California Red Light Camera Tickets Controversies Across America From their inception as law enforcement instruments for red light runners, Red Light Cameras have been under the gun. Many believe that it is an infringement of our privacy rights; while others purport that if were in a public street, were fair game. Some may feel this is simply city politics and a money making scheme; others believe it is truly saving lives. While most cities cite "safety" as the main reason for installing Red Light Cameras, there are some interesting facts that point to less altruistic purposes. For example, ACS and its predecessor, Lockheed Martin IMS paid the Pennsylvania state's most prominent lobbyist $175,000 to promote pro-Red Light Camera legislation and other company interests in Harrisburg. They also funded an "independent" safety-advocacy organization that testified on behalf of the cameras before the Philadelphia City Council. Through ACS and Lockheed employees, more than $75,000 was contributed to Governor Rendells election campaign; $55,000 to Mayor Streets campaign and ACS hired a former member of Philadelphia city government. These efforts bore fruit when the City Hall legalized a three-year pilot program of Red Light Cameras. Oddly, stipulated within the new legislation, the Red Light Cameras "must be 35-millimeter film only." This wouldn't seem a very big deal, unless it was known that almost every vendor of Red Light Cameras has switched over to digital-video cameras, leaving ACS as one of the only vendors still offering Red Light Cameras with "wet film." Digital technology is typically regarded as cheaper and more reliable, though proponents of "wet film" (regularly processed 35-millimeter film) say it provides clearer images. Still, the fact that ACS is the only provider of this outdated process seems suspect, at best. "That's unusual, exceedingly rare," said George Frangos, who oversees one of the nations leading Red-Light Camera programs in Howard County, MD. "It sounds like a little lobbying going on. If you're starting up a new system, it makes no sense to go with wet film." While the "wet film" legislation definitely takes many of the players out of the bidding game, Richard Dickson, the Parking Authority official who is overseeing the Philadelphia program, sites two reasons that wet film is preferred, "Privacy concerns. Digital cameras can be controlled remotely, to be used improperly as surveillance devices. And, better photograph resolution. Wet film is clearer, allowing more accurate reading of license plates." Jim Irvin, director of public works in Howard County says, "Digital is the way to go. We started off with wet film, but were changing to digital because its more functional." He and others have noted that wet film systems are much more costly in the long run as they require an actual person to physically change the film in the camera every day. Plus, that film has to be processed Ö another ongoing expense. Add that to the fact that the concerns with digital tampering and resolution issues with video have been improved upon greatly in the past few years and you have an even stranger case for using the newest technology. (http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/bigpicture.html) Another key issue of contention with the Red Light Cameras is that they are often installed in highly traveled intersections and highly traveled intersections with short yellow lights, but not necessarily in the most dangerous intersections. If safety is truly the intention of these cameras, wouldn't the cities put them in the places that most red light running occurs? City of San Diego No municipality has seen more controversy and profits than this city with a bay. Red-light cameras were inaugurated in San Diego in 1996, but the program was suspended in 2001 amid criticism about the way it was operated. Red Light Cameras were on trial for photographs of thousands of motorists. With the $271 fine per citation, more than $7 million was funneled into city coffers and about $2 million was paid to contractor Lockheed Martin IMS, operator of the Cameras in San Diego. The ticketed drivers filed a class action suit, claiming that Lockheed Martin IMS altered the sensors and chose intersections with yellow light intervals that were shorter than the law required. The lawsuit contended that this was done to illicit the maximum number of drivers who could be ticketed, thus insuring the largest possible revenue from the Red Light Cameras. (http://www.few.com) Two attorneys, representing nearly 300 motorists in San Diego, took on the system and won. Arthur Tait and Coleen Casuak forced the city to pull the plug on all nineteen red light cameras after they uncovered evidence that the red light camera unit was being manipulated to entrap motorists. Utilizing the Right to Discovery law, the lawsuit forced the company which operates the devices to release over 5,000 pages of confidential documents about the program. These documents revealed that safety was never the primary consideration. In fact, none of the Red Light Camera units were placed at any of San Diego's top-ten most dangerous intersections. Instead, the documents explain how the camera operators consciously sought out mistimed intersections as locations for new Red Light Camera units. California Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Styn ruled that the City of San Diego violated state law by failing to exercise enough control over the private company-Lockheed Martin-that operates its red light camera program. The court held that, "Vehicle Code Section 21455.6 enables a city to enter into a contract with a private entity for the 'use of the system,' but not for the operation of the system. The automated enforcement system must be operated by a governmental agency. ÖIn this case, the actions of the City do not satisfy the plain meaning of the word 'operate.' The City has no involvement with, nor supervision over, the ongoing operation of the system." In re: Red Light Camera Cases, People vs. John Allen, et.al. (Super. Ct. San Diego County, 2001, No. 57927SD). The Judge dismissed hundreds of red-light traffic tickets saying the cameras were legal, but that the contractor was given too much control over how they were set up. The council voted to restart the program with changes. For the new program, the city has added rearview cameras to picture the back of the vehicle as well as to strengthen the evidence of violations. The city will also give drivers greater warning by lengthening yellow-light intervals to at least 3.9 seconds for traffic moving straight through an intersection, and 3.4 seconds for left turns. Under the revised contract, the city will pay the contractor a flat fee for each camera site, a move aimed at fixing the perceived conflict of interest under the old program, when the contractor received a cut of every, then-$271, fine. The city will keep $143 from each citation and the state gets $178. The new camera vendor, Affiliated Computer Services Inc., will be paid $56,000 annually per intersection, not a percentage of the fines. The city let motorists off with a warning if they were caught in the first 30 days of operation of any given camera site. Citations now carry a stiff $325+ fine. Los Angeles County In Los Angeles, a Red Light Camera installed at Whittier and Atlantic in 2000 was found to have shot pictures of drivers in the intersection one-half second too soon. That timing error will cost the county a minimum of $500,000. Over 3,000 erroneous citations were sent out. Of those; 2,014 resulted in convictions, 246 were dismissed and 758 still remain in court. A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge granted the county permission to set aside the 2,014 convictions and return the fines to the drivers. Ken Pellman of the Department of Public Works said, "This was a human error. "It was not a malfunction with the system." Either way, the mistimed yellow interval light triggered events more costly than just returning the citation money. The county is planning to assist drivers in correcting their DMV reports and will provide claim forms in English and Spanish so the drivers may recover costs in excess of the initial citation. Lost work, traffic school, increased insurance premiums, etc. would all fall into those claims. City of Cerritos The city council authorized the implementation of the three-year pilot program in 2001 for automated traffic signal enforcement and citation processing. The Council awarded the contract to Nestor Traffic Systems. For each $325+ citation paid, the city receives $110 and Nestor nets $78 for operating the equipment. The balance of $132 goes to the Los Angeles country Sheriffs Department. City of Long Beach Long Beach also utilizes the services of Nestor Traffic Systems. At press time, three intersections in Long Beach are using the automated system: Redondo Avenue and 7th Street, activated on November 26, 2001; Bellflower Boulevard and Willow Street, activated on December 10, 2001; Cherry Avenue and Artesia Boulevard, activated on February 26, 2002, and other intersections are being considered for future installation. Long Beach Police and their vendor have the option of discarding tickets when red light runners are caught on camera. In December 2002, the units caught 1,691 people running red lights but they only issued 531 citation, or about 31 percent. Below are the most common reasons for discarding a citation: • Driver not visible in picture: 431 • No driver license found: 198 • Lane change obstructed camera view: 159 • Required elements missing: 122 • Plate illegible: 57 • No license plate: 55 • Out-of-state vehicles: 50 • Licensed driver doesn't match video: 41 • Officer directing traffic: 14 • Signal head unreadable: 8 • Plate obstructed: 7 • Vehicle obstructed: 7 • Emergency vehicles: 5 • Other: 3 • Rental vehicle: 0 • Funeral procession: 1 Source: Long Beach Press Telegram

Home Red Light Camera Violation Red Light Camera Vendors Who's Who Fight Camera Ticket in Court Red Light Camera Controversies Links