Supreme Court Decisions Reaffirms 6th Amendment Applies to Photo Enforcement

June 24, 2011

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.

Read more at The Examiner and TheNewspaper.com


Chandler Photo Enforcement Error Rate 52%

March 9, 2010


According to the East Valley Tribune, Chandler’s red light cameras result in enforceable tickets only 48% of the time. For fiscal year 2008-2009, the cameras flashed 29,000 times; however, 8000 of those tickets failed to capture critical information according to Detective Dave Ramer. Of the remaining tickets, 7000 (24%) were of commercial vehicles belonging to companies that refused to divulge the identity of the driver. According to the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, an average of 28% of drivers are NOT the registered owner the car, which further adds to the difficulty of issuing tickets. Then we know that of the 48% of “successful” tickets, only a fraction ever get paid.

The Chandler City Council is now contemplating an expansion of the system. But would the Chandler City Council have voted for the cameras had the sales pitch to Chandler been more honest to begin with?

Redflex: “We have this system that photographs drivers who run red lights… except we can only target a fraction of the people driving by, and it only works 48% of the time.  But did I mention we, (*cough*) I mean you can still make lots of money?”

The article goes on to imply that Chandler is disappointed that it couldn’t cash in on all of those missed opportunities, and had to settle for a paltry $300,000 while sending millions of dollars (drained from the local economy) to Redflex.

If the same statistics hold true for freeway traffic, 1 in 4 cars passing by a freeway camera are immune from photo tickets because of commercial plate registration. Again we ask, how is this constitutional? As a reminder, 

Arizona constitution, Article 2, Section 13 states:

No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.

It would seem to us that over 25% of the drivers on the road have inherent “immunities which, upon the same terms, (do) not equally belong to all citizens.” Compare this to human officers who can pull anyone over at any time for any reason.

Call To Action: The Chandler City Council is voting on whether to expand the red light contract on Thursday, Mar 11. Click here to find out how you can help influence their decision.


State Treasurer: Cams are Unconstitutional

November 26, 2008

From TheNewspaper.com:

Dean MartinAnother top elected official in Arizona has spoken out against photo radar in response to increasingly vocal resistance from the driving public. State Treasurer Dean Martin (R) on Monday wrote to the state’s solicitor general instructing her to side with the League of Cities and Towns — and against himself — in a lawsuit brought against the state budget. …

“The governor and legislature cannot raise taxes or ‘log-roll’ provisions into the budget that violate the constitution,” Martin explained in a statement. “These laws are unconstitutional since they did not receive the 2/3 majority vote of the legislature which is required to raise taxes.” …

Martin singled out this provision, which was adopted without debate in the legislature, as “a tax increase without a 2/3 vote” (view text of photo radar law). Article 9, Section 22 of the state constitution requires a super-majority vote on legislation that creates a net increase in state revenue from “any new state fee or assessment” or tax.


%d bloggers like this: