June 17, 2011 in News, City

Judge rules against Spokane’s Photo Red cameras

Thomas Clouse The Spokesman-Review

A judge today ruled against the City of Spokane in a decision that may invalidate the system by which traffic tickets are generated using the controversial Photo Red cameras.

The oral decision by Superior Court Judge Jerome Leveque overturns a previous Municipal Court decision that found no legal problem with the method used to electronically affix a Spokane Police officer’s signature to a ticket in Arizona before mailing the $124 citation to the driver.

“This ruling basically invalidates the whole system as of today,” said attorney Dean Chuang, who took over the case for the late John Clark.

Because city officials had not yet reviewed the ruling Friday, they declined to comment, except to say they will meet Monday to discuss the issue.

But last month, Verner proposed shifting $400,000 generated by Photo Red cameras as part of a larger financial package to hire six police officers.

The city receives about $500,000 a year from eight cameras that record drivers who run red lights or don’t come to a complete stop before turning. The city has plans to install four more cameras this year, and Verner’s proposal estimated that it would boost the city’s take to $750,000 next year.

But the ruling today could change all that, Chuang said.

The system requires that a police officer review images from the cameras, then decides whether an infraction has occurred. If so, the officer punches an “accept” button, which sends an electronic signal to Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions. That company then affixes that officer’s signature to the ticket before mailing it to the driver.

Clark, and later Chuang, argued that state law requires that any signature signed under penalty of perjury must be written in Washington.

In 2010, Assistant City Prosecutor Janean Phillips told Municipal Court Judge Mary Logan that the company uses a secure network and password that can be accessed only by the officer reviewing the tickets.

“It’s not a big mystery. The purpose is to facilitate the efficient issuance of these infractions,” Phillips said at the time.

However, Leveque agreed with Chuang and ruled to overturn Logan’s ruling. Chuang said he believes the system is now invalid unless the city can change how the tickets are signed.

23 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

west on June 17 at 5:01 p.m.
City has a real first class legal staff!! LOL
pjc on June 17 at 5:03 p.m.
… boost the city’s take to $750,000 next year
And that’s what it is all about, isn’t it? Not public safety but revenue-generating.
RedCedar on June 17 at 5:21 p.m.
Exactly, pjc. If red light cameras were such a good idea, why doesn’t the city buy them outright, maintain them itself, and have its officers review the photos locally? That ought to be even more profitable since they wouldn’t have to share the revenue with the camera company. Speaking of which… i don’t remember every been told just what the revenue split is. How much does the city get and how much does the camera company get? It’s bad enough getting a ticket and having to pay money to the court, but at least then you know it’s really going to the court. Paying a ticket where you know a large share (perhaps the majority?) is going to a private company that installed the machines that issued you the citation feels more like paying extortion money to the mafia.
force_vector on June 17 at 5:28 p.m.
Red light cameras are a pathetic invention bought buy pathetic municipalities to generate money, nothing more. And no, I’ve never received a ticket via one.
Common sense says that electronic devices don’t “enforce” our laws, people do.
greenlibertarian on June 17 at 5:29 p.m.
The city has never properly validated whether there is a true, overall safety enhancement by installing red light cameras.
The evidence elsewhere seems to line up about 60% saying it improves saftety, 40% it doesn’t, or it’s unknown, not exactly a ringing endorsement.
And why would a SWORN and fully trained for the street OFFICER have to waste time looking over these photos?
misjustice on June 17 at 5:39 p.m.
Uh oh! Looks like the City has got some ‘splain’ to do…
Kivaari on June 17 at 5:46 p.m.
The biggest defect in Washington state is the legislature would not allow cameras taking the picture of both the rear of the car and A DRIVERS IMAGE. Elsewhere the cameras take two pictures showing both angles. The legislators were worried about causing trouble for people shown with their “dates”. In particular elected officials didn’t want to be seen with mistresses. Only in Washington.
Teseract on June 17 at 6:11 p.m.
It’s a scam, pure and simple. Just another way to get more money out of our pocket books for a city government who can’t manage to live within their means without trying to scam us for more money every time we turn around.
If I didn’t have to go to work downtown I’d never set foot inside the city limits of this godforsaken city and their corrupt police force, corrupt city council, and a Mayor who spends the public’s money like a trophy wife with her husband’s gold card let loose in a high end shopping mall.
I guess in the end we are all to blame — we’re the ones who stay in this godforsaken town where nothing ever changes other than the amount of money going up that we have to pay to the powers that be who run this ‘burg.
hawken on June 17 at 6:40 p.m.
Good call.
reservedparking on June 17 at 7:38 p.m.
It’s been nothing but ‘revenue enhancement’ from day one. Safety has never had anything to do with it.
Teseract on June 17 at 8:37 p.m.
The worst part is it nails you for crossing the white line while making a free right. If you roll to a stop across the line to see oncoming traffic and THEN stop you can get a ticket, even though you stopped. As a result I refuse to make free right turns at any of these intersections any longer, and I know others who do the same now, causing congestion where there wasn’t congestion before.
I wonder how long it will be before people get fed up like some individuals in Europe have done. More than one red light or speed camera (look out, speed cameras will be coming next!) has met it’s end in an interesting fashion over there. I of course am not advocating or even suggesting such an approach, but one of the more popular ways to deal with a traffic enforcement camera is to toss an old tire on to the camera and then douse it with lighter fluid and light it. The tire catches fire and burns hot and and is hard to extinguish. The camera looks like a molten pile of slag by the time it’s put out.
People who are angry find ways to let politicians know their displeasure.
greenlibertarian on June 17 at 8:53 p.m.
That’s pretty extreme, Teseract.
I’m thinking a moderately skillful Wrist Rocket operator could accomplish the same thing, with much more stealth, but admittedly, less P/R effect.
;)
D Statler on June 17 at 9:12 p.m.
Sounds like there are some posting here that don’t like cameras. I was surprised to hear the tickets were coming from Arizona. LOL Maybe the Arizona police are more qualified to judge redlight infractions. It might be Spokane’s Police are too buisy standing on the same corner passing crack / meth out for info. There is something wrong with this picture. Our Mayor might want to write a new song about all these great police tactics. This is good material :^)
PlanB on June 17 at 9:20 p.m.
These accident causing devices are the epitome of screwed up, bloated bureaucratic waste. And the city does know how much they improve safety, from their own data - No improvement, and that is supported by data from other sources.
misjustice on June 17 at 9:35 p.m.
@ Teseract, in the UK some have taken to spray painting the camera eye with black paint…not that I am advocating vandalism against these illegal cameras in good ol’ Spookaloonie.
RedCedar on June 17 at 11:25 p.m.
Shooting the cameras with something hard enough to damage them, or burning them up is rather extreme and seriously violates serious laws. Spray paint requires that you climb the pole and spend some time in the vicinity. But what about a paintball gun? One splat of paint on the lens should disable the camera. I’ve also noticed that they have wires connected to them which presumably could be disconnected. Of course there’s also the still-legal “license plate protectors” — plastic covers that are supposed to reflect the glare of the flash and make the plate numbers unreadable.
Here’s an even more radical idea. How about making it a campaign issue in the next election and supporting only candidates for city council who promise to vote to get rid of the cameras?
Teseract on June 17 at 11:36 p.m.
Hmm, it’s amazing to see a message thread that doesn’t have people fighting in conservative vs. liberal battles.
The city should be very worried considering all of us “nuts” are agreeing for once. ;)
RedCedar on June 18 at 1:19 a.m.
Red light cameras are a prime example of how democracy doesn’t work. The vast majority of citizens don’t want the cameras, and yet the politicians who have them installed continue to get re-elected.
drywitt99 on June 18 at 3:48 a.m.
OH MY GOD…..the voices of progressive thinking and reactionary knuckle-dragging have aligned on the same side of a single issue.
The WRONG side to be sure.
But that just shows that the ONLY thing hawken and mj have in common is the desire run red lights and drive recklessly.
These cameras can contribute to safer streets……and help subsidize law enforcement.
A user fee……paid by the idiots in too big of a hurry to wait a few seconds.
And RED…if that is you REAL color……so do you then support legal abortion….legalized marijuana…..stronger gun control laws and universal healthcare??
Given your concern about the rights of the majority…I just assume you do.
Unless you just want to run red lights and not get caught???
ChefGus/ John Olsen on June 18 at 6:11 a.m.
There was insufficient proof that these cameras effected an overall reduction in accidents at intersections.. The number of rear end collisions actually went up if I remember correctly… We can all meet at the City Council Meeting next Monday night and patiently wait for the open forum time and take our three minutes, each of us to complain….
Do any of you know the actual parameter’s of how one is ticketed?? Ie where are the front wheels of your car and when in the cycle for the light does the camera shoot? etc.. thanks john
ChefGus/ John Olsen on June 18 at 6:15 a.m.
Oh, I looked at a year old article on this topic, and the “revenue” goes 1/3 to the city of spokane and 2/3 to the Arizona company that does the electronic signature… pretty good pay… and i’m wondering who is connected to this company that seemingly is reaping a big big benefit ? j
drywitt99 on June 19 at 12:18 a.m.
So…..in addition to its aforementioned local benefits…..is also stimulating private enterprise. All paid for by dangerous drivers!! Win…Win…WIN!!
misjustice on June 19 at 6:03 p.m.
@ dry, Huh?
But that just shows that the ONLY thing hawken and mj have in common is the desire run red lights and drive recklessly.
WTF?
I went back and read my contributions to this thread and I truly can not discern how you reached the above conclusion based on my posts…
Did someone wake up on the wrong side of the photo-red cameras, Mr. Cranky? I have no desire to run red lights or drive recklessly, dry.
I think that citizens were lied to by the city when these cameras were first proposed and I still feel that way but not because I have received a ticket or blow through red lights; I haven’t and I don’t.
We were told that the money generated from these cameras was going to be used towards traffic safety but now it is being put into the general fund for the city to spend as it wishes; and I bet that NONE of it goes for the original stated purpose.
No, these cameras are nothing more than revenue generating devices; especially for the Arizona company that conned the city into installing them.