Legal Technicality Forces Houston To Turn Its Redlight Cameras Back On, Even Though It Wants Them Off
from the locked-in dept
Back in November, we noted that residents of Houston, Texas has voted to kill the city's redlight camera program. At the time we pointed out one tiny complication: the city had a contract with the vendor that didn't run out for another four years. However, it looks like the city just decided to listen to the will of the people (contracts be damned) and turned off the cameras. The vendor, ATS, sued. Now, samkash alerts us to the news that the city has lost a court ruling and is rushing to turn the cameras back on. The whole thing sounds like a bit of a technicality, though. As far as I can tell, the judge had originally rejected the plan to turn off the cameras, saying that the referendum itself, to repeal the law authorizing the cameras, had to happen within 30 days of it being passed. It did not. Thus, the judge found the referendum invalid. That actually happened back in June. The latest is that the city asked the judge if it could appeal his ruling, and the judge said no. I don't fully understand all the details here, but the city seems to be claiming that the rejection is actually helpful to them, in that it gets them to a final decision sooner, which they can appeal. Either way, the city says that it's turning the cameras back on, not because it wants to (though, they do appear to be making money), but because it wants to minimize the liability if it's found that they have to keep the contract.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: houston, redlight cameras
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's just a third party saying "hey, we caught you doing wrong, pay us to shut up and we'll give the city a small portion of the bribe".
You are under no obligation to make payment, and there is no repercussion to not doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But, you are correct in that the company earns revenue for sending the the 'information' to the MVC (or DMV) for review before being issued to the violator.
At least that how it was supposed to happen, except in NY they skipped the review part and just send out bad tickets, like when there police directing you through the red light because it broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They can also prevent you from renewing your auto insurance, your registration, or renewing your license. One way or another, you'll be paying the fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a nice and convenient loophole
It smells dodgy to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's a nice and convenient loophole
The vendor, thus, has a contract with the city to actually use the cameras and share ticket revenue. The contract probably stipulates that the cameras must be active for some minimum amount of years -- much like the way Verizon will subsidize and give you a cell phone with a contract that you use it for 24 months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's a nice and convenient loophole
Actually it's more disturbing to me that this gets outsourced.
But then again I'm living in The Netherlands, where the police is in charge of the GATSOs and the speedtraps and the red light cameras and not the vendors of said cameras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's a nice and convenient loophole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Light Tickets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red Light Tickets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Red Light Tickets
Side Note: I remember the ticket that well cause it was for 90 in a 35 and was 480.00 + summons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red Light Tickets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Red Light Tickets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right to face accuser
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great to know that a local government is ok with that. Why not next they kick back ticket revenue to patrol officers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is all quite clever. Makes a ton of money for the police department and the contractor. The police are happy because they get money without having to have boots on the ground. The camera contractor is happy because they get money from the suffering of others. Only the tax paying people are unhappy because they have a huge increase in the number of fines issued each year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the camera company doesn't get the profits, when where should they go? Otherwise this money would just disappear from the economy. Idea! Give it to a deserving crowd like the RIAA / MPAA who are entitled to profits, but are suffering due to piracy! There must be some connection between piracy and speeding. Oh wait, it is the non speeders who would now be depriving the entitled industries of their rightful money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liability for decreased safety
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Less a technicality...
It looks like the judge denied a request for an interlocutory appeal, which is an appeal of a ruling within a proceeding rather than an appeal of the final disposition at the end of the proceeding. Interlocutory appeals are generally permissive (meaning you have to ask for permission) while appeals of the final disposition are as of right.
I'm assuming the vendor sued and alleged that 1) the referendum was improper and 2) that the city's breached its contract with the vendor. The judge issued a ruling on the first question, but the issue of contractual liability remains undecided. It looks like the city is claiming to have requested the interlocutory appeal to defend the voters' decision - possibly more symbolic than strategic.
The appeal at the end of the proceeding would address all constituent parts, including the question of the referendum's legitimacy and the question of contractual liability. So really, this decision just means the appeals court will address this issue later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is a Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is a Solution
I am not sure about how Texas laws are set up, but I am familiar with a number of other states, and usually the city doesn't have a choice in how much a fine is for a traffic offense because it is set by the state. However, in this case, since it sounds like the law is a civil infraction and not a criminal one (based on comments from others above,) it sounds like that would be possible. In California, where I am most familiar with the law, the fine for running a stoplight or speeding is set by state statues and the city has no control over the fine. However, for city ordinances, the city can determine the fine and can set it to $1.00. Depends on the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government is going to pay for those cameras one way or another (and by government I mean taxpayers). Either they can use the cameras and them pay let the cameras pay the contractor, or they can grab money from somewhere else to fulfill their end of the contract.
Either way the taxpayers lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personall I hate red light runners, but cams seem to cause more harm than good. Seemed like a good idea when they first came out, now not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, alternatively, find something dodgy (like corruption) in the contract and get out of it that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The local court is fully justified in doing so... because the legal basis for those camera citations is in formal dispute in higher courts-- therefore, there is NO current legal authority to convict motorists by that alleged camera "evidence".
This solution bypasses all contractual issues with the camera company, does not directly concern the state/federal courts, and can be handled completely by the city government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Houston's camera contract
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Houston's camera contract
One could start with someone (such as a set of candidates) to remind the voters that the people involved in this does not believe in will of the voters, fiscal responsibility or public safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Lights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again...
If I'm amazed people let them get away with these Yellow Light Cameras... I am downright ASTOUNDED the media does not persecute them for the nature of the contract.... giving a company a commission for fines, and then expecting them to operate in the best interest of the city/state? Why is it necessary for them to receive a cut of the profits, as opposed to a flat fee for equipment and a recurring fee for operation and servicing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not?
As part of it, make sure you educate everyone about "Jury Nullification" while you are making the announcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't understand why anyone would be against something that makes you think about not doing a stupid thing like running a red light..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which kind of collision would you rather be in?
I don't like the cameras because I believe private companies shouldn't be involved in law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More to Houston RLC scandal than meets the eye. City "rewrote" the contract to remove early cancellation clauses to THWART ANY BAN!
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3336.asp
"The city, fearful of HB300, did not want to be forced to terminate the agreement upon the passage of a new state law and therefore, removed the termination provisions of the agreement entirely by clearly stating in the amendment that it 'remains in effect until May 27, 2014,'" Taylor explained. "The city also removed 'unless sooner terminated under this agreement' phrase that appeared in the original agreement
City of Houston and RLC VENDOR colluded essetially to IGNORE the VOTERS.
Read here: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3526.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3519.asp
Hugh es accordingly denied a motion by the Kuboshes requesting to intervene in the case, the order which the Kuboshes now appeal. Hughes only allowed the Kuboshes to file amicus briefs in the case, denying them the right to object to evidence and make arguments and motions without the leave of the court. Under Texas law, courts must permit the intervention of a qualified voter to defend a measure election in an election contest.
"Here, the city has lost a case it purports, falsely, to 'zealously defend,' enabling it to continue pocketing $10 million in annual red light camera revenues its mayor does not want to lose," Furlow wrote. "Because the city waived the statutory and constitutional defenses appellants preserved, no one but appellants can defend the Proposition 3 election they petitioned for, organized, funded with $200,000 of their family's money, and won at the polls. Only appellants can protect their and their fellow citizens' constitutional and statutory right to reform city government through charter amendment elections."
Fight the SCAM
Ban the CAMS!
www.banthecams.org
P.S. Don't forget to get your People Against RLC Signs! http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2011/07/red-light_camera_printable_car.php
P.S.S. DO NOT PAY ANY ILLEGAL (SINCE THE VOTERS BANNED RLC) TICKETS! IT IS TIME FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON TO HONOR THE VOTE! Not hide behind "contracts"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speed signage?
Unless the contract includes a clause that specifically forbids the city (as opposed to private individuals) from blocking the camera or specifically requires the city to keep the line of sight clear from city raised signage/obstacles then they effectively get the cameras turned off it not literally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
camera's traffic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red light runners in Houston
I would encourage everyone who is involving in accident with the red light runners in Houston to SUE Houston Police Department.
Thanks,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]