No real right to appeal red light citations?
by Owen Courrèges · 08/09/2006 6:46 amSomething in Houston’s red light camera law, posted by Jeremy yesterday, really bothers me:
Sec. 45-487. Appeal.
A person who is found liable after an administrative adjudication hearing may appeal that finding of liability to the municipal courts by filing a notice of appeal with the chief clerk of the municipal courts. The notice of appeal must be filed not later than 31 days after the date on which the administrative adjudication hearing officer entered the finding of liability and shall be accompanied by payment of an appellate filing fee of $50. Unless the person, on or before the date of filing of the notice of appeal, posts a bond in the amount of the civil penalty and any late fees, an appeal does not stay the enforcement of the the civil penalty. An appeal shall be determined by the municipal courts by trial de novo. The affidavits submitted under subsection 45-484(f) of this Code shall be admitted by the municipal judge in the trial de novo, and the issues must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
Here’s what it sounds like. You have to pay $50 for the privilege of appealing your ticket, and pay the full amount up front, which would be $125 for a first offender.
My question is, if you win, is the $50 filing fee refunded? Otherwise, you’re only quibbling over $25, and there really isn’t any meaningful right to appeal. Even if the police were clearly wrong (say, they misread the license plate number) you’d still end up paying.The statute says nothing about refunding the fee.
Does anybody know the answer?
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
69 Responses to “No real right to appeal red light citations?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Oh, just bend over quicherbichin.
I’m surprised they don’t just make us sign over our direct deposit right to them…..
I do not know the answer, but I think I know the answer.
Is there a way to link this to my EZ-Tag? That would make the process a lot easier for me.
I’m telling you, get one of those covers for your license plates that are clear plastic but when the camera takes a picture of them, it can’t see the plate number.
I thought you had the right to face your accuser?
DJ
Well… we used to. Now your accuser is an automated machine that never makes a mistake.
http://www.jeffbots.com/hal.jpg
http://www.palantir.net/2001/tma1/wav/foolprf.wav
I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January 1992. My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you’d like to hear it I can sing it for you.
Daisy, Daisy…
I heard you could saran-wrap your license plate and get the same result as the clear plastic holders for one-onehunredth the cost.
I thought Texas passed a law against anything that covers the license plate and/or distorts a photo of the license plate.
11# they did, but the trick is enforcement.
There are products available. Even a spray that defeats the cameras!
http://www.phantomplate.com/PP2/products.asp?cat=10
They only know how to take. All the forms of our government want their money and NOW. To get money back, you have to wait, and wait, and wait. An accuser should be a human, not a machine. One cannot confront a machine. The machine does not know who is driving. This is a machine ticketing another machine. It doesn’t make any sense. Again, governments are all about money. That promises corruption from top to bottom. We just keep letting it ride. Someday, we are going to have to do something about it. Less is best.
#1
You hit the nail right on the head.
Her is a great read on this from news max.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/31/194202.shtml
#15
You may go silently into the night but not I.
The spray is available at http://phantomplate.com/ for only $29.99!
I do not drive in the areas where the camaras will be - but just in case - i’ll buy the spray.
#16
Actually, I was referring to the attitude of our public officials on the matter, not mine. I’ve made plenty of noise here on LST.
#18
Careful, they may be coming to an intersection near you thanks to the Texas Legislature’s failure to ban these cash machines. If Houston rakes in the big bucks other cities will jump on the shutterbug bandwagon.
#6 & 14
What makes you think there has to be an accuser for you to confront? People are convicted solely on circumstantial evidence every day for everything from running a red light to first-degree murder. An accuser is not needed to establish a solid case.
Maltboy, being convicted on circumstancial evidence does not mean there is no accuser. If no one accuses you of a crime, you wil not be brought up on charges. I beleive we are guaranteed the right to confront our accuser.
What can Houston do to you if you don’t pay? And before you tell me they can add a late fee, I mean what can they do to actually force you to pay the civil fine? My guess is N-A-D-A.
Here’s a thought. Houston could have its own version of the Boston Tea Party if everyone simply ignored the tickets, or better yet, if everyone - including us conservatives who routinely espouse the need for personal accountability (except our own, evidentially) - quit running red lights.
#21 duhmoose
If you are talking about confronting a person who will stand up and say “I saw duhmoose run that red light!”, you’re wrong. If you’re talking about an entity who will present a case against you, that’s the city because they’re accusing you of a civil offense. In that case your “accuser” would be the administrative officer or possibly a city attorney who presents the city’s case, depending on where you are in the appeal process.
The thing to do is, after a certain period of time, get the FOIA requests of everyone running the red lights. Then see how many public officials, rich guys, and celebrities were not ticketed. Publish the results loudly.
If anyone buys the spray, test it and let us know the results. (Digital camera WITH flash)
There’s another problem. Texas law states the light must turn red while you are in the intersection. If it turns red after you enter the intersection, you’re not guilty according to Texas law. So I don’t see how there can be any legal adjudication if they don’t have a continuous film showing the light was already red when you entered the intersection.
Does anyone have the address for the place where they actually have the monitoring equipment and the offices where they process the letters they are going to send out. I think I would like to go visit with their supervisor and the company owner. Would you like to go with me? drstereo
Maltboy - A major problem with this is that the gov’t is handling a criminal infraction (breaking the law by running a red light) in a civil fashion, where only a “preponderance of the evidence” is needed. This isn’t about enforcing the law, this is about MONEY.
Sure, I am all for personal accountablity. I don’t like red-light runners any more than you do. This is simply the wrong way to address the situation. I’ve spelled out all my (very relevant, IMO) objections before and you have answered none of them satisfactorily.
And, as Owen stated yesterday, this “civil” aspect of red-light cameras shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, not the “plaintiff”, so it’s bass-ackwards in more ways than one. I don’t even view this policy as Constitutional.
#28 jimb
I have answered every one of your objections satisfactorily. You just conveniently change the subject or go off in another direction when I do.
#29 jimb
Which part of the Constitution, specifically, is being violated?
The sprays do not work. Besides which, even if they did they would be illegal to use.
Texas Transportation code, as amended by SB 439 in the 2003 Regular Session says this:
§ 502.409. WRONG, FICTITIOUS, ALTERED, OR OBSCURED
LICENSE PLATE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person
attaches to or displays on a motor vehicle a number plate or
registration insignia that:
(1) is assigned to a different motor vehicle;
(2) is assigned to the vehicle under any other motor
vehicle law other than by the department;
(3) is assigned for a registration period other than
the registration period in effect;
(4) is fictitious;
(5) has letters, numbers, or other identification
marks that because of blurring or reflective matter are not plainly
visible at all times during daylight;
(6) has an attached illuminated device or sticker,
decal, emblem, or other insignia that is not authorized by law and
that interferes with the readability of the letters or numbers on
the plate or the name of the state in which the vehicle is
registered; or
(7) has a coating, covering, or protective material
that:
(A) distorts angular visibility or
detectability; or
(B) alters or obscures the letters or numbers on
the plate, the color of the plate, or another original design
feature of the plate.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under
Subsection (a) is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more
than $200, unless it is shown at the trial of the offense that the
owner knowingly altered or made illegible the letters, numbers, and
other identification marks, in which case the offense is a Class B
misdemeanor.
(c) to (e) Repealed by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, §
30.66, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
(f) An offense under Subsection (a)(4) is a Class B
misdemeanor.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.66, eff. Sept. 1, 1997;
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 851, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts
1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1189, § 17, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003,
78th Leg., ch. 837, § 1, 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
With your permission, I am going to post some information in here from a public letter for the Red Light Cam system. This is from
RFP No.: TC-05-6310-19-20464 issued on Aug 8, 2005
#33, and…..
http://www.faspd.ci.houston.tx.us/Bid_Display.aspx?id=T20464
For those of you who have alot of time on their hands and would really like to investigate how this process will work for the us and city, please go to the above site and DL all the PDF’s there, to read and study. I think you will be surprised at the number of citations they expect per intersection installation.
The fellow @ the City who guided this is Mr. Frank Rodriquez. I would be happy to call him to see if he would be willing to come on the radio for a discussion. drstereo
Question:
Page 15
Is the City requiring a local office to be established by the vendor for customer
service?
Response: Yes
Question:
Does the City have an existing walk-up payment window that will be used to
support vendor’s office functions even if vendor staffs this location with one or
more employees?
Response: Yes
The city requirement to this question just blows me away. Lets just say there are 10,000 cameras around Houston. So how much revinue will removed from the citizens of Houston TX. How much is $75 x 25 x 10,000=? (perday) drstereo
Question:
Page 36
Exhibit III Cost Proposal: In order for the City to be able to compare contractor
pricing for Processing, Collection, & Administrative Fees, some base number of
issued citations per camera per day needs to be assumed. Based on existing City
data, what number of citations per camera per day on average would be expected?
Response: A minimum of 25
I wonder if the below information could come in handy for those folks who wish to challenge your citation. Any lawyers looking at the blog. drstereo
Question:
RFP Section II, System Requirements, Item 2, Page 11. RFP states that “..cameras
MUST provide digital images of the front and rear license plates (at least two
photographs)…….and also provide a sufficient number of front and rear video
cameras to capture all necessary information to prosecute violators.”
a) The requirement to obtain frontal license plate images in addition to rear plate images
will:
i. Significantly increase program cost (driven by additional camera units and install
expenses) while only generating a small benefit to the City. Our experience has
shown that 98% of all violators have visible rear plates.
ii. Increase privacy concerns because a front camera taking images of the front of a
vehicle will likely include the vehicle’s occupants. Taking only rear photographs
eliminates this concern.
iii. Will the City eliminate the requirement to take front license plate images?
Response: No
b) Vendor assumes that by “front and rear video cameras” the City would accept video,
digital still cameras, or a combination of both systems. Is this true?
Response: Yes
More information for our lawyer friends to contest your citation. The number of pictures that they need to send your way. drstereo
Question:
RFP Section II, System Requirements, Item 4, Page 11. RFP states that “At least
four (4) frames of color video images shall be printed on the citation, one showing
the vehicle prior to entering the intersection (with the signal red from the drivers
view) and a second showing the vehicle in the intersection with the signal light still
red.”
c) Vendor assumes that by “color video images” City would accept either color video or
higher resolution digital still images. Is this true?
Response: Yes
d) Does the city envision that the third and fourth frames of color images on the printed
citation would be the front and rear license plate images? RFP Page 14, Violation
Processing, Item 4 also discusses this issue. Would the City please clarify this
requirement? Typically, violation notices in registered owner liability environments
include the two images described the City depicting the violation and a third image that
displays the license plate of the vehicle.
Response: Three frames will be sufficient.
#22
I like the tea party idea…since I am an anarchist!
Bigs brought up a very important issue. Once you enter the intersection…if the light is yellow you have done nothing wrong. The light has to be red when entering the intersection. So the dead red runners should be the only ones getting tickets.
If it’s a real concern and they are trying to prevent accidents and not generate money, then make the penalties stiff and enforce them the way they do now? Would you run a light if the penalty was a $500.00 fine and thirty days in jail or something? Doubt it! But it would be you and the officer that caught you arguing it in court!
The city doesn’t do crap unless someone’s palm is being greased! They’ll sell your freedom to make a buck. Watch and see who ends up going to work for the company that makes the equipment. Remember, Hurtt came to town and the city bought new tasers and low and behold, he owns stock in the company that makes them!
#30 - You didn’t say jack about my response to your “affirmative defenses” yesterday. A real live policeman issuing that citation would be able to take into account every single one of those affirmative defenses on the spot and decide whether or not a ticket is even warranted. As it is, you have to pay 50 bucks to contest it and if you win, there’s not even any clarity on whether or not you get that 50 bucks back.
#31 - Handling a criminal infraction (traffic misdemeanor) in a civil court setting is a violation of due process for starters. As in: “preponderance of the evidence” standard being used for a criminal case rather than the more stringent “beyond a reasonable doubt” required for criminal infractions.
Maltboy - your arguments simply don’t hold water. You’re in favor of the cameras, that’s fine. But that doesn’t make those of us who are opposed to them for well-thought-out reasons idiots.
The other fellow who can answer all your questions about this activity is Mr. Dave Cheatham (I think) who is the Senior Assistant City Attourney. This document is L. D. File No. 0620400724001 Dec 14, 2004. Wonder if we can get this gentilman to log into this LST or come on the radio. Should I give him a call and find that out? drstereo
In Clarification letter # 5, They come up with a better idea as to number of citations. So this could be $75 x 750 x 10,000 (cameras) = $562,500,000 per month of extra revinue to the city of Houston Texas. Hummmmmmm is that around $562 milllion more per month in revinue to the city that they now do not get? Interesting if true. drstereo
Further clarification to Exhibit X, Item 2, please remove “/ Day” from the wording in
Item 2.
Should read: “2. Estimated 750 Citations / Month / Installation”.
Restate: Texas law says the light must turn red BEFORE you enter the intersection.
For now, seems like these folks are the company who will be installing and operating the Red Light Camera System. Investigation continues. drstereo
http://www.atsol.com/business-lines-toll-rev.html
ATS offers four core products and services that are grouped around Hardware, Software and Services as follows:
1. Violation Processing Systems (VPS)
2. Business Establishment Consulting Services
3. Transaction Processing and Program Management
4. Axsis™ Violation Detection and Imaging Equipment Sales and Integration
Axsis traffic enforcement camera systems utilize the most current and accurate vehicle detection technologies and the newest most robust and highest resolution color digital cameras to detect and document traffic violations. The imaging systems are designed to produce the highest prosecutable image rate of any competing system. As such, the Axsis camera system is the best value for the price.
Hi Big45Iron:
If you have the time, can you find the URL link for that document. Our lawyers here may need that for us. I hope to find out from the company, atsol, some answers like this for us. drstereo
Big45Iron Says:
August 9th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Restate: Texas law says the light must turn red BEFORE you enter the intersection.
Will you get ticketed for making a legal right on red? How do they deal with that? Or do I have to haul my butt down to the Star Chamber to fight it after-the-fact?
#30 jimb
Yesterday you asked how the cameras were defensible, and I gave you the list of defenses straight from the law. How is that not answering the question? You later made a point that a real live policeman would be able to take all these defenses into account real-time. This was not a question, but a statement of fact, and arguably one that had nothing to do with your original question which asked how they were defensible. The fact that having a policeman would be preferable because he could do a better job may be a valid statement, but it does not negate the fact that the cameras are defensible. Your argument about the cop is just a red herring, as is your complaint about posting a $50 deposit.
You, on the other hand, have not answered my question which is: What part of the Constitution is violated and why? You claim that due process is not being followed because these are civil offenses. Where does it say in the Constitution that traffic tickets must be processed as criminal offenses? It doesn’t. That decision making authority is delegated to the states and municipalities. If the city wants to make traffic tickets a civil offense they can do so. If you are charged with a civil offense, and if the court finds against you by a preponderance of evidence, then what due process hasn’t been followed? Answer: NONE! You don’t have to like it, but please don’t pretend they aren’t following due process. They are. It’s just happens to be a non-conventional way of doing business, not an illegal one.
#43 jimb
I never called anybody an idiot. That was your word. You have every right to hate the cameras, but your reasons for claiming they are illegal and are not defensible are not well thought out.
#50 - Whatever. I’ve made my points. If you wish to live in that sort of society, then so be it. I don’t.
It is well established that criminal offenses be proven ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Period. If you don’t see the current situation as a due process violation, then I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
#49 willsin
If I understand correctly they are required to take your picture before (front) and after (back) you pass through the intersection. So if you make a right, you never actually pass through the intersection, so they don’t get your back plate. But this is just a guess based on the requirements data that were posted earlier.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/tntoc.html
Chapters 544 & 545, but don’t see it specifically addressed there.
Maltboy!,
Due process you say?
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/10/1014.asp
#52 jimb
And it is also well established that this particular offense has been classified as a civil infraction under the delegated powers granted by the Constitution, and as such has only to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Period.
However, the city gives up its “teeth” by doing this because, as a civil offense, it is doubtful that they can or will actually do anything to force anybody to actually pay the fines. They are relying on the honesty of the individual. Those who tell them to go pack sand will probably not have anything to worry about.
If you are accused of a civil offense, and if the process for trying that offense is followed to the letter, then how has due process for a civil offense been violated? Unconventional? Yes. Illegal? No!
Who decides if a moving violation is a civil offense or a criminal offense? Also, since the red light cameras are issuing tickets as a civil offense, does that mean if I am stopped for running a redlight by a police officer at a non-camera intersection I will only be cahrged with a civil offense?
This is from the Chronicle story on the red lights
So it looks like the city is trying to override state law.
I agree with you. The fine should be pretty high. $500 and some community service time would work for me. There is plenty of trash around left by the “undocumented workers”. Anyone else on the high fine band wagon? drstereo
#41 fasternu426 Says:
August 9th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
duhmoose,
Good catch. In Minnesota, a state judge slapped down the Minneapolis red light camera law on grounds that it violated due process by lowering the burden of proof on the government, as state law already mandated a higher burden of proof.
There’s the due process argument.
Now I think I understand the program.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/11/1168.asp
ATS offers some equipement at no cost to the city. I wonder who is the power behind that company. Certainly, they are going to support some political folks. drstereo
#57 In this particular instance the Houston city council decided this would be a civil offense. Roads in non-incorporated areas can fall under different jurisdictions, and their laws are ratified by whatever legislative body is in charge (county and state). The Houston camera law was written to be exclusive and independent of the cop ticketed infraction. You will still be charged with a criminal offense for cop tickets. No double-tickets though. You can either get a cop ticket or a camera ticket for an infraction, but not both.
#58 - If this is true, it appears there may be grounds to get this whole program tossed. I’m all for following the law. However, if the state decides to change the law, then this arguement will be moot. Didn’t this issue get brought up during the last session, and didn’t it get politely overlooked? It would hardly surprise me if the legislature decided to ignore this volitile issue and leave it to the courts.
#62 - That’s yet another due process violation. Same offense, different charges, based on the ticketing method. Just because the Houston City Council says it is so does not make it constitutional, nor does it give them the right to override state law and ignore due process.
Jimb
#64
You are absolutely correct. The City could pass a resolution that littering is a capital offense — doesn’t make it one though. The city should have thought this boondoggle out thoroughly before implementing it. I guess they were blinded by their greed. Now the taxpayers have to pay for this stuff. It is too bad some people will actually pay these tickets.
How do you charge a machine with an offense and then require the owner to pay the fine?
Lawsuits in towns like Detroit (if I remember correctly), have been filed based on the presumption of guilt until proven innocent. Does the civil rather than criminal penelty somehow allow a presumption of guilt until proven innocent or does there have to be a presumption of innocence in both cases?
Maltboy! My comments
What part of the Constitution is violated and why? You claim that due process is not being followed because these are civil offenses. I disagree, Maltboy, there is a definite violation of due process! Where does it say in the Constitution (Not in the Constitution, not in the Transportation Code, nowhere, except in City ordinance does it make a traffic violation a crime or a civil infraction) that traffic tickets must be processed as criminal offenses? It doesn’t (Because the City does not have the authority, The enforcement of the Transportation Code is charged to the Department of Public Safety a agency of the State by statute. No Muni or County court has jurisdiction). That decision-making authority is delegated to (the People and not some corporate muni or county gov.) the states and municipalities. If the city wants to make traffic tickets a civil offense they can do so (does not apply to anyone not contracted to the City. The City Council makes policy not LAW!!!! Does the city have a contract with me? I don’t think so! No contract no nexus). If you are charged with a civil offense (demand a copy of the contract with your signature), and if the (court lacks jurisdiction without a contract – end of tune – violation of procedural due process – does this smell of a lawsuit – bet there are attorneys out there drooling) finds against you by a preponderance of evidence, then what due process hasn’t been followed?
We could easily crush the entire program if we could get enough volunteers to stand near each intersection with a big warning sign. If there was no revenue for 60-90 days, the contractor would be screaming, and the city would have to pull the plug. Don’t see how they could complain–they have made it clear that the goal is not revenue, its traffic safety. If no one ran the red lights, crashes from this cause would go to zero along with the revenue. Everyone gains except the safety nazis and the corrupt politicians and the corrupt private firms that thought up this scheme in the first place.