Every motorist in Texas is now exempt from photo tickets from speed cameras, red light cameras and toll road enforcement cameras, starting January 1st, 2012.Texas legislature left a key provision out of the latest version of their Transportation Omnibus Bill that penalizes drivers for not visibly displaying a license plate on their vehicle, reports TheNewspaper.com. [BILL] Once this bill becomes law, it cannot be changed for two years because Texas Legislature only convenes every other year. [READ MORE]
Redflex Traffic Systems, whose red light and speed camera ticketing programs have been marred by massive technical failures, increased accidents and fraud, now say that their latest technology can predict what drivers are going to do.
If that’s the case, maybe they can decide who should be issued a driver license as well.
A fervently pro-Redflex publication out of Phoenix, AZ, The Arizona Republic, whose editor has bounced between positions at that newspaper and Redflex is cheerleading this new “break through.”
Quoted from the article about this technology being tested live during rush hour in Chandler, AZ:
The upcoming Redflex Traffic Systems technology would sense when a car is traveling too fast to stop at the red light, and it would hold cars coming from the other directions until the red light runner has passed, police said.
Courtesy of WarOnDriving.com
Redflex Traffic Systems will say goodbye to Albuquerque in 60 days. Last night, the city council, headed by the efforts of Councilor Dan Lewis, voted to uphold the will of the people and get rid of the city’s red light cameras.
Also gone will be the Redflex “Scamera” vans that take up space on the side of the road and have been known to burst into flames due to over heated electronics.
This decision comes on the heels of an advisory vote by the citizens of Albuquerque last month that favored ending the program.
KQRE has more on this development:
Arizona cities are dropping their so-called “photo enforcement” traffic cameras in a flurry in 2011.
The latest is Peoria, where camera intersections such as 83rd Ave and Thunderbird (above picture) saw tremendous increases in accidents. City officials are now claiming that overall there was a 29% increase over the three year life span of the program, but much larger increases (300-500%) were recorded initially.
Ticketing and surveillance giants Redflex and American Traffic Solutions are doubling down on their favorite methods of revenue generation: fraudulent business practices, blatant incompetency, and lawsuits.
Sioux Falls Fail
Michael Evans got the surprise in the mail that no one wants, a ticket for running a red light in Sioux City.
When he looked at the video of his offense he was confused to say the least, because his pickup is clearly on the interstate.
He alerted the police about the mistake, and they sent out a letter of apology to about 500 people who also received the wrong type of ticket, but along with the apology came new tickets for speeding violations.
Town dunce and Sioux City Police’s Cpt. Melvin William was quick to defend the “theft-by-shiny-badge” scheme, presumably at the request of his new private-camera-contractor overlords:
“Because in one spot we didn’t change the wording that the whole thing should be thrown out? No…There is no error when it comes to the fines that were imposed. They were the right fines for what had occurred. There is no error when it comes to the evidence,”
…Except for the whole “accusing 500 people of the wrong crime” thing.
Taking the “American way of justice” further down the shitcan is American Traffic Solutions in Houston. ATS is angry that citizens voted the cameras out, so the company is blatantly engaging in frivolous lawsuits in an effort to block the will of the “voters:”
The ruling was a major victory for the legal strategy of ATS General Counsel George Hittner, who worked with the Houston city attorney to create a lawsuit in which city officials, who want the cameras back, sued ATS, which also wants the cameras back. The case was not filed in state court, which would be the proper venue. Instead, Hittner had the case filed in the federal courthouse where his father happens to serve.
“…Spokane County Superior Court Judge Jerome Leveque ruled three tickets issued in Spokane using cameras to detect those running red lights were invalid because the electronic signature on the tickets was generated out of state.”
…Phony signatures. Phony tickets. Phony corporate cops that defend revenue schemes instead of constituents’ life and property. Phony lawsuits. Laws and due-process ignored.
Happy Phony Forth of July from CameraFRAUD. Because the USA is where your ability to serve as a milking cow to the state and its corporate allies is patriotic job number one. Now get back to work, slave!
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed what Camera Fraud has been saying all along – photo enforcement is unconstitutional! Although there are several ways in which photo enforcement is unconstitutional, in Thursday’s ruling in Bullcoming v. New Mexico the highest court in the land found that a defendant has a right to confront their accuser. The court case was with regard to a DUI offense, but the ruling has broad applications. In the case, the lab technician who analyzed the Bullcoming’s blood sample for alcohol content was not available to testify in court, so the state found a surrogate to testify as to the lab results, procedures and methodology This is the SAME THING that happens in photo enforcement hearings on a daily basis. If applied to photo enforcement, the state would have to provide or make available the machine operator and anyone who processed the evidence for the defense. The court ruled that it is not sufficient to provide a knowledgeable representative to testify about facts in a report that he did not generate.
Unfortunately, this ruling alone will do little to stop photo enforcement, as photo enforcement hearings are done as civil trials, rather than criminal. As such, the rules are different and the state must only show a preponderance of evidence rather than prove their case as they would do if you received a moving violation from a real officer. States are able to get away with this scam because of the lower burden of evidence. This is of course the answer the question we have been forever asking, “Why is a ticket from a machine treated differently than an officer-issued ticket?” The answer is the same as it’s always been: MONEY.