ATS Van Caught Speeding, Failing to Signal

American Traffic Solutions or Above The Statutes, Inc?

An American Traffic Solutions / City of Mesa “photo enforcement” vehicle was caught red handed early Saturday afternoon breaking various traffic laws.

The incident occurred early Saturday afternoon on westbound US-60 in Mesa, Arizona near exit 181. A CameraFRAUD volunteer witnessed and recorded the incident.

The white Chevrolet Uplander was observed exceeding the posted speed limit on the US-60 and failing to signal a right-hand turn onto north Stapley Dr.

CameraFRAUD Tyranny Response Unit issues "Notice of Violation" to American Traffic Solutions

CameraFRAUD has collected details about the “tali-van” scofflaw, and in a twist of roles, will issue a “Notice of Violation” to American Traffic Solutions on Monday.

Much like the millions of notices the Scottsdale-based company issues each year, the violator will be given the option of paying an arbitrary “fine” or attending a hearing.

An “Assessed Donation” in the amount of $5,000 made payable to the Children’s Cancer and Blood Foundation by American Traffic Solutions is requested by CameraFRAUD to cure the violation and the flagrant disregard for the law exhibited by the photo radar van driver. (Disclosure: We are not affiliated with CCBF, nor are they a sponsor or part of our request).

Automated ticketing vendors have a long history of breaking various statutes and flaunting the law when it suites their needs. In September of 2008, a Redflex van driver was arrested for DUI while driving from Scottsdale to Tempe to set up the vehicle.

In September of 2009, another Redflex driver was caught on tape in north Phoenix driving recklessly in the fully-marked faux-DPS Ford Escape.

In addition, numerous high-ranking executives of both ATS and Redflex have ignored their own tickets in a blatant example of do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do.

ATS has never been shy invoking “the children” as a reason for the usage of automated ticketing. Now that they’ve been caught (again), it’s time for them to put their money where their mouth is and make a donation to a worthy, independent cause.

We eagerly await a response from American Traffic Solutions and will keep you posted with what happens.

78 Responses to ATS Van Caught Speeding, Failing to Signal

  1. 4409 says:

    If ATS really cared about Children with Cancer they should donate $20,000 for their employees dangerous driving. After all it was two violations 🙂

    Funny thing about Irony is???

  2. reason says:

    you should wait three months and then hit them with the “notice,” just like they do.

    • 4409 says:

      We’re going to do just like they are proposing to the legislature. We’re going to serve them first, THEN file a complaint.

      • Pro-Camera says:


        Good luck with that. You do realise that you will be submitting incriminating evidence of a much worse crime to try to get this vehicle, and you don’t even have a picture of the driver (which is required on Arizona Photo tickets).

        Go ahead and post your video evidence of the violation and the court can then go after the person who took the video for the Class 2 misdemeanor offense of Reckless driving by holding a camera, focusing on the van and the speedometer, and making two lane changes and then a right turn at an intersection, all while focusing the camera on the Photo vehicle.

        • You’re really taking this one hard. Were you driving?

          • Pro-Camera says:

            It’s just ironic. A Camerafraud follower is willing to recklessly drive with a camera in hand, drawing their attention from the road and traffic, all to try to show how an ATS vehicle was exceeding the speed limit.

            • reason says:

              More like a Camerafraud person was able to drive more attentively and still signal his (her?) lane changes…

              What’s the van driver’s excuse?

              Oh, and as to the identity of the van driver, I’m sure ATS knows who was driving that unit at that time.

              At least this site is being honest their ticket is bogus… but lets see if ATS pays up or if they decide it’s not illegal when THEY do it!

            • LoneWolf says:

              It’s not about the follower. It’s about the leader. Leaders (drivers of law enforcement vehicles) are supposed to set good examples and abide by the very laws they help enforce.

          • reason says:

            They sure are acting like ants under a microscope… in the sun.

        • Fuck the Cameras, and the Supporters says:

          You ASSume that the person did not perform the common steps of checking the mirror, signalling, looking over the shoulder, etc., prior to making the lane change(s).

          Holding the camera does not preclude one taking those steps.

          That they are holding a camera is not an offense. That they are doing so while driving is also not an offense.

          And unless you’re a sworn peace officer, which I highly doubt, maybe you should STFU.

          • Pro-Camera says:

            “Holding the camera does not preclude taking those steps.”

            You are right, but it is illegal to use the camera equipment while driving. Just like it is illegal to have a TV screen on if it is in view of the driver because it can distract the driver.

            ARS 28-963
            A. A person shall not view a broadcast television image or a visual image from an image display device while that person is driving a motor vehicle and the motor vehicle is in motion on a public roadway or on an off-highway vehicle trail as defined in section 28-1171.

            A Digital Camera is an image display device.

            • LoneWolf says:

              I’m impressed. You did your research and posted evidence to back you up. You camera lovers are rarely known for that.

              But in this instance, the camera was being used as an aid to capture a violation, just like security cameras and cameras mounted on the dash of police cars are used for. While your argument may hold some water in court, the witness’s argument may also be valid since there is no law against videotaping drivers of law enforcement and company vehicles who may be violating traffic safety laws.

        • LoneWolf says:

          With state and company vehicles, you don’t need a photo of the driver. All you need is the license plate # & time and date. Such vehicles are assigned to a specific driver. Anyone can call the police dept or company and lodge a complaint about a bad driver and either one will have a record of who’s driving the vehicle in question.

  3. Beau Jangles says:

    Nicely done, Incriminate your self too while your at it. Leave this job up to DPS use your cell phone an call it in, let the officer issue a real ticket.

    • photoradarscam says:

      Real officers don’t issue tickets anymore, it’s all been outsourced.

      The process now is for private companies and individuals to take pictures and mail tickets to the offenders.

  4. Butihave Nothingto Worryabout says:

    Just these idiots at cf trying to make their lost cause look worthy. They should find the idiot who took these videos and get him for speeding and distracted driving… GIVE IT UP ALREADY!!! YOU LOST!!!

    • reason says:

      I heard the person who video’d it was an off-duty officer with a certified speedometer.

      But go on, try your “but people around me were speeding too” defense the next time you get pulled over and let me know how that works for ya.

      • oh my says:

        Maybe he should just say he was ‘going with the flow of traffic’. That’s the excuse ya’ll use. Guess what’s ok for you is not ok for others.

        • LoneWolf says:

          Why should he be able to go with the flow since his beloved system of tin trash-can displacement is severely “anti-flow”?

  5. Being a Slave is Fun says:

    Leave the van driver alone. He’s just doing his job. You people make me sick.

    • waaaaaa says:

      “And how f-ing dare anyone make fun of ATS after all they’ve been through – they lost the statewide contract to Redflex and have Goldman Sachs’ hand up their asses controlling everything they do!”


  6. ray says:

    So, a volunteer broke the same speeding law to pace this van while taking photographs….listed speed was 75, this would get dismissed in court because an exact speed was not cited and it was within the 11 mph buffer these companies and the cities allow. Also, was the volunteers speedomter certified and regularly calibrated to ensure that the speed is exact? And the State worries about people texting while driving. Also, it appears as if the van is traveling at the same speed limit as all the other cars around him. Since the cameras on the freeways have come down everyone is driving faster and driving the speed limit will get you run over.

    I think that your distracted driving tactics are a hell of alot more dangerous to the public. You could have filed a complaint with Mesa Police and they could have counseled the driver. Instead, you blow this out of proportion so it fits into your agenda.

    • Are you talking about the scamera companies?

    • 4409 says:

      Ray if you notice from 0:40 – 0:50 the Scam van actually takes over and passes a vehicle so it is NOT traveling as the same speed as the cars around him. Goo try though 🙂

      As far as your “an exact speed was not cited” argument…that fails. If you look at and Arizona “citation” the exact speed is NEVER disclosed either, its says “approx speed” So even the state issued citations don’t tell you the exact speed in which you were traveling. In as much they are not citing you for an exact speed anyway they are citing you for 28-701A “speed not reasonable and prudent” the exact speed does not matter to them.


    • reason says:

      “Also, was the volunteers speedomter certified and regularly calibrated to ensure that the speed is exact?”

      Are ANY photo enforcement devices certified and calibrated by AZ Weights and Measurments? No.

      Besides, it’s “reasonable preponderance of the evidence,” and this video provided much more detail than your average scam cam.

  7. reason says:

    overheard this morning, mumbled by an ATS exec…

    “Ah yes, I love children. But only when cooked properly.”

  8. Pro-Camera says:

    Where’s the image of the driver? I guess the Camerafraud Auditor let this one go by. Can’t issue a notice to the vehicle owner (ATS) it has to be issued to the driver. That’s why so many Camerafraud members have registered their personal vehicles under LLC’s to avoid these notices. heaven forbid they simply SLOW DOWN to avoid getting them.

    The notice also claims the vehicle was traveling at 75+ mph, yet the video evidence presented did not show the vehicle being paced at a speed over 75. Does your evidence gathering staff have the ability to exceed speed limits to attempt to gather this type of evidence? ATS uses stationary cameras with devices that can guage speed. Your Tyranny Officer exceeded the posted speed limit and then drove recklessly with a camera in hand to gather this evidence.

    How exactly did your officer hold on to the steering wheel, hold a camera directed at a turning vehilce, and also signal to change lanes and later signal to turn right to follow the Photo vehicle? It’s called reckless driving. And it’s a Class 2 Misdemeanor instead of a Civil Traffic violation. ARS28-693A And it all caught on tape, privided by

    • You have no sense of humor. Must be rough.

      • Pro-Camera says:

        So to you, driving at 75mph with a camera in one hand, focuing on a vehicle in front of you, then on the speedomter, then back to the vehicle, making multiple lane changes, then making a right turn without losing focus of the vehicle in front in the camera view. That is ok to do for a joke?

        And I assume that this Camerafraud “Tyranny Reduction Officer” signaled for both lane changes, and for the right turn at the intersection with their steering hand.

        I bet the Camerafraud driver was using good defensive driving habits and checked boh directions with their foot hovering over the brake pedal as they made the right hand turn while filming the ATS vehicle. Just in case some other Camerafraud idiot was trying to express their right to run red lights.

    • reason says:

      Maybe the passenger filmed it? Who knows!

      Can’t be as dangerous as the flashing strobe lamps everyone has to deal with.

    • photoradarscam says:

      The increase in safety gained by mailing a ticket to ATS far outweighs any of the alleged incidents you claim to have happened.

  9. Murray Rothbard says:

    The trolls from Redflex and ATS crack me up. How much do they pay you to troll for your fascist masters. For the record–I have received 6 of these scamera speed and red light tickets, and I haven’t paid one! Why don’t you trolls get a real job instead of being pirates for hire.

    • Pro-Camera says:

      Pirates for hire. That’s funny. Why don’t you ask the out of work DPS officers if they would have liked to have kept their job and get paid from the $15 million in speed camera proceeds.

      Just wait until after the election. Jan Brewer is going to put the cameras back up to bring in revenue, and have the legislature adjust how the tickets are issued so they can be issued to the vehicle owner instead of identify the driver. Then they all get paid or the registration gets suspended, just like in other states. You might avoid the ticket early on, but you get to pay it at registration time, plus that added fees to remove the suspension.

      • waiting says:

        ProCam Spewed: “Why don’t you ask the out of work DPS officers if they would have liked to have kept their job and get paid from the $15 million in speed camera proceeds.”

        Maybe you should ask Doug Georgianni what he would have “liked” if it weren’t for the GREEDY POLITICIANS and OPPORTUNISTIC, THIEVING CORPORATIONS who put him in harm’s way ultimately leading to his brutal and vicious murder?

        But it’s all about the money (as you admitted), and fortunately for apologists like yourself blood is difficult to account for on a balance sheet or quarterly report.

      • LoneWolf says:

        Out of work DPS officers? Try “off of vacation”. I finally see a few more than usual on the freeways now that the cameras are off. & FYI, if any DPS officers were laid off it’s because of the bad economy and also because photo enforcement was replacing them.

        • Pro-Camera says:


          Basic Math.

          Can’t afford payroll, officer are laid off.

          $15 million addition funds into DPS budget = enough to pay 150+ officers plus their benefits.

          • LoneWolf says:

            Oh? And they don’t make revenue by issuing citations? 3 tickets totaling $500 is enough to pay 2 salaries and transportation expenses for the day.

            • Pro-Camera says:

              I never said they don’t generate revenue. I LOVE that they generate revenue. Because it’s an idiot tax. The only people that pay are the ones that have broke established laws.

              • LoneWolf says:

                Not always. Certainly not in the case where cameras have been rigged to cheat and produce extra revenue.

                • Pro-Camera says:

                  When/if rigged, they can use their high violation rate to show evidence of a malfunctioning camera. Using their own evidence against them.

                • LoneWolf says:

                  But there’s a difference between malfunctioning and cheating… and they don’t always admit to these things unless someone points them out.

        • Butihave Nothingto Worryabout says:

          Don’t forget, DPS officers don’t have a built in 11 MPH buffer. DPS officers have been instructed to pull over and cite people going as little as 3 MPH over the speed limit since the cameras came down.

  10. reason says:

    Anyone notice the van’s ILLEGAL blacked-out rear window? It’s not even slightly transparent, which would explain why the driver didn’t notice someone following them with a video camera…

    It also looks like he drove over the white line at around 1:10… that’s justification for a DUI traffic stop! Perhaps he was drunk like his crosstown Redflex buddy.

    • Pro-Camera says:


      I suggest you read the following
      ARS 28-959.01
      A. This section does not apply to:
      10. The rear window or windows if the motor vehicle is equipped with outside mirrors that are on both left-hand and right-hand sides of the vehicle and that are located in a manner to reflect to the driver a view of the highway through each mirror for a distance of at least two hundred feet to the rear of the motor vehicle.

      Sorry, it’s not illegal to have a blacked out rear window if there are two mirrors that provide a rear view from the vehicle.

      • LoneWolf says:

        You’re right.. and some vehicles don’t even have rear windows. But why are you so defensive on this issue? Was that you driving? Is your job at stake?

        • Pro-Camera says:


          I periodically get on here because unlike you, I think the Camera’s are a good thing. I don’t work for the camera companies but I love the revenue that those Cameras generate. Yes, I said it. I like the REVENUE they generate. Because I know that I will not be one of the people paying for those tickets.

          And If I have the unfortunate luck to be falsely accused by one of their cameras, I know how to use their own evidence against them.

          I don’t think it is an invasion of my privacy because I have no expectation of privacy on a public roadway, paid for with public funds, and allowed the priviledge to use that road by paying registration and license fees.

          • LoneWolf says:

            I don’t have a problem with law enforcement raising revenue themselves but I do have a problem with corporations dipping their fingers into revenue generated by photo enforcement. With that comes corruption. We’ve already proven many times over that this system has been caught cheating in order to generate more revenue. And sometimes this cheating puts safety at risk like in the case of RLC’s. If cops cheat, at least we can face them in court and confront them over the accusations. Further, the main purpose of the cameras was to make the roads safer. How is this accomplished when cameras don’t remove dangerous drivers from the streets?

            • Pro-Camera says:

              That is the difference between you and me. You seem to have some idea that corruption is rampant when a company can make a profit. It does also happen when an officer can get promoted by having a higher amount of citiations than his/her peers that work the same shifts. And it is much easier to commit that corruption when you control the radar gun and the testing of that radar gun and you yourself also pull over people and issue the citation. To me, haivng more fingers in the mix (Camera Compay) keeps the people in the chain honest because there are checks and balances.

            • LoneWolf says:

              But why should companies have a hand in law enforcement? Police are trained for this, not Redflex or ATS. And corruption does run rampant with both the gov and the companies that operate the cams. Something has to pay all of those hands that are part of the ticketing process so what better way to do it by rigging a camera where nobody (except CF & similar organizations) would notice? EZ money… and god only knows how many tickets have been paid as a result of equipment malfunctions, cheating, or whatever. That’s not fair to a lot of people who need that money to feed their families or for whatever other reason.

              I could easily agree with the argument that if you don’t speed, you won’t get a ticket. That makes logical sense and all, but that’s not the one and only reason why I oppose these things. There are several. Even revenue isn’t the main reason. I understand that if you get caught speeding, you pay up. That’s the price you pay for speeding. I don’t object. However, like I’ve said, this is a job for cops, not cameras, and certainly not corporations.

              • 4409 says:

                What are you talking about. EEVERY police department is a corporation. I will have to do a video to explain this but its true.

              • LoneWolf says:

                I’ve never heard of City of Phoenix PD, Inc or DPS, Inc.. these are government services but by all means, enlighten me. Let me know when the video is online..

        • photoradarscam says:

          Pro-Camera: “…because I know I will not be one of the people paying those tickets.”

          Oh really? You don’t think some of the people at might have once thought the same thing? I bet granny accused of being on a motorcycle doing 80 at midnight didn’t think she’d ever get a ticket, but she did, and she was lucky it made a good story for the news that night otherwise she would have had to pay it.

          • Pro-Camera says:

            And Granny was able to clear up the mistaken identity by mailing in the form attached to the citation. Simple to do, and really not an inconvenience. Also, this was an error admitted by the POLICE DEPARTMENT that their officer did not catch the discrepancy, not the camera company. And she would never have had to pay that ticket.

      • Reason says:

        Good info and i stand corrected!

  11. Haha I think we used up plenty of company time today.

    Is it still $200/comment or do they go hourly now?

    • Brent says:

      LOL.. I’m sure there is at least one dedicated staff member; but instead of dicking around trying to fight what will eventually put them out of their illegit business (which is a movement and philosophy of far more people than the small CF group) they should do a better job of creating “save” propaganda. Between both scamera companies they lose nearly a contract a week..

  12. oh my says:

    You think this guy was driving recklessly?
    Go watch the video of the guy making fun of the ‘De-Badged’ DPS van over in the message board section.
    Same thing, Driving while videoing, but with the added cursing and foul language while ignoring the child in the back seat, then the pealing out and spinning tires in a wet parking lot full of pedestrians and gas pumps nontheless!
    The whole it’s ok if I do it but not if you do attitude here, amazing.

    • Brent says:

      Yes, the government (“G”) plates on this vehicle is another issue. That van is not owned or operated by any government. Albeit minor, compared to the fact that ATS & RF operate unconstitutional business models, this should be a state AG inquiry against the two companies and DPS, and if relevant the ADOT leadership who rubberstamped this fraud.

      • oh my says:

        Many cities OWN the vehicle and maintain the vehicle, while ATS or Redflex install and operate the equipment in the vehicle. Hence the “G” plate. Check your facts!

  13. LoneWolf says:

    4409, I’m not in the least bit clear on where you stand on these issues.

    We want cops, not cameras. You want “peace officers”. (sounds like something from the hippy 60’s, but ok.. technically, peace officers and police officers are the same.)

    We say it’s not ok for corporations like Redflex or ATS to profit off of law enforcement and most of us agree that it’s ok for the police to do so but you say that the police have no (or shouldn’t have any) rights to raise revenue when issuing tickets. I’m also under the impression you don’t think they should be issuing tickets either.

    I’m just trying to get a grasp on your thoughts here.. your ideas seem to restrict what law enforcement can and cannot do.. why can’t you just lay it all down on the line here and let us know exactly how you believe the entire system should work? I’m only picking up bits and pieces and I don’t see the big picture going through your head.

    How do we punish individuals who violate the law? Yes, I know the bible you post quotes from mentions forgiveness, but I don’t think a family who lost loved ones in an accident caused by a drunk driver would be too forgiving.. and I seriously don’t think prayer is going to keep our roads any safer.. so how exactly is this system supposed to work according to your philosophy?

    • 4409 says:

      Dear Lonewolf

      Correction…”YOU” want cops not cameras…I want neither because there are way to many cops as it is.

      I am pro-peace officer…There is a difference between “peace officers” and revenue generators (cops)

      Peace officers keep the peace, Follow the constitution, don’t go around looking for phantoms and writing citations to raise revenue for the State.

      I don’t have time to explain it here…but you are more than welcome to watch my videos that explain most of this…go to and start watching. Eventually you will get it.

      • LoneWolf says:

        No, not just “me”.. I’ve seen CF protestors hold up signs that read “Cops, Not Cameras”. I’ve seen comments here and elsewhere that said the same. We had a cop (Sheriff Paul) attend one of our events and speak against photo enforcement. I guarantee I am not alone in these thoughts.

        Yes, it would be a wonderful world without them and it would be way cool if they could enforce laws without anyone paying a single fine, but I just can’t imagine the system working without this necessary evil. We still live in a somewhat unruly world.. some people make lots of mistakes while others purposely violate laws… and neither really learn unless they pay the price whether it be by money, deducted points, suspension of driving privileges, or jail time.

        And if it weren’t for them being able to raise revenue through citations and fines, then that means we would all be paying much higher taxes. Why should law abiding citizens have to pay the price for someone else’s violation or crime?

        I’ll watch your vids when I get a chance. I’ve already seen quite a few of them, some which were great and some which I thought were questionable.. But I’m willing to look at all sides with somewhat of an open mind.

        • I am pro “Peace Officer” as well. “Police” and “Cop” are just generic terms that can have their meanings obscured. Sheriff Babeu is very outspoken on the concept of the “Officer of the Peace” as well. Agree with his politics or not, I believe he has a great understanding of that topic from our interactions with him.

          Babeu was happy to support CameraFRAUD because of a similar point of view to many in the group about what purpose law enforcement should have.

          The is a HUGE difference between revenue and PROFIT. Redflex, ATS, DPS and certain Police Depts have a pure profit motive, which explains not only their willingness to issue tickets to as many people as possible for “infractions” but also the steep fines assessed as well as admin fees and Clean Elections fees.

          Regardless of who you are or where your politics fall in line, it’s impossible to argue that Law Enforcement for a profit, which is very prevalent in Arizona, isn’t an absolute corrupting influence. It’s also the number one reason for the deterioration of trust between citizens and law enforcement officials/officers.

          My two cents.

          • LoneWolf says:

            Then replace the sign that says “Cops, Not Cameras” with “Peace Officers, Not Cameras” or just get rid of it all together.

            Ok, I’m beginning to understand the concept here.. One thing I understand now is if cops generated less revenue, the system of law enforcement would shrink unless taxpayers fronted the extra costs (which would be too enormous for most of us to accept).. A shrunken police force would mean less cops and the peace officers that do exist wouldn’t have time to chase down civil violations therefore they’d have to focus their attention on criminal activity. This makes sense. Am I on the right track here?

            • I’m fine with the “Cops Not Cameras” sign if the person holding it believes in the message.

              Personally I’m not against “cops,” but if they don’t act as Officers of the Peace, I think they’re in dereliction of duty. That’s why they are sworn in.

              There is still a major difference between revenue and profit.

              That topic will be covered very soon.

              • 4409 says:

                Officers are sworn in daily are violate the constitution with their first stop.

                The people and the system has to change….period

        • 4409 says:

          You first have to understand “traveling” in an automobile that is NOT for hire is NOT a privilege and there are MANY MANY supreme court cases that state this. I will leave you with that… do your own research

    • LoneWolf says:

      They shouldn’t come out unless called? I strongly disagree with this one. They should be monitoring school zones. They should be out on the freeways patroling, looking out for careless drivers, drunks, Indy 500 racers, and so on.. But yes, I’ll agree that some are nit-pickers out looking for revenue rather than dangerous drivers and some have their priorities mixed up.

  14. Link exchange is nothing else but it is just
    placing the other person’s website link on your page
    at proper place and other person will also do similar for you.

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: