Iowa Speed Camera Ticket

[bierman]

Anybody here have any experience with tickets issued by automated speed enforcement cameras? Got one from Sioux City IA yesterday for $168 for doing 66 in a 55. Ticket was issued to me, but I was not driving the vehicle at the time. I am not sure how much longer I am going to be in the area working so part of me says just pay the thing and move on, but I loathe these (and the red light cameras) with every fiber of my being. IMHO they are nothing more than revenue generators for cities and do little or nothing to improve public safety. Any advice/experience would be appreciated.

[Jon Merricks]

Ouch!

[Paul-the new guy]

I read that they can't do anything to you if you don't pay them but I have idea if it is really true. I also read ny is removing them because no one is paying and the state is like sorry about your bad luck.

[Neomet]

Receiving the ticket in the mail is not proper service. It should be done in person which is what happens when LEO hands you a speeding ticket. At this point you have a couple options.

1. Disregard and, um... forget you ever received anything in the mail. Hope that Iowa is like most states and will not invest the time/effort to send somebody to your door to attempt to effect

service personally.

2. Show up to fight the ticket and say it wasn't you. If the photo definitely isn't you be prepared to be questioned about who was driving the vehicle at that time. Lying to the court is a

high risk adventure so do so at your own peril.

3. Hire an atty to try to get it knocked down to a non-moving violation. Don't try to do it on your own. PAs almost universally will not play that game with the general public.

4. Pay the ticket.

Good luck!

[Rob Boudrie]

Show up to fight the ticket and say it wasn't you. If the photo definitely isn't you be prepared to be questioned about who was driving the vehicle at that time. Lying to the court is a

high risk adventure so do so at your own peril.

1. You are under no obligation to testify, and the legal system is not allowed you consider your refusal to testify against yourself as evidence of guilt.

2. You are under no obligation to prove it wasn't you - the state is obligated to prove it was (except for offenses like parking that are an offense chargeable to the registered owner of the car by statute)

3. Both of the above are ignored in kangaroo courts.

4. Marsupials have been seated at the bench in many US traffic courts.

[Chills1994]

just once I would like to hear of somebody blowing the traffic/redlight cameras to smithereens. or for somebody to have a powerful enough laser to burn out or damage whatever the innards are of those cameras. I don't know if it is possible, just wishful thinking on my part. Of course, probably tampering with a camera is a felony which if one were to be caught and convicted that person would lose their gun rights for life.

IMO, redlight cameras or speed cameras are unconstitutional. Here is the text of the sixth amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[note 1][1]

EDITED TO ADD THIS: you have the right to confront your accusers.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Chills1994

[Don Springer]

IMHO they are nothing more than revenue generators for cities and do little or nothing to improve public safety.

Right on. We had one on a light near where I worked for a couple years. The local paper ran a story on it and proved accidents went UP on the intersection due to people slamming on the breaks on a yellow and getting rear ended. The city went bonkers and the powers that be pulled the camera like 3 months later.

[CSEMARTIN]

I got one in Cedar Rapids last June on my way to Canada for a fishing trip.

[bierman]

Per the notice, this is a civil infraction only and they will not report it to my insurance or DMV. The notice states failure to pay/appear would result in a judgement against me and liens filed in the Woodbury County court. I don't think they would send anyone to Dallas Texas to serve me if I ignored it, but I am not crazy about the idea of liens against me.

I have the option to request a "hearing" at the Sioux City PD to review the video. The video is available to view online, but they blur out the windshield so you cannot see the front seat occupants prior to the "hearing". Per my internet research so far I believe it would not be worth my time to request a hearing as less than 1% win their case. I am aware that beating a speeding ticket in general is a losing proposition, I wrote hundreds of them in 11 years as a police officer and never lost one in court. My gripe is the presumption that just because I am the registered owner of the vehicle, I am responsible. I really do despise these gizmos and everything they represent. I was taught as a rookie cop, and I taught the rookies I trained, the purpose of traffic enforcment is driver compliance, not revenue generation for the city.

From my understanding, the right to confront accusers only applies in criminal court. Maybe I am not understanding correctly.

[Chills1994]

I thought speed limits were laws, unless now they are in some special class all by themselves.

I thought breaking a law = a crime

Are you sure this isn't just a scam... I mean one not perpetrated by the .gov, but rather ne'er-do-wells looking to make a fast buck off of the unknowing.

I think the wording to the 6th amendment needs to be changed then to include civil proceedings as well, you have a right to confront your accusers.

How does a case progress in a civil matter when one party has mistakenly identified the other party?

[ihatepickles]

For what it's worth, I think it's worth your time to pursue this. If the picture clearly shows someone else driving, their case falls apart. If the picture does not clearly show the driver, you'll be paying the ticket as the car's owner.

I'd be worth my time for $168 if I was going to be in the area anyway.

[ajg308]

Why don't you make the actual driver pay the fine?

[twodownzero]

I thought speed limits were laws, unless now they are in some special class all by themselves.

I thought breaking a law = a crime

Are you sure this isn't just a scam... I mean one not perpetrated by the .gov, but rather ne'er-do-wells looking to make a fast buck off of the unknowing.

I think the wording to the 6th amendment needs to be changed then to include civil proceedings as well, you have a right to confront your accusers.

How does a case progress in a civil matter when one party has mistakenly identified the other party?

If you read carefully, his complaint is much more complicated than that, as we still have (what's left of) "due process of law" in this country.

[Rob Boudrie]

Right on. We had one on a light near where I worked for a couple years. The local paper ran a story on it and proved accidents went UP on the intersection due to people slamming on the breaks on a yellow and getting rear ended. The city went bonkers and the powers that be pulled the camera like 3 months later.

There have also been cases where red light/speed cameras used a revenue sharing deal with the camera provider - and the contract mandated that the city could not increase the yellow light time above the amount specified in the contract.

The last I heard, automated traffic enforcement cameras in the have never survived a direct vote of the public where a referendum to remove them was offered.

The video is available to view online, but they blur out the windshield so you cannot see the front seat occupants prior to the "hearing".

This is a variant of the old police trick - tell the suspect he was on camera, his prints were found at the scene of the crime, etc. even if this is not the case in an attempt to elicit a guilty plea. The system can't tolerate people examining the evidence against them prior to their hearing to prepare their case.

[cyburg]

Was the ticket sent by certified mail that required a signature?

[sperman]

There have also been cases where red light/speed cameras used a revenue sharing deal with the camera provider

That is what happened in Charlotte. Money from the traffic light cameras were supposed to go to the school system. It turned out that the majority of the money was actually going to the traffic light camera company. If I remember correctly, the city was actually losing money on each ticket written, and there was a law suit over the money owed the school system.

[Biloxi23]

I spent about a year researching red light cameras for teh city and police department I work for. They do reduce side impact crashes, but do increase rear end crashes at the intersections. There are a couple of ways the different companies get paid. One is to handle eht ticket, paperwork themselves and take an agreed on percentage. Before each ticket is mailed, a police officer reviews the photos/video and determines if there was in fact a red light violation. If the officer signs off on the infraction teh ticket is mailed. the citation is issued to the registered owner and is a civil infraction, like maybe a parking ticket in a major city is issued to the vehicle owner. Cities can also pay a monthly fee for the amount of equipment they have installed by the companies. We decided not to go with the red light cameras because we felt like the state legislature would prohibit their use before long, and we were right. There were four or so cities in Mississippi that had to remove those systems. As a 30 year police officer I have some serious reservations about red light cameras and photo/radar speed enforcement, but ssome states elect to use them. Each person shouldmakeit their business to determine which states and local juriscistions utilized red light camera and photo speed enforcement and drive accordingly. By the way, there are appeallate courts that have upheld their use.

[TaterHead]

Albuqerque here. We have suffered through these things for about seven years. Red Light and speeding at about 25 interesctions. The state wanted their cut of the revenue generation, and got it. The state made the city put in rumble strips at all of the interesctions to warn drivers that a highway man was about to rob them. Just a few years back, the state said the city could not use these on state highways in the city, and they were removed.

Last week, the public got to vote on continuing the program (read: making Redflex rich). Well duh, the vote was to bag the entire thing. Trouble is, the vote was only a recoomendation to the city council who must make the decision to uphold the vote or not. I suspect that they all will, or they are out of a job.

IMHO, all these things ever were were cash cows for the local government, and for Redflex.

[Joe4d]

I dont see the issue with holding the owner of a vehicle responsible for its illegal operation. Not any different than holding the owner responsible for illegal parking. There are plenty of circumstances where an owner of an item is held responsible for its use or miss use.

Not saying current law supports it in speeding cases, but governments could easily write such a law.

A police officer reviewing a picture, who can then be subpoenaed to testify isnt any different than that same officer viewing the readout on a radar gun and then testifying in court about what the radar gun said.

You do have the right to examine evidence against you, so you could go to court request a copy of the evidence and then set a new court date,

None of this matters because local courts know out of state and most instate drivers arnt gonna bother fighting it, usually it is cheaper to just pay the ticket, so they get away with all kinds of illegal fines because noone ever challenged.

Localities have been using speed traps as revenue sources for ever. The system that rewards towns for writing more tickets is the problem. I am all for traffic enforcement to make the roads safer and easier for everyone, but if the goal is to generate income something is wrong.

I think we need to look at methods of traffic enforcement that involve an actual witness, but shouldnt need a fully trained, armed, (IE expensive) sworn officer. Nothing wrong with a meter maid approach with a camera, picture of the tag, record the offense, hold the owner responsible for the illegal activity and the owners will become more responsible.

[Rob Boudrie]

None of this matters because local courts know out of state and most instate drivers arnt gonna bother fighting it, usually it is cheaper to just pay the ticket, so they get away with all kinds of illegal fines because noone ever challenged.

Massachusetts charges a fee of $75.00 to confront your accuser in a civil traffic violation case, and the fee is not refunded if you are found "not responsible" (the MA term used when you beat the rap on a civil infraction).

The MA Supreme Judicial Court heard an appeal contesting this practice, and decided the fee is in compliance with law and does not violate the rights of the accused.

This is why when I get together with a couple of friends to plan litigation against the state, we look only at the federal courts

[Chills1994]

here in St. Louis, people noticed that just coincidentally when the red light cameras were installed the duration of the yellow lights got shortened.

just coincidentally...I'm sure...

along that path of unintended consequences (in the overall scheme of things....which was to increase revenue, of course) more rear ended accidents were happening at those intersections too.

[Sparky]

In 3 weeks I'll have 40 years in LE. I am not in favor of red light or speeding

camera's. If you have the time I would go to court and advise the Prosecutor that

you were not driving the car. Basically make them prove you were. You do not have

to tell them who was driving. Now the problem for you here is they are in court

every week day, so its no big deal to them to continue the case a couple of times,

making you come back each time, etc. In effect causing you to lose more money

missing work than you would if you just paid the ticket. You also could come to

the court house and talk to a Prosecutor prior to the court date and plead your

case to them and maybe you'd get one with some common sense and they would dismiss

the ticket?

If you do nothing there could be a problem. There is a State to State "Violator

Compact". Not all states are in it and I do not remember if Texas and Iowa are.

What happens if you do nothing and they are in the Compact; Iowa can ask Texas

to take action against you. What Texas will do, I do not know for sure but,

the possibility of Texas Suspending your Drivers License is not out of the question.

I'd check into it with the Texas Dept of Motor Vehicles or whatever its called

in Texas.

These thing should not be happening in the Home of Free and Land of the Brave.

[Sherwyn]

A few notes about the cameras on the interstate by Sioux City, Iowa.

There were several court cases challenging the use of cameras in Iowa, all decided in favor of the cameras.

Sioux City waited until these were resolved before the cameras went in.

The city claims it is for "Safety" yet the city counsel had the projected revenue from the camera project spent before the contract was signed. The cameras are operated by an independent firm that owns and installs them - so no city investment to get it started.

The citation is written to the vehicle, it does not matter who was driving (it goes on no driving record). Failure to pay if you are a Iowa resident will keep you from getting your vehicle license renewed.

Another Iowa speed limit note - the last time the highway speed limit was raised, the fines for speeding were doubled. This was not done by Iowa Department of Transportation or supported by them. It originated with the dept of revenue.

Be aware of red light cameras as well. Around here they like to add a small "no right turn on red" sign where ever they put up the stoplight camera. I got a ticket from this - been turning right on red at that corner for years (even had a turning lane).

Sherwyn

[TaterHead]

Uh, we all elect these idiots who wish to steal from us in spite of the consitution. It is up to all of us to remove them from office. It is the ONLY thing that they understand. This is not about safety at all, it is all about illegal revenue generation.

[JFlowers]

That is what happened in Charlotte. Money from the traffic light cameras were supposed to go to the school system. It turned out that the majority of the money was actually going to the traffic light camera company. If I remember correctly, the city was actually losing money on each ticket written, and there was a law suit over the money owed the school system.

The RedLight Camera at Little Rock and US74 (right outside the Charlotte Douglas Airport) had an interesting life. Somebody hated that camera. They would paint the clear covering in front of the camera black, and the rest of the camera housing bright pink. The city/operator would clean/repair/replace the unit and shortly thereafter ... black and pink again!

If memory serves, the City of Charlotte could not "force" you to pay the ticket due to state laws, but they were turning them over to a collection agency to bug you until you did.