, GPS technology, radar detecting technology, Smart phone with GPS bests photo radar cameras. Shhh, don’t tell LAB that the cameras are easily defeated by technology.

        • Law A.Biding Troll says:

          thats fine with me… if you want to spend big $$ to get out a ticket you say you can easily get out of what does that make you besides really really stupid?

          hail to the flahes..

          i would like to credit geez for coming up with the above paragraph/// it was a great point !!! and one in which you have no answers for….

        • You don’t need technology. All you need is a mask or piece of paper to put in front of your face… Kind of pathetic really, when you can avoid tickets just by putting paper in front of your face. And that sounds really safe too. I’m glad they came up with a law enforcement method that encourages people to take their eyes off of the road.

          • Will Kay says:

            I had a cop tell me that all you have to do is send the “citation” in with the phrase “This photo is not of me” written on it, nothing more, and you’re off the hook. No lawyers, fees to be paid, court dates, or avoiding “process servers.”

  11. duece says:

    Yee-Haw, another law breaker set free. Lets support people driving 100 MPH plus on our roadways.

    • James S says:

      Rather have someone in a proper car designed to go 100MPh than see half of the cars out there in deplorable condition with no brakes left at 50MPh.

      Some of you idiots supporting the cameras must still think it’s impossible to go over 60 lest you fly off the earth!

  12. Law A.Biding Troll says:

    cf members all celebrating like it was the day prohibition was repealed!!! where to start?

    metelhed- please email the administration and they can verify that where i post from is in gilbert… this thing about me working for the cams is nonsense and has already been put to rest.. believe that you want …. i dont have time to waste on you.. you will be gone in a week anyway!! BUH BUY!! SEE YA!!!

    so james says that as long as you drive a new car its ok to drive 105!!!! that comment just goes right to my theory..thanks james!!!

    will kay- how far do you travel the 1-17 cause it does not hit 75 for awhile and certainly not in city limits!!!

    james – the proof…. is captured in a photo!! read it and weap!!! the guy is as guilty of speeding as you are of stupidity!!

    • Will Kay says:

      Troll, I’ve driven I-17 from South Phoenix all the way to Flagstaff. I know where the limit is 65 and 75. Whatever the limit is, like I said, if you are doing less than the posted limit, especially in the middle or left lanes, under optimal driving conditions, you must yield to faster moving traffic. If you don’t, you are violating ARS 28-721 and impeding the flow of traffic.

    • metelhed says:

      As always, no real rebuttal. Just attempted dismissive language. What does living in Gilbert have to do with you not working for Redflex or ATS or DPS or any other repression-worshipping entity? You can’t drive to different suburbs or into Phoenix? Has anyone here met you, seen where you worked, seen where you get your money? Doesn’t matter. I’m going to be just like you and assume you’re guilty, that you’re a shill.

      You don’t want to play games with me. I can destroy any shred of credibility you might have once had with just my words and pointing out your blatant hypocrtitical stances on this issue. You’re already typing some nonsense about me being gone in a week. You can’t even rebut my point about the basics of our legal system, because you immediately presumed the man guilty, as well as some others did above.

      You are the media and government’s dream. Preprogrammed and spouting the company line. Those of us who apply our critical thinking skills towards the big picture and not the myopic point of view that your ilk seem to use. It’s all selfish babble about the extremely remote chance of something bad happening.

      If you believe you’re intelligent, how about coming up with solutions to this issue that don’t use speed or red-light cameras. Or actually read the results of some of the different studies that show promising, non-punitive measures to further decrease the already extremely remote possibility something might happen to you that could have been prevented by these cameras.

  13. Law A.Biding Troll says:

    well metelhead//// if you had been round here very long you would know more about me… and you would drop the me and redflex crap..i will leave it at that and see if one of your fellow tin hats comes to your rescue or lets you drift in the wind…

    i never said i didnt want to play with you… i just said that i will not waste my time on you… your last sentence makes zero sense…try a rewrite… i have said many times which you would know if you had read my drivel everyday as you claim.. i dont put any weight into stats or reports for or against the cams…for every report pro there is one that supports the same theory against etc..etc.. so boom there goes that avenue for you… the rest of your post is just the same blah blah blah… same blah different tin hat!! your a boy playing against a man… better go back to the minors… again YOU WILL BE GONE IN A WEEK!! seeee yyyaaaa!!

    well willy.. then you better turn in the fire coat for a badge if you want to catch me… i enjoy pissing those off that think i should move for them…there are 2-3-4-5- lanes to the right, feel free to use them… good thing you live on the crap side of town or else you could eat my dust on the daily commute!!
    i yield to nobody!!!


    • Joe says:

      I’m guessing your frivolous employment lawsuit has not yet worked-out in your favor. Hope it works out for you, as most larger employers now subscribe to databases that help them identify (and screen-out) job candidates that have previously filed lawsuits against their employers. In other words: Your future employment prospects are VERY DIM.

    • metelhed says:

      Too bad I don’t have the same amount of idle time you must have, seeing the amount of comments you leave here. I don’t care what you say about yourself, so you can stop with the pathetic defenses. You presumed a man guilty, I apply the same logic to your position. From what I’ve read from you, you are the antithesis of what it means to be an American. You parrot a company line, have complete faith in our government (despite the past 8 years of utter destruction of American ideals under two Presidents), and accuse others of being paranoid. Who’s the paranoid one? Someone who fights for freedom, or one who expects the government to save them from some remote possibility of injury? You sit at your computer and think you’re supporting the law, when you don’t even bother thinking about how paranoid you are. You avoid replying directly to my comments but reply to others, which shows fear. For that, you do have intelligence. You want paranoia? Realize that nothing is truly anonymous in this day and age, and anyone who has the desire can find out who and where you are. If I was a tin-foil hat person, I wouldn’t even come close to posting comments on a website that is most likely monitored by the powers that be. So avoid my challenges, try to cow the other folks here who oppose you, and live your life in fear, exactly what politicians strive for. Be the Redcoat, or Tory, or Nazi, or however you want to comfort yourself in your position. I’ll still do what I can to ensure your freedom too.

      • Joe says:

        Law A.Biding Troll is a former supermarket worker who was fired for missing his night shifts without properly notifying his supervisors. He filed a greivance through his useless union but somehow got a lawsuit going. His case is still being appealed. He has nothing but time. Rather than go find some other job, Law has decided that he could not possibly walk away from his investment in years of experince working a box cutter and using a pallet jack. That would be akin to expecting a career McDonalds worker to survive switching to Jack In The Box (they are night and day).

        • geez says:

          and if a ‘troll’ posts something personal of a CF’er it gets moderated, censored and completely flamed and cried about if it actually goes through.

          • Joe says:

            I don’t know his real name (or anything truly personal). I simplky ran an email address he’d posted through google. That led to my finding his admission on a legal website that he was a union supermarket worker that was suing his employer for having the audacity to fire him for missing work (imagine the outrage of that!). I did not find anything that Law A. Biding Troll had not freely offered of his own free will on the internet. I have no idea what his name is, and I would only publicze that if he offered that information up freely as well.

            • Watching says:

              Yhe. I mean for all you knew he could have just been any old 45 yr. old (this July) with a T-Mobile cell phone, margarita man, been cited 8 times in past 10 yrs for traffic violations (fought ‘em all), appealed his last photo radar ticked but abandoned the appeal, kinda dude! That could be anyone!

              • Law A.Biding Troll says:

                no tmobile account…

                dont own that company anymore..

                did not abandon the PR ticket.. the judge refused to look at the “evidence” of the black man that was driving but i got blamed for..

                be fair now… those 8 tickets minus the PR one …. there was only one for speeding in 2002 i think…

                • Watching says:

                  I like your posts, diagree, but like. You tend to get some easily verifiable facts wrong which weakens your credibility. As for the info above, just letin y know the be careful what you post about yourself. I actually found alot more than I disclosed but kep it off the site. Don’t worry, it was ALL public record

        • Law A.Biding Troll says:

          how could you not know my name? when it has been posted here 2-3 times in the past few days… and the legal site it is there also..

          it was one day of work ( oh the outrage) and i did notify the store… not once but twice!! well within the company policies!

          i know it makes it look better for you to make me appear worse if you leave things out… you seem to have a lot of issues with people that work in the grocery industry.. did you shoplift before and get caught? do you not like the shopper cards? did you get overcharged ? or do you just think you are better than them?

          • Joe says:

            Law: I’m not as obsessed with you as you’d like to think. I found your case long ago, way before anyone knew your name. But you made it so essy to find.

            I used to work as a grocery clerk in a UFCW store when I was in college. Of course, the union’s adversarial relationship with management made it such that getting a regular schedule each week was virtually impossible. I quit to make SCHOOL my priority. I figured that I’d mastered the pallet jack already and that as a human being with normal intelligence, that I owed it to myself to try and accomplish a bit more in life.

            In retrospect, I’ve learned that the contracts that unions have with stores prevent management from instituting layoffs when lean economic times require them. This forces them to identify their top assholes (like you) and wait to get rid of you on technicalities. My best guess is this: You were an asshole. They needed to get rid of people to balance the budget. They waited for you (the asshole) to screw-up and break a rule, and then you did. And then they fired you. Intead of calling your supervisor, you thought texting would suffice.

            As a manager with a cellphone, if one of my direct reports texted me, I’d ignore the text. If they failed to show up for work, I’d hammer them for missing work without calling.

            But you grew up in this world of friends texting each other (incessantly) and you probably thought that this was how the rest of the world communicated. You probably were hungover or just lazy, and you are probably a bad “faker” on the phone. So you used the most “un-intimate” manner possible to call in sick, and it came back and bit you on the ass. You finally fell into the trap. And that’s the breaks of working a union supermarket job. Now get off your butt, get into college, take some RISK in life and make yourself into an economically relevant person.

            • Law A. Biding Troll says:

              I just love those of you that have done it all and know it all.. well since i had others supervisors that accepted text messages …how was i to know it was not allowed now? and FYI… i received many text messages at home while i was off the clock from him… actually he was not the problem his boss was…. things are still pending.. and the store still has a chance to make things right and avoid the suit… but the backpay is mounting… i am hoping they do not cave and i file the suit… thanks on the school advise.. i dont need anymore schooling… i am skilled with a pallet jack and a box knife!! and i can walk and chew gum at the same time!!

              • Joe says:

                The simple matter is: They wanted you gone. So the only thing even remotely keeping you employed, was a union labor contract. You, as an employee, were not considered to be valuable to them anymore. You spew volumes about integrity and doing the right thing by society… So why don’t you do the right thing for society and accept your termination? They don’t want you anymore. And the only reason you sit at home, not moving on with your life is the fact that you’re gambling on some kind of payoff and settlement. Why not get out there and perform some useful work?

          • Joe says:

            “it was one day of work ( oh the outrage) and i did notify the store… not once but twice!!”

            Just curious: If you’d already notified the store, why’d you repeat it? Did you not feel confident that the notification had “stuck”? Were you scared that your assumption that sending a text message was inadequate? And why were you afraid to speak to your supervisor on the phone? Afraid he might ask you a follow-up question that you were unprepared for?

      • Law A.Biding Troll says:

        well i didnt read anything worth responding to… but if you are going to beg me on each post . kind of like the nerd at school ( you) getting a high five from the cool guy ( me )… im gme

        im sorry that you dont have idle time but that is a you problem not a me problem.. marry into wealth, quit your job, get fired… or maybe just organize your time a little better

        paranoid.. thats what all you “freedom fighters” think of anyone that does not join the fight… but what do you really fight from a computer?

        fear you? in your dreams as it seems you are trying to convince yourself of that.. and others…

        and you!!! ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR MY FREEDOM… what a slap in the face to the men-women in the services… unless you are in the service all you are doing here is serving yourself!!! your own interests..

        MENTALhead///you are not in my league..but you do get an A for effort!!

        last thing… you still dont “ensure” my freedom… yes thats your incorrect spelling!! “ensure” is a nutritional drink… it would be no fun to give you the correct spelling!! more fun to imagine you looking it up!!

        you happy now? go away now fly !!

        • I’d love to see how you think ensure should be spelled. From (although I’m sure you’ll dispute the authenticity until the supreme court says it is a dictionary): en-sure
            /ɛnˈʃʊər, -ˈʃɜr/ [en-shoor, -shur]
          1. to secure or guarantee: This letter will ensure you a hearing.
          2. to make sure or certain: measures to ensure the success of an undertaking.
          3. to make secure or safe, as from harm.

          And from grocery boy:
          4. A drink

          • Law A.Biding Troll says:

            well it seems that there are 2 spellings for the same thing, atleast my dictionary has them both.. i wont same i am wrong cause i was technically not..ensure is a drink….oh and it is insure…. yes check it out for yourself… i dont use it is too easy…

            • Will Kay says:

              Ensure is right Troll. Insure is what you do to your car, house, boat, etc.

              • Law A.Biding Troll says:

                well not according to the dictionary i have… Websters New Dictionary of the English Language, 2006 Edition, printed by the Popular Group, whoever they are…we going to argue about this also? you know that posting this late , will get you labeled an addict!!

    • Will Kay says:

      You just admitted to breaking the law Troll. How funny. Passing on the right is illegal, which is why the law clearly states that slower moving traffic must yield.

      No, I do not live on the crap side of town, I live off of Carefree Highway in North Phoenix.

      It’s not called a fire coat either, they are called turnouts.

      • Law A.Biding Troll says:

        “which is why the law clearly states that slower moving traffic must yield”..

        passing on the right is illegal? news to me… i would imagine it is news to everyone here except for you.. is that just a general statement that applies to every lane? or are there some lanes you can not pass on the right from… like the farthest lane to the right.. it would make sense that it would be illegal to pass on the right from that lane..( i can see MENTALhead scratching his noggin right now on that ? )

        cant pass on the right… did you make that one up yourself? or did a retarTed kid help you? thanks for the lesson on the fire coat!!

  14. Law A.Biding Troll says:

    Phoenix, AZ
    1,121 Volunteers

    Welcome to CameraFRAUD. We are united in our effort to get rid of every speed camera, red light camera, and photo radar van here in Arizona and across the country. We were suc…

    Check out this Meetup Group →

    david, azgov !! please read docs comments and then watch the video… this is the kind of lies i refer to ….the camera was attached to the side of a corner market… it never said anything about it being a speed or traffic camera..yet that is exactly what old doc calls it as if it is some kind of fact… the only fact is he made that part up!! if i owned a corner market in docs old neighborhood there…i would also get a camera to monitor the area around my store!!
    funny how doc trys to distance himself from that neighborhood….

    • David says:

      I am against current AZ photo enforcement, but as a seeker of truth and advocate of responsible debate, I will say:

      The follow up story in a link towards the bottom of the report does indeed state that the camera was a surveillance camera from a corner store. I agree the comments in the post were misinformation and it appears the poster jumped to conclusions.

      However, perhaps the poster would like to comment on this before he is labeled a “liar”. I for one am willing to hear an explanation (even if it is a retraction) before I form an opinion on his veracity. I do have to say, however, the post gives the initial appearance of being, at a minimum, irresponsible.

    • Joe says:

      “June 4, 2009 at 5:08 am”

      Getting an early start, eh LAB?

      1) Wake-up

      2) Rush to computer and check to see if anyone responded to one of your diatribes.

  15. Is that the best you could find? What a pathetic example. A lie is intentional. The best I can tell is he mis-read the article or made an assumption about the camera, but he’s clearly not trying to deceive anyone because he posted the link so we could read it for ourselves. That’s not exactly deceitful or showing ill intent.

    Try again, troll.

  16. P.S. Dreciffo says:

    Tickets from photo enforcement camreras suck and ahould be fought to the bitter end, even if you don’t have a good excuse to fight them. Everyone should at least appeal even just for the sake of it.

    I heard that DPS is gonna make a BIG announcment about the future of photo radar on July 14, I think the people who post the most here should have an all day online forum that day. ESPECIALLY the Trolls! Stick it!!!

    • AZGovTroll says:

      Yeah an all day forum. That would be so awsome i could tell all of you how retarted you are and laugh when they extend the contract.

      • metelhed says:

        Gotta love it when someone misspells “retarded”.

        • Will Kay says:

          I’m laughing my ass off at that, and of course Troll hasn’t replied bad to your comment.

          • Law A.Biding Troll says:

            LMAO… me too!!seems that kay the clown has posted 3 times in 2 minutes and 2 of the 3 have to do with me!! am i why you come here clown?

            as for the retarded thing… i will have to see what you two clowns are talking about… i dont usually use that word.. so i didnt know it was me… but again… once we all start poking fun at someones grammar, spelling etc. etc.etc… then you have taken your own pathetic cause to a lower dimension!!! by i will see if i wrote that..

    • Will Kay says:

      The only way you need to fight them is by sending them back in with the phrase”This photo is not of me” written on it and you’re off the hook. I had a cop tell me that.

  17. Joe says:

    Wow, a vote in the next two weeks! Awesome!

    Today on

    “It’s been the subject of some debate since we introduced it and some legislators have been surprised by the controversy,” Crump said. “We expect it to come up for a vote in the next couple weeks. If it fails, we’ll say more power to the people. But every time [a freeway speed-camera initiative] has been up for a vote in any place it has failed.”

    • Stacey says:

      From above article:
      When asked if she thinks a nationwide system of freeway speed cameras is likely, Weeks offers a cryptic response: “I think, you know, take a look at western Europe, which is 10 to 15 years ahead of U.S. applications.”

      And guess what? Those people are not remotely familiar with freedom of speech now since criticism of any group is considered hate speech.

  18. Joe says:

    From the same article:

    “”Nothing is changed on the image. They are not ‘Photoshopped,'” Weeks said.”

    Au contraire! A relative of mine recently recieved one of these tickets on I-17, and I happened to be riding in the back seat. The driver’s face is clearly visible, yet his wife (sitting right beside him) is not even in the photo. And right in the spot where MY face should be, a very convenient “lens flare” obliterates any trace of my existence in the car. Actually, the car was carrying FIVE passengers, and not ONE of us is visible. This photo was taken at 4:30 PM

    I’m a professional designer. I work with photoshop every day and have so since 1991. I know what the Photoshop “Lens Flare” filter looks like. I also know that when a car filled with six people is photographed with high-res cameras, it is very unlikely that only the driver is shown. Messing with the evidence in any way (even if just to prompt a guilty plea) is an indication of the future potential for faking evidence. Our photo WAS manipulated.

    • I do believe the DPS contract and other contracts specifically say that they black out or block out passengers. I am told that the photos used in court are usually not the photos they mail to you.

      • Joe says:

        Well then, an excellent answer to this would be that the vendor has an incentive to ensure revenue is gained from the case, so if they’re willing to do retouching on the mailed photo, they also have the capability (and opportunity) to alter the one presented in court.

        Also, the photo I saw was altered in a manner that made it look like no one else was ever in the car. When in fact, there was a driver and five passengers. They did not do simple obscuring of faces. They actually edited the photo in such a way that history was re-written. If they went that far in the mailed version, what’s to prevent them from altering the photo they use in court?

        • geez says:

          As far as I know, they ‘mask’ out any face present except for the driver, for privacy concerns.
          Also they could just crop the photo to the driver only.
          If your a photoshop pro, you should be able to tell if a photo was altered.
          And for a mere $28 cut from the ticket, you think they are gonna waste their time photochopping out a bunch of passengers. How long would that take?! An hour minimum.. at the end of the day the employee would maybe get through 10 citations… now do you really think it’s even worth their time?!
          common sense here…

          • Joe says:

            “If your a photoshop pro, you should be able to tell if a photo was altered.”

            I can, and it was. But they altered it in such a manner that it was not blatantly obvious. I know it was altered because I was in the shot. Someone else might look at this same photo and not immediately realize that it had been altered. I think I’m smart enough to know the difference.

            I don’t agree with “pussy-footing” around for “privacy” reasons. If your side is still trying to make the argument that we give up our right to privacy by driving on public roadways, then passengers should not be exempted.

            In other words, we’ve all gotta ride this train together. If you ain’t comfortable with the ride, then by all means, join Camerafraud and help to end this practice.

            Personally, I do not think I should be subjected to random collection of my image, nor should anyone else have to be. The fact that they black-out the passengers speaks to why they should not be conducting photo surveillance in the first place.

  19. Concerned says:

    This website is ridiculous. Politicians trying to beat the system, judges with their own agenda, and supposedly “concerned citizens” claiming camera fraud. This isn’t the 1940s.
    These cameras are trying to save lives and reduce speeding, get over it.

    • metelhed says:

      People voicing their opinions is ridiculous? I’ll agree the name of this group is a little too hyperbolic for my tastes, but the sentiment is correct. Why don’t you comment back with everything you know about the cameras and what their capabilities are? I’m going out on a limb here and saying you’re either misinformed or have gleaned your information from the pro-camera press releases from DPS and the Arizona Republic.

      • Law A.Biding Troll says:

        he has a great point… the hysteria about all forms of “government” and “rules” and “law” and “judges” and anything having to do with keeping law and order seems to be thrown out the window at CF… might as well challenge everything… hell if you throw enough mud then some of it may stick!!! i would love to see ( and not be around) the kind of government that you folks support!!!

    • They may be trying to save lives, but it isn’t working. The NMA claims photo encforcement has cost ARizona 28 lives. Sheriff Babeu saw fatalities double where cameras were installed so he removed them from Pinal County. Tempe saw a 43% increase in fatalities after they installed cameras.

      How could anyone support this kind of revenue for blood program?

    • Stacey says:

      Then why are ya here?

  20. dgpjr777 says:

    Photo give me a break. Sheriff Boo Boo did it because one of his family members broke the law and recieved a ticket. Lets be honest here !

    • Where is your evidence? Until you provide some kind of substance to back up your wild assumption, we have to go with the published statements.

      Which, as I may point out, Babeu did not act alone in this decision as it ialso nvolved the county board. Your guess about what happened is highly unlikely.

  21. geez says:

    Heck, where’s the proof the in Pinal county fatal accidents increased at photo radar locations??? There is none… That’s a pretty harsh, well, very harsh claim to make without proof. Well, when your mad that you got caught, I guess you’ll say anything.

  22. Law A.Biding Troll says:

    geez- you addict…. why are you not in bed? i am up with my tin hat on ….. i dont want the government to get me…

    i think we ran doc off!! he seems to only post oops/// spread lies at the discussions page!!

  23. Law A.Biding Troll says:

    watching- you mean the nude photos? i was young then and did not think that they would get published!! dsoes this mean that i have to give up my title of most hated member at camder fraud? just cause i had a lapse of judgement when i was young?

  24. RoadKen says:

    You all need to chill out and get a life, this is about the illegal use of cameras, not who does what and how they live. If you have to whah eachother meet at a bar have a couple of cold ones and figure out how to bring down the damn cameras. I went through this kind of nonesense in grammer school and with two ex-wives. You all seem pretty smart, use it in a positive manor, we have enough problems with the direction our Country is heading. Light up the people stuffing these cameras in our faces and not eachother. My 2 cents!

  25. Law A.Biding Troll says:

    here is your refund…02..

  26. Law A.Biding Troll says:

    Phoenix, AZ
    1,121 Volunteers

    Welcome to CameraFRAUD. We are united in our effort to get rid of every speed camera, red light camera, and photo radar van here in Arizona and across the country. We were suc…

    Check out this Meetup Group →

    this has got to be one of the funniest things ever read on this site… i feel so bad for this person that instead of picturing him trying to locate any information on the “senators” i thought i would help him out…. here you go and good luck fighting those tickets…

    happy emailing…. oh, please keep in mind that the “senators” represent more than just you!!!

    now if someone could explain to him that as citizens we do not normally get to vote on the laws…thats not how it works…

  27. kiduber says:

    Just another way for the government to shakedown the hardworking taxpayers of Arizona – I am glad a conservative judge has the balls to stand up for the people and tell big brother to take the camera and shove it. The rest of the losers on this forum that actually support “speed cameras” are most likely employed by the private companies that are responsible for this scam – either that or they are highway patrol that are chilling at home now that they don’t have to do their job anymore…what they really need to to get rid of all the cameras, what next am i going to get tickets in the mail for jaywalking? pathetic just what we need during a severe recession is to be getting shaken down by photo radar and scammed out of hard working money.

    • Law A. Biding Troll says:

      shakedown? you break the law and get caught and it is a shakedown? if you cant pay the fine… well i am sure you know the rest…

      and he is not a judge he is a JP !!! there is a difference… he is no more qualified to do the job he has than myself or anybody on this site!! no legal degree of any kind necessary !!

  28. “Lascia un commento”

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: