The Legal Netherworld Of Traffic Cam Tickets, Where Everything Is Both Civil And Criminal, While Also Being Mostly Neither
from the American-Traffic-Systems-Multiverse dept
Adam MacLeod, law professor at Faulkner University, was the recipient of a traffic cam speeding ticket. The problem was that he wasn't driving the vehicle when the infraction occurred. So, it was his vehicle being ticketed, but he was being held responsible for someone else's infraction.
He decided to fight it, and that fight uncovered just how crooked the traffic cam system is. Not only are traffic camera manufacturers receiving a cut of every ticket issued, but tapping into this new revenue stream has prompted municipalities to undermine the judicial system.
MacLeod's detailed report of his fight against city hall is well worth reading in its entirety. But one hint of things to come reveals itself in MacLeod's conversation with the city's attorney when attempting to figure out how one goes about actually challenging a traffic cam ticket.
I asked her whether this was a criminal action or a civil action. She replied, “It’s hard to explain it in those terms.” I asked whether she intended to proceed under criminal procedural rules or in civil procedure. We would proceed under the “rules of criminal procedure,” she answered because this is a criminal case. I asked when I could expect to be charged, indicted, or have a probable cause determination. She replied that none of those events would occur because this is “a civil action.” So I could expect to be served with a complaint? No, no. As she had already explained, we would proceed under the criminal rules.
The attorney had no way of answering this question honestly, or even accurately. What MacLeod discovered during his speeding ticket battle is that his local government -- like many other local governments deploying traffic cameras -- had created a legal netherworld between civil and criminal law where tickets issued by software were allowed to operate.
[T]raffic cameras do not always produce probable cause that a particular person has committed a crime. To get around this “problem” (as a certain law-and-order president-elect might call it), several states have created an entirely novel phylum of law: the civil violation of a criminal prohibition. Using this nifty device, a city can charge you of a crime without any witnesses, without any probable cause determination, and without any civil due process.
In short, municipal officials and their private contractors have at their disposal the powers of both criminal and civil law and are excused from the due process duties of both criminal and civil law. It’s a neat trick that would have made King George III blush.
Once a government becomes reliant on a new, legally-questionable revenue stream, the "questionable" part tends to be buried under absurd claims about traffic safety and traffic accident deaths. At this point, the entire system is corrupted. Legislators like the money. Cops like the money. The camera company (in this case, American Traffic Solutions) likes the money. Everything that needs to be done to ensure the cashflow doesn't dry up is done, including engaging in perjury.
MacLeod was finally allowed to address the proxy accusing him of speeding: the local PD. Its testifying officer buried himself (along with the city and ATS) during cross-examination.
On cross-examination, I established that:
- He was not present at the time of the alleged violation.
- He has no photographic evidence of the driver.
- There were no witnesses.
- He does not know where Adam MacLeod was at the time of the alleged violation.
And so on. I then asked the question one is taught never to ask on cross—the last one. “So, you signed an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury alleging probable cause to believe that Adam MacLeod committed a violation of traffic laws without any evidence that was so?”
Without hesitating he answered, “Yes.” This surprised both of us. It also surprised the judge, who looked up from his desk for the first time. A police officer had just testified under oath that he perjured himself in service to a city government and a mysterious, far-away corporation whose officers probably earn many times his salary.
Once you're corrupt, it's all over. The officer MacLeod questioned seemingly didn't realize his complicity in this corruption until he was directly questioned. In all fairness, he'd likely been told everything about the ticketing system was above-board, legally and constitutionally.
But once the new system -- one that is neither criminal nor civil -- is challenged, it falls apart. MacLeod reports that Alabama residents fought back against the deployment of traffic cameras, resulting in the repeal of the state's traffic cam law. Not that his mattered to the city of Montgomery's (where MacLeod resides) governance.
[M]ontgomery’s defiant mayor announced that the city would continue to operate the program. Curiously, he asserted that to stop issuing tickets would breach the city’s contract with American Traffic Solutions.
That went on until the state's District Attorney stepped in to shut down the mayor's rogue traffic cam program. Or tried to. A compromise of sorts was reached. Car-mounted cameras were shut down, but stationary cameras already in place were allowed to keep issuing tickets summoning citizens to the city's judicial Kafka-esque criminal/civil intersection.
Unhappy with having to (sort of) comply with state law, the mayor made it clear that cameras may come and go, but newly-found revenue streams are here to stay.
In a fit of petulance, and belying his insistence that the program is motivated by safety concerns rather than revenue, the mayor announced that the amounts of fines for ordinary traffic violations will now be tripled.
That's how the system works. The money must flow from the citizens to their government. And if the pipeline has to run right through their civil rights and liberties, so be it. Traffic camera systems are sold as public safety enhancements, but all they're really doing is transferring more money -- and more power -- to governments willing to let contractual obligations with private companies take precedence over Constitutional amendments.
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: adam macleod, alabama, civil, criminal, due process, speed cameras, speeding ticket, tickets, traffic cameras
Companies: ats
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If complying with a contractual obligation would place you in violation of the law, doesn't that make the contract itself legally indefensible and therefore void?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
em
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Suppose you make a contract with ACME Animals to have an elephant delivered to your house to live in your backyard. The city informs you that having elephants is illegal.
You still have a valid contract with ACME, and even if you're unable to perform your part (since owning an elephant is illegal), you're still responsible to ACME- including making them whole if you breech, by refusing to accept the elephant when they deliver.
The contract itself isn't illegal and won't be unenforceable due to the elephant prohibition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And American Traffic Solutions has sued over this before:
It's unclear where the state violated a contract, or simply refused to renew or continue it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To which the judge should respond "The state isn't 'depriving you' of any property, you still own your cameras, you're just not allowed to deploy them in this state."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To use another analogy - if you buy a gun in order to rob a bank, the contract you have with the gun seller is perfectly legal because they have no involvement with what you do after purchase. Your contract with them is simply to provide the firearm, which would most likely be legal if they follow the rules correctly. They may be liable if you tell them what you're going to do, but otherwise the contract is legal even if it involves illegal activity later on.
So, this is a really bad analogy for the situation at hand. The point here is - was there a way of honouring the contract in a manner that did not break the law? If so, the city is on the hook for having chosen to do so, but if not how can the contract be legal given that it demands illegal activity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this elephant analogy for example, the buyer could add a clause stating that the contract would become void if elephants are ever prohibited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a fit of petulance, and belying his insistence that the program is motivated by safety concerns rather than revenue, the mayor announced that the amounts of fines for ordinary traffic violations will now be tripled.
I would hope the local citizenry will take note of this during the next election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't say...
If those pesky little "I cannot be bothered to vote for anyone but my president/king" pissants would just oust that fucking looney... well they just fucking get what they deserve!
Combine that with the fact that the Sheriff is not in picture then what do you have? Corruption, and lovingly allowed corruption by the "I can't be bothered with this" citizens and their apathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
process in MD
To contest the ticket (rather than ask for lenience), you have to plead "Not Guilty". However, the judge tells you that if you plead Guilty, he/she will look at the situation and make a decision, usually reducing the penalties. But if you please Not Guilty, you are potentially liable for the entire original fine plus court fees.
I nervously still plead 'Not Guilty', at which point... the judge looked at the computer records, stated "the camera was not calibrated within the required time interval before and after the ticket, so the ticket is thrown out." I don't have to say anything.
So all that tension-- for something that the computer should have automatically kicked out and never issued a ticket. Bear in mind, though, you have to sit through the scary speech on the risks of pleading Not Guilty, or they don't even check if the camera was valid.
*sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: process in MD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: process in MD
Running a red light is $167 fine and 2 demerits. Each year, 2 demerits are removed from your record. If you have more than 3 demerits in a year, you pay an additional penalty each year until your demerits drop below 3. The penalty ranges from $175 for 4 to $24,000 for 50.
So in most cases, it's cheaper to just pay the ticket than to fight it and get screwed with additional penalties. Keep in mind that you are mandated to buy insurance from the government and that they require you to pay all outstanding fines and penalties before allowing you to renew your license or insurance.
On a side note, it's cheaper to fail to stop for police than it is to run a red light. It's only $138 and 3 demerits. But I guess you'd likely be on the receiving end of many other charges too if you did that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any Business Law 101 college course will clearly state that a contract is unenforceable if it involves something illegal.
There's exceptions to this, such as if you unknowingly got tricked into violating the law (such as a moving company transporting a box full of illegal drugs, that had no idea what was in the box they were moving) then you can't get out of payment by revealing to the other party that it was an illegal contract.
But this case clearly does not fall under any of the exceptions to the rules of illegal contracts not being enforceable. The city would be on solid ground to declare the contract with American Traffic Solutions is null and void thanks to the state making it illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“So, you signed an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury alleging probable cause to believe that Adam MacLeod committed a violation of traffic laws without any evidence that was so?”
Without hesitating he answered, “Yes.”
And what about this dimwitted fucktard?
An officer lying under oath (and just to show the level of his stupidity, freely admits it) is now perfectly acceptable?
Could we find out what this fuckstick of a mayor thinks about that?
What about the district attorney? Wonder if he's got the balls to hold one of their own to the same standards as everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, I would challenge you to provide a time in which it was not perfectly acceptable. Perjury laws are typically only enforced against citizens during testimony that makes mama government angry. Law enforcement has quite traditionally enjoyed the privilege of downright obtuse lying right in the court to the judges face.
The Justice System is nothing of the sort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like the article states he was probably told it was all legal and legit and was just doing 'what he thought was right'.
In my opinion, he should be shown leniency for his honesty if he continues to be cooperative and the information should be used to further investigate the conspiracy to disrupt due process (a Constitutional requirement right?).
... instead he likely will be thrown under the bus by all sides and be the only one that is punished and the bastardization of due process will continue unscathed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I find it disappointing that when somebody on the stand answers honestly and straight forward there are others to jump on him to call him out as being "stupid" just because they didn't play the "word game" that every expects.
Interesting point.
So he's a morally sound person for telling the truth - with the truth being that he lied?
I'd appreciate him more if he (wait for it...)didn't lie in the first fucking place.
Fuck him and everyone else involved in this shitshow.
... instead he likely will be thrown under the bus by all sides and be the only one that is punished and the bastardization of due process will continue unscathed.
He can take that up with the other assholes who told him it's "the right thing to do." Given that it's probably another cop, I'd expect nothing will happen to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
At this point he is still probably employed but likely transferred to cleaning the drunk tank as his primary job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... but at this point do you encourage him to continue to help get back to due process or let him hang in the wind.
For me, I'd let him hang in the wind. When his own ass is on the line, I'd expect him to sing like a canary.
"Help get back to due process" doesn't seem to be getting much support from the highest levels (e.g. the mayor's statement). Maybe if enough low level lackey's get the shaft, they won't be able to staff the department that handles these cases.
Just thinking that if you can't effect change from the top down, you might as well try from the bottom up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consequences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are the Disappointing one DCL. Where did I call them stupid? I once considered you a reasonable person. I guess I will have to retract that thought of mine for the time being.
Further more... the word game is generally played by you all. Most people often care more about the theatricality of these things, I care more about the technical accuracy, hence my challenge to point out when and where police were frowned upon for lying in court!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid People
"I know this is probably wrong but I don't wan't to take the time to fight it, here just take my money."
They set the fine just right so that it's not worth the hassle to go to court.
This is all part of a systematic plan to rid the world of the middle class thru taxation, fees and fines.
The poor are more easily controlled (placed in bondage) by the .1% that control the worlds financials. The middle class is the only group with more money collectively then the worlds power brokers.
Financial Slavery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid People
1) Pay the $150 fine and be done with it.
2) Fight it: go to court, take a day off from work (which will cost you how much?), go downtown, pay for parking, wait until your name is called, listen to the judge's speech about how pleading not guilty may cause you to have to pay the ticket and additional fines, and then risk pleading your case. Oh, and if you're found guilty, you get points on your license, which will raise your insurance rates and cost you more money.
And the poor that are more easily controlled? They're the ones who can least afford to take a day off of work and take the risk of going to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traffic anti-safety cameras
Around here, intersections with red light cameras have a sign as you approach notifying you of the camera. I make it a point to avoid situations that might require me to run a yellow light (technically legal if you can plead that stopping was more dangerous than going, e.g. if the road is wet or you were being tailgated), lest that yellow flip red. I might be able to argue a traffic cop out of the ticket (whether red or yellow) by pointing out it was unsafe to stop (assume for the sake of argument it really is unsafe). I doubt I can get out of a traffic camera that way, so I avoid the situation entirely. Incidentally, this means that I must drive poorly - hard stops to stay out of the intersection (at risk of being rear-ended), very cautious approach if I can't tell how much green time is left (thereby screwing up surrounding traffic that wants to go at or above the speed limit always), etc. Overall, traffic flow is worse because I trust the camera to be substantially less fair and competent than a traffic cop. Stories like this one, chronicling grossly unfair handling of enforcement, reinforce my belief that I am right to believe the camera's operators are out to screw me at every turn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Soon criminals found themselves delivered to the local PD shortly after a warrant is put out. Which happens the moment anything happens including expired license, a car put in manual mode, or a child more then 100 feet from his parental unit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driverless cars
Let's say this is an Uber car with no one in it. And let's say that the car is owned by a person who's letting it drive around on its own to make money.
Now suppose the traffic cam takes a picture of it doing something wrong.
Who gets the ticket: the owner, since it's his car? Or Uber, since the car is "on duty" for them?
And how does the owner fight the ticket since the traffic cam is at fault because the car was probably doing everything correctly because of its programming?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Driverless cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/13/law-professor-gets-a-tra ffic-camera-ticket-hilarity-ensues/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Orin Kerr finds faults in Adam MacLeod's legal arguments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only in cases involving stolen vehicles or another registered person who can drive the vehicle could you say that you are not responsible for the ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Curious, if you lend your car to your neighbor and they run over and kill somebody, who should be tried for the criminal acts committed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course! So, remember, if you want to kill somebody, the way to do it is to rent a car and then run them over. The rental car company will then be responsible because they owned the car. Beautiful!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm confused, if your car is issued a ticket here, it doesn't matter that you were not driving it.
Well yeah, it kinda does.
A car doesn't have a driver's license. The driver does.
A car isn't issued a ticket. The driver is.
A car doesn't get points for speeding. The driver does.
So no. It matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I just take a moment to post thig?
I read an article like the one above and I can't help but think that this one lawyer may have gotten himself out of a ticket, but most people will just suffer the burden of an un-representative government because they think nothing can be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In addition there are legal methods (like the one he took) to force the court to say pay him back, the court can stall for a while but at some point this stalling tactic fails (normally after a reasonable time he can sue or otherwise ask a higher court to look at this case as the current court is failing to take action resulting in harm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because, capitalism rules! What are you, some kind of lefty socialist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Modern democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Modern democracy
You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Modern democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
En rem ?
Though the article doesn't address it, it seems to me that the worse outcome is that states start rewriting some traffic violations (like speeding and red light running) to be violations against the vehicle itself. (Other violations, like DUIs, would remain against the driver.) Then they can use traffic cam footage and seize the vehicle, with the possibility of the owner getting it back by paying a fine. As we know from civil asset forfeiture, those en rem proceedings don't confer the legal protections that the article's author rightly notes he was denied.
To me, that's another potential nightmare scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]