Widow Sues LA Sheriff's Dept. After Her 80-Year-Old Husband Is Killed During A Search For Drugs That Weren't Actually There

Judge Finds St. Louis, MO's Red Light Camera Ordinance Invalid, Orders Halt Of Ticket Enforcement

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the sure-to-be-followed-shortly-by-handwringing-over-'lost'-revenue dept

Fri, Feb 14th 2014 4:31pm — Tim Cushing

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.

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.

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?

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

31 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mason Wheeler (profile), 14 Feb 2014 @ 4:41pm

My uncle lives in the DC area. I saw him at Thanksgiving last year, and the subject of traffic cameras came up, and here's what he had to say on the subject:

You guys here [Seattle area, which according to insurance company records has some of the most civilized drivers in the country] can't even imagine how bad it is out there. Like, people going out in the middle of an intersection when the light's green but the entire block in front of them is stacked up, and if you don't do that--if you try to keep the intersection clear, like the law says--they'll honk their horns at you and then drive around you and stop in the middle of the intersection. Stupid crap like that happens all the time.

And now they're putting up these traffic cameras, and these idiot drivers are all getting mad at all the tickets they're getting. I know one guy, drives like a total maniac, and he's gotten something like 40 tickets from those cameras, and he just flips out with each one because he thinks he's not doing anything wrong.

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 ]
- TKnarr (profile), 14 Feb 2014 @ 4:51pm
  
  Re:
  That's the problem: the cameras don't hold the driver accountable. They hold the registered owner accountable, without any evidence the registered owner was the driver. Compare this to when a cop writes you a ticket after pulling you over: they take the information from the driver's license of the person behind the wheel, and issue the ticket to the actual driver.
  
  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 ]
  - madasahatter (profile), 15 Feb 2014 @ 11:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Vehicles do not commit crimes or more generally objects do not commit crimes. People commit crimes. Held those responsible accountable is the basis of every viable ethical and legal system. Once this is lost, there is no reason to respect the legal system because one can held responsible for the actions of others who may never be held accountable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2014 @ 2:08am
  
  Re:
  If all the drivers around you are idiots, perhaps you should look in the mirror... Or just move back to Seattle - most people in LA would probably prefer that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2014 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  "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."
  
  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 ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2014 @ 4:54pm

Your wheeled death-machine, your responsibility. If you get a ticket with someone else at the wheel, take it up with them. If you know you'll have problems with that, don't let them drive your freaking car.

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 ]
- btrussell (profile), 14 Feb 2014 @ 8:11pm
  
  Re:
  've gotten the occasional ticket, in my own car and in someone else's,
  
  So it works them?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2014 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  "Your (whatever_it_is), your responsibility."
  
  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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2014 @ 3:27pm
  
  Re:
  That is why it is allowed under administrative law (which is where most jurisdictions place these cases) where you can't be imprisoned for the offense. If you can only be fined and it does not go on your criminal record, then, recovering your losses can be handled in the manner in which you suggest. However, how are you supposed to "take up" the fact that you were jailed for an offense you didn't commit that now sits permanently on your record with the person who actually committed it after you trusted them with driving your vehicle in good faith?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2014 @ 3:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    In other words, in most jurisdictions, tickets written for red light cameras (as well as parking tickets) are not a criminal matter where a warrant can be issued for your arrest if you fail to address them unlike traditional tickets.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2014 @ 6:00pm

When in Libya in the early 1970s we discovered to our horror that the Libyan cops had speeding cars all figured they simply put the car in jail.

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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2014 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  This just might work.
  Imagine a corporation being put in jail.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2014 @ 3:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They are trying that already just not with the right corporations. MegaUpload anyone?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2014 @ 3:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sorry. My bad. MegaUpload didn't receive jail time. They got the death penalty.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 16 Feb 2014 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Death penalty without even being able to fight it in court at that, rare to see a large company get the low-court, rather than high-court, treatment, though I suppose it's to be expected when your enemies owns several government agencies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 16 Feb 2014 @ 7:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Large corps. tend to work out deals in back rooms behind closed doors/. For the same reason many wild animals prefer not to fight and instead just bristle and put on a show. Neither really wish to receive a fatal wound.
        
        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 ]
  - Pragmatic, 17 Feb 2014 @ 9:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm salivating at the thought. They are deemed to be people by the likes of Mitt Romney, after all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2014 @ 4:49am
  
  Re:
  That is effectively what happens with parking tickets if you get too many of them. They cannot arrest you for them but they can tow or boot your car until you address the tickets.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
radarmonkey (profile), 14 Feb 2014 @ 7:28pm

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.
So how can an IP address be legally used to sue a downloader? What's the difference and why can't the driving part of the law be applied to computers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 14 Feb 2014 @ 8:16pm
  
  Re:
  Because legislators would never be able to get a license to operate a computer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 14 Feb 2014 @ 9:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    not insightful
    
    not funny
    
    �Where is that sad but true button?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Feb 2014 @ 3:11am
  
  Re:
  Because it is the "simple" answer that allows them to pass laws to "deal" with the problem.
  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 ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2014 @ 9:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    "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."
    
    Only some within the public are this gullible.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2014 @ 10:09pm

Enforcement of due process? Damn, average_joe's not going to like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick, 14 Feb 2014 @ 11:58pm

@mason wheeler Seattle drivers are passive-aggressive horn-honking non-merging assholes. That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2014 @ 11:18am

All these ticket camera systems are a money sham!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isma'il, 15 Feb 2014 @ 8:33pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
Isn't a red-light camera citation unenforceable because it violates the US Constitution's 6th Amendment provision to allow the accused to confront and question their accuser in a court of law? How can one cross-examine a camera?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2014 @ 8:36pm
  
  Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
  Reminds me of the monkey mask speed camera trick. Guy got caught several times by speed cameras and argued successfully many times that they had no proof that it was him driving the car.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2014 @ 7:29am
  
  Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
  If by "unenforceable" you mean they can't arrest you for failing to address the charges, you would be correct and in most places that is why these citations are not a criminal matter but rather an administrative one. You cannot be arrested for violating administrative laws where as you can for violating criminal laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2014 @ 8:43am
  
  Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
  You're wrong. If things worked how you think they work, the prosecution couldn't introduce ANY physical evidence. How do you cross-examine a fingerprint, or your DNA, or the surveillance video of you shooting the convenience store clerk?
  
  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 ]
  - Isma'il, 17 Feb 2014 @ 3:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
    I found further corroborating evidence and precedent for my statement:
    
    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 ]