Red light Cameras and Speeding Tickets

Maggie Thurber had a great discussion last night on Eye on Toledo. Her guest was one of the hearing officers who preside over appeals of red light camera, and electronic speeding tickets. I found my self yelling at the radio, wishing I could get in line to talk to her and her guest.

Please take advantage of her pod cast, on www.wspd.com and listen. She and her callers made great points, gave valuable information, and provided insight into the thought process of the hearing officer.

I found many problems with way the gentleman presented his position. First, just because you wash a pig, and re-name it a flower, it remains a pig. Traffic violations have always been under the criminal code and carried criminal implications. Just because the city re-named these violations "civil" did not make them flowers.

The hearing officer's answers were generally qualified by "as I understand it," "well I don't know about that," and "I would think a citizen can/could....." I know he has limited power as a hearing officer, and did not write the statute as it exists; but for him to base a decision on whether to uphold or dismiss a ticket on so much conjecture, or issues he simply feels "are not in his loop" is preposterous. As Maggie pointed out, once the ticket is issued, the owner is presumed guilty, and it falls upon the citizen to prove otherwise.

The hearing officer relies on the statutory language that the ticket itself is "prima facia" evidence of GUILT. Not evidence of the potential for a violation, but guilt. That evidence is bolstered (in his mind) by testimony from a lieutenant from TPD, that the systems are accurate, are tested quarterly, and working properly. A citizen, testifying in the same manner as this police officer, is NOT sufficient to call into question the prima facia "evidence" the ticket provides. The hearing officer stated he expects every day citizens to bring any evidence related to the mechanical accuracy of these systems to the hearing, and he "believed" a citizen could do so through a FOI request to the city. This seems unreasonable for a citizen to attempt for a $95 ticket, with no notice of their right to do so written on the ticket.

When I was a police officer (in a different state), my traffic radar had to be certified by the manufacturer quarterly, and tested daily. If I issued a ticket that had been verified by the radar, I had to testify that it had been so certified and bring in the records to the court. Additionally I testified that at the beginning of my shift, and immediately following issuance of the subject ticket, the radar passed its internal test, and my manual test. This testimony had to be supported by my patrol log notes showing I performed those two tests at the beginning of my patrol, and immediately after issuing the ticket. My sworn word as a police officer was not enough.

But, in these cases, the sworn word of a police officer who was never at the scene and has never personally tested the equipment is enough, because its "civil."

Hopefully this issue will be resolved by the Ohio Supreme Court and/or legislature, but I will not hold my breath. Dispute every ticket. Make the process too expensive for the City to continue the use of these systems.

The A-Hole.