photographic radar

Those who can give up essential freedom to gain a little temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security.
-Benjamin Franklin

Politicians love it. Speeders hate it. Police departments offer mixed reviews. There are websites that tell you how to avoid it and, once caught, how to beat it. Regardless of what you think of the photographic radar, it is here and affects the way you travel through our growing metropolis. If Ben Franklin (the first postmaster and inventor of the odometer) were here, would the photographic radar process be kept under your scrutiny?

On a typical day in Scottsdale, more than 200 people will receive an envelope from the city’s Focus On Safety department with a citation, fine and complaint form, service waiver and options found on one page. It will be the first time the driver has realized that she was the focus of the photo radar device at some point during the previous four months. She will search your memory, hoping to remember the event that led to the ticket.

Oh the attached picture might help. Or perhaps it is the wording of the Summons that “if you do not file as stated in this complaint about a civil traffic violation, a default judgment may be entered against you, a civil penalty may be imposed and your license “. And then there is the notice that tells the recipient that the Rules of Civil Procedure “require defendants living within the United States to cooperate” and “to avoid additional actions and additional costs including a $ 25.00 default fee. , a time pay rate of $ 20.00 and a minimum cost of $ 20.00 if personal service is required… «

It is quite an intimidating thing to do and most people will submit the ticket and accept the entry on their driving records and the possible increase in their insurance. But what would Ben do? Imagining that we could talk to him, the conversation could go something like this:

Mr. Franklin : I checked your law books on this subject. Arizona law requires that all complaints, including traffic tickets, be handled personally. His appeals court has thrown out cases in which a photographic radar ticket was mailed. Their courts have no power to assess fines or penalties unless the complaint has been filed or the service has been resigned. In other words, a ticket is like a lawsuit. It has to be served in the same way as if it were a personal injury lawsuit, a breach of contract lawsuit, or any other lawsuit.

So looking at the ticket that came in the mail again, if the driver signs and returns it, the driver is waiving the legal requirement that the city hand over the complaint in person. What about that duty to cooperate?

Mr. Franklin : I must go back to my original premise. Those who renounce freedom in the name of security will have none. We must hold our government to the same standards and rules that we are expected to obey. I would say that the duty is fulfilled with the payment of the processing fee. Meanwhile, the driver does not have to give up the right to demand that the city hand over the documents. If the driver doesn’t sign and return the form, which he doesn’t have to do, then the city tests for it to be delivered.

If the city does not deliver the document, the driver avoids the fine. Simple as that. Very American, really.

To move forward, the court must have proof that the driver signed and returned the exemption form or was served by a process server. When a driver receives the proper service, they can pay the fine or request a hearing. Mr. Franklin saw a case in a local court and this is how it happened:

It is a typical day on the photographic radar field. The hearing officer calls the court to order. The state witness, a private employee of the camera company, announces that he is ready and hands the driver some forms. The forms, called “discovery,” include a display form, photographs of a vehicle, traffic distribution forms, and a driving record. The state witness testifies about the posted speed and the driver’s speed. He requests that the forms be admitted as evidence, although none are authenticated or certified.

The hearing officer compares the photograph to the driver who is sitting in the courtroom. The driver does not object, so the forms become evidence.

Mr. Franklin : Arizona law requires the State to show that the driver’s speed was unreasonable under actual and potential circumstances, conditions, and hazards. I wonder how a camera can do that. And it seems that this gentleman was not present to see the driver.

– – – – – –

Guest author Susan Kayler, a former prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge, has more than 20 years of legal experience. Currently, Susan represents clients in DUI / DWI cases, traffic cases, appeals, radar cases, criminal cases, and more. She can be contacted at: [email protected]

Continued from previous page.

The State’s witness reads from a form that 1,150 vehicles passed the photographic radar van for two hours, including the time of the violation with 54% at or below the posted limit. Then read another way that during the five minutes before and after the driver accelerated the truck, 84 vehicles were traveling at a slower speed. In fact, he says, only this driver drove over the speed limit.

• Mr. Franklin : Interesting statistics, but I would hope that anyone who sees the photographic radar van, or sees other cars slowing down, would also look around and slow down. I don’t think your legislature intends for a reasonable speed to be defined in this way.

According to case law, driving faster than the posted speed limit is presumed to be unreasonable. A driver can provide evidence that his speed was reasonable under the circumstances, but is not prepared to do so, as he first saw the forms at the beginning of the hearing. The State rests its case and it is the driver’s turn. She argues the speed limit was artificially low, then says she believes the photographic radar device picked up another car in her field. The hearing officer yawns.

Just by introducing herself, the driver proves that she was the one in the car.

• Mr. Franklin : If this driver had an attorney appear for her, the case would be dismissed. There would be no evidence that he was driving because the State’s witness does not have a photograph of the driver’s license. By introducing herself, she proved it for them.

Photographic radar is being used in more Arizona cities to catch both speeders and red light runners. Phoenix, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Tempe, and Scottsdale have used traffic citation technology to automatically generate tickets when a vehicle is driving above a predetermined speed. A camera takes a picture of the vehicle traveling at high speed or with a red light and the license number is used to track the owner. A ticket is issued and mailed to the unsuspecting owner.

Cases that address the legality of photographic radar are limited. Problems of service of the complaint process or verification are the focus of Arizona’s challenges. Arizona courts have ruled out cases where the plaintiff’s signature was computer generated or where it was clear that the facts had not been reviewed before the complaint was filed.

• Mr. Franklin : One of the problems I see with photographic radar is that when a vehicle is registered with a corporation, I imagine that you would receive the ticket in the mail. If that corporation provides the driver’s name, it’s off the hook, but the driver can wait for a ticket. If the corporation does nothing, there is no consequence.

As long as you’re not the registered owner, you’re fine, right? Incorrect. Since there is no comparison of the photo to a license or registration, you could get a ticket if you lend your car to a friend. A man was fined a year after he sold his car.

In addition to the legal defenses, there are practical defenses to a photographic radar ticket. The slightest movement apparently affects the image taken by the photographic radar camera. Turning to speak to a passenger may be enough to blur the image beyond identification. A man beat a ticket because he was drinking from a huge plastic cup at the time the photo was taken. Another said goodbye when his baseball cap, lowered, frustrated the machine.

New industries have tried to cash in to avoid a photographic radar ticket. Stores sell clear plates to place on the plate and make the camera unable to read it. A police officer following the car can see it, and some will issue a ticket for an illegible license plate. The Arizona law requiring a license plate says: “A person must maintain each license plate so that it is clearly legible.” Without a definition of “clearly legible,” those who use the diverter plates are at the mercy of the officer.

• Mr. Franklin : I heard the argument that photographic radar is an invasion of privacy. It was obviously not the kind of privacy we had in mind when we wrote the Constitution. In fact, it could be argued that photographic radar actually provides a higher level of privacy than if you were stopped by a police officer and perhaps questioned. It’s a fair play issue, really. As long as the public thinks the government uses different rules, their confidence will erode. That is a price that none of you can pay, not even for security.

Citizens who are happy with the photographic radar point to the indisputable fact that it has slowed down traffic to a much safer and more comfortable speed. While most people are happy with its impact, naysayers will still ask if it’s being managed fairly. When cities scrupulously follow the law, complaints will decrease and the photographic radar will only do what politicians claim is its focus: keeping the streets safe.