Judge Finds St. Louis, MO's Red Light Camera Ordinance Invalid, Orders Halt Of Ticket Enforcement
from the sure-to-be-followed-shortly-by-handwringing-over-'lost'-revenue dept
Another red light camera company is in trouble, this time in St. Louis, MO, where a judge has just invalidated the city's red light camera ordinance. American Traffic Solutions (whose legal issues we've detailed here previously) has just had its camera system kicked to the curb as a result of some questionable moves it made during a recent lawsuit.
A St. Louis judge issued an order Tuesday that invalidates the city's red-light camera ordinance.So what prompted Ohmer to shut down the system? Well, the tickets that were central to the case, which were over a year old at the point of the suit's filing, were dismissed almost immediately after the lawsuit was filed. Why the sudden show of largesse?
Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer wrote in the order that the city is prohibited from attempting to enforce the ordinance, sending violation notices, processing payments or sending collection letters relating to the tickets.
Those named in the suit — including the city, Mayor Francis Slay, Police Chief Sam Dotson and American Traffic Solutions Inc., which operates the cameras — had argued to dismiss it. Some of the defendants said the claims were moot because the tickets had been dismissed and that the petitioners lacked standing because they were not hurt by the ordinance.Ohmer didn't let this transparent attempt to dodge a legal battle go unnoticed.
"Here, it is clear that the City dismissed the Petitioners' tickets for the sole reason of avoiding an injunction in this matter, which the Court was poised to enter following the November hearing," he wrote.Nearly every other claim made by the defendants was rebuffed by Judge Ohmer. The defendant's argued the plaintiffs had other venues to pursue their claims, like the municipal court, but a recent decision found that this court didn't provide adequate remedy for their claims. The defendants also argued the two filers didn't meet the requirements for a class action lawsuit. Judge Ohmer pointed out that the pair satisfied the "class action" stipulations because the ordinance affected other citizens.
The key element found to be in violation of state law is the fact that ATS' cameras (like all traffic enforcement cameras) presume the registered owner of the vehicle is the driver. This common aspect becomes even more problematic when the ticketed person has very limited avenues for recourse, which also unfortunately tends to be the case with automated enforcement. (This is also one of several problems with the recently introduced legislation that would allow Oklahoma police officers to issue traffic citations without leaving their vehicles.)
This combination of factors has led some traffic camera companies to basically convert their enforcement systems into purely voluntary operations. As the article notes, another Missouri city's council members recently voted unanimously to not enforce red light camera tickets. The camera system will be allowed to keep running and issuing citations but the city and the red light camera company won't pursue those who ignore tickets and will erase fines for anyone who contests their citation. Feeling safer yet, drivers?
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: red light camera, st. louis
Companies: american traffic solutions
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Having recently moved from Seattle, where the drivers are generally well-behaved and civilized, even in heavy traffic, to Los Angeles, where traffic is just as bad as anything in DC as near as I can tell, I'm all for these cameras if they can hold the idiot drivers around me accountable and maybe even take a few repeat offenders off the road before they end up killing someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems to me that if your uncle's right, the DC cops could make a killing just by dropping a few cops off at an intersection and having them wait for drivers to do what your uncle describes, then flip the lights to a 4-way red and amble up to the cars and start issuing tickets. Put the announcement on the morning news: "We'll have enforcement teams at 8 intersections during rush hour. Good luck guessing which 8.". The tickets will be air-tight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Traffic cameras are not a solution.
Corrupt individuals do not find solutions, they find angles from which to extract favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the way it works over here, and it's working pretty damn well. We do have an online system to protest invalid tickets (say a red light that was run because you're moving out of the way of an ambulance), and to see exactly under what circumstances you got it (location, photo, speed, time limits, etc).
I've gotten the occasional ticket, in my own car and in someone else's, and have always come to a satisfactory arrangement, either by paying them or by succesfully protesting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So it works them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Neighbor: Hey, can I borrow your lawnmower - mine just broke .. blah blah.
You: No way - you might kill someone with it and then I'll have to serve time in the clink.
"That's the way it works over here"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No muss no fuss about who was driving, the car was the guilty party and off to jail it went.
Does not sound like much until you spend two weeks walking in the North Africa desert.
Funny the car did not speed again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Imagine a corporation being put in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That they went legal,and the legal route taken (read terrorist invasion), just shows they have no intention of negotiating with any .com and who is in their back pocket.
Bow down or bow out if they have their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
not funny
¿Where is that sad but true button?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To hold the actual party responsible would require work and effort, where if you can just hold the "owner" responsible it becomes so much easier to deal with.
The public likes to assume that even if an innocent person gets caught up in this, the system will work as they expect and the innocent will be sent on their way.
This is just bad lawmaking to get money flowing. Technology is always "perfect" so it is easier to assume it is correct and not consider that the income it provides might make those profiting not look to close at the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only some within the public are this gullible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
The answer is, the prosecution just needs to put a fingerprint expert, DNA analyst, or someone who watched the video on the stand. They can testify, and you can cross-examine them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsLawAppealsUSSupCt.html
This links to cases used to toss out red light camera citations due to 6th Amendment concerns BECAUSE of the inability of the defendant to cross-examine the red-light camera.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]