June 21, 2011 in News

Camera ruling limited, city says

Printing of red-light tickets will move to Spokane

• Print
• Email
• Share

Red-light runners caught on camera in Spokane shouldn’t automatically expect a break from a recent court ruling rejecting the city’s method for issuing tickets.

A city official says they’d have to challenge the legality in court, too.

City Attorney Howard Delaney said Monday that Spokane County Superior Court Judge Jerome Leveque’s decision affects only the three tickets that were included in the court case. Other motorists who received tickets under the automated system will need to bring their own court challenge before their $124 tickets could be invalidated, Delaney said.

“It’s probably more trouble than it’s worth, frankly,” Delaney said.

Delaney said he plans to ask Leveque to review his decision that the method of electronically affixing a Spokane police officer’s signature to a ticket in Arizona before mailing it to the car’s registered owner is illegal. Delaney emphasized that Leveque hasn’t yet issued a written opinion but said the city will appeal if necessary.

Delaney said he expects Leveque’s decision to be reversed, but added that the city has halted the printing of tickets in Arizona and is preparing for production in Spokane.

He described the change as minor.

“We don’t expect a large impact, and this should go fairly smoothly,” Delaney said.

Leveque’s decision Friday that the out-of-state signature printing was illegal overturns a previous ruling by Municipal County Judge Mary Logan. The case began last fall when attorney John Clark, then attorney Dean Chuang, argued that state law requires signatures under penalty of perjury must be written in Washington.

Under the previous system, tickets were mailed to car owners after a police officer reviewed images from the cameras and decided whether the light was red before the car proceeded into the intersection.

A Spokane police officer reviews the images and notifies the Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions of infractions, which mails the tickets after affixing the officer’s signature in Arizona.

All cities in Washington that have red-light cameras use the same printing system, Delaney said.

Delaney briefed the Spokane Public Safety Committee on Leveque’s decision and the city’s response during its monthly meeting on Monday. City officials spoke with officials from American Traffic Solutions earlier Monday to discuss plans to move printing to Spokane.

The city of Spokane began the red-light camera program in 2008. Cameras are equipped at seven intersections, with three more scheduled to begin operating soon at westbound Second Avenue at Walnut Street, southbound Maple Street at Second and southbound Third Avenue at Browne Street. An additional camera will monitor southbound Thor Street at Second.

Mayor Mary Verner proposed using $400,000 in red-light camera revenue as part of a financial package to hire six police officers.

The city receives about $500,000 a year from red-light camera tickets. The extra cameras are expected to increase annual revenue by $250,000.

Three comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  berrybestfarm on June 21 at 8:34 a.m.

  Other motorists who received tickets under the automated system will need to bring their own court challenge before their $124 tickets could be invalidated, Delaney said.

  “It’s probably more trouble than it’s worth, frankly,” Delaney said

  And that pretty much sums up the deviousness of our traffic fine system—just make it too expensive and too much trouble to appeal so the revenue keeps flowing. Last time I checked it costs twice as much to appeal a ticket as the cost of the ticket.

  Recalling officials like this or their appointers is the only way the powers that be will start answering to “We the People”.

  Dennis Patterson—Deer Park

• 

  fishinjay on June 21 at 2:01 p.m.

  There’s an easy way to end the entire red light camera system: Stop Running Red Lights.

  That would bankrupt the entire program. The trouble is we have more people who would rather whine about getting caught breaking the law and the supposed violations of their “pretend” privacy rights, which they never had in public places to begin with.

  There is no right to privacy in public. Period. End of story. Quit trying to find loopholes to justify your desire to break the law. I wish they would put red light cameras at every intersection.

  If they ever want to put cameras in your house, or monitor your phone messages, or any of the other extreme examples used by the excuse makers, then I’ll stand right next to you fighting it. But cameras in public places are not your house or your personal communcation. They are public places. What you do there is open to anyone and everyone, including red light cameras.

• 

  Teseract on June 21 at 2:23 p.m.

  ““It’s probably more trouble than it’s worth, frankly,” Delaney said.”

  I agree with berrybestfarm. The reason these are so profitable is because few people challenge them because:

  A.) It doesn’t go against their driving record so their insurance doesn’t go up (it’s the same level as a parking ticket)
  B.) It doesn’t cost enough to make it worthwhile to take a day off work and the hassles of going to court

  Many, many of these would be overturned in court. In the few instances I’ve heard of people challenging these they’ve been tossed out. Most of us however don’t have the time to bother with it. I work 10 hour days, a vacation day to challenge a red light ticket would cost me more in a lost vacation day than the ticket cost.

  If the city starts jacking up prices (wouldn’t be surprising) or makes it a stiffer offense (not likely since it would endanger profits) then more people will challenge it rather than just paying the tax… er, wait, did I say tax? I meant “fine”. Hard to tell the difference in this day any age.

  People need to watch the yellow light durations though, one common ploy by cities with red light cameras is to reduce the yellow light duration to drive up profits. A 1 second shorter yellow light will drive up revenues as much as 50%:

  http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10458570-71.html

  More than one city has been sued over yellow light durations “magically” being shorter than the rest of the lights in the area.

  As far as I’m aware, the city still hasn’t installed the newer-style crosswalk lights that have a countdown to tell pedestrians and oncoming traffic when the light will change to yellow. I doubt the city ever will, because that would also reduce their profits from the cameras.