News

great article!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fanstastic article!!!!

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

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

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