Spokane7
33°
June 24, 2010 in City
Attorney: Spokane’s red-light camera ticket system flawed
City counters that law allows for officers to sign tickets digitally
Local attorney John Clark challenged Spokane’s system of issuing tickets from red light cameras, arguing Thursday in Spokane Municipal Court that the city is not following well-established law.
Officers have long been required to sign infractions indicating that they reviewed the tickets and attested to their accuracy, Clark said. But with the red light cameras, the officer pushes a computer button that tells a private company in Arizona to affix a digital photo of the officer’s signature.
“The bottom line on this issue is that these tickets do not follow the law,” Clark said. “We are just trying to get the city to do it right instead of just making money.”
City attorneys disagree, saying state law allows for changes in technology to allow officers to sign tickets through the use of a computer.
“While it’s a little high tech, at the end of the day it’s not all that different from what we do” with officers signing paper infractions, said Assistant City Prosecutor Janean Phillips. “It’s not a big mystery. The purpose is to facilitate the efficient issuance of these infractions.”
Municipal Court Judge Mary Logan indicated she was leaning toward the city in the legal dispute brought by Clark on behalf of five clients who challenged the $124 tickets they received as a result of the red light cameras. But she reserved making her decision until hearing more evidence.
The city began fining red light violators caught on camera Nov. 1, 2008. Two cameras are at Francis Avenue and Division Street. One camera monitors Sprague Avenue and Browne Street, and another is at Mission Avenue and Hamilton Street.
As of January, Spokane issued 5,690 camera tickets that resulted in revenue of $419,000. After paying the camera company, Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions, and other expenses subtracted, police estimate a profit of $103,000.
According to court testimony, Spokane officers log onto the ATS computer system with a personal password. They then watch digital videos of the intersections and then decide whether drivers caught in the intersections committed infractions.
The officer then pushes a button, signing the ticket. Clark said that’s where his problems begin.
Clark said the city has offered no evidence about whether other officers or company employees could also affix the officers’ signature. And, he argued, it’s not clear whether that signature is simultaneous or is added when the company gets around to it.
He explained that the law allows residents about five days to gather evidence, such as photos of construction in an intersection, to contest the ticket. If they don’t receive the ticket for a couple weeks after the infraction was signed, they would lose that ability, he said.
Phillips countered saying that city officials have no reason to believe anyone has hacked into the private computer system.
“The officers … affix their signature with the press of a button,” she said. “All (the private company) does is print out a sheet of paper and mails it.”
Logan said her decision will most likely hinge on whether the process has been approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts in Olympia. She set a new hearing for oral arguments on July 29.
Wendy Ferrell, a spokeswoman for the AOC, said she was unable to determine Thursday whether Spokane has received approval for its system.
Killing suspect remains at large 
WSU Text-to-Win Contest 
EWU Text-to-Win Contest 
Enter to win tickets to see Adam Carolla at the Knitting Factory 
Anne_Observer on June 24 at 7:57 p.m.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but it was my understanding that some years back, the state Supreme Court struck down speed monitoring from aircraft, on the basis that state law required the officer who witnessed the infraction be the one to issue and sign the ticket.
So there are a number of potential problems with these traffic light cameras:
(1) Nobody is actually “witnessing” an infraction. If it had been as simple as videotaping, that could and would have been done from the aircraft back when that was common practice. It was certainly after video cameras became common and affordable. Yet the courts struck down that practice anyway.
(2) The officer who “signs” the ticket (which is debatable in the first place) is not actually the person to “issue” a citation. That is being done by a private company: arguably illegal.
(3) The way this works, it is almost certain that the private company is choosing to show only certain videos to the officer, in the name of “efficiency”: again that is possibly illegal.
(4) Statistics from cities across the United States that have had these cameras for years, have often shown an INCREASE in both the number and severity of accidents at intersections that had traffic cameras. There are a number of reasons for this, among them that while broadside accidents are reduced, rear-end and other collisions tend to increase (from people slamming on their brakes in order to avoid a $124 ticket). The point here being that these cameras were justified by the argument that they would prevent accidents, injuries, and loss of life; but the actual statistics indicate otherwise. So this isn’t really about public safety at all. It is about more revenue for the City, AT THE EXPENSE of public safety.
Dazzeetrader11 on June 24 at 8:44 p.m.
Anne congrats! This system was installed to REDUCe accidents….and Shogan said injuries too! They also promised that if there wasn’t a reduction in both, the system would be pulled.
At that time, they denied it was a money making tool for the City…as it would be a conflict of interest. Well guess what Spokane, system is still in place generating money for the City BUT it has NOT reduced anything except that officers are now allowed to work less but charge more for their services.
Time for the CIty to live up to their promise. Get those cameras gone. Sounds like Verner figured out a way to make money for the Arizona group and the City. Time to pull the plug on Verner and the red light camera system.
PlanB on June 24 at 8:47 p.m.
The whole thing stinks from every angle.
The city’s own statistics shows it does nothing to increase safety, and numerous other reports show it increases accidents. That right there should put and end to this, and I understand that several states have laws prohibiting their use.
Yet the city council does nothing keep approving them, who through their actions have shown they couldn’t care less about public safety or where the cash comes from.
Government gone wild.
Rock60 on June 24 at 8:58 p.m.
It’s the word “Profit”. Somehow that just doesn’t sound like the correct word choice. Pretty it up.
effrepublicans on June 24 at 9:35 p.m.
Its amazing how people see the red-light cameras as being something bad. When was it that the law changed that it was completely legal to run a red-light? All the commentators on this post thus far but believe that its perfectly ok for them to run a red-light regardless of the consequences. The red-light cameras only make them drive within the confines of the law. What a nuisance huh; to actually have to drive according to the law? If you don’t want to get a ticket then don’t run a red light!! That simple people!
Anne_Observer on June 24 at 10:00 p.m.
Daisy:
I believe that Mayor Vernor has good intentions, but is probably misinformed about the reality of what these devices actually do. That is part of the problem.
effrepublicans:
This has nothing to do with the law, except to the extent that it is being illegally enforced. Do you think it should be? Would you like some police to break down your door without a warrant and terrorize your kids and tear up your home in the process of searching it without probable cause?
ALL laws deserve to be enforced in a legal manner. Once leeway is given in one area, it will be taken in another. This has been demonstrated again and again. Or maybe you haven’t read your history?
Nobody is saying it is okay to run a red light. But examine WHY it’s not okay: it causes collisions. If it didn’t, there would be no reason not to. Yes? Are you with me so far?
If the METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT of a law actually makes the situation it is supposed to remedy WORSE, then it’s a bad law, right? If a law or practice intended to reduce accidents and injuries actually increases accidents and injuries, then it’s a BAD LAW. Yes?
Just exactly where do you get lost in this chain of logic?
de3 on June 24 at 11:36 p.m.
The goal should be to design intersections and light systems to reduce red light running. Extending the yellow phase by 1/2 to 1 second greatly reduces red light running.
Since some intersections have much higher rates of red light running infractions, this suggests poor design of the intersection and/or signal timing.
Making the intersection safer is a cost center; printing robot red light tickets turns it into a profit center. City political leaders have made it clear that they value profits more than safety.
Nomore on June 25 at 3:57 a.m.
Can we please get our streets fixed?
Spokane is looking more and more like a ghetto every day.
Use the money from TRAFFIC FINES and RESOLVE (not fix) our street issues.
Please.. with sugar and a promise to NOT VOTE FOR VERNER on top?
IHike4Fun on June 25 at 5:33 a.m.
Personnaly I don’t have a problem with cameras at intersections. Lots of communities have them. They are no threat to me since I’m not running red lights. I hope they not only keep them but expand their use.
As for redesigning intersections to reduce red light running I suggest automatic spike strips. ;^)
effrepublicans on June 25 at 7:14 a.m.
Anne_Observer…
You must be a constant red light runner and have paid out a few hundred dollars in tickets to be able to pose the arguement that you did. Since when did this at all have to do with warrantless searches? Going off on another domestic issue you had at home with the police? If the red-light cameras actually did increase in collisions any bit more than a regular intersection has to deal with people running red-lights than I would like to see the facts. No one has yet to ever show a study that has done that in the Spokane area. Besides, its perfectly fine for a cop to sit on the side of the highway and use a radar gun at which point when people see him they speed way down and cause dangerous situations. I have seen accidents resulting from this more than once. Should speed violations not be enforced now?? Its plain and simple, drive the way should and then you don’t have to worry about the cameras!!
Obie1 on June 25 at 9:15 a.m.
The anger expressed by many of the responders is just why we need the cameras. It is that same lack of common sense and emotional control that is found in aggressive and dangerous driving. Only a person who has a authority issue and resents the restriction on their personal driving behavior would make such inane statements.
The results speak for themselves - serious accidents at camera sites are down over 40% in Seattle, Federal Way and numerous WA cities since the cameras have been installed. This matches national data, and why every major US safety institution supports the cameras. The data is available, check it out. If you are a safe driver and don’t break the law, no problem.
Safe drivers unite.
lewis8457 on June 25 at 9:31 a.m.
I agree with Nomore, where are the pothole crews? I see a street sweeper come up Monroe several times a week and yesterday they started painting the lines again but what about the mammoth size holes destroying the front end of cars and trucks? there has been a series of holes on Monroe right past the garland light for several years that i know of. Monroe from garland south has no good lanes left they are full of holes and ruts.
What is the sense of repaving the middle of West Buckeye and leaving the worst lane open for traffic? The middle had no wear because it is not a lane.
Does west buckeye get the traffic Monroe does i think not.
And who times the lights? All 30 mph roadways are timed at 35 mph is this for the buses since they travel at 35+?
I think the point trying to be made is if we allow cameras in our parks and on our roadways where will it stop? cameras on every street corner, where is the line between our privacy and big brother? Or do we have privacy anymore?
I have never ran a red light in my life, and do not think i need big brother making sure I don’t. Where will it end? The loss of more freedoms until we have no freedoms.
I wonder how many cop cars have been caught by the red light cameras? I see them run lights all the time with out their lights or siren on.
vacaysun on June 25 at 9:38 a.m.
i’m totally behind the use of cameras and think that standard ticketing procedures will help the enforcement of basic traffic law.
eagleproducer on June 25 at 10:02 a.m.
obie: Why don’t you have an “issue” with “authority?” My problem is turning that “authority” into tax collectors instead of collecting it from those most likely to have revenue: The Wealthy! An officer mashing a button at a computer station to provide “profit” for the city is no different than thugs breaking down doors in Sherwood forrest to help out their rogue cop buddy in Nottingham.
And I love how the lemmings line up!
State: Higher taxes on “sin” products?
Lemmings: Sign me up!
State: Close libraries, dismantle social service programs, and slash school budgets
Lemmings: We need to be “austere.”
State: Hand more “authority” to the police state and figure out a way to collect revenue by becoming more Draconian?
Lemmings: I sure feel safer!
State: Whatcha think about a progressive income tax?
Lemmings: Get a rope!
DriveSafe on June 25 at 1:54 p.m.
To me, the method employed by the city is valid and the officer’s electronic signature should be allowed. In this day and age of distracted and aggressive driving, red-light camera enforcement is a valuable pro-safety tool. More than 1,000 deaths and 150,000 injuries occur nationally caused by red light running. A minor technicality should not stand in the way when lives may be saved.
cubuffalo on June 25 at 5:16 p.m.
I am sorry guys. These systems are all about safety and security and we will see more and more of them in the coming years.
Get used to it and drive carefully.
yogilives on June 25 at 5:36 p.m.
This is attorney’s at their worst, trying to find any loophole to prevent common sense and protecting reckless drivers by preventing the enforcement of traffic laws to deter red light runners from endangering the lives of innocent people on our streets. I hope the judge throws this out and we can keep working to keep our streets as safe as possible without interference from obnoxious know-it-all jerks who are probably reckless drivers themselves and just don’t want to get caught!
lillybuggy2 on June 27 at 7:31 p.m.
Red light cameras are a great way to slow people down and make them think twice about safety at intersections! I think they should be at every intersection.
Zags65 on June 28 at 1:11 p.m.
In order to get a license you need to know the laws of driving, these include not running red lights and not speeding. Why people seem so surprised when they are punished for breaking rules they already know, I’ll never understand. But all we can do to make sure our streets are safe is punish those who break the law.
miniaturechocolate on June 28 at 1:25 p.m.
This is just plain dumb- the law allows for the use of technology to change and this guy is complaining that because it has an electric signature that it isn’t valid? Gimme a break- welcome to 2010!
spokesinawheel on June 28 at 3:08 p.m.
This just seems like someone got a ticket and doesn’t want to accept responsibility. Finding a tech loop hole in the law doesn’t give you the right to run reds without consequences! I hope the cameras can stay up and ticketing people who break the law.
margarita33 on June 28 at 3:22 p.m.
the speed cameras could be a big help, the spokeys have a speeding problem and i’m scared to drive around there. they say they believe in doing the right thing in the situation, isn’t the right thing following laws?
kennyhuston on June 29 at 12:12 p.m.
The current system is expensive and much better use of “live video streaming cameras” - example Wa St DOT cams - recorded onto hard drive - would be EXTREMELY more effective for police investigations into violent crimes just for starters. If someone, at a monitored intersection, were to say have a collisiion with no witnesses except for the parties involved. It sure would be easier for the correct party to disprove negligence. Although I’m not sure how to figure out making it profitable. Heck just fix the darn streets first please!!!