LA Police Admit That Red Light Camera Payments Are Now 'Voluntary'

from the if-you'd-like-to-contribute-to-the-police-red-light-fund... dept

Tue, Aug 2nd 2011 9:54am — Mike Masnick

We recently wrote about how LA was considering dumping its red light cameras, and Jay Matteo was the first of a few of you to let us know that, rather than getting rid of them entirely, the police appear to be publicly stating that paying any such red light camera fines is entirely optional:

Officials said that paying the fines was optional and the city had no legal power to force people to pay.

The tickets are part of a "voluntary payment program," without sanctions for those who fail to submit fines, said Richard M. Tefank, executive director of the city's Board of Police Commissioners.

"The consequence is somebody calling you from one of these collection agencies and saying 'pay up.' And that's it," said committee member and Councilman Bill Rosendahl. "There's no real penalty in terms of your driver's license or any other consequences if you don't pay."

Of course, they never said that publicly before, and those who already paid can't take back their money, but it's still quite a revelation for the police to make.

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: la, red light cameras, voluntary

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 9:35am

I suppose it pays for the public to be harrassed each time they point a camera at the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 9:46am

Fair Debt Collection Act
There's something called the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. That would make even attempting to collect on these illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TriZz (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: Fair Debt Collection Act
  Does that count even if you don't technically owe the money...?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Manabi (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 10:02am
    
    Re: Re: Fair Debt Collection Act
    Yes, that law allows you to contest the validity of the debt, and the collection agency has to provide proof, in writing, within a certain time period. Many collection agencies don't have this information (even for valid debts) and it's not at all uncommon for a collection agency to just send what they have to comply with the letter of the law, then sell your debt off to another agency because they can no longer really pursue it legally.
    
    Of course you get to start over with the new agency then. You can be harassed for years over invalid debts because it keeps getting sold from agency to agency and you have to dispute it over and over again. They can't actually put anything on your credit rating (legally), but they sure can waste your time and annoy you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 11:19am
  
  Re: Fair Debt Collection Act
  send them a debt validation letter, when they try to collect after that sue them for the $1000 statutory damages for violating the fdcpa.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Manabi (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 11:45am
    
    Re: Re: Fair Debt Collection Act
    They won't try to sue after that, they'll sell the debt off to another collection agency and you get to start over. Repeat until the statute of limitations on debt in your state runs out (and sometimes even past that). Especially when the debt is as small as a traffic ticket would be. At that point it's 1. small debt (valid or not) and 2. you've shown you won't just roll over and pay, so they move on to easier marks. They sell it off to let another sucker have a go at it. (And to try and recoup some of the money they spent buying it themselves, but that's generally pennies on the dollar so it wasn't much.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jarrett Streebin, 2 Aug 2011 @ 10:05am

Does this count for all red light tickets or just LA? What about the ones in Millbrae or SF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 10:19am

Dirty little secret: All traffic cameras are 'voluntary' so long as you take basic precautions. Title your car in a business name, not your own, and walla, you no longer have to pay camera tickets. 'Bills' for your tickets will be charged to your business, and as long as you do not register the business with the Feds and get a EIN/TIN the debt collectors will have no information to come and get you with.

I've been driving this way for 3 years, and my company has been mailed 3 notices from various collection agencies. All of which can do jack shit because my company has no credit history they can use to threaten me with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 10:25am

Looks to me like the city decided they don't like the contract they are in with the service anymore, and instead of paying to break contract, they are simply telling everybody they don't need to pay the fines because nobody cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 11:04am

Not here in Arizona. Ignore one of those tickets and they will just suspend your license. They even made it mandatory for the registered owner of the car to turn in someone else driving your vehicle and getting a violation. If not it goes against you. Fortunately the city of Tempe did not renew it's contract with Redflex this month and all their red light and speed cameras are turned off. We got rid of the hundreds of freeway speed traps last year. So at least we are making some headway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 11:44am
  
  Re:
  > Ignore one of those tickets and they will
  > just suspend your license. They even made
  > it mandatory for the registered owner of
  > the car to turn in someone else driving
  > your vehicle and getting a violation. If
  > not it goes against you.
  
  The courts in most other states have ruled that suspending licenses when there's no direct proof of who was driving violates due process. The most the state can do is fine the registered owner, but suspending a drivers license based on no proof whatsoever that the person was driving? Nope.
  
  And the "you must rat out your friends and family" clauses have also been held unconstitutional. The burden of proof is on the state and you can't be compelled to provide testimony in a case in which you are the accused.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 2 Aug 2011 @ 2:51pm
  
  Re:
  AZ is just plain bat shit crazy
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 11:25am

Recently received a recent notice from the City of Denver, citing us for speeding. They sent a photo of our license plate and a shot of the driver -- there was clearly no driver behind the wheel of the car. We can only imagine that their camera took a photo of our parked car, and their computer sent us a ticket for speeding.

We protested on the form provided, and received a letter telling us "charges were dismissed."

Please folks -- if you receive one of these illegal summonses (another issue, entirely), examine them closely. Do not just pay out of habit -- this is not a bill. Make sure that you actually committed an infraction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 2 Aug 2011 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re:
  "there was clearly no driver behind the wheel of the car. "
  
  Doesn't anyone perform a sanity check on these things prior to mailing? There have been instances were the claimed speed recorded was in excess of several hundreds of miles per hour. Very few vehicles are capable of this speed. One would think that a simple inspection of the picture would reveal if this was one of those vehicles. The disregard really is an insult upon the public.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 11:38am

LA Courts
It's not voluntary so much as the courts have refused to enforce them because in many (most?) cases there was no way to prove who was driving the car and the courts wouldn't go along with the city's desire to impose liability for the violation on the registered owner, regardless of who was actually driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re: LA Courts
  wrong, its voluntary because the tickets are not tickets at all. they are not being issued by the government period.
  
  its a "bill" being generated and mailed to individuals by a third party. you pay a third party by your own stupidity, and they share some money with the local government.
  
  its being done under the pretense of a ticket, but its nothing at all like it. its a scam.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 1:27pm
    
    Re: Re: LA Courts
    Sort of like "parking tickets" on private parking lots.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 4:00pm
    
    Re: Re: LA Courts
    > wrong, its voluntary because the tickets
    > are not tickets at all. they are not being
    > issued by the government period.
    
    Sorry to interrupt your general assholery, but the reason I gave came straight from the L.A. City Courts. I think I'll trust their word over some anonymous douche on the internet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
keniri, 2 Aug 2011 @ 12:43pm

The Consequence? See Your Credit Score Get Hit
Did I hear that right? There is no consequence? For anyone who believes that, I'd like to sell you the Empire State Building. The quote in this article says it all. The consequence is that someone from a collection agency calls you up. Pardon me but the consequence of not paying is that it gets placed on your credit report and will negatively affect your credit score.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re: The Consequence? See Your Credit Score Get Hit
  They can't, there's no formal agreement between you and them so they can't put it on your credit score. That would probably qualify as some sort of credit fraud. The original idea is that if you didn't pay they would forward information to the police and they would file formal charges. In this case, that will not be happening.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honest....., 2 Aug 2011 @ 1:08pm

The REAL reason
The REAL reason they aren't being enforced any longer is because the company is in Arizona and due to their "recently" passed aggressive anti-illegal immigration law California and L.A. especially are boycotting them....Let's be real about it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
keniri, 2 Aug 2011 @ 2:45pm

They can. If this can result in a "collection agency" being sent after you, this means that someone holds the "note of debt" against you. If you fail to pay that debt, they can report the failure to pay that debt to the various credit reporting agencies.

Since that debt is held by the jurisdiction where you got that ticket, it's that jurisdiction that can file the "notice of nonpayment" and that gets placed on your credit report.

It's not credit fraud because, legally, you still owe that debt, regardless whether or not paying that is extremely voluntary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 4:02pm
  
  Re:
  > It's not credit fraud because, legally,
  > you still owe that debt, regardless whether
  > or not paying that is extremely voluntary.
  
  Several L.A. city councilmen are currently drafting a bill to expunge all outstanding citations so that they won't even be on the books any more.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Henry, 3 Aug 2011 @ 10:56am

The Big Picture
Everywhere but LA, ticketing is gonna increase. Why?

A bill in Sacramento - if not vetoed - will allow cities to reduce posted speeds by 5 mph, even on streets with a great safety record. The lower limits will allow them to shorten yellows. The shortening permitted by a 5 mph decrease in the speed will increase red light cam ticketing by at least 50%. (Four of the sponsoring cities have cameras.) Worse, the shortening will increase severe accidents by 30 to 40%. (Source: "Development of Guidelines for Treating Red-Light Running," Texas Transp. Inst. pg 2-20.)

It is AB 529, and it is going to Gov. Brown for signature - or veto.

Defeat AB 529! Phone Brown, at 916 445-2841, or email him via the form at gov.ca.gov , and ask him to veto. Also phone the AAA, and your union or professional association.

To the anti-car people and cities thinking of supporting this bill for the money more tickets will bring: Remember that this bill will increase severe accidents, a lot. For money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keith, 7 Aug 2011 @ 8:17pm

Sounds like toll fees in Texas
This is very simliar to what toll companies have been doing in north texas for awhile now, threatening for you to pay toll fees, as the only roads without traffic seem to be toll based here. Many of them are not only charging fees, but huge penalties for paying fines even a few days late. The fines have been challenged, and so far only held up in Houston.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]