The Washington Times broke a story which show that the Montgomery County contract with ACS(Affiliated Computer Services) is in fact paying the contractor a per-citation fee. This is in apparent disregard for Transportation Article 21-809(j) of the Maryland Code, "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."
According to the article, county officials declined a request from The Washington Times to obtain a copy of the contract with ACS (contract #7474000045-AA). However documents regarding the rider contracts for Gaithersburg and Rockville are online, make it clear that ACS is paid on a per-citation basis.
According to the article, a representative of the county has maintained that "the police department operates the cameras because officers determine whether a driver caught on camera violated the law and where the cameras should be placed."
However, ACS's own press release defines their role as such" Under the contract, ACS processes violations; generates and mails notices; schedules adjudication and appeals appointments; provides document imaging and correspondence management; provides walk-in customer service; maintains camera equipment; and provides pay-by-web, pay-by-phone, and integrated voice response systems."
This position is in apparent violation of the intent of the law. The Washington Times article contains quotes from several state legislators which makes that clear. The no-per-ticket payment clause was part of the sales pitch for speed cameras. State Senator Brian Frosh from Montgomery County was quoted by the Times as saying "It was incorporated into the legislation to ensure a profit motive didn't drive the speed-camera enforcement" and "You're not supposed to have a bounty that was paid to the contractor."
The intent of the law to the legislators voting on the law seems clear. State delegates Dana M. Stein(D, Baltimore County) and Pam Beidle (D, Anne Arundal County) both had language on their web sites where they supported new speed camera legislation containing the same language and touted the no-per-ticket clauses, saying "Finally, the bill prohibits a speed camera contractor’s fee from being linked to the number of citations issued by the device or paid by speeders.". Delegate Saqib Ali (D, Montgomery County) was quoted in a TV News report as saying "They should make sure that the amount paid to ACS is completely divorced from tickets issued or tickets paid."
In fact, the Montgomery County Council was also apparently clear on this point in 2006, prior to the bidding process for the contract. On page 132, lines 15-16 of these council minutes council member Phil Andrews stated "contractors are not paid based on the number of citations, that's built-in". Somehow, however, County executive Leggett was seemingly unaware of this situation right before the Times Story, stating "Under the contract, we pay a flat fee". This of course turned out not to be accurate.
A follow-up article in the Montgomery County Sentinel showed that AAA Mid Atlantic was not too pleased with this per-ticket arrangement, as they had given their support to the 2006 law under condition that there would be no such deals. (AAA sometimes lobbies on behalf of motorists, however they are also in the business of selling auto insurance.)
In 2008 the Maryland state house and senate voted on bills which would have allowed speed cameras to be used throughout Maryland. Presumably if Montgomery County were given a pass on this, so would any other jurisdictions, and perhaps also on any other inconvenient provisions of the law which are meant to protect the rights of the public.
Note that the 2008 bills also redefined the term "operator"... if this bill had been passed you would no longer have the right to face the actual operator who knows how the device was actually operated if you requested it, but merely a "representative" who knows how it is *supposed* to be operated. One version of the bills would have removed the requirement that funds from the cameras be spent on public safety improvement... a major selling point to the public of the original Montgomery County program.
Despite vigorously defending the legality of the contract, in May 2008 the county executive is quoted as saying "The contract is currently up for renewal and MCPD is investigating an alternative way of paying the vendor to eliminate even the appearance of a problem with the payment system." However, as of August 2008, the County was apparently still planning to continue this arrangement, as the City Of Gaithersburg approved a measure extending its participation in contract 7474000045-AA through all of fiscal year 2009.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
2008 Statewide Speed Camera Legislation
The 2008 Maryland General adjourned Monday 4/4/2008 without passing any of the speed camera bills. But it was VERY close. The majority had arrived at a compromise bill, but opponents threatened to filibuster and the clock ran out on the General Assembly session.
-----------------------------------------------
The Maryland House of Delegates had voted to approve a plan to install speed cameras statewide by a 90 to 45 vote.
Here are details on Senate Bill 269 and House Bill 364.
Both bills allow speed cameras on almost all roads of up to 45MPH. The bills both also allow their use in "highway work zones", which could include almost any road in the state. The previous law permitting their use only in Montgomery County was limited to 35mph.
Here are some of the changes that were included in one or more versions of this legislation:
Here are the Delegates who voted for the house bill:
Governor O'Malley sponsored this legislation.
======================================
This is not the end of the road for statewide speed cameras by a long shot. Governor O'Malley and many of the delegates have pledged to bring this before the legislature again in the 2009 session which will run from January 14th through April 13th. Governor O'Malley has the power to call a special session, so these bills could be taken up again this year. This legislature also has 2 more sessions before they are up for re-election in 2010.
Here's what you can do!
Stay Informed! Come back to this site for updates. Please Email Me if you have any information about these cameras to share or if you wish to help prepare for the next battle.
-----------------------------------------------
The Maryland House of Delegates had voted to approve a plan to install speed cameras statewide by a 90 to 45 vote.
Here are details on Senate Bill 269 and House Bill 364.
Both bills allow speed cameras on almost all roads of up to 45MPH. The bills both also allow their use in "highway work zones", which could include almost any road in the state. The previous law permitting their use only in Montgomery County was limited to 35mph.
Here are some of the changes that were included in one or more versions of this legislation:
- Allow statewide use of speed cameras
- Allow speed cameras on most 55mph freeways in Prince Georges County.
- Allow speed cameras in temporary "highway work zones" (an amendment which would have required that there be at least one worker present was rejected).
- Change the max speed limit where speed cameras can be used in "residential areas" to 45 mph (including existing cameras in Montgomery County"
- (Senate Version) Eliminating the requirement that camera revenues be spent on public safety
- (House Version) increase the maximum fine to $75.
- Change the definition of "speed camera operator" to "a representative", meaning that the accused would no longer have the right to request that the physical camera operator appear in court.
- Under the new law, counties are not required to report back on the success or failure of their programs until 2012.
| MILLER | FROSH | KELLEY | MUSE | ROSAPEPE |
| BROCHIN | GARAGIOLA | KLAUSMEIER | PETERS | STONE |
| CONWAY | GLADDEN | LENETT | PINSKY | |
| CURRIE | HARRINGTON | MADALENO | PUGH | |
| EXUM | JONES | MCFADDEN | RASKIN | |
| FOREHAND | KASEMEYER | MIDDLETON | ROBEY |
Here are the Delegates who voted for the house bill:
Governor O'Malley sponsored this legislation.
======================================
This is not the end of the road for statewide speed cameras by a long shot. Governor O'Malley and many of the delegates have pledged to bring this before the legislature again in the 2009 session which will run from January 14th through April 13th. Governor O'Malley has the power to call a special session, so these bills could be taken up again this year. This legislature also has 2 more sessions before they are up for re-election in 2010.
Here's what you can do!
Stay Informed! Come back to this site for updates. Please Email Me if you have any information about these cameras to share or if you wish to help prepare for the next battle.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
About Speed Cameras
Despite claims by those who profit from photo enforcement, speed cameras are very unpopular with the general public. Photo enforcement has been placed to a popular vote in US communities a total of 24 times, in 23 of those votes the public has rejected cameras,... that is a 95.8% rejection rate. Speed camera programs only survive because they are accompanied by massive PR and media campaigns, including astroturfing by speed camera contractors and corporate lobbying by photo enforcement companies. Most Americans have lived most of their lives without speed cameras and most states still do not have them. There is nothing radical about opposing speed cameras. It is the belief that we can only be safe with cameras watching our every move which is extreme.
Some reasons why many people oppose speed cameras include:
Some reasons why many people oppose speed cameras include:
- The right to face your accuser in court and cross examine witnesses is guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights. Speed cameras deny you this right because the accuser is a machine.
- Speed cameras are a form of mass surveillance over ordinary drivers. The government is forbidden from engaging in sweeping surveillance systems without warrants to look for offenders of crimes. Only DRIVERS, rather than career criminals, are currently considered bad enough by the state legislature to justify such a system. It is possible that the cameras, or the data they collect, could one day be used for purposes other than speed enforcement, which may already be happening.
- The lack of human oversight means that no one person will be held accountable if there are widespread errors.
- Since tickets are received weeks later, the accused has a very limited ability to gather evidence in their defense. This is particularly true of mobile cameras which may no longer be in the same location, or 'workzone cameras' where the location may have been substantially changed by the time the defendant becomes aware of the alleged offense.
- Tickets are issued to the owner of the vehicle even if they are not the driver. Fully a third of speed camera tickets are going to people who did not in fact commit the offense because someone else was driving at the time. The burden of proof is on the owner to identify the driver and give their drivers license number to the court.
- Ticket Recipients who need to challenge citations have their cases heard in an unfair court proceeding known as 'speed camera day' where dozens of defendants have their cases heard in assembly line manner. Because the burden of proof for speed camera tickets has been lowered below that of a criminal case, below even ordinary traffic violations, defendants are essentially 'guilty until proven innocent'. Judges have even told defendants things like '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." The government is free to present evidence without supporting witnesses, and defendants are found guilty even when they have proven that required operating procedures were not followed. Not only does this set a horrible legal precedent, and risk finding innocent people guilty, but it gives no incentive for the government agencies which are enforcing the law to obey the law themselves.
- The safety benefits of automated traffic enforcement systems have been mixed. Red light cameras have actually been proven to INCREASE accidents(see more studies). One study in the UK have shown that other forms of speed control, such as speed bumps and speed indicator signs are much more effective at reducing accidents. Another
In one case a Montgomery County town was found to have made claims about reductions in accidents which were found to be false when compared to their own monthly police reports. In Baltimore County, the police reported no reduction in accidents near speed camera sites.
- There are other (non-Orwellian) ways to reduce speeds, such as the use of radar speed signs, that are every bit as effective if not more so than speed cameras. Please see our page on ALTERNATIVES TO SPEED CAMERAS.
- Speed cameras do not remove the worst drivers from the roads the way a police officer can. Drunk drivers or a reckless criminal in a stolen vehicle, who might pose an immediate risk to pedestrians and other motorists, could ignore a speed camera completely. And since the current system issues no points for citations, a wealthy but extremely bad driver can receive dozens of speed camera tickets without losing their license, if they pay the fines.
- Speed cameras encourage erratic driving behavior. Drivers slow down as they approach the camera sites, then accelerate after they pass them. Cameras make some already safe drivers nervous. And enforcement which is too strict could have unintended consequences such as causing drivers to spend too much time looking at their speedometers rather than at the road.
- There have been many proven cases of speed cameras issuing tickets in error, in Arizona, New Mexico, the UK(1, 2, 3, 4), Australia. Montgomery County and Baltimore speed cameras have produced errors as well. In some locations such as Forest Heights where there have been numerous reports of errors the response has been only coverup and spin, rather than any honest investigation into the possibility of systematic errors. Disclosures by the town of Cheverly, which previously used the same type of camera as Forest Heights, further documented these . Even if driver believes they are innocent would need to spend days fighting one $40 ticket in court, and would probably not find it worthwhile to do so except as a matter of principle. In some extremely sad cases even a well prepared defendant might find themselves before the judge who has decided in advance that he will not allow any defense challenging the accuracy of the cameras: a scenario which is a total perversion of the principals of our justice system. A commercial driver could potentially be fired over an erroneous camera ticket issued to an employer-owned vehicle.
- The speed cameras are NOT operated by sworn police officers. Instead this is outsourced to a private company. For example, under Montgomery county's contract ACS receives a $16.25 per ticket commission from these cameras, despite the fact that this violates a provision of state law intended to forbid paying contractors based on the number of citations issued or paid. For a long time the county refused requests to release the full details of their contract with ACS to the public. Now most other speed camera programs in the state use similar arrangements(including most local programs in Prince George's County, Frederick City, and Baltimore City), turning over almost total control of the cameras and the ticket program to contractors who get paid a cut of every ticket. Per ticket commissions could encourage the contractor to cheat in order to maximize the number of tickets rather than safety, operate inaccurate cameras, or create barriers to legitimate ticket challenges. Essentially the contractor which generates the evidence used in court cases gets paid only if the defendant is found guilty, a clear conflict of interest. Moreover, the fact that local governments have circumvented this part of the law simply to guarantee a revenue stream brings into question whether ANY limitations will be respected. The US Public Interest Research Group issued a study cautioning on numerous dangers of privatizing law enforcement, including contingent fees and other contract arrangements that give contractors a motive to ticket safe drivers, and Maryland has become a perfect example of what they were cautioning about.
- These cameras are about REVENUE. Some local governments see them as a way to make big money off of passing motorists who do not know the camera locations the way local drivers do. Speed cameras are now a $77million industry in Maryland. Washington DC's speed and red light camera systems have issued 2,952,333 tickets worth $224 million as of July 31 2007. Most of that money has come from Maryland residents. Another prime example: the town of Forest Heights budgeted to bring in more gross revenue from speed camera tickets in FY2011 than the town's entire pre-speed camera budget in FY2010. At least one county executive openly admitted that the cameras are 'a tax', and one Chevy Chase Village council member once referred to speed camera money as "the crack cocaine of local government" as the town was searching for creative bookkeeping techniques to circumvent restrictions on speed camera money.
- Speed Cameras are magnets for corruption. Speed Camera Contractors lobbied heavily for statewide speed cameras, even buying lawmakers steak dinners. In Prince George's County, the county's speed camera contract was awarded to a company with questionable technology which had made substantial contributions to the county executive. Local governments have written funds into their budgets before camera locations were even selected. One town was found to have written their contract in such a way as to require the contractor to generate a profit. Other localities have bypassed restrictions on the use of funds. Many towns and cities in Maryland have even started creating new school zones solely for the purpose of deploying speed cameras, in one case even trying to lower speed limits just so they could issue more tickets. The desire for more public funds at any cost ignores the fact that using law enforcement for revenue generation is harmful to our justice system, creating a conflict of interest by the state against the accused. Future administrations may be encouraged to use overbearing tactics to increase revenues -- such as concealed cameras, deliberately lowering speed limits, deceptive or inadequate signs, or cameras placed immediately after the sign reducing the speed limit.
- Because of their revenue potential, speed cameras are used as a heavy handed substitute for sound engineering approaches which can be more effective than speed cameras at reducing drivers speeds.
- Speed cameras tend to encourage local governments to set speed limits artificially low to increase revenues INSTEAD OF basing them on the standard traffic engineering practices. Speed limits have specifically been lowered at speed camera sites in several towns including Brentwood, Mount Rainier, and Cheverly. Another example would be one camera in the City of Gaithersburg where, at the request of a ticket recipient, the SHA conducted a traffic study and concluded the 30mph speed limit was set 10mph too low, stating "Observations of the [speed] camera's impacts to traffic noted that motorists would brake significantly at each camera location, followed by accelerating immediately afterwards. This effect was most pronounced at the southbound camera, where motorists were observed frequently bunching together at the camera position. Given the recent installation of the cameras, quantifiable safety data is not yet available; but the current conditions may pose a more significant risk for rear-end and sideswipe conditions and, with speeds increasing immediately beyond the cameras, may not be achieving the desired safety benefits." Instead of accepting the SHA's judgment however, the city requested that the 30mph limit zone be EXTENDED to cover another portion of roadway, to southwards a point which happened to be just below camera site with a 35mph limit. Speed limits should be set according to sound engineering practices, NOT based on what will produce more ticket revenue from out of town drivers. Setting them too low turns law abiding citizens into lawbreakers and does not benefit safety.
- Speed cameras can contribute to traffic congestion. Cameras are typically placed without first performing a traffic study intended to confirm the speed limit and determine the effect on traffic patterns. the only study performed is typically done by camera vendor,s who get a cut of each ticket, to determine whether or not the site will make money. The fact that cameras are used to enforce speed limits much lower than standard traffic engineering practices would dictate creates a situation where drivers to slow down to well below the speed limit for the 100 yards near speed camera sites before speeding up again, a fact which is easily observable at many camera sites. In some locations in Montgomery County this contributes to traffic backups which dissipate immediately after the cameras. Montgomery County currently has the 4rth worst traffic congestion in the country and is well on its way to #1.
- The cameras Maryland has now are merely a "special introductory offer" which is NOTHING compared to what we will have in 4 or 5 years if left unchecked. Maryland's current system is actually very modest compared to systems in use in the UK, Arizona, and some other places. However, the fact that the state already tried to remove many restrictions on the system, and that local governments have already tried to interpret away provisions in the law, along with the revenue potential, makes it clear that the system will become much larger and more invasive in the future if it is left unchallenged. In fact speed cameras themselves are only the tip of the iceberg, some local officials have gone so far as to seriously propose mandating the installation of GPS tracking systems into every car so that they can tax you for every mile you drive. There is no limit to how far some would go to restrict your driving freedom and your legal rights in order to more easily extract money from you. The line should be drawn here and now.
What can YOU do?
If you do not approve of speed cameras being used in Maryland, here are several things you, as a concerned citizen, can do:
3) Contact your State Representatives and tell them that you do not wish to see restrictions on the use of speed cameras weakened, and that you oppose introducing them statewide and onto freeways. YOUR OWN WORDS ARE BEST, but you can use this sample Letter:
"Dear Delegate/Senator ____,
I am writing to you to express my opposition to speed cameras in the state of Maryland. I believe these devices are not appropriate for a free society which values privacy and civil liberties. They harm the legal presumption of innocence and the right of the accused to face a human accuser. Because they can be used for revenue generation, they are certain to be abused and used in increasingly aggressive and sneaky ways to maximize that revenue. This will create an environment which will make ordinary drivers uncomfortable.
In 2009, the legislature voted to authorize speed cameras statewide. Since then the system has been abused across the board. New School zones have been created solely for speed camera deployments, speed limits are being lowered in some towns, and restrictions on paying contractors a cut of every ticket are being circumvented. Some towns have even used cameras which are blatantly inaccurate or not operated in compliance with state law. The only agencies and organizations investigating the matter apparently get a cut of the profits.
I find this unacceptable, and believe that this deceptive and dishonest behavior by local officials at such an early stage demonstrates that we cannot trust that other important restrictions will be respected in the future.
I do not want to see legislation authorizing ANY expansion of photo enforcement of any kind. The speed camera law should be repealed, or else significant new restrictions and protections for due process rights should be added.
Sincerely, ________"
4) Write to your County Council or local City/Town Officials and tell them you don't want the cameras on the roads you drive every day.
You should not direct complaints, criticisms, or political objections to Police. Speed cameras are a political issue and police implement policy, they do not set policy. Also, the email or phone numbers listed for camera programs on citations or city websites are typically answered by the private contractors who run the cameras and collect a portion of the fines -- they will only provide a canned response and your complaint will never reach actual elected officials. Go to the local or county government website and write to them directly.
We also recommend writing to the State Highway Administration ( by EMAIL or by mail at 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202). Inform them that you oppose speed cameras and that you believe the SHA has failed to provide adequate oversight over local speed camera programs deploying cameras on state highways. Inform them you hold Governor O'Malley responsible for the integrity, and the lack thereof, of speed camera programs which he worked to authorize. The SHA bears some responsibility for cameras on state highways because it issued permits to the municipalities and has been actively promoting the use of speed cameras by local governments, by ignoring the effect of camera deployments on traffic congestion, and by ignoring the impact the cameras have on the rights of motorists.
You should NEVER tolerate an elected official forwarding letters criticizing their policy to police officers asking them to respond on their behalf (which does sometimes happen). If they do that call them out on it and tell them that your objections to the government's policy is a political issue not a police matter, and that it is the expectation that elected officials treat their constituents as citizens and taxpayers to be listened to, not as "violators" to be talked down to.
5) Speak out
Writing letters to the editor in you local papers, telling your own personal views and stories, is one way to get the message out to many other people.
Camera advocates use the term "safety" to deflect from the profit motives of the system. The safety benefits of these cameras have yet to be proven, and there are other less intrusive "traffic calming devices" which could be used instead. Camera advocates will try to suggest that anyone who opposes these cameras either opposes safety or just wants to be able to violate the law. However the Constitution is the highest law in theUS
8) If you get a ticket, fight it
If the ticket you received was the result of a blatant error, for example if it is not your car in the photo, the first thing you could try is to contact the police department issuing the citation. Note that in some previous cases complaints about obvious errors were ignored until the media got involved. However if you write to the city/county police and/or mayor and council, town administrator of the jurisdiction issuing such a ticket and whatever supporting evidence is appropriate, sometimes you can get a ticket dismissed without a hearing. Feel free to BCC StopBigBrother@gmail.com on such complaints, or to report such incidents to us. If you get a citation dismissed this way, try to get something in writing or check back later to confirm that the citation was in fact voided, believe it or not several people in such a situation reported to us that they had been told a citation was cleared up but in fact it was still on their record and in some cases got penalty or registration suspension notices. Trust but verify.
a) If you are seriously challenging a citation, you should plead NOT GUILTY. The court, the county, and its contractor may tell you a variety of lies or threats to try to persuade you to plea 'Guilty with Explanation'. 'Guilty with Explanation' means 'Guilty'. All it does is waive your right to due proceeds and *guarantee* you will be found guilty and have to pay a fine plus court costs. I cannot believe how many people go to 'speed camera day', plead 'guilty with explanation', tell the judge that they don't think speed cameras are fair, and then have to pay a fine plus court costs. Fighting a citation means fighting to win. Judges do not set public policy or decide where cameras are placed so 'venting' to them accomplishes nothing, and they do expect defendants to follow courtroom rules. If your purpose for being there is to make a complaint about cameras in general please see items 2, 3, and 4 above for the proper places to do that.
The only exception to this is if you are fighting 3 or more received in a very short period of time before the first ticket arrived in the mail (that is fairly common if a new camera goes up, especially in those cases where speed limits were lowered or cameras placed right near speed transition zones). Most judges will force you to pay the first ticket full price and reduce or dismiss all the others, which will reduce the total amount you need to pay. If you weren't the driver or don't know who was driving for all of the tickets try to support that.
b) If you go to court, they cannot increase the fines or place "points" on your driving record. They *can* charge you a maximum additional $22.50 in court costs. They *should not* do so if you are found not guilty. Cases are heard in the District Court in Silver Spring (regardless of where you live). Most people get reduced fines plus court costs and end up breaking even.
c) When the speed camera law was written, it was written to lower the standard of justice from "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" to "a preponderance of the evidence". This means that you will need to spend some time to come up with a credible argument to support your case. Basically in Maryland the lawmakers who approved speed cameras believe drivers should have none of the legal rights which murderers, rapists, and child molesters are entitled to.
d) Some drivers have been successful in proving errors by cameras using time-distance calculations. This has been particularly true of cameras run by several towns in Prince George's county, including Forest Heights. You need to know the time interval between the frames, then overlay the images to obtain an estimate of the distance traveled, using the length of your car for comparison. The formula you need to use is:
Feet Traveled = (MilePerHour * (5280 ft/Mile) / (3600 s/Minute)) * photo_interval_in_seconds
or alternately
MilePerHour = Feet Traveled * (3600 s/minute) / (photo_interval_in_seconds * 5280 ft/Mile)
The owner of a business in Forest Height has created a video describing how to create a composite image which can be used to challenge tickets issued by Forest Heights and other towns using Optotraffic cameras.
If the car was not fully in frame in the first (closer) image you should site this as additional evidence that the car had not traveled the expected distance in the period of time before the first photo was taken, meaning it . If asked to respond that you merely slowed down after the speed measurement or that your brakes were on, you should respond that the time before the first photo is take is very short, less than a second, and that you could not have decelerated in that time. If the prosecution argues that the timestamps are not exact, then you should state that a law enforcement device is supposed to be a piece of precision equipment, and that the timestamps are part of the chain of evidence. There is an expectation that the information recorded on the citations is accurate and if that is the case then the evidence produced by the machine should not be considered proof of guilt, and that the burden for providing verifiable proof is supposed to be on the accuser.
Also if the camera was close to a speed transition zone (a drop in the speed limit) you can additionally point out that even if claim that you had merely braked were true (although you do not accept that to be the case), it would show that you were in fact in the process of slowing down to comply with the reduced speed limit and that exceeding the speed limit for 1 second after the start of a reduced speed zone is not what rational people consider to be 'speeding', and that you should still be found not guilty in that case.
In some cases, citations are issued with timestamps that are only accurate to within 1 second. This will give an interval of either 1 second or 0 seconds, and it is NOT the actual photo interval. In this case it was rounded off, perhaps deliberately in order to prevent calculations like the ones above. If you believe you were not speeding and cannot obtain the "real" photo interval upon request (prior to your hearing!) you should argue that the timestamp was not accurate enough for verification purposes and as such the evidence against you should be inadmissible because it cannot be verified. (some defendants have been successful with this approach, but others were not).
e) The accused has a right to challenge the validity of the evidence. There are specific conditions called out in Transportation Article 21-809 regarding maintenance, calibration, and record keeping for the machines which the state is required to meet.
f) The law states that you need notify the court *20 days before the trial* if you want to have the "operator" appear in court. This is right after the paragraph which says that the operator is not *required* to go to court. However, if you request the operator be present and they do not send the operator, you should ask the judge to dismiss the case on that basis. Note that local governments have been trying to deny that they need to present the operator upon request , and have had some success in stripping YOU of this important right. Do not accept it. If you wish to question the operator you should be prepared to a) document that you sent your request b) present an argument that the state has not met the burden of proof if they do not present the operator upon request (contact us for some suggestions).
Depending on your defense you might not want to request the operator. If you have a particularly good defense, for example particularly strong evidence supports that the speed reading was in error, you might not want your case dismissed before you can present it. Also if you do request the operator, have some significant questions for them prepared about how the device was operated in case they do appear.
g) You have a right to request other data relevant to your defense (from the local government issuing the citation and/or the state highway administration). You will need to do this well in advance of your trial because it may take weeks to get the information you need. Examples of documents you might want to ask for may include :
- contract documents between the local government and their speed camera contractor
- technical specifications of the speed camera
- the annual calibration certificates for the camera along with the actual test procedure performed for the calibration
- documents showing the credentials of the "independent calibration lab" which issued the annual calibration certificates
- "daily setup logs" for the camera issuing the citation
- timecards for the operator signing the daily setup logs (to confirm they were working the day they 'signed' the logs, sometimes they were not!!! If they say there are no timecards or refuse to produce them, that is because they are hiding something!)
- Maintenance and/or Radar Service Logs for the day of, before, and after citation date
- the local law/ordinance which authorized the use of speed cameras and approved the camera contract
- The permit to use speed cameras on the road from the SHA or county which maintains the road, and the complete application for this permit
- the latest traffic studies for the location where the incident occurred validating the speed limit is correct (based on 85th percentile speed or other engineering standard).
- work orders for the addition of speed limit, 'photo enforced' or 'school zone' signs (to determine if, when, and where they were added).
Be aware that not all of the above records pertain to all types of cameras or all locations, it will require some research on your part. If they do not immediately turn over this information willingly, you should cite the Maryland Public Information Act, which gives you the right to have access to most public records from state and local governments. If you invoke the PIA:
- You are NOT obligated to provide the reason why you need these records.
- It is a violation of state law for them NOT to provide the records in question within 30 days or a valid reason why the records cannot be released (only a few reasons are considered valid).
- If they fail to provide the requested documents or state that they will charge you an excessive fee for doing so, request that response in writing and use their refusal/unreasonable demand as part of your defense (and we'd like to know about it too!)
H) EVEN IF YOU LOSE YOU WIN. The minute you decide to vigorously defend yourself the government stops making money off your ticket and starts losing money. The more questions you ask before your hearing, the more true this will be. We also get much of our information from people who are fighting tickets, and when the truth about violations of the law by authorities or camera companies gets out it can cost them more in terms of PR than thousands of tickets are worth.
We would definitely like to hear from anyone who either has or is planning to seriously challenge speed camera citations in court. We have some information which is not commonly known which we can share -- information we learn from people fighting tickets -- so please contact us..
Disclaimer: the content of this Blog and any referenced documents should not be treated as legal advice or as a substitute for legal counsel.
1) Join Us
Contact us if you want to help or if you want to be added to our mailing list. We are looking for people to improve this site by supplying TIPS, additional content and information, or photos. Getting information and help from people like you is critical to our efforts.
Also please 'Like' our FACEBOOK page and follow us there.
2) Support The NMA
You might also consider joining or making a donation to the National Motorists Association, which is the only nationwide organization dedicated to protecting driver's rights and fighting photo-enforcement.
Certain other "motorist groups" often speak about speed cameras to the press for public relations reasons, but their real business is as an insurance company and/or travel agency. When push comes to shove regarding photo enforcement legislation they will treat motorist rights as a bargaining chip which they fully intend to give away the first time they are offered some shiny bauble. Accept no imitations: a one year NMA membership costs less than a single speed camera citation, and the more members they have in Maryland the more they can do to fight for drivers' rights here.
Contact us if you want to help or if you want to be added to our mailing list. We are looking for people to improve this site by supplying TIPS, additional content and information, or photos. Getting information and help from people like you is critical to our efforts.
Also please 'Like' our FACEBOOK page and follow us there.
2) Support The NMA
You might also consider joining or making a donation to the National Motorists Association, which is the only nationwide organization dedicated to protecting driver's rights and fighting photo-enforcement.
Certain other "motorist groups" often speak about speed cameras to the press for public relations reasons, but their real business is as an insurance company and/or travel agency. When push comes to shove regarding photo enforcement legislation they will treat motorist rights as a bargaining chip which they fully intend to give away the first time they are offered some shiny bauble. Accept no imitations: a one year NMA membership costs less than a single speed camera citation, and the more members they have in Maryland the more they can do to fight for drivers' rights here.
3) Contact your State Representatives and tell them that you do not wish to see restrictions on the use of speed cameras weakened, and that you oppose introducing them statewide and onto freeways. YOUR OWN WORDS ARE BEST, but you can use this sample Letter:
"Dear Delegate/Senator ____,
I am writing to you to express my opposition to speed cameras in the state of Maryland. I believe these devices are not appropriate for a free society which values privacy and civil liberties. They harm the legal presumption of innocence and the right of the accused to face a human accuser. Because they can be used for revenue generation, they are certain to be abused and used in increasingly aggressive and sneaky ways to maximize that revenue. This will create an environment which will make ordinary drivers uncomfortable.
In 2009, the legislature voted to authorize speed cameras statewide. Since then the system has been abused across the board. New School zones have been created solely for speed camera deployments, speed limits are being lowered in some towns, and restrictions on paying contractors a cut of every ticket are being circumvented. Some towns have even used cameras which are blatantly inaccurate or not operated in compliance with state law. The only agencies and organizations investigating the matter apparently get a cut of the profits.
I find this unacceptable, and believe that this deceptive and dishonest behavior by local officials at such an early stage demonstrates that we cannot trust that other important restrictions will be respected in the future.
I do not want to see legislation authorizing ANY expansion of photo enforcement of any kind. The speed camera law should be repealed, or else significant new restrictions and protections for due process rights should be added.
Sincerely, ________"
4) Write to your County Council or local City/Town Officials and tell them you don't want the cameras on the roads you drive every day.
You should not direct complaints, criticisms, or political objections to Police. Speed cameras are a political issue and police implement policy, they do not set policy. Also, the email or phone numbers listed for camera programs on citations or city websites are typically answered by the private contractors who run the cameras and collect a portion of the fines -- they will only provide a canned response and your complaint will never reach actual elected officials. Go to the local or county government website and write to them directly.
We also recommend writing to the State Highway Administration ( by EMAIL or by mail at 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202). Inform them that you oppose speed cameras and that you believe the SHA has failed to provide adequate oversight over local speed camera programs deploying cameras on state highways. Inform them you hold Governor O'Malley responsible for the integrity, and the lack thereof, of speed camera programs which he worked to authorize. The SHA bears some responsibility for cameras on state highways because it issued permits to the municipalities and has been actively promoting the use of speed cameras by local governments, by ignoring the effect of camera deployments on traffic congestion, and by ignoring the impact the cameras have on the rights of motorists.
You should NEVER tolerate an elected official forwarding letters criticizing their policy to police officers asking them to respond on their behalf (which does sometimes happen). If they do that call them out on it and tell them that your objections to the government's policy is a political issue not a police matter, and that it is the expectation that elected officials treat their constituents as citizens and taxpayers to be listened to, not as "violators" to be talked down to.
5) Speak out
Writing letters to the editor in you local papers, telling your own personal views and stories, is one way to get the message out to many other people.
Camera advocates use the term "safety" to deflect from the profit motives of the system. The safety benefits of these cameras have yet to be proven, and there are other less intrusive "traffic calming devices" which could be used instead. Camera advocates will try to suggest that anyone who opposes these cameras either opposes safety or just wants to be able to violate the law. However the Constitution is the highest law in the
6) VOTE THEM OUT
In 2009 Maryland Lawmakers voted to authorize the statewide use of speed cameras.
See how your representatives voted on statewide speed cameras here!!!
Unfortunately most of the state and county officials who voted for cameras are safe until 2014. We hate to say it but anyone who didn't vote in 2010 when they had the chance is going to get the government they deserve.
There will be elections in many municipalities before then, check with your local board of elections. Also, if you've gotten a ticket, consider making a "matching contribution" to a lawmaker that opposed speed cameras.
See how your representatives voted on statewide speed cameras here!!!
Unfortunately most of the state and county officials who voted for cameras are safe until 2014. We hate to say it but anyone who didn't vote in 2010 when they had the chance is going to get the government they deserve.
There will be elections in many municipalities before then, check with your local board of elections. Also, if you've gotten a ticket, consider making a "matching contribution" to a lawmaker that opposed speed cameras.
7) Don’t feed the monster!
It has been demonstrated in other areas that when automated ticket revenues dry up, the cameras disappear as well. You can prevent the government and their contractors from making a profit off of you by:
- Learn the locations of red light and speed cameras in the areas you drive. In Maryland these locations are required to be posted online, and there are now commercial databases for GPS units and IPhones which attempt to catalog photo enforcement locations.
- Stay alert. If you see “Photo enforced” signs, take their word for it and watch your speed closely.
- Don’t speed. Currently, in Maryland, cameras are triggered at 12mph over the limit. However margins are lower in DC, and remember that your speed will tend to drift up when you’re not watching the speedometer closely, and cameras are often placed short distances after a drop in the speed limit.
- Make sure you don’t end up paying late fees, they make out big $$$ if you do. If the timeframe they try to force you to pay or challenge a citation in is not reasonable you should fight this.
- If you do pay a ticket, do NOT pay service charges. The payment websites ( www.montgomerycountymd.gov/safespeedpay, www.public.cite-web.com, www.onlinecitationpayment.com, etc) usually tack on a service charge of $2-$3.5. That's additional profit straight into the camera company's pocket. Paying by check will instead force them expend the cost of having human handle the payment.
8) If you get a ticket, fight it
The following applies to Maryland speed camera citations. The situation, laws, and points of contact will be different in other states and DC.
If the ticket you received was the result of a blatant error, for example if it is not your car in the photo, the first thing you could try is to contact the police department issuing the citation. Note that in some previous cases complaints about obvious errors were ignored until the media got involved. However if you write to the city/county police and/or mayor and council, town administrator of the jurisdiction issuing such a ticket and whatever supporting evidence is appropriate, sometimes you can get a ticket dismissed without a hearing. Feel free to BCC StopBigBrother@gmail.com on such complaints, or to report such incidents to us. If you get a citation dismissed this way, try to get something in writing or check back later to confirm that the citation was in fact voided, believe it or not several people in such a situation reported to us that they had been told a citation was cleared up but in fact it was still on their record and in some cases got penalty or registration suspension notices. Trust but verify.
If you receive a speed camera citation, you have a right to request a court hearing. Fighting citations in court is time consuming, and almost everyone chooses to pay the $40 rather than spend a day in court. Plus the odds will be seriously stacked against you at District Court "Speed Camera Day" where they judge's purpose is to hand out assembly line "Guilty" verdicts NOT to provide due process or justice. The burden of proof will be on YOU, not on the accuser where it is supposed to be. However despite the challenges and the likelihood that you will not be better off financially Challenging unjust citations is a civic duty. You should ALWAYS fight a ticket if you believe it was issued in error or the driver was really not speeding. Being a 'submitizen' does not make you a 'good citizen' since it rewards incompetence and/or corruption and will only make matters worse. Specific reasons why you might wish to fight a ticket include when:
- There were other vehicles in the citation images, meaning the violation may have been improperly assigned to you
- You were not driving the vehicle
- Signs in the area were obstructed, missing, or non standard
- Multiple tickets were received in a short period of time
- You didn’t receive the citation in a timely manner (2 weeks for Maryland residents, 30 days for out of state drivers is the legal requirement. Note: look at the postmarks and SAVE THE ENVELOPE it came in)
- You believe proper procedures were not followed
- The ticket was issued by one of the jurisdictions which as been a particularly bad actor, such as Forest Heights, or where there has been a history of errors.
- You really really want to
If you choose to challenge a Speed Camera citation in court, you should know:
a) If you are seriously challenging a citation, you should plead NOT GUILTY. The court, the county, and its contractor may tell you a variety of lies or threats to try to persuade you to plea 'Guilty with Explanation'. 'Guilty with Explanation' means 'Guilty'. All it does is waive your right to due proceeds and *guarantee* you will be found guilty and have to pay a fine plus court costs. I cannot believe how many people go to 'speed camera day', plead 'guilty with explanation', tell the judge that they don't think speed cameras are fair, and then have to pay a fine plus court costs. Fighting a citation means fighting to win. Judges do not set public policy or decide where cameras are placed so 'venting' to them accomplishes nothing, and they do expect defendants to follow courtroom rules. If your purpose for being there is to make a complaint about cameras in general please see items 2, 3, and 4 above for the proper places to do that.
The only exception to this is if you are fighting 3 or more received in a very short period of time before the first ticket arrived in the mail (that is fairly common if a new camera goes up, especially in those cases where speed limits were lowered or cameras placed right near speed transition zones). Most judges will force you to pay the first ticket full price and reduce or dismiss all the others, which will reduce the total amount you need to pay. If you weren't the driver or don't know who was driving for all of the tickets try to support that.
b) If you go to court, they cannot increase the fines or place "points" on your driving record. They *can* charge you a maximum additional $22.50 in court costs. They *should not* do so if you are found not guilty. Cases are heard in the District Court in Silver Spring (regardless of where you live). Most people get reduced fines plus court costs and end up breaking even.
c) When the speed camera law was written, it was written to lower the standard of justice from "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" to "a preponderance of the evidence". This means that you will need to spend some time to come up with a credible argument to support your case. Basically in Maryland the lawmakers who approved speed cameras believe drivers should have none of the legal rights which murderers, rapists, and child molesters are entitled to.
d) Some drivers have been successful in proving errors by cameras using time-distance calculations. This has been particularly true of cameras run by several towns in Prince George's county, including Forest Heights. You need to know the time interval between the frames, then overlay the images to obtain an estimate of the distance traveled, using the length of your car for comparison. The formula you need to use is:
Feet Traveled = (MilePerHour * (5280 ft/Mile) / (3600 s/Minute)) * photo_interval_in_seconds
or alternately
MilePerHour = Feet Traveled * (3600 s/minute) / (photo_interval_in_seconds * 5280 ft/Mile)
The owner of a business in Forest Height has created a video describing how to create a composite image which can be used to challenge tickets issued by Forest Heights and other towns using Optotraffic cameras.
If the car was not fully in frame in the first (closer) image you should site this as additional evidence that the car had not traveled the expected distance in the period of time before the first photo was taken, meaning it . If asked to respond that you merely slowed down after the speed measurement or that your brakes were on, you should respond that the time before the first photo is take is very short, less than a second, and that you could not have decelerated in that time. If the prosecution argues that the timestamps are not exact, then you should state that a law enforcement device is supposed to be a piece of precision equipment, and that the timestamps are part of the chain of evidence. There is an expectation that the information recorded on the citations is accurate and if that is the case then the evidence produced by the machine should not be considered proof of guilt, and that the burden for providing verifiable proof is supposed to be on the accuser.
Also if the camera was close to a speed transition zone (a drop in the speed limit) you can additionally point out that even if claim that you had merely braked were true (although you do not accept that to be the case), it would show that you were in fact in the process of slowing down to comply with the reduced speed limit and that exceeding the speed limit for 1 second after the start of a reduced speed zone is not what rational people consider to be 'speeding', and that you should still be found not guilty in that case.
In some cases, citations are issued with timestamps that are only accurate to within 1 second. This will give an interval of either 1 second or 0 seconds, and it is NOT the actual photo interval. In this case it was rounded off, perhaps deliberately in order to prevent calculations like the ones above. If you believe you were not speeding and cannot obtain the "real" photo interval upon request (prior to your hearing!) you should argue that the timestamp was not accurate enough for verification purposes and as such the evidence against you should be inadmissible because it cannot be verified. (some defendants have been successful with this approach, but others were not).
e) The accused has a right to challenge the validity of the evidence. There are specific conditions called out in Transportation Article 21-809 regarding maintenance, calibration, and record keeping for the machines which the state is required to meet.
f) The law states that you need notify the court *20 days before the trial* if you want to have the "operator" appear in court. This is right after the paragraph which says that the operator is not *required* to go to court. However, if you request the operator be present and they do not send the operator, you should ask the judge to dismiss the case on that basis. Note that local governments have been trying to deny that they need to present the operator upon request , and have had some success in stripping YOU of this important right. Do not accept it. If you wish to question the operator you should be prepared to a) document that you sent your request b) present an argument that the state has not met the burden of proof if they do not present the operator upon request (contact us for some suggestions).
Depending on your defense you might not want to request the operator. If you have a particularly good defense, for example particularly strong evidence supports that the speed reading was in error, you might not want your case dismissed before you can present it. Also if you do request the operator, have some significant questions for them prepared about how the device was operated in case they do appear.
g) You have a right to request other data relevant to your defense (from the local government issuing the citation and/or the state highway administration). You will need to do this well in advance of your trial because it may take weeks to get the information you need. Examples of documents you might want to ask for may include :
- contract documents between the local government and their speed camera contractor
- technical specifications of the speed camera
- the annual calibration certificates for the camera along with the actual test procedure performed for the calibration
- documents showing the credentials of the "independent calibration lab" which issued the annual calibration certificates
- "daily setup logs" for the camera issuing the citation
- timecards for the operator signing the daily setup logs (to confirm they were working the day they 'signed' the logs, sometimes they were not!!! If they say there are no timecards or refuse to produce them, that is because they are hiding something!)
- Maintenance and/or Radar Service Logs for the day of, before, and after citation date
- the local law/ordinance which authorized the use of speed cameras and approved the camera contract
- The permit to use speed cameras on the road from the SHA or county which maintains the road, and the complete application for this permit
- the latest traffic studies for the location where the incident occurred validating the speed limit is correct (based on 85th percentile speed or other engineering standard).
- work orders for the addition of speed limit, 'photo enforced' or 'school zone' signs (to determine if, when, and where they were added).
Be aware that not all of the above records pertain to all types of cameras or all locations, it will require some research on your part. If they do not immediately turn over this information willingly, you should cite the Maryland Public Information Act, which gives you the right to have access to most public records from state and local governments. If you invoke the PIA:
- You are NOT obligated to provide the reason why you need these records.
- It is a violation of state law for them NOT to provide the records in question within 30 days or a valid reason why the records cannot be released (only a few reasons are considered valid).
- If they fail to provide the requested documents or state that they will charge you an excessive fee for doing so, request that response in writing and use their refusal/unreasonable demand as part of your defense (and we'd like to know about it too!)
H) EVEN IF YOU LOSE YOU WIN. The minute you decide to vigorously defend yourself the government stops making money off your ticket and starts losing money. The more questions you ask before your hearing, the more true this will be. We also get much of our information from people who are fighting tickets, and when the truth about violations of the law by authorities or camera companies gets out it can cost them more in terms of PR than thousands of tickets are worth.
We would definitely like to hear from anyone who either has or is planning to seriously challenge speed camera citations in court. We have some information which is not commonly known which we can share -- information we learn from people fighting tickets -- so please contact us..
Disclaimer: the content of this Blog and any referenced documents should not be treated as legal advice or as a substitute for legal counsel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
