NMA Alerts & E-Newsletters

NMA E-Newsletter #222: 2013 First Quarter Legislative Update

2013-04-15T15:33:49Z

The NMA continues to advocate for motorists’ rights at the national, state and local level. Legislatures across the country took up a broad range of motorists’ issues in the first quarter of 2013. Here’s a brief summary of the driving-related issues we addressed.

California:

Opposed Assembly Bill 666 which would strip crucial due process rights from drivers who receive red-light camera tickets. The bill is under consideration in the Assembly transportation and judicial committees.

In addition, the NMA supported citizen efforts to remove red-light cameras from Hayward. The Hayward City Council subsequently voted to end the program at the earliest possible opportunity.

Colorado:

Supported Senate Bill 13-035 which would have banned photo enforcement throughout the state. The proposal was killed in committee.

Connecticut:

Supported portions of House Bill 5553 which would raise the maximum speed limit from 65 mph to 75 mph, but would also increase speeding fines by 15 percent. The bill received a hearing in the Joint Transportation Committee but has had no action since.

Florida:

Supported Senate Bill 1342 which would provide important due process protections for drivers who receive red-light camera tickets. It would also ban camera tickets for right-turns-on-red and mandate longer yellow-light durations. Note that these two key provisions were stripped out of the original bill. The revised bill passed the Senate Transportation Committee and awaits further review in an appropriations subcommittee. The House version of this bill, House Bill 1061, still contains these important protections and is working its way through the committee process as well.

Indiana:

Opposed House Bill 1368 which would authorize the use of speed cameras by local communities as well as in highway work zones. The bill is working its way through the House Committee on Roads and Transportation.

Maryland:

Supported House Bill 251 which called for a complete ban on the use of speed cameras throughout the state. The bill was killed in committee. The Maryland House of Delegates also considered a host of bills related to traffic camera reforms. For more information visit the Maryland Drivers Alliance website.

Massachusetts:

In January, Massachusetts lawmakers filed a variety of bills related to motorists’ issues in preparation for the two-year legislative session. Key measures include H.3175 which would raise the highway speed limit to 70 mph, as well as bills to regulate the use of automated license plate readers and to allow the use of ticket cameras. Most measures are awaiting action in committee. For a list of relevant bills, click here.

Minnesota:

Opposed House File 487 and Senate File 377 which would have authorized local communities to use red-light cameras. In conjunction with ABATE of Minnesota, the NMA provided testimony for the Senate and House transportation committee hearings. Both committees overwhelmingly rejected their respective bills.

New Hampshire:

Supported House Bill 146 which authorized a 70 mph speed limit on a stretch of Interstate 93. The bill passed the House and has successfully passed through the Senate Transportation Committee.

South Dakota:

Opposed House Bill 1080 which would have added speeding tickets into the mix of violations that would accumulate points on a driving record. The bill was killed in the House Transportation Committee.

Pennsylvania:

Opposed House Bill 14 which would allow speed cameras in highway work zones. Also opposed House Bill 38, which would allow local police agencies to use radar speed enforcement. Both bills are under consideration in the House Transportation Committee.

Virginia:

Opposed House Bill 1907 which dramatically increased fines for texting while driving. The measure subsequently passed both houses and was signed into law by Governor McDonnell.

Thanks to the many NMA members who volunteered their time to send emails, write letters, make phone calls, and work with policymakers and media outlets on these important issues.
If you’re not signed up to receive legislative alerts but would like to, use the “Choose Your NMA E-Subscriptions” link in the sidebar of this email.

If you drive several thousand highway miles each year, for business and/or recreationally, we’d like to get your opinion via email. If you have used one of the current mobile apps (Trapster, Waze, Escort Live, PhantomAlert) that provide warnings about red-light and speed cameras, reduced speed zones, and other obstacles/enforcement actions, all the better. This won’t take up more than five to ten minutes of your time and will be of great value to us. If you are interested in participating, please send an email referencing “highway mobile app” to gary@motorists.org.

NMA North Carolina Alert: Bill Would Increase Maximum Speed Limit to 75 mph

2013-04-08T17:03:21Z

The North Carolina General Assembly is set to take up a bill that would allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation to increase the speed limit on certain Interstate highways to 75 mph.

Senate Bill 709 would authorize transportation officials to increase speed limits based on traffic and engineering studies. The NMA supports setting speed limits based on sound engineering principles that consider responsible motorists’ actual travel speeds. (Learn more about how speed limits should be set.) Setting speed limits this way decreases accidents and improves traffic flow, which are the goals of this legislation.

S 709 has been assigned to the Senate Transportation Committee. Now is the time to contact the committee members to let them know what you think.

NMA E-Newsletter #221: Administrative Hearings Deny Motorists Due Process

2013-04-07T12:00:00Z

Photo ticket profiteers will stop at nothing to discourage motorists from fighting and beating unfair camera tickets. Their latest ploy comes in the form of California Assembly Bill 666, which would require ticket camera cases to be heard in administrative hearings, not in real courts of law.

This change would effectively deny motorists key due process rights (such as the right to discovery and to confront witnesses) and further stack the deck in favor of those who benefit from camera revenue. For more information on the insidious nature of administrative hearings, check out E-newsletter #219: Resistance is not Futile.

To illustrate the true impact of a bill like AB 666, let’s look at what can happen when a camera-ticket recipient exercises his due process rights in a court of law.

Gant Bloom received a red-light camera ticket in St. Louis and decided to defend himself in court. He did not deny that the image of his car had been captured by the ticket camera, but because he did not receive the ticket until several weeks later, he could not honestly determine whether he or his girlfriend was driving the car at the time.

Bloom’s opening statement included a summary of his strategy: “I decided it just wasn’t fair for me to admit guilt to something I didn’t even know if I did or not. The only physical evidence that the prosecution is going to show you is that it was my car running through a red light. That I don’t deny. I don’t believe the City can satisfy this court that it was me who committed that crime. And furthermore, I intend to demonstrate reasonable doubt that it was me driving that day.”

Bloom’s girlfriend testified that the two of them had conferred and could not determine who was driving at the time of the alleged violation. The prosecuting attorney spent several minutes questioning a representative of American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and the local police officer who reviewed the citation to establish a foundation for what the photo evidence proved, in addition to how that evidence was collected, reviewed, and ultimately resulted in a ticket. In contrast, Bloom, who isn’t an attorney, asked only one question of the ATS employee and three questions of the officer.

His logic was elegant and simple, and points out the fallacy of red-light cameras as a fair means of enforcing intersection traffic regulations.

Bloom asked the ATS employee, “Sir, is there any way (for the cameras) to tell who was driving the car at the time of the violation?” The answer was, “No, there isn’t.”

Bloom then asked the police officer if he would attempt to identify the driver during an in-person traffic stop for running a red light. The answer was affirmative.

Next Bloom asked if the officer would issue a ticket if he wasn’t able to identify the driver. The officer responded, “No, if I couldn’t identify the driver, I wouldn’t issue a ticket.”

Blooms’ final question for the officer: “If you pulled a car over and found out it was a different driver than who was the registered owner of the car, would you issue a citation to the car, to the registered owner who is not driving, or would you issue the citation to whoever was driving the car?” The answer, of course, from the officer was that he would ticket the driver.

The judge found in favor of Bloom and charged court costs to the City of St. Louis. For an entertaining read, you can find the full courtroom transcript atwww.tinyurl.com/camtranscript.

Bloom’s defense and the judge’s decision drew the critical distinction between a presumption of innocence and a presumption of guilt. Bloom prevailed in a court of justice, something that would not have been possible in an administrative hearing where those pesky due process rights are routinely quashed.

In California alone there are thousands of motorists charged with unfair traffic violations who, for now, have the opportunity to defend themselves. Curtailing their due process rights through administrative hearings would make it nearly impossible for them to do so. Here’s why:

Even if the vehicle owner wasn’t driving and doesn’t know who was, he is still responsible for paying the fine.
No additional evidence beyond the ticket itself is needed for a conviction.
The defendant will not have the right to confront the witnesses against him.
The defendant will not have the right to request discovery in order build a defense.

AB 666 is just one example of the further assault on drivers’ rights. In New York City, administrative hearings are already the norm for traffic violations. If AB 666 is enacted, count on state lawmakers around the country, urged on by their camera company conspirators, to introduce similar bills in their own states.

NMA Pennsylvania Alert: Stop Red-Light Cameras in Abington Township

2013-04-05T15:53:48Z

You can still fight to keep red-light cameras out of your community. Plan to attend the upcoming Abington Township Meeting and tell the supervisors to ban cameras in Abington!

April 11, 2013, at 8:00 PM
Abington Township Municipal Building
1776 Old York Road, Abingtion, PA

Red-light cameras do not increase intersection safety and are nothing more than a money grab for the camera companies and the municipalities that employ them.

Go to the NMA website for unbiased information about the dangers of red-light cameras and learn the right way to make intersections safer.

NMA E-Newsletter #220: An Insider Speaks Out about Red-Light Cameras

2013-03-31T12:00:00Z

Editor's Note: A few weeks ago, Ken Burke, the County Clerk of Circuit Courts in Pinellas County, Florida, wrote a letter to the Mayor of St. Petersburg detailing his many concerns over the city’s red-light camera program. The letter created quite a stir, and we applaud Mr. Burke for speaking out. Given his “insider” status, his observations are worth noting. We’ve reprinted his letter in its entirety.

February 20, 2013

The Honorable Bill Foster
Mayor, City of St. Petersburg
175 5th Street N
St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Dear Mayor Foster,

Since the inception of the Red Light Camera Violation program, the Clerk's office has received a significant amount of inquiries from citizens who have received these violations. Many of these citizens have correctly pointed out flaws in the statute which create an unfair process.

Citizens are resentful because of this. Although red light camera violations may represent a minority of the traffic cases received by this office from law enforcement agencies, the amount of time spent with citizens dealing with issues deriving from this flawed statute is clearly disproportionate. These citizens are upset with the poor communication, insufficient information, and resulting unfair penalties. During a normal, non red light camera traffic stop, the driver of the vehicle is identified using the driver's license. The driver acknowledges receiving the traffic citation by signing the bottom of the citation. If there is a disagreement with the citation, the driver contacts the Clerk's office to set up a court hearing. Clerk's offices play an integral part of the process but only after there is direct communication between the law enforcement officer and the driver.

The procedure for red light camera violations contrasts sharply with the above. There is no acknowledgement by the driver of receiving the citation at the time of issuance. Therefore, a significant number of red light camera violations are issued erroneously to the owner of the vehicle rather than the driver. In addition, because Pinellas County is a tourist destination there is the added complication of violators driving rental cars. The result is a delay in direct communication between the issuer and the actual violator. A number of people have communicated to the Clerk's office that the first notification they received of a red light camera violation is the Uniform Traffic Citation rather than the Notice of Violation from the city, as the Notice of Violation has been mailed to the rental company and not the driver.

There are many issues that significantly distinguish the red light camera Notice of Violations from the usual Uniform Traffic Citations, such as the following:

The driver does not receive the citation at the time of the incident.
The driver does not have to acknowledge driving the vehicle at time of the incident.
The fine on the Notice of Violation is $158. If not paid within 30 days of the date of the violation, the city no longer accepts the payment.
If the driver does not pay within 30 days, the violation is in limbo. After the 30th day up until the time of issuance of the Uniform Traffic Citation (usually 60 days) there is no method for the driver to pay the fine. This creates a good amount of consternation on the part of the driver.
Once the fine becomes a Uniform Traffic Citation, it jumps from $158 to $264.
The driver cannot challenge the red light violation through the court system at the $158 fine level. The driver must wait until a Uniform Traffic Citation is issued at the fine rate of $264 before scheduling a court appearance.
There is language included on the Notice of Violation sent out by the cities instructing the alleged violator: "To contest this violation: If you choose to appear before an official of the county court or plead not guilty, do not respond to this Notice of Violation. You will receive a Uniform Traffic Citation within 60 days of the violation date via certified mail. Instructions will be provided to you by the county clerk's office as to how you should proceed." No where included in this language is it mentioned that the fine will be $264 instead of $158. Also, it is illegal for the Clerk's office to render legal advice. The role of Clerk's office is to facilitate a person who wishes to contest a matter by scheduling a court date-not to "give instructions on how to proceed."
The registered owner of the vehicle receives the notice of violation, regardless of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offense. The owner has the option to complete an affidavit transferring liability to the driver. The driver will not receive a notice of violation with a fine amount of $158. The driver instead will receive a uniform traffic citation, which is a $264 fine.
After a red light camera violation becomes a Uniform Traffic Citation:
If the person receiving the Uniform Traffic Citation claims they were not the driver, and contact with the Clerk's office is within 30 days of the issuance date, the Clerk's office supplies the person with an affidavit form which they mail to the city. The issuing city voids the citation, notifies the Clerk's office, and may reissue the citation to the violator named in the affidavit.
When the contact with the Clerk's office is 30 days after the issuance of the Uniform Traffic Citation and the person indicates that they were not the driver, the Clerk's office can set up a court appearance at the request of the person who was issued the citation.
No points are issued against a person's driver's record in the case of a Uniform Traffic Citation being issued for a red light camera violation. As this is different from other traffic moving violations, citizens do inquire about the need to take a driver's safety course.

The above items demonstrate how flawed the statute authorizing the Red Light Camera Violation program is. Citizens are resentful because of this. The red light camera violations represent a minority of the traffic related citations received by the Clerk's office from law enforcement agencies across the county. The time spent with citizens, however, dealing with the issues due to the problems with the statute represents a disproportional amount. There is a basic unfairness.

A residual effect of the Red Light Camera Violation program is the ill will people have for our area. A citizen visiting from Delray Beach communicated to me that he was in St. Petersburg for a photo shoot for an advertising spread for a department store. He is a self-employed photographer and has the say so on the location of the shoot. He relayed to me that he will no longer pick Pinellas County to bring his business. He estimated that he dropped $4,000 in the local economy for his day's work. He had a rental car and resented the fact that he was never given the opportunity to pay the fine of $158 instead of $264. He was correct since there was initially no direct communication to him as driver, as it was the rental car company who received the violation. Once the rental company completed the affidavit, he as the driver of the car no longer had the opportunity to pay the $158.

It is up to us in government to represent the interests of our citizens. When a statute which is discretionary to implement is so flawed, it should not be implemented.

The purpose of my letter is to request the City of St. Petersburg impose a moratorium on the issuance of red light camera violations and for the city to work with the League of Cities to correct the unfairness in the statute. The original statute was heavily supported by the League of Cities when it was passed. There should be an effort by the League to now correct the flaws in the bill. I will be glad to work with the city to educate legislators on the needed corrective action.

Please know that I am reaching out to each city within the county that has implemented this voluntary program to make the same request and to offer my help with the solution.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,
Ken Burke

cc:
Honorable Charlie Gerdes, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Jim Kennedy, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Bill Dudley, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Leslie Curran, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Steve Kornell, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Karl Nurse, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Wengay Newton, Sr., Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Jeff Danner, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg

NMA Iowa Alert: Public Forum on Traffic Surveillance and Drones to Include NMA Keynote Address

2013-03-25T14:35:00Z

A public forum in support of an initiative to ban traffic surveillance --- red-light cameras, automated license plate readers, drones --- in Iowa City will be held on the campus of the University of Iowa on the evening of Thursday March 28 from 7 pm to 9 pm. The forum is being organized by the non-profit StopBigBrother.org and will feature keynote addresses by NMA President Gary Biller, ACLU of Iowa Executive Director Ben Stone, and Iowa State Senator Brad Zaun along with panel and open discussions. A drone surveillance technology demo will also be shown.

While the initiative being proposed is for Iowa City, the topics to be discussed will have ramifications for the rest of the state (and the entire country) as surveillance technology continues to advance rapidly without commensurate progress by our lawmakers to protect the rights of citizens from abuses of that technology.

Details of the event, including RSVP instructions, are provided at this link: http://stopbigbrother.org/forum/

I hope you and many of our Iowa members are able to make it to this event. I’d very much like to have an opportunity to meet you and share some stimulating discussions.

Gary Biller
National Motorists Association

NMA E-Newsletter #219: Resistance is Not Futile

2013-03-24T12:00:00Z

Profiteers from photo tickets, whether camera companies like ATS or Redflex, or the communities who plan on red-light and speed camera ticket revenue to prop up their budget deficits, would have you believe otherwise. They are waging an ongoing (and very cynical) effort to discourage photo ticket recipients from bothering to contest those citations.

What is their strategy? One needs to look no further than a new bill that has been introduced to the California State Assembly. This proposed legislation if enacted would require photo ticket cases across the state to be heard in administrative hearings rather than in courts of law. There are no due process rights afforded to defendants in an administrative hearing. Rulings are made by an employee on the city payroll, not by a real judge. Proponents of civil hearings want to eliminate legal challenges that would surface if the rules of evidence were followed.

In what can only be deemed delicious irony, the California bill was assigned the next number in sequence for the current legislative session and thus became designated AB 666. It didn’t take long before it gained the moniker “The Devil’s Bill."

For a first-hand perspective of the insidious nature of administrative hearings, we checked in with Casey Raskob, a long-time traffic attorney and NMA member. In a couple of decades of walking the halls of traffic courts of New York City and surrounding areas, Casey has seen it all. Some of his observations regarding the inherent unfairness of administrative hearings:

“Administrative means they get to write their own rules, including burden of proof. Once the camera tickets are jurisdictionally moved out of Court, all the nice rules of Court, discovery rules, etc go away. Motions...sorry, we don't have a "track" for motions....FOIA...maybe, but under the rules of the administrative court, no. This certification is enough, you don't need to/are allowed to see the original records, nor can you subpoena the guy who claims to have signed them.

“In New York, camera tickets are "parking" tickets with no points, no insurance hits, just pay at the window on your way out . . . this means that they can suspend your registration for unpaid photo tickets, but with no points assigned or insurance premium adjustment, no one really bothers to challenge the process. They pay the under $200 fine and go away unhappy. We have a rule in NY that you need to be personally served with a summons to get points on a license. Making photo tickets like parking infractions meant that a streamlined system was well established since every jurisdiction already has a parking violations bureau or a parking ticket court calendar.

“I spend a lot of time in "Traffic Violations Bureau" in NYC. Unlike every other court in NY, NYC-TVB, an administrative agency and part of DMV and the Executive Branch, there are "no deals"....there is "no discovery"....there are "no Motions".....you get a 7 minute trial where the cops say the same direct case over and over. Now, the same ticket in Justice Court allows motions, some discovery, and of course, deals. This is a denial of equal protection, BUT as TVB, unlike real court, cannot put you in Jail, our Court of Appeals has decided it is legitimate, as you are "only" dealing with a license/privilege, and you can't take liberty, unlike the same accusation in Justice Court.

“This is a great backdoor way on the camera merchants behalf to remove headaches......they will seek to form a fake court, write their own rules, and you won't be able to get into real court until you exhaust all administrative remedies. Then, the only thing a Court may check out is "did the agency follow THEIR OWN RULES". All that case law....confrontation....due process....discovery...done away with by the stroke of a pen.

“California’s AB 666 is a follow-the-money bill. I don't know how jammed their courts are with camera stuff in general...it has only been 20 years since I was in CA. Watch to see if the revenue stream is pulled out of "the court system"....I will bet that if they go administrative this would empower a whole money flow, outside the Court system where most of it ends up in "general revenues", but now it will flow....where?”

So what do we need to do to reclaim the basic rights of traffic ticket recipients?

Most importantly, stop the legitimization of administrative hearings before it begins. In California, that means NMA members and civil rights activists alike getting out in full force to defeat AB 666. Our members should watch for upcoming NMA email alerts for more information on how and when to do this effectively.

In jurisdictions that are already treating photo tickets and other moving violations as local ordinance issues, voice your objections (and get your fellow citizens to do the same) to the people who can effect the necessary change – the city council, for instance.

Better yet, contact your area state representatives and get them involved. After all, states typically lose a significant share of the ticket revenue when the locals run routine traffic matters through administrative hearings. State officials have leverage over cities and counties on traffic matters that even the best grassroots protests rarely can muster.

It isn’t that we want the states to get their portion of traffic court bounty. But if the trade-off is giving drivers their fair day in a real court of justice with all of the attendant due process rights and privileges instead of herding them through a kangaroo hearing, that is an easy choice to make.

P.S. You can help us stop AB 666 in California. Visit http://stopab666.org for details on a petition to sign opposing the bill --- you do not have to be a California resident --- and for information about calling California Assembly Member and AB 666 sponsor Bob Wieckowski to protest the selling out of our due process rights.

NMA California Alert: Stop Attack on Due Process Rights Now

2013-03-21T16:08:00Z

A proposal to strip drivers of their due process rights is working its way through the California State Legislature. We need to stop it now.

If passed, the appropriately numbered Assembly Bill 666 would do the following:

Eliminate your right to a trial if you get a red-light camera ticket
Make you responsible for the ticket even when someone else is driving
Set up kangaroo “administrative hearing” courts run by those who gave you the ticket
Assume you are guilty and make you prove your innocence
Require no evidence other than the ticket to convict you
Eliminate your right to discovery or to face your accuser
Make you pay a fee if you want your case heard in court (but without the full protections you have now)
Expand the use of photo enforcement to other traffic violations

The NMA vehemently opposes AB 666 as a further attack on motorists already victimized by a corrupt and predatory photo enforcement system designed to enrich the camera companies and their accomplices in public office. AB 666 was written by red-light camera companies ATS and Redflex and is sponsored by Assembly Member Bob Wieckowski, who has taken contributions from these companies.

DON’T LET IT HAPPEN—HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO RIGHT NOW:

Visit Stop AB 666 to learn more and then sign the online petition.

Participate in the DAY OF PROTEST—TODAY, MARCH 21

Call Assembly Member Wieckowski’s office at (916) 319-2025
Ask for Ashley Medina, his legislative aid or leave a message
Politely let her know you oppose AB 666
Keep calling until you get through

AB 666 has been referred to the Assembly Transportation and Judicial Committees. Now is the time to contact members of those committees and tell them what you think. Committee member listings can be found here and here.

Pass this information on to family and friends so that they can speak up as well.

NMA Florida Alert: Red-Light Camera Bill to Get Hearing

2013-03-21T14:43:00Z

The Florida Senate Transportation Committee will hold a hearing on Senate Bill 1342 tomorrow at 10:00 am.

If passed, SB 1342 would provide important due process protections for drivers who receive red-light camera tickets. It would also ban camera tickets for right-turns-on-red which are a significant source of revenue for municipalities and the camera companies. In addition, it would mandate longer yellow-light durations which would drastically reduce violation rates and decrease accidents.

Note that several amendments to SB 1342 have been proposed which would greatly reduce the positive impact of the bill. The NMA supports passage of SB 1342 as originally filed—with no amendments.

Please contact the committee members to voice your support for red-light camera reform in Florida.

Chair: Senator Jeff Brandes (R)
Vice Chair: Senator Gwen Margolis (D)

Committee Members:

NMA New Hampshire Alert: Speed Limit Bill Passes House

2013-03-18T15:42:00Z

The New Hampshire House has passed a bill to raise the speed limit along a stretch of Interstate 93 to 70 mph.

Specifically, House Bill 146 states “the speed limit on the portion of I-93 from mile marker 45 to the Vermont border shall be 70 miles per hour.”

The NMA supports setting speed limits based on sound engineering principles that consider responsible motorists’ actual travel speeds. (Learn more about how speed limits should be set.) Setting speed limits this way decreases accidents and improves traffic flow, which are the goals of this legislation.

HB 146 now heads to the Senate but hasn’t been assigned to a committee yet. Still, you might consider contacting your Senators to let them know what you think. We will issue an updated alert once more information is available.