Most Popular

Most Viewed
Most Commented
News
"Most Popular" tools sponsored by:
Recent Articles
Related Articles

Recent Articles By Chad Garrison

National Features

  • Miami New Times
    The Murder of Master Do

    In a city plagued by killings, the most perplexing death is that of a killer.

    ByTamara Lush
  • SF Weekly
    Pitching "Woo-Woo"

    He'll find you a parking space and even watch your car--if the meter maids let him.

    By Ashley Harrell
  • Nashville Scene
    Spank the Honkey

    The victim of a racial slur exacts a special kind of retribution.

    By P.J. Tobia
  • Broward-Palm Beach New Times
    Spring Break is Still Awesome

    Try as it might, Ft. Lauderdale still can't shake America's die-hard partiers.

    By Michael J. Mooney

City officials insist the cameras that are installed at 21 city intersections are used solely to improve public safety, not to generate revenue. So they'd prefer the $1.9 million the program has collected in just its first ten months of operation not be emphasized. City hall is also hesitant to advertise the additional $900,000 that's gone to Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the private company that installs and monitors the cameras, and then splits the fines with the city.

Other issues the city would rather not highlight include the fact that the cameras have inconclusive safety results, they're not used exclusively at the city's "most dangerous" intersections and their very use stands on shaky legal ground.

"These tickets are offensive to anyone who cares about the Constitution," voices Steve Ryals, a Saint Louis University law professor and former general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri. "The judge brings them up there and says, 'OK, why aren't you guilty?' But what the poor citizen doesn't understand is that the videotape is not sufficient evidence in which they can be found guilty of anything. There's not an image of you driving the car, and the city has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the offense."

Of the hundreds of people who've disputed their red-light citations at the St. Louis Municipal Court, just two have filed an appeal. Later this month, St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Barbara Peebles will hear the case of a man who's acquired three citations for running stoplights on Hampton Avenue. The other appeal, involving a driver who failed to come to a full stop before turning right on red, was to be heard last month.

Kirkwood resident Ronald Edelman argued in his petition to the circuit court that the red-light citations violated his Fifth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution by compelling him to testify against himself. Edelman dismissed his appeal days before his scheduled hearing, but several civil-rights attorneys say he might have had a case.

"I think anyone who wants to fight this is going to win," says Clayton civil-rights attorney Bevis Schock. "All you have to do is evoke your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The judge can't prove you did it."

The problem, adds Schock, is that few people have the time or willingness to challenge the citations before a judge. "This just isn't the right hill to die on, which is why it's such a great way to raise revenue for the city," says Schock. "I get calls from clients about this all the time, and I tell them, 'Look, it's a hundred bucks. Just pay it.' Now, if they start locking people up over these, I think you're going to have civil-rights attorneys who are just going to have a field day."

Alderman Bosley admits that the bill he's sponsoring isn't perfect, but he insists that measures are needed to penalize the guilty. "There is always going to be the question: 'How can you fine Joe Blow for running a red light when it was Suzie Q. who was actually driving the car?'" says Bosley. "But by giving the law teeth, hopefully we can create an atmosphere where we can get down to prosecuting the true guilty party."

Since Arnold became the first Missouri city to pass an ordinance approving the use of red-light cameras in 2005, the state's appellate courts and supreme court have yet to weigh in on the issue. But last week St. Louis County residents James and Kara Hoekstra filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Arnold and American Traffic Solutions. ATS also monitors the cameras in that Jefferson County municipality.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in St. Louis argues that the city's red-light ordinance is unconstitutional and violates state law by guaranteeing that no points will be assessed to a moving violation if the required fine is paid. Criminal defense attorney Chet Pleban, who represents the Hoekstras, also alleges that Arnold officials violated federal racketeering laws by using the mail and Internet "as part of their broader scheme to defraud plaintiffs" and "by collecting fines when they could never prove a violation."

Pleban says he's considering a similar suit against St. Louis City. "I have a client in the city who just missed his court date," says Pleban. "I'm waiting to see what they do to him. I dare them to lock him up."

Attorney Steve Ryals suggests the way the city prosecutes cases in the municipal court also presents a conflict of interest. Unlike the city's circuit court, in which judges are appointed by the governor and subject to retention votes, judges in the municipal court are appointed by Mayor Slay — whose staff lobbied hard to bring the red-light cameras to St. Louis. (See Chad Garrison's "Red Light, Green Light," February 1, 2006.) City Counselor Patty Hageman, whose office prosecutes the red-light citations, also serves at the pleasure of the mayor. (The mayor's office did not make Hageman available for comment for this story.)

"I think that further informs you of the impartiality that you'll find in municipal courts," comments Ryals. "Now, I've been in municipal courts where the judge does the right thing, but there's not a lawyer out there practicing who would say that's the case in every city."

Cha-ching! Is that the sound of a cash register or the telltale click of a camera flash? Both have a similar sound and, in the case of red-light cameras, both mean one thing: money. Since the city's photo-enforcement program went into effect last May, the city has mailed more than 36,000 red-light citations, averaging 125 tickets a day, five citations per hour. To date, some 28,000 people have dutifully paid the fines, providing the city with a collection rate of more than 80 percent.

For each $100 fine collected, $68.67 goes to the city's general revenue fund. The remaining $31.33 is sent off to American Traffic Solutions. Revenue for both entities is expected to increase next year. The original plan called for the city to install cameras only at ten of its "most dangerous intersections," in the words of Mayor Slay's chief of staff, Jeff Rainford. All of which begs the question: Do red-light cameras really improve public safety?

Write Your Comment show comments (13)

  1. great article!!!!!

    Comment by dre — March 5, 2008 @ 04:04PM

  2. St. Louis city officials push back the rollout of red-light cameras

    Allison Retka
    St. Louis drivers and attorneys have a few more weeks before having to deal with the implications of cameras snapping pictures of red-light runners.

    City authorities have pushed back the rollout of red-light cameras in the city until mid-to-late April, said Ed Rhode, spokesman for Mayor Francis Slay.

    That will give the city time to deal with computer problems at the court level and attorneys more time to prepare for a possible onslaught of clients wondering whether they can beat the high-tech traffic cops.

    The photo tickets are a growing trend locally. St. Louis has installed cameras at two intersections. Florissant, St. Peters and Arnold have them issuing tickets already. Kansas City says it is about to add some as well and Webster Groves is considering it.

    Each camera in St. Louis is catching an average of 450 red-light violations a month in the trial run alone. With such a wealth of potential tickets, attorneys are debating whether the tickets are prosecutable if the driver cannot be identified and whether footage from the still and video cameras is public record.

    How they work

    The red-light cameras that will soon be fully operational in St. Louis, located at the intersections of Hampton Avenue and Wilson Avenue and Hampton and Chippewa Street, are triggered by cars that enter the intersection while the stoplight is red.

    The camera takes two high-resolution photos - one of the car behind the stop line or crosswalk with the red light visible ahead, and one of the car in the middle of the intersection with the light still red.

    The photos and an accompanying 12-second video clip - the video cameras are constantly filming - are transmitted to ATS's headquarters in Arizona, where staffers crop the photos and zoom in on the car's license plates. Once the plates are run through a registration system, the photos and registration information are sent to the police department operating the camera.

    The footage waits in a "queue" until a police officer examines the photos, watches the video and approves a traffic citation.

    St. Louis ordinances require police to issue a citation within 60 days of the violation, but usually the citation is mailed to the violator within three to five days of the driver zooming through a red light.

    The citation itself includes three color photographs captured by the camera and directs the drivers to a Web site where they can access the photos and watch the video of their alleged violation.

    In St. Louis, each camera captured about 15 red-light violations a day.

    Handling a red light ticket

    Because the fines are relatively minimal, usually between $75 and $100, many people may choose to pay the tickets, said Doug Heagler, a Clayton attorney who handles traffic violations. Tickets from the St. Louis cameras will be $100 - $31 of the ticket goes to ATS.

    For those who contest the tickets, it remains to be seen how St. Louis prosecutors will react, he said.

    "Every municipality is going to handle it differently," Heagler said. "Some prosecutors are very strict about things in their community."

    Nick Zotos, a St. Louis attorney who handles traffic violations, has contested red-light tickets for clients in Arnold and said the city prosecutor "hasn't made a fuss" about amending tickets for a lesser violation.

    But he said the traditional arguments against red-light cameras still come into play.

    "It's pretty simple: If you can't identify the driver, you don't have a case," Zotos said.

    It's important to remind clients of this fact, said Wendy Thornburg, a St. Louis attorney with Tuteur & Associates, which runs the Web site PulledOver.com.

    "It's almost impossible to tell who's actually driving the car," Thornburg said. "If you loan the car to someone and they run a red light, you have to pay the ticket. That's how I would contest it."

    The city of Florissant opted to issue its red-light tickets as public safety offenses instead of moving violations that count against a driving record.

    "I think that's why Florissant made theirs a public safety offense, because they knew we would fight them all that way," Thornburg said.

    If clients call in with traffic citations from red-light cameras, she urged attorneys to find out if they were actually driving the car. If it was them behind the wheel, it would cost clients more to have an attorney contest the ticket. But if they were not driving the car at the time of the violation, there's strong reason to fight the ticket, Thornburg said.

    Kansas City attorneys also have questions and concerns about the soon-to-be-installed cameras in their area.

    Using the cameras to capture violators seems to put the burden of proof on the defendant, instead of the city, Aimee Gromowsky, defense attorney, said. If a driver runs a red light, he or she is sent a bill and if the citation isn't paid, a warrant will be issued.

    Gromowsky said usually the defendant is given a court date and they have the option to fight it.

    "Now, what's the average Joe going to do when he gets the bill in the mail? He will probably just pay it. That's not what the justice system is about. It's supposed to protect," she said.

    Donald L. Crow, defense attorney and Grandview municipal judge, said he doesn't have any concerns. The cameras are only taking pictures of the license tag and not the driver, so without evidence of "seeing that it's you in the car, you can contest it. [The city is] hoping you will just send in your check. But it's the city's obligation to prove you're in the car. If anyone challenges it, they will be successful."

    Is it public?

    Municipalities are handling the public record issue in different ways. A resident who was not cited for a ticket but wants to see the footage from the cameras in three metro communities can't get access without a subpoena.

    St. Louis is the lone exception, and said nonviolators can obtain the footage from the city courts.

    Subpoenas make sense for civil suits provoked by car accidents, said Zotos. But for any criminal charge - traffic or otherwise - police are required by law to hand over evidence in the discovery phase, Zotos said.

    Most U.S. cities doing business with American Traffic Solutions, the company that operates red-light cameras in St. Louis, Florissant and Arnold, consider the footage public record, said Sherri Teille, spokeswoman for ATS.

    The footage belongs to the police departments, but nonviolators can usually get at the images with an open records request, Teille said.

    Not so in the St. Louis area.

    Maj. Jeff Finkelstein of the St. Peters Police Department said police had discussed whether camera footage should be public record and decided against it.

    "We believe it could be subpoenaed," Finkelstein said. "That's why the company retains [the images] for three years."

    St. Peters has a contract for red-light cameras with Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., based in Scottsdale, Ariz.

    Florissant Police Capt. John Foster said police had used the footage from its cameras for

    their own investigations, but the photos and film would not be available to the public without a court order.

    Lt. Bill Bonsack with the Arnold police force said its department considers the images proprietary material.

    "Could I get you a photo and video clip for John Smith running a red light? Well, in most cases, no. Not unless there's a court order on it," he said. "It would identify someone who is technically being charged with a crime, and that's not fair and would not be public record."

    Kansas City hasn't made any decisions on the public record status of the camera footage.

    A company was selected this month to install the cameras, and a traffic study has to be conducted before they will be up and running, said Dennis Gagnon, spokesman for the city's Public Works department. The Council will also have to approve the locations of the cameras and draft a final ordinance.

    Other red light cameras

    ATS is also talking with Webster Groves officials about installing cameras at railroad intersections, said Dan Reeb, a development manager with ATS' St. Louis office. Cameras would help track drivers who try to "beat the train" and also help the city meet federal safety guidelines that would allow trains to pass intersections without sounding their whistles.

    Red-light cameras for Kansas City were approved by the City Council in 2006, but funding problems kept the city from purchasing equipment.

    Staff reporter Trish Mehaffey contributed reporting to this story.

    Copyright 2007 Dolan Media Newswires
    Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

    Comment by jason — March 5, 2008 @ 04:07PM

  3. The intersection at Hampton and Hwy 44 has one of these and, given that it is a dangerous intersection,(that people run all the time), I can understand it. However, the intersection of Kingshighway and Arsenal has one and I see it malfunction almost every night when I'm on my way home from work. Does anyone monitor these to ensure that they are working properly? Of course not.

    Comment by kathy — March 5, 2008 @ 07:13PM

  4. Having just moved to St. Louis from Orange County, CA, I experienced these over the last few years. A lawsuit was brought against the county to fight the revenue sharing with the equipment company which was won. I believe the grounds were based on the incentive of mis-calibrating them to increase revenue by the equipment company. They had to be tested and certified to ensure proper operation. St. Louis residents need to make this happen or they will be taken to the cleaners with these "safety" signals.

    Comment by Russell Cummings — March 6, 2008 @ 10:39AM

  5. I received one of these tickets when they first went up. I missed it by a foot. If your front tire is on or behind the white line when it turns red you just coughed up a 100 bucks. One inch passed and your safe. Florissant has been bombarded by these in the last year and i drive through three of them just to get home. With about 40% going to Arizona for some company how can it not be a money thing. Give all the money to the schools and lets see if they continue to put these up everywhere.

    Comment by Josey — March 6, 2008 @ 11:30AM

  6. Synchronizing Lights will go very far to increase safety and decrease emissions. But his of course does not increase city revenue. There is a ticket light at Goodfellow and Natural Bridge and the previous lights seems intentionally out of sync...is this to actually encourage light running. It's pretty simple, if lights are synchronized, the "need" to run lights would be significantly reduced and cleaner air would result.

    Comment by Bob — March 6, 2008 @ 05:30PM

  7. Good article. What kills me about these people crapping becasue they got their picture taken and no proof it was really them is that if the title & registration is in your name then shouldn't you be responsible? No one is driving my car without permission and if you are in Missouri then you fill out the same forms I do each year to tell the collector if you've changed vehicles. It's way past time for people to grow up and say "Hey, it's my car so I am responsible." Instead of whinning and running to laywers.

    I wish there were more cameras in place and at stop signs as well as light controlled intersections. Do away with Right Turns on Red as well since most people just roll through anyway these days. My life and vehicle isn't worth Joe Blow saving 30 or 40 seconds by being a self-centered ass in their car.

    Comment by Craig — March 7, 2008 @ 08:40AM

  8. One of the things I didn't see mentioned in this article, is that ATS, the provider of the equipment, often charges either rental fees OR purchase fees for the cameras, and installation.

    The cities also pay all fees associated with maintenance, electricity to operate them, upgrades, etc.

    I believe (but not 100 percent sure) that Arnold actually is paying off the cameras/equipment totaling HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars-so whatever revenue is generated, might be lost on the equipment, at least the first few years. Then it will probably be time to upgrade!

    Another factor to look at is MODOT's involvement, and unwillingness to cooperate with fixing red lights, timing issues, etc--UNTIL MODOT was brought into the fold and offered a share of the profits earned from cameras on MODOT highways.

    This is a pretty big money grab by many cities in Missouri, thanks to Arnold's willingness to be the guinea pig. Thanks for taking time to highlight the issue again and again. Without someone daring to expose the negatives, the poor would be most likely incurring the biggest percentage of this money grab (as they do with tobacco taxes.)

    Comment by Vicky — March 7, 2008 @ 10:22AM

  9. Thanks for your article. I thought you would find this interesting. It is an article I found on yahoo regarding traffic lights and violations cited to the state of Maryland's police force. It would be interesting to see how many violations Missouri police have committed and if they are being held to the same standard.

    Md. police officers ignore speed cameras

    ROCKVILLE, Md. - No matter what the cameras say, some drivers are refusing to pay dozens of $40 speeding fines. Who? Police officers.

    In the last eight months of 2007, Montgomery County's new speed cameras recorded 224 cases in which police vehicles were recorded traveling more than 10 mph over the speed limit, according to department records.

    Supervisors dismissed 76 of those citations after determining the officers were responding to calls or had valid reasons to break the speed limit.

    But that left 148 who didn't have that excuse, and about two-thirds of those citations haven't been paid, said police Lt. Paul Starks.

    The police union says officers shouldn't pay because the citations are issued to the owner of a vehicle, in this case the county, and not to the driver.

    Police Chief Thomas Manger doesn't buy that argument.

    "We are not above the law," Manger said. "It is imperative that the police department hold itself to the same standards that we're holding the public to."

    Manger said officers who continue to ignore citations might be disciplined.

    Comment by Robert Glus — March 9, 2008 @ 01:42AM

  10. This is a very good article. I read it in the RFT paper and decided to come on the website just to see what others are saying. It seems all are in agreement except one yahoo. This person seems to be OK with big brother watching their every move. They probably love the idea of the government wiretaps also.

    Comment by Greg — March 10, 2008 @ 01:41PM

  11. Fanstastic article!!!!

    Comment by Sherry — March 20, 2008 @ 12:10PM

  12. Great article! However, I do think the cameras are good for controlling the flow of traffic. Being from Chicago, everyone sits in the middle of the intersection waiting to turn, and usually it has been red for some time while cars are still turning to get out of traffic. But then that causes the other cars wanting to turn to have to wait, an ultimately miss their turn signal because they had to wait for traffic to clear, and it continues like that everyday. These would be great there!;)

    Comment by CJ — March 31, 2008 @ 11:02AM

  13. The City of St. Louis Code of Ethics prohibits funds from being diverted from the City, to private companies, at tax payer expense. Applying this to Red Light cameras will not make them illegal, but will sever revenues and private company interests.

    Comment by gerard — April 7, 2008 @ 06:53PM

About Us | Work for Riverfront Times | Esubscribe | Free St. Louis Classifieds | National Advertising | Privacy Policy
Problem With the Site? | RSS | Site Map
©2008 Village Voice Media All rights reserved.

Riverfront Times Insiders

  • Local food, music and news blasts
  • Free Stuff

buy, sell, trade (4,262)
musician (464)
rentals (4,429)
jobs (3,002)
adult entertainment (1,115)
NOW CLICK THIS