Hi,
Just a reminder to you civil minded out there about the meeting about the lawsuit against the City of Toledo about red light camera appeals
Chris Finney, an attorney with COAST (Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes) said the first meeting on the charter amendment will be Monday, January 12, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.
I will post the location below here once I hear about it.
http://thurbersthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/12/group-plans-charter-amendment-to-outlaw.html
Comments ... #
Location is the Point Place Branch Library (117th St.) and the time is now 7 p.m.
This is not about outlawing the cameras, but it is about ensuring that these traffic violations are treated the same as other violations.
Here's a comparison to think about:
Say there's a bank robbery and a camera captures of photo of your car. If you follow the same rules that are in place for the cameras, the photo would be all that was required to collect you - the owner of the vehicle - and 'sentence' you to the mandated penalty.
Your only defense for not going directly to jail is to give police the name of the person who was driving your vehicle or to prove that you no longer owned the vehicle at the time of the offense.
This isn't about whether or not people should run red lights or speed through intersections. Clearly people should not do either of those things.
This is about ensuring that a police officer gives the driver the ticket (not the car) and that you are afforded the due process rules we've established in this country to ensure our rights.
This effort will put the measure on the ballot so the voters can have the say.
If you're interested in knowing more or have questions, come to the meeting.
posted by MaggieThurber on Jan 07, 2009 at 12:46:35 pm #
Maggie, I would be willing to have the fines upped so that we could have a cop on every corner. It might cut down on a lot of other crime. I bet we could employ 30,000 police that way, and charge $10,000 for each speeding ticket. And it would be lawful.
posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 07, 2009 at 01:13:06 pm #
So if you were not the one driving the car when it ran the red light, prove it. I still don’t see the point. It’s just a way for people to try and get rid of the cameras. They do more than take pictures, they take very clear video. So there should never be a problem. And honestly, how many times has someone let someone else drive their car and then they received a ticket in the mail? Answer: not very often. It’s just like the people that have those covers over their license plates - anything to avoid abiding by the law. If these same people spent half as much time doing something constructive it would be amazing.
Is Webbster involved in this one?
I'm with Ryan. People speed down our streets like someone's chasing them.
Here is part of a letter I wrote to the mayor last fall:
I want to tell you about an incident that occurred this past Wednesday evening.Each Wednesday, my family and I walk down the block to Jojo's Pizza for their half-price special. We like the pizza and the price is affordable for my husband, Rich, and me and our two kids, Joey, 6, and Suzie, 4. Joey worked on his spelling words and Suzie drew a picture while we waited for our food. This particular evening, it was our eighth wedding anniversary, so we were especially happy to be out together.
After our dinner, my husband took the kids outside while I paid the bill. I was a step behind them as the light changed on Monroe Street and we had the walk light. Holding onto the kids' hands, Rich stepped off the curb.
At that moment, a car blasted through the red light and missed my family by about 12 inches.I screamed. The car's brake lights never even flashed.
Carty, my whole family could have been wiped out in an instant. My beautiful little daughter, just four years old, would have been hit first.
I know there is nothing I can do now about that idiot who ran the red light. But there is something you can do about these people who think they are above the law.
The intersection of Monroe Street and Cheltenham Road is a dangerous one. Please put a red light camera at that intersection. Had there been one in place last Wednesday, I know that person would at least have received a stiff fine.
And maybe then they would realize what running a red light costs.
But, Ryan, think how much crime could be stopped if we had cops at all four corners of an intersection (or more at some of the wacky intersections)? The response time would be phenomenal, we would put a lot of our out-of-work, or laid off citizens to work, and it would not cost the city anything because you could pay the traffic enforcement division out of the fines, or the cars they could confiscate if the driver could not pay the fine. Speeding would drop to zero, and a lot of other vehicular use rules could be enforced. See a car not up to code, pull it off the road, see a car swerving dangerously in and out of traffic because s/he's drunk, pull her/him over. And we'd have a reserve of officers to take care of any terrorist incident. It would be the police state (or in this case, "police city") we have always longed for. Safety would be assured (except from the police themselves).
posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 07, 2009 at 01:33:15 pm #
Well, that sounds fantastic, and obviously would be the best situation for all. Unfortunately, it will never happen. That costs alot more than what we are willing to spend, see this years budget.
I wonder if we could start a pilot program where we hired cops for certain intersections, upped the fines for those intersections so the cops paid for themselves, and see how it would work. Just start with one or two of the worst. Maybe a cop on each corner, $400 bucks a day, and if four cars were caught each day, the cops would pay for themselves if the fine was $100 each time. Of course, there would be the cost of equipment so maybe the fine would have to be raised to take that into account.
posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 07, 2009 at 01:39:30 pm #
FACT: Studies have shown that car wrecks INCREASE when red light cameras are put in place. People are more likely to slam on their brakes and get rear-ended.
FACT: The issuance of these tickets requires an end-around of the Constitution's presumption of innocence. There is no due process.
Why would anyone support the practice of ignoring civil liberties to chase after a pipe dream of improving safety at intersections? Murderers can put forth a stronger defense than people who run red lights. There's something distinctly un-American about a process that ignores the Constitution and places the burden of proof entirely on the guilty (I say guilty because they automatically assume you are guilty regardless of actual guilt).
I want to stand for freedom. Oppose the red light cameras.
You know, I am getting excited about this. Instead of paying for our safety forces through taxes we should be using fines to bankrupt the scofflaws. There is no reason we cannot have another 5,000 police in Toledo if we raise the fines for speeding high enough, and catch enough to pay for them.
posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 07, 2009 at 01:43:39 pm #
So, HeyHey, do you think that car wrecks would increase if we had cops on every corner? It certainly would not be unconstitutional, would it? And would it be a pipedream, or would it improve safety at the intersections? There was a time when police guided traffic at the intersections. Maybe it is time to return to that concept if people are so unlawful that they cannot obey the traffic rules.
posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 07, 2009 at 01:49:05 pm #
Heyhey – you have the EXACT same recourse whether you get a ticket by a person or a camera. If you want to fight it, you go to court. The only difference is when it’s issued by a camera they let you sit there in court and watch yourself drive through a red light like an idiot.
What about a libertarian approach? People could present themselves to the city administration, and, in exchange for a fee, could assume the duties of "traffic enforcement" for a particular corner. They would have the powers of arrest (purchased through the city administration), and could pull over anyone they deemed in violation of the law. They could accept fines then and there, or issue a ticket if the arrestee felt s/he were innocent of any wrong-doing. They would have the right to have the arresting officer to prove in court that they violated the law (I imagine there would be a lot videos being made, but there should be no complaints since a human being would back them up). These entrepreneurs could be like the "tax farmers" of times past who gave the Roman emperors a large amount of money in exchange for the right to tax a certain area, and keep what they collected. Free enterprise to the rescue!
posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 07, 2009 at 02:05:32 pm #
I think you all know that most of my posts above were facetious. The truth is that those who hide behind the smoke screen of human enforcement would not want an adequate police force to enforce those laws. They are just the regular human hypocrites we deal with every day. The ones who want more police, but will not pay the taxes for them. The ones who would complain if fines were raised to adequately fund a police force. The ones who want to break the laws they do not like, and have little chance of being caught. We are all like that.
posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 07, 2009 at 02:35:18 pm #
Ryan, your assertions about the "exact" same remedies for red light violations are simply false.
The red light camera hearing does not contain:
- the presumption of innocence
- the burden of proof on the state
- the right to confront witnesses
- the spousal privilegeThis is not about traffic safety. They have been shown to decrease that goal. This is about government intrusion on liberty, and the proper way to enforce legitimate police power.
Even scofflaws have rights, and protection of the red light runner, protects you and your right to disagree.
TAHL
posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Jan 07, 2009 at 03:05:55 pm #
Really? I guess when I went to court for it it must have actually been an episode of The Twilight Zone then. Because you could plead your case, you could have witnesses, they had to prove it was you in the car (which they did happily with a video, etc.
Man vs machine - only difference, period.
Apparently your video was shot on a different system than the several I have seen. The Trail and Dorr st. cameras do not shoot the driver, to prove whom the driver was.
The hearings I (and others) have researched put the burden on the alleged offender, and the only witness is a police officer who "certifies" the ticket after the fact. That officer can only testify that 1) they watched the video, 2) it shows a car with a specific license plate going through the intersection.
Additionally, any requests for information on the camera, its opertation, its certifciation, the traffic light, etc. cannot be made at the time of the hearing, and the hearing officer instructs the accused that it WAS their burden to produce such information BEFORE the hearing.
Of course the citation, the statute, and the viewing website don't inform citizens of these facts, or where and how to get the information ahead of time. Add the fact that in Toledo the City refuses to provide such information when requested through FOIA, citizens are prevented from mounting a defense.
I am glad you are comfortable surrendering your basic rights for the myth of traffic safety through technology. I however, am not.
TAHL
posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Jan 07, 2009 at 03:39:50 pm #
What I am comfortable doing is paying for a traffic violation that I KNOW I committed instead of trying to find a loophole to get out of it.
Most sane grown ups realize that is the thing to do.
But then again, you make a living off of that kind of crap, so…………
people are always looking for a way to get one over...
"Most sane grown ups realize that is the thing to do."
Must be a shitload of 'insane non-grownups' in Cincinnati, Steubenville and many other cities across the nation that have acknowledged the red light cameras are unconstitutional, cause more accidents than they claim to prevent and that the cameras are nothing but 'cash-cows' for the cities than authorize them!
As one who attempted to get records from the City of Toledo concerning the red light cameras, I can tell you that contrary to how the TMC reads:
Appeals shall be heard through an administrative process established by the City of Toledo Police Department.
The City has admitted in my FOIA court case that there is NO 'administrative process' in my FOIA request! That means there are no 'rules' or 'steps' to follow as there are in any other area of law and judicial conduct! No rules to follow! That ALONE scares the hell out of me!
The person that conducts the 'hearing' is neither a Judge nor a Magistrate. I'm interested in knowing how a person that is not a 'instrument of the court' can assess fines and penalties!
Finally, for those of you that are (as Ryan put it) 'Insane Non-Grownps' like myself, I urge you to attend this upcoming meeting on the 12th! Join forces with the millions of Americans that are standing up and saying "Enough is enough!"
It is time to take back the United States and the Constitution!
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 07, 2009 at 05:24:41 pm #
Wow – I would hate to see the Norma Rae enthusiasm you whip up over something REALLY important.
Or – you can pay your fines when YOU KNOW you committed the violation.
Forget about it, Ryan. The defenders of this "freedom" want neither enforcement by "red light" cameras, nor sufficient police to do what the cameras now do.
They want the freedom to run the red lights that they can get away from (with the occasional "random" capture by a member of our understrength police force). An occasional dead citizen is a small price to pay for such liberty.
posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 07, 2009 at 05:34:44 pm #
Anyone have a clue as to how many additional police we would need to replace the "red light" cameras we now have (assuming three shifts for 24 hour coverage)? Maybe the city ought to consider an auxiliary police force, or something like the meter patrols. Would we really need to train someone who just kept an eye on traffic up to the standard we insist for our patrolmen? Or perhaps such duty would be the way to start into the police force? Or if the privatization of government services is starting to look better than civil service perhaps a group of businessmen could get together to form such a company to provide the manpower. Use local business talent instead of partnering with an out-of-town business, and keep the profits in the region.
posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 07, 2009 at 05:50:20 pm #
Actually, I would be more comfortable with an officer than a camera, too. Human beings are likely to become inattentive over long stretches of time. You are more likely to get away with breaking the law if the young patrolman is sniffing around a young woman at a red light rather than looking your way. Thank God for sex.
posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 07, 2009 at 06:15:08 pm #
I like the cameras. I don't see the problem. A little trick I normally use, is when the light turns red i just stop my car. It seems to work rather well for me. I'm all for automation.
posted by AmericanPie on Jan 07, 2009 at 11:30:44 pm #
Came across this site while looking for info on how to dispute my red light ticket. I got it at Lewis and Laskey on 12/23 during freezing rain. I was going 30 in a 45 when the light went yellow. I hit my brakes and the car turned sideways. I lifted my foot off the brake, regained control, and went through the red light.
I viewed the video online. Two other cars run the light in the opposite direction. They probably couldn't stop either. Also, for a split second as my car comes into view, you can see the very end of my sideways excursion.
In the materials I was mailed, I was given the option to request a hearing to appear at. However, I live in Marietta, Georgia and was just home visiting family. I don't feel like I should have to pay $120 because I prevented myself from having an accident, as did the other cars in the opposite direction. Also, this weather had been forecast, a little road-salt would have helped.
Can someone there find a phone number for me to call? I need to ask someone how to dispute this without physically showing up. The only phone number in the mailed material is to make a payment, and it's somewhere in Phoenix.
Thanks to anyone who tries to help.
- Shannon
Shannon, call Lt. Keil at 419-245-3254
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 08, 2009 at 07:29:53 am #
Shannon's case is another reason the red light camera's are a scam!
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 08, 2009 at 07:32:40 am #
Sounds like she failed to control her vehicle, another violation.
Again, we can’t blame ice and snow and no salt. Take responsibility.
Not trying to be a jerk, just stating facts.
Shannon, just don't pay it. There is no real way to enforce it.
Every traffic offense whether is improper starting or backing without full attention,expired plates or whatever-not just speeding the minimum fine for that should start out at at least $5,000 for the first offense and double for each following offense. THAT would wake people up to not violating the law.
Also, with the red light cameras, why don't they have a small time delay between the red light in one direction and the green for another.
This is the only city I've lived in where when one direction changes red, the other instantly changes to green.
Why worry about this foolishness-throw the ticket in the trash. It's not an offense they can pull your license with.
Question for GraphicsGuy or TAHL or anyone with practical law experience. If I receive a ticket for running a red light am I permitted to fight the ticket in court, complete with a jury trial and lawyers? By ticket, I mean that a cop pulled me over and issued me a ticket. My motivation here is informational, as I'm having second (and third) thoughts about the red light camera issue.
In this article, http://www.toledocitypaper.com/view_article.php?id=1741, there is a sentence: "If a car stops and backs up, it will not be cited for running the light". If there is free space behind you then I guess this might get you out of a ticket.
posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 08, 2009 at 04:52:43 pm #
MadJack - Yes.
Because tickets issued by TPD or other law enforcement officers are part of the criminal traffic code, you have all the rights afforded citizens in any other criminal violation.
Rights Ryan apparently does not feel are important. (Ryan no doubt would have drank the tea in Boston after all IT WAS THE LAW).
You can plead not guilty, demand a trial (depending on offense and the possibility of jail time it may be bench trial or jury), question witnesses, and force the state to prove your guilt. You can sit silent, and if the state fails to prove the violation occurred, you can move for a directed verdict (acquittal) before saying a word.
THEN, you can present evidence, question/confront the witnesses against you, and argue your case.
If for example in a speeding ticket the officer cannot show his cause for issuing the ticket was valid, supported by a certified traffic radar (with evidence if its testing and accuracy) or the same for say.......the intoximeter in a DUI case, then you might win.
None of this due process argument, a natural right recognized by the Constitution, is based on YOU KNOW YOU COMMITTED THE VIOLATION. That is far from the point. The point is, If Uncle Sam or Aunt Toledo or Big Brother is going to take away my rights and freedom -- there is a proper process to do so, and my rights are protected by the PROCESSS.
A process that is absent in the current red-light system.
TAHL
posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Jan 08, 2009 at 06:12:01 pm #
Just pay the ticket you earned babies.;)
No wonder the courts are flooded with BS.
The court system is not flooded with BS due to red light cameras.
So here's the deal, as I understand it, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. In the case of the red light camera violation, the city of Toledo and Redflex Traffic Systems sends me a notice of violation and states that they have conclusive evidence that I busted a light. I may not even remember being in town that day, but never mind. Toledo states it has evidence and I must pay.
Ok, I say, show me the evidence and prove it. And here it comes - the city says that they don't have to. Their word and the Redflex Traffic Systems photo is good enough.
And that is the part that isn't right. The city should still have to prove in criminal court that I violated the law. That's the part the city doesn't want to do, and now I wonder why not. If the evidence is solid, why not just shuffle all these violators into traffic court and be done with it?
I am officially switching my position. I no longer support the red light camera project for obvious reasons. My thanks to TAHL, GG and others who took the time to post.
But they DO PROVE IT, with video. What more do you need? Not sure how you can miss that part, unless you are trying to.
And I meant the courts are flooded because people fight everything anymore, even when they know they are in the wrong.
Both here and in another board someone has insinuated that if you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about. Let me just 'reprint' what I wrote in response:
________
It's not about breaking the law - it's about how it's 'enforced' by doing an 'end run' around the Constitution.You're not going to find a person on this board or any other board that applauds law-breakers. I do, however, have a problem with a governmental agency ignoring Constitutional Rights. The rights that are being trampled in these cases are the 4th, 5th, possibly the 6th and what others, I don't know, but in my opinion, DUE PROCESS (or lack thereof) is the biggest problem
If you're going to say "well, throw that Amendment to the side for the better of the country" where does it stop? How many rights must die before it directly affects YOU and you finally say "HEY! I've got rights! You're violating my Constitutional rights!"
Is a Warrantless Search okay by you? Since you have nothing to hide, you have no problem if Law Enforcement breaks your door down and proceeds to search the premise for illegal contraband? You have none, therefore you have no problem, right? You're perfectly willing to give up the paragraph about being 'secure in your home' because you are not guilty of anything, right?
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 08, 2009 at 08:19:52 pm #
Yes, breaking down a door into someones home and taking a picture of you running a red light is the same thing.
Nevermind.
Babies.
So THAT Constitutional right you're NOT willing to forego?
Just trying to figure out where you're going to draw the line.
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 08, 2009 at 09:02:05 pm #
I am sorry, but you do not even make sense anymore.
How can you equate the two? You can't, not in a logical world anyway.
Bottom line: I trust a video of me running a red light more than I do an officer saying I ran a red light. You all agree I am sure, but live to try and get one over. Again, babies.
Nothing is a clear as it seems, even if it on camera. If you let an twin drive your car and the camera catches him/her on film, you will get the ticket because they will have what they say is your picture on film, indisputable proof! You know it wasn't you but you must pay the fine anyhow.
Just a scenario to blow a hole in your theory Ryan.
Yeah - cause that happens all the time.
Have some apples with those oranges.
Equate the two? They are separate rights guaranteed by the Constitution - and each equally as important as the one before it.
Ryan, you're willing to give up Due Process because you "don't run red lights" but are not will to give it up when the police want to do a warrantless search. I was asking where do you draw the line. I'd like to know exactly when is it acceptable to violate the Constitutional guarantees and when it is not.
If you call us - or me 'babies' because I want Constitutional rights followed, then I must insist you must be a Communist subversive - or at the least Anti-American!
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 08, 2009 at 09:45:37 pm #
Ryan, and others: I strongly suggest you attend the COAST meeting and find out more about Constitutional rights and how it affects the red light cameras. I'm sure it will be a GREAT learning experience for EVERYONE! Feel free to ask questions. Mr. Finney is well-versed in this area, so I'm sure he'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
Seriously, PLAN TO ATTEND.
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 08, 2009 at 09:50:13 pm #
I am all for the Constitution - I am desperately against wasting the courts time when you run a red light and don't like the fact that a camera caught you.
Grow up.
Look Ryan, it isn't about red light cameras or running a light. It's all about what happens when someone accuses you of doing so. Now if you don't like that, just feel free to move your whining ass to Mexico or Canada where they don't have civil rights.
You didn't know the Canadians didn't have civil rights? Well, since you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind living in Canada.
Would this be permissible? A local site (perhaps somewhere downtown) staffed by police officers who have the legal authority to issue a ticket. They could even be monitored by cameras to ensure that they are doing their jobs. If an officer observes someone breaking the law (through one of the digital cameras) he would print out a citation, and mail it to the scofflaw. The accused would have the right to face his accuser, and present his side.
Now perhaps there are those who feel that the camera image should not be accepted as evidence, but I wonder what standing they would have? After all, cops use radar guns, and the parking meter is accepted as evidence all the time. I would think that the staffing package might be kept under a dozen officers.
posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 09, 2009 at 12:00:36 am #
Infractions which cost points as well should be valued at least $1,500.
Infractions which do not incur points should be valued at least $3,000.
Attach LED lights under the signals and assign a traffic cop to monitor those lights.
That way, should you be cited by a camera, you'd avoid the $500 bonus to the cop for pulling you over personally.
posted by BrianInFlorida on Jan 09, 2009 at 05:22:34 am #
"...wasting the courts time..."
See, that's what you're not catching - there is no 'court'! A court in front of a judge or magistrate has rules to follow and that wonderful thing called "innocent until proven guilty", due process, to be judged by a jury, public trial and all that good Constitutional stuff!
That does not exist in Toledo's 'hearings'!
You are guilty unless you can prove your innocence.
Others are not allowed in the 'hearing' room
There is no 'due process'
The 'hearing officer' who is not a judge, a magistrate or even an officer of the court finds you guilty or innocent.
Calibration and maintenance records are unavailable or non existent to check the accuracy of the camera or the validity of the pictures.
There is no 'chain of custody' for the pictures/video.
And, my favorite - in the City's response to my FOIA lawsuit Toledo has reluctantly admitted that there is no 'Administrative Process' (rules to follow) as stated in the TMC313.12(d)(4) Appeals shall be heard through an administrative process established by the City of Toledo Police Department.
Now Ryan, if all of these tramplings of the Constitution are okay-fine and dandy with you, then your statement "I am all for the Constitution" is either (1)nothing but BS (2)you haven't a clue as to what the Constitution guarantees other than your right to say whatever you want (3)you're only 'for' the Constitution when it benefits you and if your 'rights' are stepped on, you cry like a little girl, or (4)you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.
As I said previously, attend the COAST meeting. Even if you go with your current 'mind-set', GO! Attend and see if there's anything that makes sense to you. Ask questions. Find out exactly why Toledo's red light cameras are wrong. Find out why many other cities have voted them out of existence. Find out how red light cameras cause crashes. And find out how the city can prevent crashes at intersections in the name of safety without the use of red light cameras.
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 09, 2009 at 06:59:06 am #
I agree with Ryan. There are a lot on this thread that think it is al right to applaud lawbreakers.
Don't waste your time, GG. The man-woman is an ass and wants attention.
One thing that I've read about recently is that accused violators are not allowed to challenge the reliability of the traffic camera, unlike the radar gun. Again, rights are violated.
On my way into work one day last year, the traffic light at he Trail and South was stuck (Red for South, Green for the Trail). About 50 cars were lined up attempting to turn onto the Trail or cross it from South street. When drivers on the Trail finally realized that there was a problem and provided the courtesy stop to allow traffic on South to move, every one of those South Ave. drivers had their picture taken by the camera. I could have set up a Disco with the light show the flashing strobe provided! I wonder how much money the city made that morning?
Ryan brings little to the defense of the red light cameras. Calling people "babies" and telling them to "grow up" just shows he has little to stand on.
It's simply a matter of principle and the Constitution. Just throwing that aside is scary and wrong.
I suppose the folks who support red light cameras would accept the govt listening to their phone calls and private conversation, too. Hey, if you're not doing anything wrong, you should be ok with it. Is that how it goes?
I just read the Posting Guidelines of Toledo Talk and it seems to me Ryan is violating the rule against being a troll. He is trying to get everyone to argue until they are "blue in the face". Ignore him and hopefully he will go away.
I guess i'm conflicted about the red-light camera's. I've noticed that the one's i encounter havent caused much trouble, plus with the blinking do not walk signs, it usually means that the light is going to turn to yellow pretty soon, but i guess i've never thought about the constitutional area's that have been talked about. I guess i may have to think about it.
<i>...accused violators are not allowed to challenge the reliability of the traffic camera..."<i>
MadJack, I made a FOIA request to the City of Toledo <b><i>...to inspect any and all documents pertaining to the maintenance, certification and testing of all installed red light cameras installed within the City of Toledo.</b></i>
After not getting the requested records, I finally had to file an lawsuit with Common Pleas Court. The City finally admitted they do not have the requested records - along with admitting there is no 'Administrative Process' outlining how the appeals are handled.
So yes, your correct. There is no way to check the accuracy of the cameras or whether the photo has been 'retouched', as there is no 'chain of evidence' documentation.
Scary!
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 09, 2009 at 07:14:58 pm #
(dang it - i keep forgetting to format this blog differently!)
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 09, 2009 at 07:30:23 pm #
I would LOVE to know the percentage of "victims" that have gotten a ticket by a camera and were not guilty.
Something tells me it is pretty low. Way lower than this thread is worth.
Not trying to be a troll - just think this is entirely silly and a waste.
Ryan, as I mentioned previously, attend the meeting this Monday, listen to what they have to say and ask questions!
That's the best advise I - or anyone can give you right now.
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 09, 2009 at 08:03:20 pm #
The way some people feel, if they don't pay the fines, fines will be raised, and the cost will be passed on to folks who will pay them.
Wulf - the City can not raise the fines over that which is charged by the State. If the State penalty for running a red light (4511.12 I think) is $130, then municipalities can not charge over $130.
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 10, 2009 at 07:48:16 am #
Interesting little bit of information and supports a few other cities that have done similar studies:
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 11, 2009 at 02:55:43 pm #
City of Toledo needs to rethink there business plan..! red light cameras are a joke... they need to spend more time bring businesses into center core of toledo instead of wasting everyone time and money on them POS red light cameras...
posted by 4ToledoByToledo on Jan 12, 2009 at 03:40:17 am #
Well, imagine that! Another group of 'disgruntled' citizens!
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 14, 2009 at 07:56:07 pm #
I'm late to the party, however -
My thanks to GraphicsGuy for taking the time and trouble to pursue information via the FOIA and, subsequently, small claims court. The government relies on apathy and hates people who behave the way you do. I tip my derby to you, sir.
Thank you sir! Although I made no money - matter of fact, it cost me a few bucks, we did get the City of admit that (1) there is no 'Administrative Process' as stated in the TMC and (2) there are no maintenance or calibration documents concerning the red light cameras.
It is hoped that this will 'open up the floodgates' to have past cases overturned and a defense for future cases.
Again, thanks for the 'attaboy', MadJack.
posted by GraphicsGuy on Jan 15, 2009 at 07:23:56 pm #
Or, you could spend your time on something worthwhile. Running a red light is a traffic violation, period.
posted by Ryan on Jan 07, 2009 at 10:26:46 am #