US   |  Canada

Photo-enforcement Laws in

The United States of America

In the United States, there are two fundamental legal approaches which control whether a local jurisdiction can implement photo technology: Allow unless excluded by law, disallow unless included by law.

A second division in approach is the disposition of liability: Owner onus or driver onus. Under owner onus (as is the case in New York - Senate Bill 550 introduced in 1987-88 regular session by Sen. Goodman and subsequently passed into law allowing citations based on photographic evidence for red light violations in New York City) the owner is guilty of the offence regardless of who is actually driving the vehicle at the time of infraction. The citation in this case is similar to a parking ticket and no points are accessed against a driver's (or owner's) insurance record. Under the driver onus provision (as in California- Senate Bill 1802 introduced by Senator Rosenthal in 1994 and subsequently passed into law allowing citations based on photographic evidence for rail crossing violations), the driver is may be found guilty provided the driver can be identified from the photograph. In addition to a fine, the drive may also suffer from points being added to his/her insurance record.

Due to the transient nature of of some legal postings on the internet, the entire contents of some laws are duplicated below. Access to most state statutes and court decisions (case law) can be made by using the legal links page on this site.

Summary of State Speed Laws

The U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) site states that  "This Summary reports ONLY the status of State statutes (or regulations) that are concerned with either speed limit or speed related violations. Local laws are not reported. Unless otherwise indicated, the status of the State laws (or regulations) reported is January 1, 1997."

U.S. FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (For the Admissibility of Film)

The admissibility of film has been well established in American jurisprudence since 1859. These rules are codified in Article X of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The following excerpt summarizes the requirements for using photographs as evidence:

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS

------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1001. Definitions

For purposes of this article the following definitions are applicable:

(1) Writings and recordings. "Writings" and "recordings" consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, Photostatting, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation.

(2) Photographs. "Photographs" include still photographs, X-ray films, video tapes, and motion pictures.

(3) Original. An "original" of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes the negative or any print there from. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original".

(4) Duplicate. A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original.

Rule 1002. Requirement of Original

To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress.

Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

Rule 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Contents

The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if--

(1) Originals lost or destroyed. All originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith; or

(2) Original not obtainable. No original can be obtained by any available judicial process or procedure; or

(3) Original in possession of opponent. At a time when an original was under the control of the party against whom offered, that party was put on notice, by the pleadings or otherwise, that the contents would be a subject of proof at the hearing, and that party does not produce the original at the hearing; or

(4) Collateral matters. The writing, recording, or photograph is not closely related to a controlling issue.

Rule 1005. Public Records

The contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed, including data compilations in any form, if otherwise admissible, may be proved by copy, certified as correct in accordance with rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If a copy which complies with the foregoing cannot be obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, then other evidence of the contents may be given.

Rule 1006. Summaries

The contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court.

Rule 1007. Testimony or Written Admission of Party

Contents of writings, recordings, or photographs may be proved by the testimony or deposition of the party against whom offered or by that party's written admission, without accounting for the nonproduction of the original. (United States)

U.S. CHAIN OF CUSTODY

For evidence to be admissible in a court of law, certain conditions must be met. One of these is know as 'chain of custody.' This simply means that any material, e.g. film, must be handled in such a way as to ensure that it is not altered, substituted, or contaminated in any way. Requirement for chain of custody in photo enforcement is usually met with a log that tracks who have had possession of the recorded images and associated data since the occurrence of the violation, and securing original film in limited access areas to prevent tampering.

EXPERT WITNESSES

While the use of photo enforcement now well established in the world outside the United States, it is still being challenged in the U.S. Expert witnesses should be available to testify to the soundness of the technology. In a discussion on the possible legal challenges to photo technology, Lynn, et al. Conclude:

Using the silent witness theory, photographic evidence is admissible if other technical evidence relating to the smooth functioning of the camera 'is sufficient to provide an adequate foundation assuring the accuracy of the process producing it (Ferguson, 1972).' This theory has been used to admit into evidence photographs produced by Regiscope cameras, which are used to photograph check-cashing transactions (Ferguson, 1972). Since the processes used by Regiscope cameras and photo radar are analogous, it is possible that photo radar photographs produced by an unstaffed unit would be admissible under the silent witness theory (Lynn, 1993).

Radio Association Defending Airwave Rights, Inc. (RADAR) review of 1997 proposed radar and photo-radar legislation: http://www.radar.org/legislat.HTM

Law review citations for photo enforcement in the U.S.: www.cs.utas.edu.au/css/slarnold/speedcam.html

Alabama

AL H 955
AUTHOR: Johnson R
INTRODUCED: 04/10/1997

SUMMARY:
Requires a law enforcement officer who gives citations for moving traffic violations based on the use of radar or any other electronic speed detection equipment to be certified in the use of the radar or the other equipment used; provides that citations given by a law enforcement officer who is not certified shall be invalid; provides for a delayed effective date.

STATUS:
5/07/1997 Indefinitely postponed.

AL S 583
AUTHOR: Butler
INTRODUCED: 03/25/1997

SUMMARY:
Requires a law enforcement officer who gives citations for moving traffic violations based on the use of radar or any other electronic speed detection equipment to be certified in the use of the radar or the equipment used; to provide that citations given by a law enforcement officer who is not certified shall be invalid; and to provide for a delayed effective date.

STATUS:
05/07/1997 Indefinitely postponed.

Arizona

Report by Arizona Legislation Information System on failed photo-enforcement legislation to limit fines. http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/43leg/1r/bills/hb2484o.htm

Report by Arizona Legislation Information System on photo-enforcement legislation to require voter approval prior to use in any jurisdiction. http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/43leg/1r/bills/sb1415p.htm

AZ S 1415
AUTHOR: Bee et a
INTRODUCED: 02/04/1997

SUMMARY:
Relates to photo radar devices; provides that a county, city or town, within its respective jurisdiction, shall not use photo radar or other photo enforcement devices to identify violators of traffic laws or ordinances unless the use is approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting on the issue in an election held in the jurisdiction.
STATUS:
02/05/1997 To SENATE Committee on GOVERNMENT.

AZ S.B. 1431

Permits a city or town council and the county board of supervisors to enter into an agreement to provide a private contractor access to records for the purpose of aiding law enforcement in the administration of traffic laws.

Background:

Prepared by Senate Staff February 5, 1997

According to the www.motorists.com web site:

(2/98) Scottsdale, Arizona is refunding $8,000 in fines and traffic school fees because of tickets issued by a photo RADAR machine in a 35mph zone. The statutory limit was 35 (what was posted) but a traffic engineering report had recommended 40. A judge threw out the tickets, and the city of Scottsdale is now busy making new 40mph signs and may have to pay attorney fees, insurance premiums for those affected by higher rates, and perhaps pain and suffering.

California

City of Imperial Beach, City Council Minutes, May 28, 1997

"Patrol: Under Program Objectives 97-98, add: 9. Explore logo (serving the City of Imperial Beach) on sheriff's vehicle. Capital Improvements: Council consensus to add funding of $10,000 for a speed trailer. Staff to investigate red light photo enforcement program used in Phoenix or Scottsdale, Arizona."

According to the www.motorists.com web site:

(2/98) If you get a ticket in the mail from San Francisco's red light camera program, think twice about paying up. Eight of every 10 motorists captured are escaping conviction. With a $270 fine for running a red light, many motorists are driving without front license plates and risking the $25 fine. (The cameras take a picture of the front of the car.) Also, since the owner of the car is mailed the ticket, some car owners are able to get the tickets dismissed if they can convince authorities that they were not driving the vehicle at the time. One woman is suing the city because she says the camera is not an appropriate witness in lieu of an officer, who can assess the situation and circumstances. Others argue that motorists who drive the same route past these cameras every day will have no recollection of the supposed infraction when they receive the ticket several weeks later, and are essentially left without a defense. It shifts the burden of proof to the accused.

Also in California, this motion to dismiss has been circulated by Randall K. Whited. No report has been given on its success.

In The Municipal Court
___________ Judicial District


In RE: Traffic Citation #________


Defendant's Motion To Dismiss


Comes now the defendant, ___________________, appearing pro se, and 
moves the court to dismiss the above citation. This motion is based upon 
the Memorandum Of Points And Authorities below, and the Court's file in 
this matter.

Memorandum Of Points And Authorities

I. Pertinent Facts

1) The citation alleges a violation of California Vehicle Code Section 
21453(a). (Failure to stop at a traffic signal). 

2) The evidence submitted was pursuant to the operation of an automated 
system (See California Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 et seq. and the 
citation.)

3) In Section D of the citation, it states: "IF YOU ... WERE NOT 
DRIVING THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE VIOLATION." 
(Emphasis in original), and goes on to ask that the driver be identified.

II. Argument

A. The Violation Must Be Charged Against The Driver

California Vehicle Code Section 21453 states: "(a) A driver facing a steady 
circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line". California 
Vehicle Code Section 305 defines a driver as: "A `driver' is a person who 
drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle". 

Thus, the law contemplates violations against an individual physically 
operating the vehicle rather than against a person having some other relation to the vehicle, such as an owner. 

This is made ultimately clear by California Vehicle Code Section 40520, 
where the legislation having to do with automated enforcement systems 
contemplates the reality of charges being brought against one who is not a 
driver as defined in the statute. It states "If a notice to appear is sent to a car rental or leasing company, as the registered owner of the vehicle" and goes on to explain how they are exonerated and the actual driver identified. (ibid at b(1)).

Other provision is made for any vehicle owner who was not physically 
driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. (ibid at (c)).

It is a clear and certain point, then, that an essential element of this crime or infraction is that the person physically operating the vehicle be charged, rather than the owner.

B. The Burden Of Proof Is Upon The Prosecutor

Whether this Court considers this matter as a misdemeanor or an infraction, 
the burden of proof is upon the one prosecuting the case. California Penal 
Code Section 19.7 states that "Except as otherwise provided by law, all 
provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions". 
See People v Miner, 68 C.A.3d Supp 1, 137 Cal.Rptr 149 (1977). California 
Penal Code Section 501 and 1096 require that an accused be presumed 
innocent until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. It further places 
the burden of proof as to each essential element of an offence on the one 
prosecuting it.

C. The Right Against Self Incrimination

Currently the prosecutor does not know who was driving the vehicle, and 
requires that the accused provide that information ("IF YOU ... WERE NOT 
DRIVING THE VEHICLE. FILL OUT THE INFORMATION ON THE PERSON ACTUALLY DRIVING") (Section D of the citation, emphasis in the original). 

In a normal case the officer stops the vehicle, asks the driver for the drivers license, and has the driver sign a promise to appear. There is no question as to the essential element of the offense, (who was driving the vehicle), and therefore the charge is at least legal and can go to court - whether or not the defendant prevails at trial.

In the instant case, however, the complaining officer states under penalty of perjury that the "Violation was not committed in my presence. The above is declared on information and belief and is based on photographic evidence". (See the citation on file). It then goes on to ask the accused for essential elements of the offence via testimony concerning who was or was not driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged infraction.

In People v Miner, supra, the court cited some of the rights relating to 
infractions. One of them was "You cannot be made a witness in your case 
without your consent" (137 Cal.Rptr. 149, Supp 5). This is of course the 
right not to incriminate oneself. The California Constitution, Article 15 is 
the source of that right. This right is the right not to testify to any matter that can be used in a prosecution against a defendant. Allen v Superior Court, 18 Cal.3d. 520, 134 Cal.Rptr. 774, 557 P.2d 65 (1976); People v McCormick, 228 P.2d 349, 102 C.A.2d Supp 954 (1951); Ex Parte Cohen 38 P. 364, 104 C. 524 (1895).

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons the citation is constitutionally and statutorily 
defective and should be dismissed. Wherefore the defendant respectfully 
asks the court to dismiss the citation.

Dated _____________________ 
signature_________________________________
Print _______________________, pro se

Colorado

According to the www.motorists.com web site:

(2/98) The city of Westminster will propose this year that the legislature back off a little on the limits it placed on photo radar last year. The city is pushing a bill that would allow the use of red light cameras at intersections, as well as photo radar in school zones. Last year the legislature set a $40 cap on traffic fines and required that summonses be personally served, rather than sent in the mail. Those restrictions severely limit the amount of money communities like Westminster can generate from these devices. Under the proposed bill, sponsored by Rep. Vi June, Dwestminster, the state Motor Vehicle Department would cooperate in enforcing photo radar violations. It could not issue renewals on driver's licenses where outstanding photo radar citations exist. Westminster recently joined Commerce City and Fort Collins in suing the state over last year's legislation. Commerce City and Fort Collins continue to use photo radar and continue to mail summonses. They personally serve summonses only when drivers ignore the mail tickets.

Florida

FL S 1568
AUTHOR: Latvala
INTRODUCED: 03/04/1997
LAST AMEND: 04/08/1997

SUMMARY:
Defines term "traffic-infraction detector"; authorizes county or municipality to enact ordinance that provides for authorization of traffic-infraction detector officer; requires Department of Transportation to develop standards for such officers.

STATUS:
05/02/1997 Died on calendar.

Coral Springs

3e11. RED LIGHT CAMERA SYSTEMS FOR TRAFFIC INTERSECTIONS:

Request to enter into negotiations with the single proposer for providing a red light camera system, RFP #96-A-054,  with the contract to be considered at a future Commission meeting, subject to enabling legislation. (REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE); ACTION: This item was removed from the Consent at the request of Commissioner Berk, to note a pending amendment to this legislative bill to provide that only the ten largest cities would be eligible. (Bill #94 amendment) At the suggestion of Commissioner Berk, Resolution #96-*, opposing the amendment, was adopted. The City Attorney's Office will draft the resolution for execution. At Commissioner Polin's request, a letter will be sent to legislators* The item was approved as requested. Motion: Commissioner Berk; Second: Vice Mayor Calhoun 5-0 (Tape 2)

April 2, 1996

According to the www.motorists.com web site:

(1/98) A camera enforcement bill may be ready for a vote in the Florida Legislature in 1998, and your efforts are needed to stop it. AAA Florida is against this bill, while the Florida ACLU says it violates motorists's rights to due process. The bill authorizes counties and municipalities to use "traffic infraction detectors" at red lights. It allows for tax collectors to withhold your license plates or revalidation stickers if you have outstanding fines. Money raised will help fund positions for law enforcement and correctional officers. The tickets may not be used to assess points on your record or affect your insurance, which takes away your incentive to fight them.

Red light cameras will do nothing to reduce accidents, but will allow the city (and the equipment manufacturer) to make a great deal of easy money from motorists. Contact your legislators and tell them you do not support this bill. Ask them if the goal is to make money or improve safety. To find the name and address of your legislators, call: 904-488-4371. If you know your Senator's name, write to Sen. XX, Senate, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100. If you know your representative's name, write to Rep. XX, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300.

Georgia

GA H 190
AUTHOR: Jamieson et al
INTRODUCED: 01/17/1997
LAST AMEND: 02/04/1997

SUMMARY:
Relates to use of radar speed detection devices, requires employment of at least one full-time peace officer as a condition of receiving a speed detection device permit.
STATUS:
02/06/1997 To SENATE Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY.

GA H 611
AUTHOR: Day et al
INTRODUCED: 02/17/1997

SUMMARY:
Relates to the requirement of warning signs when radar speed detection devices are being deployed, so as to provide that no speed detection device warning sings shall be necessary to alert motorists of the use of speed detection devices in reduced speed zones surrounding schools.
STATUS:
03/28/1997 Recommitted to HOUSE Committee on MOTOR VEHICLES.

Hawaii

HI S 632
AUTHOR: Fernandes
INTRODUCED: 01/17/1997
LAST AMEND: 03/21/1997

SUMMARY:
Establishes a three year demonstration project in selected areas on county highways of the city and county of Honolulu; provides for the implementation of photo radar and photo red light systems in order to improve traffic enforcement; requires the Department of Transportation to develop request for proposals to purchase, lease, rent, use, install, maintain, and operate the systems; authorizes the county, with the approval of the Department, to contract for such systems.
STATUS:
03/21/1997 From HOUSE Committee on TRANSPORTATION: Pass as amended.
03/21/1997 To HOUSE Committee on JUDICIARY.

Please see the related  story in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin by   Rod Ohira.

Illinois

IL H 1746
AUTHOR: Acevedo Bradley
INTRODUCED: 03/06/1997
LAST AMEND: 04/23/1997

SUMMARY:
Amends the Vehicle Code. Defines "automated red light enforcement system". Limits the definition to a system in a municipality with a population of 1,000,000 or more. provides that the provisions concerning an owner of a vehicle used in the red signal violation being liable for the violation if the violation was recorded by the red light enforcement system are subject to prosecutorial discretion.
STATUS:
04/25/1997 Rereferred to HOUSE Committee on RULES.

IL S 936

AUTHOR: Dudycz

INTRODUCED: 02/07/1997

SUMMARY:

Amends provisions of the Illinois Vehicle Code prohibiting the operation of a commercial vehicle while it is equipped with a radar jamming device. Changes those provisions so that the prohibition applies to operators of all motor vehicles (rather than only commercial vehicles) and that it applies to all devices designed or intended to jam any speed-measurement device (rather than only radar jamming devices). Prohibits the sale of such devices.
STATUS:
05/08/1997 Rereferred to HOUSE Committee on RULES.

Lousianna

LA HB 1894

AUTHORS: DURAND, LEBLANC, MICHOT, PIERRE, AND CLARKSON AND SENATOR ROMERO

INTRODUCED: Regular Session, 1997

SUMMARY:

To enact Part VI-A of Chapter 1 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 32:390, relative to motor carriers; to establish a Weigh-In-Motion pilot program in St. Martin and Lafayette Parishes; to provide for penalties; and to provide for related matters. A pilot program incorporating a Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) System and an Enforcement Camera System (ECS) shall be established in St. Martin Parish in the westbound lane of Interstate 10 at the foot of the Atchafalaya Spillway and on Interstate 10 East between Ambassador Caffery Parkway and University Avenue, when sufficient funds are available for the program. The Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) System shall provide integrated functions of traffic management, weight enforcement, and data collection for a weigh station bypass monitoring system, which shall include an Enforcement Camera System (ECS). All trucks attempting to bypass weigh station facilities using certain off-ramp bypass routes will be screened and monitored by a Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) Photo Enforcement System. Trucks which do not exit to the weigh station shall be weighed and classified by a highly accurate Single Load Cell Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) Photo Enforcement System. As trucks traverse the Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) site a camera will capture an image of the truck and match it with the truck's weight. Its images shall be captured and stored by the Roadside Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) Electronics and shall be transmitted to the central office station computer via a communication modem. At the central office, a station computer with monitor will display the image of the violating truck, with the truck's gross weight indicated on the screen. This image can then be printed using a laser printer located in the central office and used for enforcement purposes.

Maryland

HOUSE BILL 391

CHAPTER NUMBER: 315 File Code: Vehicle Laws - Miscellaneous Crossfiled with: SENATE BILL 670

Sponsored By:

Chairman, Commerce and Government Matters Committee and Delegates Hixson, Bozman, E. Burns, Cryor, Dypski, Franchot, Goldwater, Harrison, Heller, Howard, B. Hughes, Hurson, Hutchins, Kagan, Kopp, Krysiak, Love, Mandel, Parker, Pendergrass, Petzold, Pitkin, Rawlings, Shriver, Stup, Turner, Valderrama, and Workman

Entitled:

Vehicle Laws - Traffic Control Signal Monitoring Systems

 

Status as of May 8, 1997: Became Law - Chapter 315

Synopsis:

Authorizing law enforcement agencies to mail a citation to the owner of a motor vehicle that is recorded by a traffic control signal monitoring system running a solid red light; authorizing the sending of a warning in lieu of a citation; authorizing reissuance of a citation under specified circumstances; requiring the District Court to prescribe a specified citation form and a civil penalty to be indicated on the citation for specified purposes; establishing specified defenses; etc.

Missouri State Senator Betty Sims has introduced Missouri Senate Bill 838 which authorizes automated traffic enforcement programs within the state of Missouri.

The bill also prevents point assessment, makes the records confidential, and requires notice of the presence of the automated system. The photos may be used in private civil actions.

Senate Bill 838 - Complete text:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILL NO. 838

89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY SENATOR SIMS.

Read 1st time January 28, 1998, and 1,000 copies ordered printed.

TERRY L. SPIELER, Secretary.

S3589.01I

AN ACT

To amend chapter 300, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to local traffic ordinances.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:

Section A.  Chapter 300, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 300.605, to read as follows:

300.605.  1.  Any city or county may adopt an ordinance for the establishment of an automated photo-traffic enforcement program.  Any city or county that adopts an ordinance may also enter into an agreement for the purpose of compensating a private vendor to perform operational and administrative tasks associated with the use of automated photo-traffic enforcement systems; to include entering into an agreement with the department of revenue for the purpose of obtaining relevant records regarding the owner in order to prepare and mail summonses on behalf of the governmental entity.

2.  For the purpose of this section, "owner" means the registered owner of such vehicle on record with the department of revenue.

3.  Photos obtained from the automated photo-traffic enforcement system along with proof of identity of the owner in whose name such vehicle is registered shall be sufficient evidence that such owner was responsible for the violation.  Any owner issued a summons is responsible and liable for payment of a fine and court costs, unless the owner can furnish evidence that the vehicle was in the care, custody or control of another person at the time of the violation.  In such instance the owner shall submit such evidence in an affidavit permitted by the court setting forth the name, address and other pertinent information of the person who leased, rented or otherwise had care, custody or control of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation.  The affidavit submitted pursuant to this subsection shall be admissible in a court proceeding adjudicating the alleged violation and shall raise a rebuttable presumption that the person identified in the affidavit was in actual control of the vehicle.  In such case, the court has the authority to terminate the prosecution of the summons issued to the owner and issue a summons to the person identified in the affidavit as the operator.  If the vehicle is alleged to have been stolen, the owner of the vehicle shall submit proof that a police report was filed indicating that the vehicle was stolen at the time of the alleged violation.

4.  No points shall be assessed, as described in section 302.302, RSMo, for violations obtained through the use of an automated photo-traffic enforcement system.

5.  Photographic records made by an automated photo-traffic enforcement system that are provided to governmental and law enforcement agencies for the purposes of this section shall be confidential.

6.  Any city or county that establishes an automated photo-traffic enforcement program shall make a public announcement of any automated photo-traffic enforcement system at least thirty days prior to its official use.

7.  Signs indicating the system's presence shall be visible to traffic approaching from all directions at any location which is equipped with an automated photo-traffic enforcement system.

8.  A summons issued pursuant to this section shall be sent by first class mail to the most recent address of the owner of the vehicle within twenty-one days of the violation.  The summons shall include the date, time and location of the violation, a photo of the vehicle's license plate, and a photo of the actual violation as detected by the automated photo-traffic enforcement system.  The summons must also include instructions on how to dispose of the violation through court appearance or payment of the fine and costs.

9.  Evidence derived from an automated photo-traffic enforcement system may be admissible in any action of law brought by any person or entity as a result of personal injury, death or damage to property, in the same method prescribed or otherwise required by law.

New Mexico

According to the www.motorists.com web site:

(4/98) Gov. Gary Johnson likes photo RADAR, and he'd like to purchase two $60,000 automated ticket vans as part of a pilot project. "If it works, our intention is to increase this to all and any areas where there might be excessive speeding," he explained. Because current state law requires motor vehicle citations to be issued by a police officer wearing his badge of office, state law would have to be changed in order to use the automated ticket system. The Albuquerque Police Department is also looking into using some kind of photo RADAR system. Gov. Johnson also wants to change state law so that first-time DWI offenders would lose their license for five years.

New York

NY A 1120
AUTHOR: Bragman
INTRODUCED: 01/13/1997

SUMMARY:

Requires the Governor's Traffic Safety Committee to study and report on the effect of the ban on radar detectors in large trucks and makes recommendations on the continuance of such ban.
STATUS:
01/13/1997 INTRODUCED.
01/13/1997 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.

NY A 3805
AUTHOR: Lafayette
INTRODUCED: 02/06/1997

SUMMARY:
Authorizes cities of one million or more and the counties of Nassau and Suffolk, at local option, and authorizes, empowers and directs the Long Island Railroad and the Metro-North Commuter Railroad, to develop and implement demonstration programs imposing monetary fines on the owner of vehicle for the failure of the operator of such vehicle to obey railroad grade crossing signals indicating the approach of a train.
STATUS:
02/06/1997 INTRODUCED.
02/06/1997 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.

NY A 4117
AUTHOR: Colman
SAME AS: S 2548
INTRODUCED: 02/11/1997

SUMMARY:
Authorizes the town of Ramapo to establish a "photo radar" demonstration project, utilizing photo radar monitoring devices as a means of speed enforcement, and imposing monetary liability on the owner of a vehicle which has been determined to have been traveling in excess of the maximum posted speed limit.
STATUS:
02/11/1997 INTRODUCED.
02/11/1997 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.

NY A 4450
AUTHOR: Thiele
INTRODUCED: 02/18/1997

SUMMARY:
Authorizes and directs the town of Southampton, County of Suffolk to establish a photo radar monitoring demonstration program, utilizing photo radar monitoring devices as a means of speed enforcement, and imposing monetary liability on the owner of a vehicle which has been determined to have been traveling in excess of the maximum posted speed limit.
STATUS:
02/18/1997 INTRODUCED.
02/18/1997 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.

NY A 4451
AUTHOR: Thiele
INTRODUCED: 02/18/1997

SUMMARY:
Authorizes the Town of East Hampton, County of Suffolk to establish a photo radar monitoring demonstration program, utilizing photo radar monitoring devices as a means of speed enforcement, and imposing monetary liability on the owner of a vehicle which has been determined to have been traveling in excess of the maximum posted speed limit. STATUS:
02/18/1997 INTRODUCED
02/18/1997 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.

NY A 5474
AUTHOR: Luster
SAME AS: S 3187
INTRODUCED: 03/04/1997

SUMMARY:
Authorizes the City of Ithaca to establish a "photo radar" demonstration project, utilizing photo radar monitoring devices as a means of speed enforcement, and imposing monetary liability on the owner of a vehicle which has been determined to have been traveling in excess of the maximum posted speed limit.
STATUS:
03/04/1997 INTRODUCED.
03/04/1997 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.

NY S 925
AUTHOR: Levy
INTRODUCED: 01/16/1997

SUMMARY:
Establishes a demonstration program imposing monetary fines on the owner of a vehicle upon the failure of the operator of such vehicle to comply with a posted work zone speed limit; authorizes and provides for the use of remote-control photo radar equipment for use in such program; provides for a report concerning such program.
STATUS:
2/05/1997 Passed SENATE. *****To ASSEMBLY.
02/05/1997 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.

NY S 927 AUTHOR: Levy
INTRODUCED: 01/16/1997
LAST AMEND: 02/25/1997

SUMMARY:
Authorizes counties, at local option, and authorizes, empowers and directs the Long Island Rail Road and the Metro-North Commuter Railroad, to develop and implement demonstration programs imposing monetary liens on the owner of a vehicle for the failure of the operator of such vehicle to obey railroad grade crossing signals indicating the approach of a train authorizes the use of remote-control photo radar equipment for use in such program.

STATUS:
03/26/1997 Passed SENATE. *****To ASSEMBLY.
03/26/1997 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.

NY S 2548 AUTHOR: Holland
SAME AS: A 4117
INTRODUCED: 02/11/1997

SUMMARY:
Authorizes the town of Ramapo to establish a "photo radar" demonstration project, utilizing photo radar monitoring devices as a means of speed enforcement, and imposing monetary liability on the owner of a vehicle which has been determined to have been traveling in excess of the maximum posted speed limit.
STATUS:
02/11/1997 INTRODUCED.
02/11/1997 To SENATE Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

NY S 3187
AUTHOR: Seward
SAME AS: A 5474
INTRODUCED: 03/04/1997

SUMMARY:
Authorizes the city of Ithaca to establish a "photo radar" demonstration project, utilizing photo radar monitoring devices as a means of speed enforcement, and imposing monetary liability on the owner of a vehicle which has been determined to have been traveling in excess of the maximum posted speed limit. STATUS:
03/25/1997 From SENATE Committee on CITIES.

NY S 4082
AUTHOR: Levy
INTRODUCED: 04/01/1997

SUMMARY:
Establishes a demonstration program to impose fines for speeding in posted work zones; program shall include the use of radar equipment to detect vehicle speed in order to impose fines on the owner of the vehicle.
STATUS:
05/06/1997 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION.

North Carolina

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA

1997 SESSION

S.L. 1997-216

SENATE BILL 741

Additional Information Available on:

AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO USE PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES AS PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF A TRAFFIC VIOLATION.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

Section 1. Chapter 160A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:

"§ 160A-300.1. Use of traffic control photographic systems.

(a) A traffic control photographic system is an electronic system consisting of a photographic, video, or electronic camera and a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with an official traffic control device to automatically produce photographs, video, or digital images of each vehicle violating a standard traffic control statute or ordinance.

(b) Any traffic control photographic system or any device which is a part of that system, as described in subdivision (a) of this
section, installed on a street or highway which is a part of the State highway system shall meet requirements established by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Any traffic control system installed on a municipal street shall meet standards established by the municipality and shall be consistent with any standards set by the Department of Transportation.

(c) Municipalities may adopt ordinances for the civil enforcement of G.S. 20-158 by means of a traffic control photographic system, as described in subsection (a) of this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 20-176, in the event that a municipality adopts an ordinance pursuant to this section, a violation of G.S. 20-158 at a location at which a traffic control photographic system is in operation shall not be an infraction. An ordinance authorized by this subsection
shall provide that:

(1) The owner of a vehicle shall be responsible for a violation unless the owner can furnish evidence that the vehicle was, at the time of the violation, in the care, custody, or control of another person. The owner of the vehicle shall not be responsible for the violation if the owner of the vehicle, within 21 days after notification of the violation, furnishes the officials or agents of the municipality which issued the citation:

a. The name and address of the person or company who leased, rented, or otherwise had the care, custody, and control of the vehicle; or

b. An affidavit stating that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person who did not have permission of the owner to use the vehicle.

(2) A violation detected by a traffic control photographic system shall be deemed a noncriminal violation for which a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) shall be assessed, and for which no points authorized by G.S. 20-16(c) shall be assigned to the owner or driver of the vehicle.

(3) The owner of the vehicle shall be issued a citation which shall clearly state the manner in which the violation may be challenged, and the owner shall comply with the directions on the citation. The citation shall be processed by officials or agents of the municipality and shall be forwarded by personal service or first-class mail to the address given on the motor vehicle registration. If the owner fails to pay the civil penalty or to respond to the citation within the time period specified on the citation, the owner shall have waived the right to contest responsibility for the violation, and shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00). The municipality may establish procedures for the collection of these penalties and may enforce the penalties by civil action in the nature of debt.

(4) The municipality shall institute a nonjudicial administrative hearing to review objections to citations or penalties issued or assessed under this section."

Section 2. This act applies to the City of Charlotte only.

Section 3. This act is effective when it becomes law.

In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 23rd day of June, 1997.

s/ Dennis A. Wicker, President of the Senate

s/ Harold J. Brubaker, Speaker of the House of Representatives

Oregon

Red-Light Cameras

(3/99) A bill allowing cities to use automatic cameras to ticket drivers who run red lights won approval in the Oregon House. The bill passed by a 35-to-25 vote despite warnings by opponents that it is a step toward an Orwellian world in which a Big Brother government keeps watch on its citizens. Under the bill, the cameras would snap photos of the red light runner's face and vehicle license number, and the vehicle owner then receives a ticket in the mail. The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.
Source: Associated Press

Photo-Radar

(following ORS 811.123,Sections 1 to 3, chapter 579, Oregon Laws, 1995.) Sec. 2 (3)(a): "If a registered owner of a vehicle responds to a citation issued [by photo radar] by submitting a certificate of innocence within 30 days from the mailing of the citation swearing or affirming that the owner was not the driver of the vehicle and a photocopy of the owner's driver's license, the citation shall be dismissed. A person may not be prosecuted for perjury or false swearing in connection with submission of a certificate of innocence."

Example:

CERTIFICATE OF INNOCENCE

To: [court listed on the mailing, address] Re:[case/citation number on mailing]I hereby swear or affirm that I am innocent of the infraction accused in the above-noted citation dated (copy enclosed,) as I was not the driver of the vehicle. I am enclosing a photocopy of my driver's license number ODL__________. I certify that this certificate of innocence was submitted within 30days from the mailing of the citation. Sworn or affirmed,_____________________________[your name]

OR S 651
AUTHOR: Brown et al
INTRODUCED: 03/12/1997

SUMMARY:
Makes photo radar law for Portland and Beaverton permanent; authorizes use of photo radar in areas determined by governing body based on history of speed having negative impact on areas; prohibits photo radar on controlled access highways; allows jurisdiction to reissue, in certain circumstances, citation dismissed on basis of certificate of innocence.
STATUS:
04/18/1997 To HOUSE Committee on TRANSPORTATION.

South Dakota

SD S 205 AUTHOR: Shoener et al
INTRODUCED: 01/29/1997
LAST AMEND: 02/25/1997

SUMMARY:
Relates to authorizing the use of photo radar equipment to identify motor vehicles violating limited speed zones in highway work areas.
STATUS:
02/25/1997 Amended on HOUSE floor.
02/25/1997 Failed to pass HOUSE.

Texas

The camera never blinks.

Some local folks think of Austin as the world capital of stop-light violations. But apparently the problem is widespread. Dr. Red Duke, one of Houston's celebrity physicians and a trauma surgeon, says he's seeing a "frightening increase in the number of severe injuries and deaths that occur as a result of one vehicle crashing into the side of another at an intersection." Writing in the Houston Chronicle, he says the crashes usually occur because someone ran a red light. Must be an epidemic of colorblindness, the doctor concludes, tongue in cheek. Why not let cities place traffic cameras at some intersections, he wonders? So he's a bit chagrined that the Legislature is acting silly about a proposal to authorize this kind of enforcement. The proposal was withdrawn by its author after the house stipulated that each camera would have to be labeled, "Big Brother is watching you." Duke diagnoses the legislative behavior as "trivializing" and prescribes a more sober approach. Enforcement is a lot cheaper than treating all those injuries, says the emergency room physician. Austin-American Statesman May 1, 1999

Red-light crackdown proposed

A state lawmaker wants to slam the brakes on motorists who run red lights.
Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Richardson, introduced a bill Wednesday to allow cities to automatically photograph vehicles that run red lights, then mail tickets to the owners.
Calling red-light running an "epidemic," he said it's the leading cause of urban crashes and crash fatalities.
Madden said such enforcement techniques are used in a number of cities around the country, which have seen drops in violations of up to 42 percent.
(Compiled from staff and wire reports, Austin-American Statesman, 12/17/1998, B6)

Note: Mr. Madden's bill was laughed out of existence by the Texas Legislature.

Automated Rail Crossing Demonstration Projects

SB 1512 requires the department to install and operate an automated highway-railroad grade crossing (enforcement) system in conjunction with no more than ten automatic gates in the state. The automated highway-railroad grade crossing (enforcement) system consists of a photographic camera and vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with an automatic gate installed at a grade crossing.
Effective date: 9/1/95.

(The study used three vendors and is now being evaluated by TTI.)

UTAH

According to the www.motorists.com web site:

(2/98) Red light cameras are on the agenda of the Utah Legislature, no thanks to Rep. Orville Carnahan. The last time the issue came up was in 1996, when legislators said no thanks, although the use of photo radar was allowed in certain circumstances. Hopefully, Sen. Stephen Rees, who has been a vigilant opponent of such photo enforcement, can convince his peers not to go along with the legislation.

(1/98) PhotoCop is back on the agenda of the Utah Legislature, where Rep. Orville Carnahan, R- Taylorsville, is pushing a "red light camera" bill. When a bill like this was brought to the Capitol in 1996, legislators quickly switched it off. This technology allows your police departments to take pictures of vehicles running red lights and send the car owners tickets in the mail. There is no proof whatsoever that these devices will reduce accidents. They will make a great deal of money for the government entitities which operate them, however. Send letters to your newspapers telling them how you feel about red light cameras. Then contact your legislators and tell them you don't like this kind of computerized infiltration into your life. For more information on the subject, check out some of the pages on this web site related to red light cameras.

Senate Information and bill status line: 801-538-1035 (Fax: 801-538-1414)
House of Representatives Information and bill status line: 801-538-1029 (Fax: 801-538-1908)
You can also mail them at: Utah Legislature, State Capitol, Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Virginia

According to the www.motorists.com web site:

(4/98) Arlington joins Fairfax city and Alexandria as the only Virginia jurisdictions to take advantage of enabling legislation allowing the use of red light cameras. Not surprisingly, the system is expected to pay for its $300,000 cost after the first year of use. It could eventually be expanded to 25 sites.

Canada

Proceedings of The Uniform Law Conference of Canada

PROPOSALS FOR A UNIFORM ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ACT

http://www.law.ualberta.ca/alri/ulc/95pro/e95n.htm#A

The Uniform Law Conference of Canada has undertaken to adopt uniform legislation to ensure that computer records can be used appropriately in court. We are asking for comment on some draft legislation, to ensure that it will be useful for this purpose.

Ontario, Canada

Highway Traffic Act

Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, Chapter H.8

Subject to Subsection (2), a photograph obtained through the use of a photo-radar system is admissible in evidence in a proceeding under the Provincial Offences Act respecting an alleged offence under Section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act if the alleged offence was committed within an area of Ontario designated by the regulations.

Toronto

This report conforms with the following:

cc: Honourable Robert W. Runciman

 

This page was