Never before have I seen so much misinformation given out in so short a document.
1) We do not record drivers faces or contents of cars. We only record license plate numbers and (obviously) the vehicle description. The cameras are focused into the intersection and rarely get photographs of pedestrians or sidewalks. This is out of courtesy though, because every case ever decided states that there is no expectation of privacy in public places. You really need to do your homework on the 4th amendment.
2) We can indeed photograph bicycles, motorcycles, and the like. Modern technology can get any size license plate.
3) Camera approaches are running half or less of the prices you quote.
4) There is a national standardized formula for yellow light times that case law requires be implemented at any signalized intersection. Shortening the yellow cycle is simply not done. It would be way too dangerous.
5) The photographs show the violator before entering the intersection (front bumper behind the stop line, crosswalk, or other point of demarcation) and the simultaneous red signal, and the violator as they are in the intersection with the still-red signal. It is irrelevant which part of the car tripped the sensor, and in cases where a vehicle made it in on a yellow light, no enforcement action is taken.
6) Your accuser is the officer who wrote the violation, not the photograph, which is only evidence of same. Your way off base on this one. There is already case law stating that due process is not violated. Besides, our law provides that all a defendant need to is swear under oath that they were not driving and the citation must be dismissed.
By the way, a writ of habeas corpus has nothing to do with the right to confront ones accuser. What you really meant was due process under the law. It's really a stretch to say it applies here based upon the language: "In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that '[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' But, I am not an attorney so perhaps it's arguable.
7) Camera enforcement operations are in fact a cost item to any jurisdiction. Studies show that while more violations are caught initially, they drop off rapidly with the certainty of punishment. Thus, the very reason they are successful (safety) is also a downfall (at least in your opinion..that is generation of revenue). Her in Washington State the city of Lakewood was about to discontinue its' program due to rising costs when their vendor gave them a price break that enabled them to keep the program.
8) ACS, Etc. have no say in what citations are issued, or how many. Complete control is maintained by the police department and a contract is made with the vendor for fees as agreed upon. The number of citations issued is completely beyond the control of the vendor and irrelevant to the contract negotiations.
9) At last we agree on something. However, remember, when I am sitting on a corner monitoring a traffic signal, I am required to run the same red light to pursue the violator. This is extremely dangerous on a police motorcycle, but current case law requires that I physically see the signal that the violator ran. I agree we need more officers, but camera enforcement is much safer.
The bottom line is that your web page is filled with the same myths that are, unfortunately, prevalent on the Internet with regards to this technology. I spent over six months researching this technology for our. Most cities are lucky to break even in cost, but all demonstrate a dramatic reduction in broadside, usually injury, traffic collisions due to red light running. Sadly, San Diego made many mistakes early on and this led to all of these errors and misinformation. Even they however have corrected them so information gleaned from those court cases no longer applies.
For the City of Seattle it really is all about saving lives. I would be happy to work with you to get accurate information out to your readers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: notbored@optonline.netNever before have I seen so much misinformation given out in so short a document.
This is a rather rude beginning for an e-mail. Don't you know that the conventions of letter writing are usually carried over to the writing of e-mails, and that it is customary to include a salutation, even if the content of said letter or email is hostile?
Well, Dean Shirey, I am quite confused as to why you would launch this missive in our direction. We say *nothing* about what you do in Seattle. Why are you defensive? Do you typically take time out of your busy day to try to correct every page on the Internet that mentions red-light cameras, even if they do not mention what the Seattle PD is going with them? If not, why focus upon ours?
1) We do not record drivers faces or contents of cars. We only recordlicense plate numbers and (obviously) the vehicle description. The cameras are focused into the intersection and rarely get photographs of pedestrians or sidewalks. This is out of courtesy though, because everycase ever decided states that there is no expectation of privacy in public places. You really need to do your homework on the 4th amendment.
For someone apparently completely ignorant of Jacobsen v. Seattle, 658 P.2d 653 (Wash 1983), your condescending attitude is quite inappropriate. Why yes, sir: we've done our homework, but you have apparently not done yours.
2) We can indeed photograph bicycles, motorcycles, and the like. Modern technology can get any size license plate.
Then I fail to see your need to include this in your defensive, condescending missive: it simply says "You are right."
3) Camera approaches are running half or less of the prices you quote.
Not according to the current and constantly updated information we have here in New York.
4) There is a national standardized formula for yellow light times that case law requires be implemented at any signalized intersection. Shortening the yellow cycle is simply not done. It would be way too dangerous.
Yes, it results in rear-end collisions, which, of course, is exactly why the AAA rescinded its support for red-light cameras: their very presence (that is, even if properly calibrated) resulted in such crashes, which cause much more damage to people than side-collisions.
5) The photographs show the violator before entering the intersection (front bumper behind the stop line, crosswalk, or other point of demarcation) and the simultaneous red signal, and the violator as they are in the intersection with the still-red signal. It is irrelevant which part of the car tripped the sensor, and in cases where a vehicle made it in on a yellow light, no enforcement action is taken.
Once again, I fail to see your need to inform us of this.
6) Your accuser is the officer who wrote the violation, not the photograph, which is only evidence of same. Your way off base on this one. There is al ready case law stating that due process is not violated. Besides, our law provides that all a defendant need to is swear under oath that they were not driving and the citation must be dismissed.
Yes, your law: your State law. But State laws are different from State to State, and in most States of these USA, red-light cameras are ILLEGAL. In only a handful of renegade States, such as yours, are they considered legal.
By the way, a writ of habeas corpus has nothing to do with the right to confront ones accuser. What you really meant was due process under the law. It's really a stretch to say it applies here based upon the language: "In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the SupremeCourt has "recognized the fact that '[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' But, I am not an attorney so perhaps it's arguable.
No, you are obviously not an attorney.
7) Camera enforcement operations are in fact a cost item to any jurisdiction. Studies show that while more violations are caught initially, they drop off rapidly with the certainty of punishment. Thus, the very reason they are successful (safety) is also a downfall (at least in your opinion..that is generation of revenue).
Wait a minute there! Not (just) my opinion, but the opinion of the District of Columbia, which, when informed of the revenue-generating capacities by the Mayor of that city, dropped its support for red-light running cameras.
Her in Washington State the city of Lakewood was about to discontinue its' program due to rising costs when their vendor gave them a price break that enabled them to keep the program.
Good news! Thank you for sharing with this fact with us. We will be happy to publicize it.
8) ACS, Etc. have no say in what citations are issued, or how many. Complete control is maintained by the police department and a contract is made with the vendor for fees as agreed upon. The number of citations issued is completely beyond the control of the vendor and irrelevant to the contract negotiations.
Interesting. But to believe you, we'd have to see a copy of an actual contract, and not vague reassurances concerning the "negotiations," which are of course something quite different than the contract itself.
9) At last we agree on something. However, remember, when I am sitting on a corner monitoring a traffic signal, I am required to run the same red light to pursue the violator. This is extremely dangerouson a police motorcycle, but current case law requires that I physically see the signal that the violator ran. I agree we need more officers, but camera enforcement is much safer.
Except for that litte detail (see above) about rear-end collusions.
The bottom line is that your web page is filled with the same myths that are, unfortunately, prevalent on the Internet with regards to this technology. I spent over six months researching this technology for our City. Most cities are lucky to break even in cost, but all demonstratea dramatic reduction in broadside, usually injury, traffic collisions due to red light running. Sadly, San Diego made many mistakes early on and this led to all of these errors and misinformation. Even they however have corrected them so information gleaned from those court cases no longer applies.
Yes, many mistakes early on. Such behavior leads people to not trust "their" government, which of course was an attitude encouraged by the drafters and signers of the Constitution.
For the City of Seattle it really is all about saving lives. I would be happy to work with you to get accurate information out to your readers.
I hardly think so. Your letter is rude, uninformed, defensive, and condescending. You seem like a very disagreeable person and we aren't at all interested in "help" from a person such as youself.
the Surveillance Camera PlayersBy e-mail SCP@notbored.org
By snail mail: SCP c/o NOT BORED! POB 1115, Stuyvesant Station, New York City 10009-9998