Citizens Against Photo Radar

Why Photo Traffic Enforcement is Unconstitutional, Unfair
and Un-AmericanArizona Citizens Against Photo Radar

The people of Arizona have been lied to. They were sold a system that was set up to video record their vehicle on state roads and impose an unfair tax on driving. It had nothing to do with safety, although that was a clearly stated goal. It was completely about generating revenue, under the guise of safety. Initially, the photo traffic enforcement system on Arizona freeways and interstates was installed and deployed after the state signed a contract with Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia in 2008. The contract stated that only drivers exceeding the speed limit by 11 mph or more would be “photographed.”

There was no mention of continuous capture of every car on the road with video, which is what the fixed cameras are actually doing. The term “photo radar” is a misnomer when referring to the fixed camera system, because it is actually video that is being taken. Even if it could be argued that the public has no right to privacy on state-owned roads, the system itself is tragically flawed and in fact, violates basic individual rights protected by the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions. Twenty years ago, if a state agency like the Arizona Department of Public Safety or a state official like the Governor had suggested that motorists should be video-taped twenty four hours a day, three hundred sixty five days a year, they would have been called “Communists.” Not only was deception used to spread the current system of photo traffic enforcement in Arizona, it is being used to excuse its continued presence in our country.

The Right to Due ProcessThe use of photo and video traffic law enforcement completely ignores all common sense standards of safety and human interpretation. It gives all the judgment capabilities away to a machine that is typically not operated by a licensed law enforcement official. It also robs an accused speeder of due process and equal protection under the law. A camera cannot possibly be cross examined in a court setting and it’s impossible to account for all the shortfalls of technology that often target people who were not speeding or not actually driving the vehicle that was captured in the photo or video. Worse yet, many people are sent violations even though neither they nor their car was photographed, due to a myriad of common accounting and processing errors. The system assumes that the technology works most if not all of the time and that the registered owner of the car is always driving it.

Photo Radar Cannot Replace a Uniformed OfficerThe design of the photo traffic enforcement system allows a driver to travel at a highly unsafe rate of speed for the current road conditions under a number of circumstances. Photo Radar systems are never adjusted to account for inclement weather or road blockages. They also do not measure “reasonable and prudent” only a black and white standard like the current 11 mph over the posted limit rule used for Arizona’s system. In other parts of the world like Australia, that margin for error has been pared down to as little as 2 kph, which is about 1 mph. This is not enforcing a safety standard, it is a tax on driving. Many situations would necessitate a driver to exceed the speed limit by more than 1 mph, such as merging on to or exiting a freeway. In many cases traveling at the posted speed limit is dangerous simply due to traffic flow. Photo radar systems ignore that also.

Outsourcing of Domestic Law Enforcement and Court FunctionsThe contract with Redflex is especially alarming, because it is a foreign company, which has now been handed over law enforcement duties for domestic affairs. Redflex is also commissioned to schedule court hearings for the alleged speeding violations, thus duties of our justice system are now in the hands of said foreign corporation. Redflex operates not only in Arizona, but all over the United States.

Violations of Equal Protection Under the LawDrivers could subvert the photo radar system in Arizona by registering their vehicle to a spouse, corporation, family trust or private mailbox (PMB). Since the ticket must be served in person[1], those factors make personal service improbable or impossible. Therefore married people, business owners or drivers of company vehicles, people who have a Trust or even a PMB do not face the same set of rules for safe driving that those who don’t fall in to any of those categories do. This completely violates the right to equal protection under the law which one could find in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution[2]. Article two of the State of Arizona Constitution covers equal protection, which the photo radar system also violates[3].Contract

With Redflex Passed Through State Legislature IllegallyFormer Governor, Janet Napolitano, introduced the statewide photo traffic enforcement system in Arizona by inserting it into a 2008 budget proposal which only needed to pass with a 51% majority in state legislature. Contracts, like the one signed with Redflex to operate the freeway and interstate fixed cameras and mobile vans, by law need a two thirds majority to pass through state legislature in Arizona. The contract with Redflex itself, as well as the provision for state mandated photo radar, is completely unconstitutional in the state of Arizona because it was passed in a manner that was unlawful. It appears that the program itself was crafted in a way that it subverted state laws. This is very serious and deserves attention as well.

The Failure of AutomationPhoto Radar, as it turns out, is not a substitution for human law enforcement rather it lends itself to subversion of traffic laws and safe driving practices. It works like a tax because it merely takes an arbitrary measurement, such as traveling at a certain rate of speed on a certain stretch of road, and bills those who fit in that category. It does not focus on what constitutes safe driving. It cannot stop an intoxicated or distracted driver, red light runner or a speeder from driving dangerously. It merely assesses a fine, after the fact, to the person whose vehicle was photographed in alleged violation of a posted speed limit. It is then up to that vehicle owner to prove that the machinery malfunctioned, the ticket was issued erroneously, or that is was not them in the vehicle at that time. They must do this without the right to cross examine the accuser or an individual present at the time the violation was allegedly committed. They may be able to cross examine the person viewing the videos or photographs but that is clearly no substitute. Only an individual, such as a licensed law enforcement officer, can truly determine through first hand observation what constitutes safe driving based on the reasonable and prudent standard of rate of speed. A machine has not been invented that is capable of doing so.
[1] Tonner v. Paradise Valley Magistrate’s Court, 171 Ariz. 449, (Az. App. 1992)(holding that mailing is insufficient notice of civil traffic violation, personal service required to comply with the law).[2] US Consitution: Fourteenth Amendment - Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[3] Arizona Constitution: Section Two: Article Thirteen – No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.bills those who fit in that category. It does not focus on what constitutes safe driving. It cannot stop an intoxicated or distracted driver, red light runner or a speeder from driving dangerously. It merely assesses a fine, after the fact, to the person whose vehicle was photographed in alleged violation of a posted speed limit. It is then up to that vehicle owner to prove that the machinery malfunctioned, the ticket was issued erroneously, or that is was not them in the vehicle at that time. They must do this without the right to cross examine the accuser or an individual present at the time the violation was allegedly committed. They may be able to cross examine the person viewing the videos or photographs but that is clearly no substitute. Only an individual, such as a licensed law enforcement officer, can truly determine through first hand observation what constitutes safe driving based on the reasonable and prudent standard of rate of speed. A machine has not been invented that is capable of doing so