Court Tosses Cops' Scamera Tickets

The Washington Examiner has reported that four on-duty Montgomery County police officers caught by Montgomery County speed cameras had their $40 tickets thrown out by a county judge.

Circuit Court Judge Ronald Rubin ruled the officers' right to due process had been violated, because the county police department does not have a written policy that outlines when on-duty officers would be exempted from getting tickets from speed cameras.

"How are they going to recall that it wasn't because they were speeding to stop a kid from running in the street chasing a ball," attorney James Shalleck asked.

After his ruling, Judge Rubin was quoted as saying : "That's what this statute is: This is a revenue raiser, it is a tax machine."

"They're afforded more due process than the average citizen," the Examiner quotes Assistant State's Attorney Teresa Casafranca.

Three of the officers in the case did not give a reason for speeding. One officer told supervisors that he was driving to training, according to court records.

Capt. John Damskey, who heads the traffic division that operates speed cameras, said the police department may appeal the case.

Read the Complete Story in the Washington Examiner.
------------------------------------------
This is nowhere near the first case where government vehicles or employees have received speed camera tickets. In March 2008, the Washington Post reported that there had been 224 instances when county police vehicles had been ticketed by speed cameras. At that time 148 officers were refusing to pay under instructions from their union, whose position was that since the county owns the vehicles the tickets were the county's responsibility. That same article reported that County Executive Ike Leggett had gotten a speed camera ticket himself, although he stated that he had paid the citation.

DC.CameraFRAUD.Com reported that Mayor Fenty's city owned "smartcar" was issued a speed camera ticket for going "11-15mph" over the limit. The ticket was discovered by a reporter from the Washington City Paper in May 2009, who ran the Mayor's plates through an online database. The city confirmed that the mayor had been driving at the time. The article in the City Paper indicated the mayor had not received the ticket yet, possibly because it had been sent to the city who owns the vehicle instead of to Fenty himself. Fenty stated that he would pay the citation... after being questioned about it by the media. Fenty is a champion of DC's speed and red light camera program, even though it has been documented that his motorcade frequently speeds through red lights, including when he is on his way to political fundraisers, and that his wife is given the same treatment.

Baltimore Write Speed Camera Revenues into Budget

The city of Baltimore is so confident that their new speed camera program will be a money maker that they have written a quota of $7.1million in net revenue for the program into their proposed FY2010 budget. This is despite the fact that the program is not even permitted to be implemented until October 1, 2009 and the cameras have not even been purchased yet. It is also unlikely that traffic surveys been conducted or the number and placement of cameras "needed" in the city has been determined yet.

Montgomery County's Speed Camera program took close to a year before it began to generate net revenue. Now that the program is well established however, Montgomery County has written over $15million in net revenues into its FY10 budget and is in the process of doubling its number of cameras to meet that goal.

The Maryland state legislature recognized the conflict of interest posed by quotas by passing article 2-504 to ban ticket quotas "both formal and informal" for individual police officers. However writing proposed future revenues into city and county budgets for a program which has not even been started yet is apparently fair play, even though decisions about how the program will be run and where cameras will be placed may end up being set to meet a revenue goal rather than a safety-based goal.

Anti-Speed Camera Efforts Move to Counties

The group Maryland For Responsible Enforcement is regrouping to fight speed cameras county-by-county. The effort to force the recently passed Senate Bill 277, authorizing statewide speed cameras, was unsuccessful because under Maryland's extremely stringent rules it was necessary to collect a very large number of signatures within a very short period of time after the passage of the new law. However SB277 still requires each county to pass local legislation authorizing the use of speed cameras in each individual county. This opens up the possibility to stop that local legislation from passing. There will also be efforts to force the cameras to referendums at a county level, which requires fewer signatures (5,000 vs 54,000) and does not have the extremely strict time constraints. No speed camera program in the US has ever survived after being successfully forced to a popular referendum. However MRE needs volunteers to get organized for this effort now. Please visit the MRE Website and contact them if you wish to help.

Maryland Police Hold Private Speed Camera Meeting

Montgomery County police officials met in private with law enforcement agencies from around the state Wednesday to offer tips on how to implement speed camera programs. The meeting was held on June 24 at the Universities at Shady Grove, and included about 125 law enforcement officials as well as State Highways Administration representatives. According to the chief of Montgomery County's speed camera program, capt John Damskey, the symposium was closed to the public "to encourage the free flow of ideas from the event’s participants — without fear of self-censorship because those ideas would be made public." [full article in the Examiner]
----------

This meeting underscores how confident local and state officials are that they will be able to implement these programs immediately with little political opposition. All counties in Maryland will be authorized to implement speed cameras starting October 1, but only after county governments pass local legislation authorizing their use. Cameras will also appear in "highway work zones" on freeways with 55mph speed limits, which are authorized "regardless of whether workers are present". The State Highway Administration has confirmed their intention to use cameras where there are no workers by stating "We need to be having traffic slowed down even when workers are not present"[ref].

Montgomery county continues to pay its contractor a $16.25 cut out of each $40 ticket, an arrangement which many believe violates state law and which is the subject of a pending lawsuit. It is unclear whether the officials at this secret meeting plan to emulate this arrangement, which has the sole purpose of guaranteeing a revenue stream. Montgomery County officials stated their intention several times since May 2008 to renegotiate the contract to a flat fee, and it has has drawn criticism even from supporters of speed cameras. But the appearance now is that with the passage of statewide speed cameras, they no longer need or intend to do so, and will allow an arrangement to continue where the contractor providing evidence to the court only gets paid if the accused driver is found guilty.

It is also unclear whether the "best practices" other local law enforcement agencies will pick up from Montgomery County's program will include placing cameras immediately after a drop in the speed limit in order to ensure a steady revenue stream from out of town visitors.

Free State Ranked "Least Free" in the Nation

A study recently released by a local university ranked Maryland (the "Free State") as the least free in the nation.

“Maryland seems to have a lot of the restrictions that conservative states have, as well as restrictions on personal freedoms that liberal states have,” quotes Jason Sorens, one of the study's authors. The study was released by the Mercatus Center, a nonprofit public policy research center affiliated with George Mason University. The study used a wide swath of comparative data to determine personal freedoms, including alcohol and drug laws, asset forfeiture rules, and education regulations.

Maryland state Senator Alex Mooney, R-Frederick, said he was not surprised by the study’s findings and said he has seen a steady erosion of personal freedom at the General Assembly. “There’s too many elected officials who believe in big government,” he said. Mooney added that the state’s recent decision to expand the use of speed cameras throughout the state was a “perfect example” of big government triumphing over personal liberties. “Voters need to wake up and realize that their freedoms are being lost slowly and surely in this state and have a revolution at the ballot box,” he said. “We don’t want to head down the road of big government surveying you.”

Sorens said the point of the study was to provide policymakers with data to compare freedom levels among states. He said data show that, all other things being equal, people will choose freer states. The ten states determined to be "most free" were Alaska, Maine, New Mexico, Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, Oregon, Idaho, Virginia, and Wyoming. [see full article in the Washington Examiner]

Montgomery County Maryland has been issuing photo citations at a rate of 37,500 per month and is in the process of doubling it's number of fixed location cameras from 30 to 60 to meet a $15.7million quota for next fiscal year. Legislation to allow the use of speed cameras statewide goes into effect October 1 -- legislation which reduces the right of Maryland drivers to face their accuser and to be considered innocent until proven guilty (see how your representatives voted ) . Some locations like Baltimore County rushing to put cameras in place immediately after it goes into effect [ref].

To add insult to injury, in addition to statewide speed cameras, the general assembly also authorized photo enforcement at rail crossings in Montgomery County, with up to $100 fines, in addition to the speed and red light cameras already in use there -- legislation which was never even reported on by Maryland's mainstream press. Montgomery County is currently debating new legislation which would restrict homeowners' right to park on their own property with fines of up to $750, after having tightened parking restrictions on large vehicles the previous year.

Referendum Effort Unsuccessful

Maryland For Responsible Enforcement released the following statement:
==========Begin Statement============
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
10:00PM MAY 31, 2009

MARYLAND FOR RESPONSIBLE ENFORCEMENT

Unfortunately, today was not a bright day for the citizens of Maryland; as they fell just shy of the required 17,883 signatures needed to bring SB-277 to Ballot Referendum with just over 16,000 signatures.

MRE would like to thank all like minded Marylanders who signed the petition and helped collected signatures. We want everyone to know your voices will be heard and we will use our lessons learned to assist citizens challenge speed cameras in their jurisdictions.

Over the past few weeks many Marylanders have expressed their utter disdain ranging from anger over it being another tax to concern over an increased big-brother 1984 police state.

Maryland is one of the hardest if not the hardest states in the union to pass a referendum. Sadly, this results in so many Marylanders being denied a voice in their government by not being able to hold their elected officials responsible for questionable and unpopular policy.

The burdensome state guidelines only guarantee the citizen petitioners a limited few weeks. This allows little time for people to express their concerns over a law. Even if Marylanders had submitted the correct number of signatures, the state would still omit 20-30% of the voter intent. By means of a strict process that if a middle initial was not used, the signature would be void.

During the final days of MRE’s efforts, many Marylanders reached out to us who had just learned about the petition effort and wanted to sign or help collect signatures themselves. Many more Marylanders told us they were in a busy time of the year but would do everything they could to help. With little money spent and a volunteer effort the message was clear Marylanders do not want speed cameras and do not want more taxes and burdens in these troubling financial times.

Between the information the law requires you to collect, specifically the exact way the voter is registered, and the extremely limited time frame it would be a near impossible monumental task for anyone to succeed in.

We would like to again thank all those who signed the petition and helped collect signatures. You were all able to accomplish so much in so little time.

The fight is never over and our continued activism of Speed Cameras will continue

Best Regards,

Justin Shuy and Daniel Zubairi
Co-Chairs
Maryland for Responsible Enforcement
info@mdscamera.com
======= End Statement =========

Unfortunately this means that SB-277 (statewide speed cameras) will go into effect October 1 and cannot be subjected to a referendum in the future. StopBigBrotherMD.org would like to thank Dan Zubairi, Justin Shuy, and the other organizers and supporters of Maryland for Responsible Enforcement for their tremendous efforts to give the voters of Maryland a choice on this issue.

Speed Camera Warning Signs Appearing in Potomac

Kudos to the individual who has posted signs warning drivers ahead of speed cameras in the Potomac Region. According to a report on WJLA news, the signs have been posted by an anonymous Potomac resident, identified as only as the "Potomac Secret Agent" who is frustrate with the increasing automated traffic enforcement in the area.

The speed cameras in the Potomac region have been criticized by some area residents because they were placed and extremely short distance after a 10mph drop in the speed limit, almost as close as some other cameras in Darnestown. The Montgomery County Government is in the process of doubling its number of fixed-pole cameras from 30 to 60 in order to meet a $15.7 million revenue goal set in its FY10 budget.

The signs refer to a real-estate based website which promotes the petition for referendum against the recently passed statewide speed camera law. If other individuals are similarly frustrated by the cameras and do not wish to see them spread to every road in the state, they can protest by collecting signatures for that petition.

Speed Camera Fib #3: Those Miraculous Accident Figures

Chevy Chase Village has claimed incredible safety results from their cameras. And I mean literally incredible. CCV officials told the Gazette that "Collisions in the village are down 70 to 80 percent" [source]. They have repeated similar claims to the press many times. "Where we used to average 12 to 14 collisions a month on Connecticut Avenue, we are now averaging about 3 or 4"[source].

The problem is that the Village’s own police reports, which report the number of accidents they responded to, do not uphold these claims. We examined the monthly police reports posted to Chevy Chase Village’s website for a period of time before the speed cameras were introduced to the latest 12 month period of time
Before Cameras
Month : #Accidents Reported
Mar2006 : 10
Apr2006 : 14
May2006 : 9
Jun2006 : 12
Jul2006 : 14
Aug2006 : 12
Sep2006 : 11
Oct2006 : 18
Nov2006 : 10
Dec2006 : 14
Jan2007 : 3
Average : 11.545

After Cameras
Month : #Accidents Reported
May2008 : 16
Jun2008 : 7
Jul2008 : 10
Aug2008 : 10
Sep2008 : 10
Oct2008 : 10
Nov2008 : 17
Dec2008 : 16
Jan2009 : 8
Feb2009 : 8
Mar2009 : 13
Apr2009 : 17
Average : 11.833

The average monthly number of accidents reported by Chevy Chase Village police for these periods of time were actually slightly greater now than before the cameras were introduced. Note that these numbers were for all of Chevy Chase Village, including Connecticut Ave. Accident rates naturally fluctuate and are subject to seasonal variations, so it may have been possible to find a short period of time supporting the safety claims of CCV officials (comparing the worst single month before the cameras to the best single month after). However the numbers from their police reports for any sustained period of time do not support anything remotely close to their claim that the section of Connecticut Avenue in Chevy Chase Village was seeing an average 14 accidents per month prior to using speed cameras and a 70-80% drop in accidents after they were installed.

Traffic fatalities were reportedly down 9% NATIONWIDE in 2008, attributed to the price of gas, with at least 42 states seeing marked reductions in traffic fatalities[source]. Most of those states do NOT use speed cameras. For the first half of 2008 traffic fatalities per vehicle mile reached the lowest level ever recorded up to that date.

Under Maryland’s newly passed Senate Bill 277, the authorization of speed cameras, local governments which use speed cameras will need to report back to the general assembly in 2012 about the success or failure of their programs. SB277 includes the use of speed cameras in workzones on “expressways” with “speed limits of 45mph or greater” which can be used “regardless of whether workers are present” (not that anyone would ever set up workzone cameras without workers). One study sanctioned by the UK government from 2001-2003 regarding the effectiveness of workzone speed cameras showed “No significant difference was observed in the PIA(personal injury accident) rate for sites with and without speed cameras[source]” However since SB277 sets no standard for measuring success, Maryland’s programs need not need to worry about failure and can all be “successful” since the agencies which control access to the data can choose any standard and present only that data that shows success. It also does not require localities to consider other alternatives for speed control, or demonstrate that speed cameras were actually the best solution.

A petition drive is currently underway to collect 53,000 signatures and force SB277 to a referendum, giving the people or Maryland the opportunity to accept or reject this speed camera expansion by a popular vote. However time is very short to gather the needed signatures, so please go and sign the petition right now.

Sign The Petition For Referendum

The petition sponsored by "Maryland for Responsible Enforcement" to force Senate Bill 277 (authorizing the statewide use of speed cameras) to a referendum is now ready to be signed.

The rules for forcing a new law to a public vote in Maryland are extremely strict. A total of over 57,000 valid signatures must be collected, and signatures can be disqualified for many reasons, with 1/3 of those signatures submitted before may 30 and the rest by June 30. You must be registered to vote in Maryland in order to sign the petition. (If you are a Maryland resident but are not registered to vote, go REGISTER TO VOTE right now. If you don't vote you have no right to complain). Your name must appear on the petition exactly as it appears on your voter registration (there is a tool you can use to check your voter registration).

If you only want to sign the petition, you can go to www.mdscamera.com to print, sign, and mail the petition. Be sure to read the complete instructions for petition signers on that website before sending in your form. It is necessary to have someone "witness" the signature by signing as the "circulator" of the form (the circulator can be any person over the age of 18).

However what is really needed is for you to gather signatures. If you know others who might be willing to sign, please read the "instructions for those collecting signatures" and then ask them to sign as well. Better yet, go out and circulate the petition wherever you can.

MRE needs to receive the first batch of signatures by 5/25/2009. Please spread the word about this effort as widely and as quickly as possible. Senate Bill 277 significantly reduces YOUR rights as a maryland driver to face your accuser, gives an unreasonable amount of new power to local government, and will create the legal precedent and the physical infrastructure for even more sweeping mass surveillance and machine enforcement of drivers in the future. This affects everyone who lives in or visits the state of Maryland. The People deserve a real public debate and a direct vote on this issue and your signature and petition gathering efforts can make that possible.

Petition Drive for Speed Camera Referendum Launched

A Bethesda businessman and former Congressional candidate, Daniel Zubairi, has launched a petition drive which would force SB-277, statewide speed cameras, to a referendum. They have created an organization "Maryland for Responsible Enforcement" and a website www.mdscamera.com to promote the referendum and have filed the required paperwork with the state.

Maryland rules on forcing a new law to a referendum are extremely strict, requiring a petition with signatures equal to 3% of the total number of votes cast for governor in the last election, or 53,650. Those signatures must all be collected within 60 days of the bills passage and must be hand-written (not electronic). However if the drive is successful the chances of a statewide vote overturning the legislature is strong : despite claims by speed camera supporters that the devices are popular, no speed camera program has ever survived a referendum vote.

We will have more on this as it develops.

Maryland House Passes Statewide Speed Camera, Bill heads to Governor

Senate Bill 277 passed in the Maryland House of Delegates today, with the Democratic majority blocking all new amendments to the legislation. The legislation will now go to Governor O'Malley, who is no doubt giddy over achieving his long time goal of stripping Maryland drivers of their legal rights with statewide speed cameras.

You can see the complete list of names on our LEGISLATIVE SCORECARD.

Some of the sponsors of this and other speed camera expansion bills submitted this year include:
Senate President Mike Miller (D. Calvert and Prince George's County 27)
Sen Katherine A. Klausmeier (D, Baltimore County, District 8)
Sen James N. Robey (D, Howard County, District 13)
Sen Jennie Forehand (D, Montgomery, District 17)
Sen Douglas J.J. Peters (D, Prince George’s County, District 23)
Sen C. Anthony Muse (D, Prince George’s County, District 26)
Sen Nathaniel J. McFadden (D, Baltimore City, District 45)
House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D, Anne Arundel, District 30) Del William A. Bronrott (D, Montgomery, District 16)
Del Roger Manno (D, Montgomery, District 19)
Del Tom Hucker (D-noticing a pattern yet?, Montgomery, District 20)
Del Barbara Robinson (D, Baltimore City, District 40)
Del Samuel I. Rosenberg (D, Baltimore City, District 41)
Del Curt Anderson (D, Baltimore City, District 43)
Del Maggie McIntosh (D, Baltimore City, District 43)
Del Ruth M. Kirk (D, Baltimore City, District 44)
Del Cheryl Glenn (D, Baltimore City, District 45)
And of course: GOVERNOR O'MALLEY

This legislation, about to become law, will allow speed cameras to used not just in school zones but also on FREEWAYS with speed limits of "45 MPH OR GREATER" across the entire state of Maryland in "work zones" "REGARLESS OF WHETHER WORKERS ARE PRESENT," according to the text of the bill.

Some of the amendments which were proposed to this legislation, but which were rejected by the House majority include:
- two amendments which would have made the cameras revenue neutral by returning net revenue to the people as tax credits (amendment 1, amendment 2)
- an amendment which would have required contracts to explicitly state that the contractor may not receive a per-citation payment (amendment)
- requiring that weekly calibration checks be performed, that the person who performed the calibration appear at court hearings, and find defendants not guilty if calibrations were not performed (amendment)
- require that state and federal lawmakers NOT be exempt from receiving speed camera citations (amendment)
- require legislators who voted for this bill to have their names printed on each citation (amendment) (don't worry, we will post those names here within a few days)

A section of text which would have limited the placement of cameras within 250 yards of a significant drop in the speed limit was scratched just before the bill cleared the senate -- making it possible to create a situation like that in Darnestown which could entrap drivers who do not respond immediately to the change.

Lawmakers who support speed cameras are fond of saying that you have nothing to fear from speed cameras if you "just obey the law". No doubt they are OK with making a statement like that with an inherent presumption of guilt, despite the fact that there have been many documented cases of innocent people receiving photo citations. EVERYONE should be afraid when our lawmakers attempt to diminish our legal rights. Do not be fooled, these lawmakers will be coming back for more and more power every year unless The People stop them.

Senate Bill 277 is nothing short of a declaration of war on drivers' rights. This bill allows for calibration and maintenance logs to be submitted without corroborating witnesses. The text of the bill which reads this states that "A certificate alleging that the violation of this subtitle occurred and the requirements under subsection (b) of this section have been satisfied, sworn to, or affirmed by an agent or employee of an agency, based on inspection of recorded images produced by a speed monitoring system, shall be evidence of the facts contained in the certificate and shall be admissible in a proceeding alleging a violation under this section without the presence or testimony of the speed monitoring system operator who performed the requirements under subsection (b) of this section." This wording is actually even WORSE than the CURRENT law as implemented in Montgomery County which at requires that a "a duly authorized agent of the local police department" sign off on the violation rather than any arbitrary "AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF AN AGENCY". Translation: citations need not be certified by a sworn law enforcement officer. The bill also redefines who the speed monitoring system operator is to be "A REPRESENTATIVE" rather than a physical operator. That means a local jurisdictions need not worry about presenting the physical operator should it be the case that doing so might risk revealing flaws in their procedures in court.

This bill explicitly lowers the burden of proof for the state to "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" -- something which is NOT done in any of the other transportation articles related to speeding or most other traffic violations. The state certainly does not lower the standard of justice for serial killers, rapists or career criminals. There is no safety-based justification for doing it in this case either, the only reason for it is to allow the state it issue millions of citations per year without having to face large numbers of the defendants in court. The law does not provide any penalty to a local jurisdiction which chooses to not comply with restrictions in the law -- allowing them to be broken at the whim if need be to meet revenue goals. Nor are defendants permitted to raise such issues in their defense in Montgomery County speed camera cases. Judges have already gone so far as to tell defendants in court that "the only allowable "not guilty" plea against a speed camera citation is that another person was driving and to present that driver".

Visitors would be well advised to avoid driving through or spending any money in Maryland if they can help it. Maryland drivers should do whatever they feel is necessary to protect themselves from this attack on their rights. Our website has turned down offers to advertise "technological solutions" to speed cameras on this site, but if our readers feel they need that kind of help to avoid accidentally "feeding the monster" they should do what they must.

There are still ways to fight this thing in the courts, in the streets, and at the ballot box. Of course, it is the civic duty of anyone who receives such a citation to challenge it if they believe that the principals underlying our justice system are important, regardless of the efforts the state has gone to in order to make this appear futile. Contact Us if you want to help fight this monstrosity in other ways. Our lawmakers want you to believe that this is a "done deal" and that we, the sheeple of Maryland, can do nothing but accept the obliteration of our legal rights. They are wrong -- they have won this battle but the war has only just begun.

Legislation May Let County Off the Hook

Motgomery County Officials must be giddy with anticipation over the "Get Out Of Jail Free" card which the state legislature is about to hand them. Montgomery County faces a lawsuit over an illegal per-ticket contract. The lawsuit is based on the fact that the contract pays ACS State and Local Solutions $16.25 for every speed camera ticket issued, despite a clause in the current law authorizing speed cameras which states "If a contractor operates a speed monitoring system on behalf of Montgomery County, the contractor's fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or paid."

County Executive Leggett public promised to renegotiate their contract in May 2008 -- but instead allowed Towns like Gaithersburg to renew their rider on the contract and for Takoma Park to join the contract under the same terms months later.

County representatives have stated to the media that "Basically, they [ACS] take the pictures", and Delegate Saquib Ali stated on his website that "Montgomery County Government is paying the contractors -- Affiliated Computer Services Inc (ACS) -- who own, maintain and run the speed cameras a $16.25 fee per ticket” -- making it clear who truely "operates" the cameras.

Ali (who has voted in favor of every piece of pro-speed camera legislation which has ever crossed his desk) proposed a "speed camera fairness act" which would have clarified the language, making it clear that no contractor under any circumstances should be paid per ticket. The montgomery county delegation then WITHDREW that bill, after it had served its PR purposes.
Instead, Senate Bill 277 , which has already been approved in the Maryland State Senate and is awaiting approval in the House of Delegates, changes the definition of who a "speed camera operator" from "an individual who operates a speed monitoring system" to just be "A REPRESENTATIVE OF AN AGENCY OR CONTRACTOR THAT operates a speed
monitoring system." This subtle change allows Montgomery County's lawyers to simply drag the current lawsuit out until the new law takes effect in October 1, then argue in court that under the wording of the law, their agency can designate any representative they want as the operator, regardless of whether they have anything to do with the physical operation of the machine.

That will also allow them (or any other county) to reserve the right to enter into this type of profitable arrangement in the future whenever it suits them. It will also allow them to present someone other than the real physical operator in court, should there ever be the need to prevent the fact that some machine was not operated in accordance with regulations from being testified to in court.

Congratulations Montgomery County Safe Speed. We didn't think the sheeple would really fall for it, but I guess you showed us!

Anti-SCAMERA Protest

DC.CameraFRAUD.Com is planning a protest against the statewide Speed Camera Legislation which has recently advanced in the Maryland Legislature. This sign-wave event will be held at a Montgomery County speed camera site in Rockville, Maryland from 2:30pm-4:00pm on Sunday April 5th.

CameraFRAUD's protest in Chevy Chase Village in February was a great beginning, encouraging many frustrated drivers to "Honk Against SCAMERAS".

Contact StopBigBrotherMD@gmail.com for more details.

For anyone who would like to protest, but cannot attend this demonstration, you can still show your support. When you drive by any speed camera in Montgomery County or DC, slow your car to 5mph and start honking your horn. We will call this a "Camera Jam".

Speed Camera Battle Rages in MD Legislature

On 4/2/2009 the Maryland senate approved SB277 (statewide speed camera authorization) by a 20-27 vote. This came after the senate failed to pass SB277 by a 23 to 24 vote on Wednesday 4/1. However Senator Curie called for a motion to reconsider, followed by an unusual "motion to limit debate" by Senator Kasemeyer. Governor O'Malley apparently intervened to persuade several senators to change their votes. The legislation must still be approved by the house, where it's passage is a near certainty. You can see how senators voted on April 2 here. We will update our legislative scorecard shortly so you can more easily see congressional districts and party affiliation.
Two senators who changed their votes who had voted against statewide cameras last year were
Senator Nancy J. King
(Democrat, District 39, Montgomery County : nancy.king@senate.state.md.us , 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3686 )
and
Senator Robert A. Zirkin ( Democrat, District 11, Baltimore County : bobby.zirkin@senate.state.md.us , 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3131)

Senator Ulysses Currie (Democrat, District 25, Prince George's County)
and Senate President Thomas Mike Miller (Democrat, District 27, Calvert & Prince George's Counties)
also changed their votes, but as sponsors of the legislation were apparently originally holding our for something even more sweeping that the version of the bill which passed.

The House of Delegates passed legislation to authorize speed cameras in Baltimore, Prince George's County, and Howard County. HB396, HB1023, HB1314 have all now moved to the senate. You can see the names of delegates who voted for each bill here:
HB396
HB1023
HB1314
We will update our legislative scorecard shortly so you can more easily identify how YOUR delegates voted.

According to an article in the Washington Post, one senator (who did vote against SB277) had a special reason for not liking the cameras:
"Sen. George W. Della Jr. (D-Baltimore) told fellow senators that he was recently ticketed by a camera in the District, where the devices are allowed. When he examined the citation, he realized that the license plate pictured in the photo belonged to a car he owned years ago.

"It was a blatant error," he said.

But Della said that when he called to complain, he was told that the only way to avoid paying the ticket would be to explain the problem at a court hearing."

There are some limits to the use of the cameras in these bill. SB277 restricts them to "highway work zones" and streets within 1/2 mile of a school (which will include most residential streets). Last year an amendment to a similar bill which would have required highway work zones to have at least one worker present was rejected, so there is no such requirement on the highway work zone cameras. This year SB277 specifically states "regardless of whether workers are present". SB277 states that the "work zone speed control systems" will be authorized to ticket vehicles traveling on a highway "that is an expressway or a controlled access highway as defined in 21-101 of this title" and "on which the speed limit, established using accepted traffic engineering practices, is 45 miles per hour OR GREATER". Yes people, 55mph is greater than 45, meaning that 55mph freeways in Maryland will have speed cameras!

The ORIGINAL version of SB277 contained the following restriction, which was REMOVED by an amendment before it was passed."If a speed monitoring system is placed within 250 feet after the location of a sign decreasing the maximum speed limit on a highway, the speed monitoring system shall be calibrated only to record images of motor vehicles traveling at speeds at least 12 miles per hour above the posted speed limit in effect before the location of the sign" The removal of that restriction will allow localities to reserve the right to create situations like this one. Another amendment which was proposed to SB277 this year, but which the senate rejected, would have required that "A work zone speed control system shall be capable of being moved from one location to another". OK, so this part of the legislation is for work zones only, but the work zones are on FREEWAYS, do NOT need to have workers, and are allowed to have PERMANENT cameras?!?

The county level bills would all allow the cameras on "highways in a residential district", which in Montgomery County has been interpreted to include 6-lane state highways like Connecticut and New Hampshire Avenues.

Now is not the time for complacency or for surrender. Once the cameras get established across the state, it will be almost impossible to uproot them, as local jurisdictions become addicted to the ill gotten revenue. They will bend and break the rules to maximize that revenue, install more and more cameras ever year -- just as Montgomery County is doing right now. And every year they will return to the legislature trying to get restrictions on their use removed. In 2008, the legislation authorizing statewide cameras passed in both houses but was halted on the final day of the session. This legislation CAN STILL BE STOPPED! Keep the pressure up -- write or call your legislators RIGHT NOW!!!

Speed Camera Legislation Slowly Advances

Several speed camera bills have cleared a hurdle in legislative committees. HB396 (to allow them in Baltimore), HB1023 (Prince George's County), HB1314 (Howard County) were all voted "Favorable with amendments" in the House of Delegates Environmental Matters Committee, clearing the way for a floor vote.

Bill 1023 may be the most disturbing of the three, since it includes authorization on "Primary Highways". Some Prince George's County towns have demonstrated their intention to charge a "commuter tax" by taking it on themselves to use red light cameras to ticket motorists who come to a full stop at intersections.

The Howard County Delegation rejected an amendment which would have made HB1314 the revenue neutral before submitting it. HB1314 was sponsored by a 6-3 vote in the Howard County Delegation, with all democrats voting in favor and all republicans against.

ALL of these bills affect anyone who sometimes visits these locations and are a concern to those who care about the integrity of our justice system and individual liberty.

In the senate, SB277 (statewide authorization) was voted "Favorable with Amendments" by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. Two amendments were added first.

If you haven't already done so, WRITE TO YOUR STATE LEGISLATOR NOW. You can find links to their contact information, and how they voted on speed camera bills in 2008, on our Legislative ScoreCard-- where we will be uploading the names of those who vote for this year's legislation. There is a sample letter on our action page, but all your representatives really need to know is that if they support the expansion of speed cameras they will lose your vote.

More Speed Cameras Coming Online in Montgomery County

The City of Takoma Park has fully activated its new speed cameras on New Hampshire and Ethan Allen Avenues. These cameras will be operated by ACS State And Local Solutions under a per-ticket fee arrangement signed off in September 2008, and arrangement which included wording designed to ensure the city would turn a profit. Takoma Park Police Chief Ronald Ricucci expressed his view that the cameras were not about revenue when recently quoted by the Gazette "If it'd been for revenue, it would've been up four years ago," (note: the state legislature did not authorize speed cameras until 2006). Ricucci had previously been quoted in the Takoma Voice as saying “I didn’t think we had a speed problem or needed cameras but Mayor [Kathy] Porter asked me to look into it”. Surprisingly, after they looked into it, they arrived at the answer which the mayor wanted. (Note : Mayor Porter was succeeded by Mayor Bruce Williams who was the only candidate on the ballot in 2007).

Takoma Park is possibly hoping to get the same financial benefit from its cameras on New Hampshire Avenue as Chevy Chase Village saw with its cameras on Connecticut Avenue. Like Connecticut Avenue, New Hampshire Ave is a 6-lane roadway which runs between I-495 and DC. Like Connecticut Avenue, New Hampshire Avenue is a State Highway which is paid for with money from ALL Maryland taxpayers, yet the decision to install these cameras and the revenue they create will go exclusively to this local government over a locality of 17,300 people.

At the county level, County Executive Ike Leggett’s proposed FY10 budget included increasing the number of speed cameras in county from 36 to 66 (60 fixed, 6 mobile) as part of his, and required the cameras to produce $15.7million in revenue. Based on the county receiving a $23.75 share after paying its contractor, that would require at least 661,000 fully paid citations. The revenue being produced by each existing camera location dropped in the second half of 2008, in some cases by 40% as drivers learned more about them. Should the cameras fail to generate this large number of citations naturally, they may need to install more cameras or use more aggressive tactics to meet that revenue goal.

Judge Throws Out New Carrollton Scamera Tickets

A Prince George’s County District Court has thrown out several red light tickets issued under New Carrollton’s Red Light Camera Scam after deciding that the city did not have evidence that the accused drivers had run a red light. The drivers challenged the citations after seeing that they had received a ticket stating that they had “run a red light”, while showing that they in fact were not moving. The citations said nothing about “crossing a white line” or “entering a crosswalk”.

New Carrollton Mayor Pro-Tem James Wildoner defended the practice in an interview with Fox 5 News, and said anyone who got a ticket for crossing the white line should “just pay the ticket”. Wilborner pointed out that, under transportation article 21-202, drivers are supposed to stop before the white line. HOWEVER transportation article 21-202.1 is in fact the section of maryland transporation code which permits the use of red light cameras, and it includes the following
(5) "Traffic control signal monitoring system" means a device with one or more motor vehicle sensors working in conjunction with a traffic control signal to produce recorded images of motor vehicles entering an intersection against a red signal indication.
The transportation article also states that the court is considering evidence that a vehicle "passed through the intersection". Article 21-202 also distinguishes between the intersection itself and the white line or the crosswalks. Courts accept red light camera tickets only because article 21-202.1 lowers the burden of proof on that specific offense and states that for that specific offense they are admissible without witnesses capable of exercising human judgment. Moreover neither Maryland Transportation Article 21-202 nor 21-202.1 specify any penalty entering a crosswalk of stopping past the white line.

Despite the fact that the court did not agree with his interpretation of the law, and despite the fact that they are forcing drivers to choose between getting into rear end collision or side impact collision if they want to avoid getting a ticket, the Mayor Pro-Tem Wildoner assures that the city’s practice will continue. This is no doubt in hopes that most drivers will not take the time to challenge them.

AAA has stated that they plan to file an injunction to stop the the cameras, according to the interview with Fox 5 News. In an interview with the Gazette, AAA Spokesman John Townson cited the fact that Federal Highway Safety Administration's Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines specify that "the second photograph in a two-photograph red light camera system should be taken after a vehicle has entered an intersection" and said it is "malfeasance" on the part of New Carrollton's police department to run the program. A total of 15 red light citations were thrown out in one March 18th district court hearing.

These red light cameras were also vigorously defended by New Carrollton's Police Chief David Rice, who is currently under investigation by state police and the FBI over unrelated charges.

New Carrollton first proposed installing red light cameras on these roadways in February of 2000, when one city council member was quoted by the Gazette as saying "I say we move forward and investigate it to the fullest. It's a sure, good revenue source."

New Carrollton's red light cameras are currently operated by OptoTraffic, a subsidiary of Sigma Space Corporation [ref]. Sigma space retained the lobbying firm "Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC" to advocate in favor of "speed monitoring and red light system" legislation in Annapolis in 2007 and 2008, according to online ethics disclosure forms.

Maryland Speed Camera Fib#2: They’re Needed for Safety

The Montgomery County Government and other speed cameras supporters continuously claim that automated traffic enforcement is necessary to improve safety. Certainly we all want safe roads, but does that necessarily mean that simply because a thing is claimed to improve safety that all other arguments need to be ignored or that other options for improving safety should not be used instead?

Montgomery County has claimed significant reductions in speeding after speed cameras are installed. And you know what, we readily concede that most people DO speed down when they see a speed camera. But what they choose to omit it that you can get even BETTER speed reductions using other traffic calming devices. As an example, the city of Gaithersburg Maryland installed "traffic calming measures" other than speed cameras on the following roads and reported excellent reductions in speeding:
Location___________| Before__ | _After__ | Speed Decrease
Little Quarry Road | 34-36MPH | 24-27MPH | 9.5MPH/~27%
Suffield Drive____ | 34-36MPH | 24-26MPH | 10MPH/28%
Chestnut Street___ | 34-36MPH | 27 MPH__ | 8MPH/22%
Walker Avenue_____ | 37-38MPH | 28-30MPH | 8.5MPG/22%
Brookes Avenue____ | 35-38MPH | 30-31MPH | 6MPH/16%
Main Street_______ | 35-38MPH | 28-32MPH | 6MPH/16%

By comparison, the city of Rockville has claimed that after installing speed cameras on Wooton parkway, "The average speed at the fixed pole site on Baltimore Road during the period of August 2007 to April 2008 decreased from 27.99 miles per hour (mph) to 23.64 mph, which is a reduction of 4.35 mph. The average speed at our fixed pole location on Wootton Parkway during the period of August 2007 to April 2008 was reduced from 26.20 mph to 22.83 mph, which is reduction of 3.37 miles per hour." So even the smallest speed reduction which Gaithersburg saw from it's non-orwellian traffic calming measures was better than the benefit received from Rockville's Wooton speed camera. Even if we consider speed reduction an end in and of itself, speed cameras are not the most effective solution.

Such improvements do not need to be expensive. As an example, a solar powered radar speed display sign can be purchased for less than $3500. Such devices have been proven in studies to reduce the average speed in highway work zones by 7mph, without the need for the highway work zone speed cameras in the proposed Maryland legislation, and by 9mph in school zones. There are both federal and private programs to help fund and defer the costs of such devices. They do not require installation of power sources since they are solar and could be affixed to existing poles, meaning the installation costs can be low... that is unless their use is encumbered by a meddlesome leviathan bureaucracy which is incapable of doing anything inexpensive. In fact, if the $142,000 per month which Chevy Chase Village alone is paying in speed camera operating fees to Texas based ACS State and Local Solutions had instead been spent on this purpose, 40 new speed indicator signs could have been added each month, with enough for 2 to be placed in front of EVERY public school in Montgomery County withing a year. This would have realized speed reductions in numerous important areas without any of the due process issues, privacy violations, or scams associated with speed cameras.

The real reason why speed cameras were chosen instead is obvious: as part of his recently submitted budget proposal, the Montgomery County Executive plans to DOUBLE the number of fixed pole speed cameras from 30 to 60, and set a specific revenue quota of $15.7million for the program in order to avoid having to make budget cuts. If the programs fails to meet that revenue goal "naturally", then in order to prevent a budget shortfall they will either need to "reward" drivers by adding more cameras, or bend the rules to maximize tickets issued to unwitting and basically safe drivers.

Maryland Red Light Cameras Caught Issuing Bogus Tickets

Fox 5 News has reported that red light cameras in New Carrolton, MD have been issuing large numbers of bogus tickets to cars which in fact stopped for the red light. The cameras were apparently issuing tickets to anyone who crossed the white line at the intersection, even if they came to a complete stop. A senior representative of AAA Mid Atlantic received one of the citations after he stopped at the intersection.

One driver interviewed by Fox news after being "flashed" while stopped at the intersection indicated "If I got it I wouldn't fight it no. If the camera is set to do it that way I just have to pay the ticket." In fact many drivers with less means than media clout than a senior representative of an organization like AAA might not make a challenge, given that Maryland law permits jurisdictions to threaten to raise the fine for citations from $75 to $100 and tack on court costs to anyone who takes their red light camera ticket to court.

The FAQ on the New Carrolton Police website makes it clear that automatically issuing tickets to large numbers of cars which in fact did stop for the light was deliberate:
"Q: I received a Red Light Camera ticket in the mail, but I am sure I stopped for the light. Why did I receive this?
A: In addition to vehicles which proceed through the intersection while the light is in the red phase, red light camera violations are also triggered by vehicles which pass the clearly marked "stop line" or enter the pedestrian crosswalk. "

Transportation Article 21-202.1, the section of the Maryland code which authorizes the use of red light cameras defines a“Traffic control signal monitoring system” as "a device with one or more motor vehicle sensors working in conjunction with a traffic control signal to produce recorded images of motor vehicles entering an intersection against a red signal indication." and does not authorize their use against cars which stop before the intersection.

Forcing cars to stop too quickly might put drivers in the position of either being rear-ended or having to actually run the red light.

"Numerous" complaints have been received not just from New Carrolton but also Bladensburg and Riverdale, all in Prince George's County, MD. Prince George's County is currently requesting authorization from the Maryland legislature to permit the use of speed cameras, including one bill that would allow them on "primary highways".

Remember that the choice to use photo enforcement to defraud passing motorists is a political decision, made by elected officials in PG County and New Carrollton. Please give them an earful. Using cameras for this purpose is clearly neither fair nor is it in the interest of safety.
New Carrollton Mayor Andres Hanko : 301-577-0256, ahanko@new-carrollton.md.us
New Carrollton City Council members:
Duane H. Rosenberg : 301-441-3324, drosenberg@new-carrollton.md.us
James A. Wildoner 301-577-0992, jwildoner@new-carrollton.md.us
David L. Anderson 301-459-6100, danderson@new-carrollton.md.us
Katrina R. Dodro 301-513-9239, kdodro@new-carrollton.md.us
Liza Fenton 301-459-6100, lfenton@new-carrollton.md.us
Prince George's County Executive: 301-952-4131
Prince George's County Council: 301-952-3700
Council member emails: TEDernoga@co.pg.md.us, WACampos@co.pg.md.us,
EOlson@co.pg.md.us, IMTurner@co.pg.md.us, councildistrict5@co.pg.md.us, SHDean@co.pg.md.us, CAExum@co.pg.md.us, TKnotts@co.pg.md.us, mmbland@co.pg.md.us

=======================================

Please CONTACT US if you have received one of these fraudulent red light camera tickets. We believe that it may be possible to use legal action to end this dangerous, unethical, and illegal practice which these town are engaging in.

Judge Allows Speed Camera Class Action Lawsuit

A Montgomery Count Circuit Court judge has allowed a class action lawsuit filed against Montgomery County, Chevy Chase Village, and Gaithersburg on behalf of the recipients of hundreds of thousands of tickets issued by speed cameras in those locations. A Maryland Attorney, Timothy Leahy, filed the lawsuit in May 2008 after receiving a speed camera citation and learning about the county's per-ticket contract with ACS State and Local Solutions which violates a prohibition in state law against such arrangements. Attorney William Askinazi, who is representing Mr Leahy and the other plaintiffs in this case, is a former Maryland Assistant Secretary of State for the Department of Business and Economic Development, and was a candidate for Maryland State Senate in 2006.

If successful, the lawsuit could force some or all of the tickets issued under the illegal contract to be refunded. More importantly, it would set a precedent that will decide whether or not local governments can freely violate the law in order to maximize ticket revenue. This lawsuit was considered significant enough that it was mentioned in the "fiscal impact statement" for the 2009 bills which are being discussed by the Maryland legislature to authorize speed cameras on almost every road in the state, stating that "Current law prohibits a contractor's fee from being contingent on the number of citations issued".

The county has been gradually renegotiating their contract since this illegal arrangement was exposed in March 2008 -- because of pressure from this lawsuit and public pressure from angry citizens and drivers' groups. However Montgomery County still allowed many new cameras to be installed under the old contract arrangement, including some in Takoma Park which joined the existing per-ticket contract over 4 months after the County Executive publicly stated his intention to renegotiate the contract, under terms which included an apparent ticket quota for the contractor. Chevy Chase Village recently announced that starting March 12, 2009 it will instead pay a $148000/month flat fee for its four cameras, under condition that the cameras be upgraded to newer technology which can issue more tickets, and the payment amount will still be adjusted periodically if ticket volumes change.

Montgomery County Speed Camera Fib#1 : Spending the Money

The media has a tendency to repeat claims about speed cameras which are made by local officials without questioning them. One claim which is repeated every time local officials talk to the press as a way of selling the program is that the money is used “only public safety or pedestrian safety programs.” It turns out that this is, at best, a half-truth and an empty promise.

It is true that there is a legal requirement that money from speed cameras be spent ONLY on public safety,with the wording of HB443 which authorized the cameras stating “Montgomery County shall use the revenues generated from the enforcement of speed limit laws as authorized under this Act solely to increase local expenditures for related public safety purposes, including pedestrian safety programs”. As such this is a requirement which cannot be violated without breaking the law, and is not merely not a casual promise. Legislators have used this requirement to sell the program to the public and assert that it is not a "cash cow". But the reality is that this restriction is meaningless and that money is NOT being spent according to the letter or spirit of the law, and is instead being used for various pet project.

Chevy Chase village decided that purchasing a new Segway, a locker room, and an office for their police chief constituted “public safety improvements”. Minutes from Chevy Chase village show those items were purchased directly from the safe speed fund. These items were described in the minutes of board meetings from November 10, September 8, and July 14, 2008. Other items such as “underground utility conduits” designed to hold electrical and cable TV lines have also been authorized under the fund, which are general operating expenses unrelated to safety. In one Chevy Chase Village meeting, it was shown that the Chevy Chase Village and the Montgomery County governments considered the speed camera funds to be usable for almost any expense when: "Task Force Chair Robert Jones and Mr. Podolsky advised that the County's Senior Financial Officer had opined that portions of most of the Village's potential capital projects could possibly be funded from revenue derived from the Safe Speed program under the parameters of the speed camera legislation." The fact that this might violate the law is apparently irrelevant because the Village government believes they will never be held accountable for that.

This practice was not limited to Chevy Chase Village. The City of Rockville apparently budgeted $1,010,000 out of their speed camera fund on an item labeled "RECREATION AND PARKS PROGRAM AREA". At the county level, the situation is actually worse because there is currently no tracking of speed camera funds at all. In a recent Montgomery County council session, Council President Andrews stated: "There's not a way to specifically account for how the money is being spent. It goes into the General Fund."

Moreover, little if any of the money has been specifically designated for traffic calming devices. For example, Chevy Chase Village has not installed new traffic calming devices on Connecticut Avenue since the installation of the cameras. The failure to reinvest this money in this particular road should be galling to citizens who live outside Chevy Chase Village. Connecticut Avenue is officially designated a “State Highway”, meaning it is maintained by the Maryland State Highway Administration with funds coming from ALL Maryland taxpayers. All of the revenue from the Connecticut Avenue cameras is currently going to the Chevy Chase Village government, not to the benefit of residents in the rest of the county or state whose tax dollars pay for the maintenance of that road. There are only 2000 residents in Chevy Chase Village, and the median income is the median household income is in excess of $200,000, compared with $87,624 for Montgomery County and $68,080 for the state of Maryland (information from Wikipedia). In early 2008 the Connecticut Avenue cameras were bringing in $250,000 per month to the Chevy Chase Village government, whose entire annual operating budget was about $4.5 million.

In other locations where speed cameras are present, EXISTING traffic calming devices have been allowed to fall into disrepair. There are two “your speed” radar indicator signs directly in front of Wooton High School near the two speed cameras at that location, which had been there before the speed cameras were installed, but as of Feb 26, 2009 both of those speed indicator signs were apparently non-functional. Studies have shown speed indicator signs to be highly effective at reducing both speeding and accidents. However when combined with speed cameras they would also tend to reduce camera revenue by reducing the number of inadvertent speeding violations.(ADDENDUM: On 03/05/2009 both of the referenced speed indicator signs were replaced with new ones of a different model. The signs were still non-functional on 3/04. We'd like to take this opportunity to thank our visitors from the "Montgomery County Government" domain for their frequent readership of our website.)

Local governments continue to treat legal requirements as mere guidelines which can be used for PR purposes but ignored whenever desired. Other important restrictions in the law have also been ignored by Montgomery County. Right now many promises are being made as new legislation is being pushed to authorize statewide speed cameras. Given the history of these cameras, a little healthy skepticism by the public might just be in order.

Successful DC.CameraFRAUD Protest In Chevy Chase

DC.CameraFRAUD.com successfully staged its first anti-speed camera protest in Chevy Chase Village. The group gathered to help get the message out about the impending speed camera legislation in Annapolis, and the many injustices and scams within the current speed camera system.

If nothing else, hundreds of drivers were able to release their pent-up frustrations by "honking against scameras". For those who would like to do more than that, there are many things that you can do.

Join DC CameraFraud’s First Protest on Sunday, 2/15

DC.CameraFRAUD.Comwill be having it's first anti-speed camera rally on Sunday Feb 15th.

========================================

Date: Sunday, 2/15/2009

Time: 1:00pm - 3:00pm (max)

Place: Chevy Chase Village in Montgomery County, MD at the Connecticut Avenue speed cameras

Directions:

Overview of location (click to enlarge)

Take the beltway to Exit 33, Connecticut Avenue/hwy 185 South towards Chevy Chase and drive 2.1 miles south. The cameras are between Oxford Street and Melrose St, at the Chevy Chase Country club.

If you reach the traffic circle, you have gone too far, turn around and go back up Connecticut. Find street parking on Melrose/Newlands/Oxford or other streets to the left (east), but look for no-parking signs signs.

Close-up of location (click to enlarge)

Newlands Street forms a small “island” along Connecticut avenue which is between the two cameras. This will be our meetup point and main staging area. Please try to arrive no later than 1:00.

What we will be doing:
We will have a 12′ anti-speed camera banner, and some posterboard signs ready to go. We will be holding up the banner and signs. We’ll have some fliers and take pictures and video.

Contact StopBigBrotherMD@gmail.com if you have any questions or need more information.

Maryland Photo Enforcement Legislative ScoreCard

We have created a Legislative Score Card which will be tracking how Maryland Legislators vote on this issue in the 2009 General Assembly. It is currently populated with the results of last year's bills, and also with the sponsors of the four bills submitted so far.

Speed Cameras Attract Lobbyists in Annapolis

The statewide speed camera bills currently being discussed, and soon to be voted on, by the Maryland General Assembly have been the subject of intensive lobbying efforts.

According to Maryland state lobbying disclosures, the company which runs Montgomery County's speed camera program, Texas based ACS State and Local Solutions, currently retains a team of at least 8 lobbyists at one of the state's most successful lobbying firms, Alexander & Cleaver. The State Ethics Commission releases an annual report on companies spending over 50,000 on lobbying activities, and ACS has been on that list each year from 2006-2008.

In 2007, prior to the nearly successful statewide speed camera bill, they spent $144,346.74 on lobbying activities. ACS spent an additional $81,460.13 in 2008 through October 31, 2008 on this effort. ACS's lobbying activities during the 2008 general Assembly included $6286.13 on two banquets at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse on January 29 and February 6, 2008 for members of the House Environmental Matters Senate Judicial Proceedings, House Appropriations, and Senate Budget and Taxation Committees.

It will not be known how much they are spending during the 2009 legislative session until after the General Assembly ends in April.

Texas Based ACS (under the names Affiliated Computer Services and ACS Government Committee) made campaign contributions in 2007-2008 to the following Maryland officials:
• Governor O'Malley (who is pushing the statewide speed camera bills)
• Senate President Mike Miller (who sponsored the 2008 and 2009 legislation)
• Comptroller Peter Franchot (who oversees state contracts).
• John L. Bohanan Jr, ( District 29B, St Mary's County Delegate and Deputy Majority Whip )

The company which provides camera hardware to ACS, Traffipax (which is the US subsidiary of Robot Visual Systems based in Monheim, Germany), paid $50,000.00 on lobbying activities in 2007. Insurance companies are also weighing in heavily, with State Farm Insurance Companies, Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund, Nationwide Insurance Company, and the Maryland Insurance Council all making the list of big lobbying spenders in 2007 and 2008.

Meanwhile, local governments hoping to cash in on the revenue have used public funds to hire lobbyists. Prince George's County hired the firm "Darryl A. Kelley & Associates, LLC", listed "speed monitoring systems" as one of 4 subjects, and reported spending $47,500.00 in taxpayer dollars on the effort in 2008. The City of Bowie made a similar disclosure, listing speed cameras as one of 6 topics which they paid the firm "O'Malley, Miles, Nylen, & Gilmore, P.A." a total $37,000 in taxpayer dollars to lobby for in 2008.

The Montgomery County government did not specifically disclose any lobbying spending for more speed cameras. However they do use taxpayer funded resources as part of a PR campaign for the Safe Speed program. The County Council and County Executive (all of whom belong to the same political party) control the content broadcast over Cable County Montgomery, which receives approximately $2million in taxpayer dollars annually, and which frequently broadcasts PR pieces for the Safe Speed program without inviting critics to present opposing viewpoints. Montgomery County also uses taxpayer funded police resources to respond to letters and emails sent to the County Executive. StopBigBrotherMD.org has confirmed that using police resources to respond to letters on this POLITICAL subject is a standard practice for the county executive, and we wonder whether he ever reads any of the many letters which are critical of the county’s position.

The scales are somewhat imbalanced. For anti-speed camera efforts, StopBigBrotherMD.org pays $10/year to register its website plus a trivial amount for sign-making materials for DC.CameraFRAUD’s upcoming demonstrations. But then again, we're not trying to get your money.

Upcoming Events

Howard County residents can testify on the statewide speed camera bills at the following meeting:
Wednesday, February 4, 2009 – 7:30 p.m.
Board of Education, Board Rooms A & B
10910 Route 108, Ellicott City, Maryland 21043 See public announcement at: http://www.columbiaassociation.com/pdfs/Public_Notice_Hearing_Statewi...

Also, DC.CameraFraud is planning a public demonstration on February 15th in Montgomery County. If you wish to participate please Email Us for details.

More Maryland Speed Camera Legislation

Three more speed camera bills have been submitted to the General Assembly in Annapolis. First, the statewide speed camera bill, similar to the one previously submitted to the state senate, has been submitted to the House of Delegates as HB0313. The sponsors of this legislation are:

MICHAEL ERIN BUSCH, Speaker of House of Delegates (Democrat, District 30, Anne Arundel County)
State House, H-101
Annapolis, MD 21401 - 1991
(410) 841-3800, (301) 858-3800 ,1-800-492-7122, ext. 3800 (toll free)
e-mail: michael.busch@house.state.md.us

WILLIAM A. BRONROTT (Democrat, District 16, Montgomery County)
House Office Building, Room 411
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3642, (301) 858-3642,1-800-492-7122, ext. 3642 (toll free)
e-mail: william.bronrott@house.state.md.us
5500 Beech Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814
(301) 896-0003; fax: (301) 656-0441
e-mail: bill4md16@aol.com

CHERYL D. GLENN (Democrat, District 45, Baltimore City)
House Office Building, Room 314
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3257, (301) 858-3257
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3257 (toll free)
e-mail: cheryl.glenn@house.state.md.us
3301 Belair Road, Suite 2B, Baltimore, MD 21213 - 1228
(410) 563-0228

TOM HUCKER (Democrat, District 20, Montgomery County)
House Office Building, Room 220
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3474, (301) 858-3474, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3474 (toll free)
e-mail: tom.hucker@house.state.md.us

ROGER MANNO (Democrat, District 19, Montgomery County)
House Office Building, Room 226
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3883, (301) 858-3883, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3883 (toll free)
e-mail: roger.manno@house.state.md.us

MAGGIE McINTOSH (Democrat, District 43, Baltimore City)
House Office Building, Room 251
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3990, (301) 858-3990,1-800-492-7122, ext. 3990 (toll free)
e-mail: maggie.mcintosh@house.state.md.us

In addition, local bills have been submitted to the House and Senate under the labels HB0396 and sb0388. That local bills would give Baltimore only the ability to set up speed cameras, however anyone who visits Baltimore is affected by this. The sponsors of these bills are:

HB0396:
CURTIS STOVALL (CURT) ANDERSON (Democrat, District 43, Baltimore City)
House Office Building, Room 314
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3291, (301) 858-3291, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3291 (toll free)
e-mail: curt.anderson@house.state.md.us

RUTH M. KIRK (Democrat, District 44, Baltimore City)
House Office Building, Room 426
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3802, (301) 858-3802, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3802 (toll free)
e-mail: ruth.kirk@house.state.md.us
200 South Arlington Ave., Suite 211, Baltimore, MD 21223 - 2672
(410) 659-9914

MAGGIE McINTOSH (Democrat, District 43, Baltimore City)
(See HB0313)

BARBARA A. ROBINSON (Democrat, District 40, Baltimore City)
House Office Building, Room 315
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3520, (301) 858-3520, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3520 (toll free)
e-mail: barbara.robinson@house.state.md.us

Senate Bill 0388:
NATHANIEL J. McFADDEN (Democrat, District 45, Baltimore City)
Miller Senate Office Building, Room 422
11 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3165, (301) 858-3165, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3165 (toll free)
e-mail: nathaniel.mcfadden@senate.state.md.us
3301 Belair Road, Suite 2A, Baltimore, MD 21213 - 1228
(410) 563-4500

If you disagree with the expansion of this intrusive system, please take action.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

The new Darnestown speed cameras are not the only ones where citizens have complained about the extreme closeness of the cameras to the speed cameras to a significant drop in the speed limit. According to an article in the Potomac Almanac, defendants have gone to court to challenge citations issued by cameras on River Road in Potomac where the speed limit drops from 40 to 30, and the location of a speed camera van was just 100 yards (3-4 seconds driving time) past the 30mph sign.

According to that article, "the judge told everyone contesting their camera tickets that the only acceptable "not guilty" plea was if someone else had been driving their car at the time the ticket was issued, and to present that driver." This demonstrates that

• the current law regarding speed camera has been interpreted by judges as placing the burden of proof on defendants
• that the district court judges are NOT considering valid defenses about the fairness of speed camera locations or of the legality of the tactic being used by Montgomery County
• that defendants are being considered guilty until proven innocent, that drivers are effectively being subjected to trial by machine,
• that everything the county and state have told us about getting a fair, impartial hearing is a pack of lies

When confronted with the issue of placing cameras extremely close to a drop in the speed limit, the county defended the practice and indicated that there is no regulation in the law that specifies the distance between a posted speed limit sign and a speed camera. Therefore anyone driving in Montgomery county must assume that this will be done more and more in the future, and that we will be subjected to zero tolerance photo enforcement. Given the speed camera legislation which is before the General Assembly RIGHT NOW this may very soon apply to nearly every road in the state, not just Montgomery County.

If you do not find this acceptable and want to help us stop this FRAUD against local and visiting motorists, please CONTACT US.

Battle Stations! Statewide Speed Camera Bill Submitted to Maryland Senate

Senate Bill 277 was submitted to the Maryland Senate today at the request of Governor O'Malley. This is the first speed camera bill officially introduced in 2009. This bill is apparently based on the legislation which came withing a hair of passing in 2008. It would authorize every county in the state to use speed cameras on roads up to a 45mph speed limit, and also on highways in temporary "work zones".

We are still in the process of analyzing it, but we immediately noticed that this bill still included the following change from existing law:
(6) “Speed monitoring system operator” means [an individual who] A
REPRESENTATIVE OF AN AGENCY OR CONTRACTOR THAT operates a speed
monitoring system.

This is the same change referred to on the legislative wrap-up of the 2008 bill, which was designed to grandfather in Montgomery County's alleged contract loophole, and deny the accused the right to request the REAL operator to appear in court, by allowing the counties to specify any person they want as the operator, rather than someone who has anything to do with the PHYSICAL operation and maintenance of the device.

The sponsors of this Big Brother legislation are:
Senate President Mike Miller (Democrat, District 27, Calvert & Prince George's Counties)
State House, H-107
Annapolis, MD 21401 - 1991
(410) 841-3700, (301) 858-3700
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3700 (toll free)
e-mail: thomas.v.mike.miller@senate.state.md.us

Senator Jennie M. Forehand (Democrat, District 17, Montgomery County)
James Senate Office Building, Room 223
11 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3134, (301) 858-3134
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3134 (toll free)
e-mail: jennie.forehand@senate.state.md.us

Senator Katherine Klausmeier (Democrat, District 8, Baltimore County)
James Senate Office Building, Room 103
11 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3620, (301) 858-3620
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3620 (toll free)
e-mail: katherine.klausmeier@senate.state.md.us

Senator Douglas J. J. Peters (Democrat, District 23, Prince George's County)
James Senate Office Building, Room 121
11 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3631, (301) 858-3631
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3631 (toll free)
e-mail: douglas.peters@senate.state.md.us

Senator James Robey (Democrat, District 13, Howard County)
James Senate Office Building, Room 120
11 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3572, (301) 858-3572
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3572 (toll free)
e-mail: james.robey@senate.state.md.us

Two other speed camera bills which would authorize cameras in only Prince George's County (PG 309-09) and Howard County (Ho.Co. 06-09) have been drafted and will be submitted soon.

The battle lines are drawn. Anyone willing to join the fight to Stop Big Brother please Contact Us.