Court Decisions

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3240.asp

8/24/2010
More California Courts Refuse Red Light Camera Evidence
Another consolidated ruling in Orange County, California finds red light camera evidence inadmissible hearsay.

The public relations group founded by red light camera firms, the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, issued a warning in July 2009 that the industry was threatened by the US Supreme Court's newly developed understanding of the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution. The prediction proved accurate in the California courts. Last week, a San Diego County court threw out eight red light camera tickets in a consolidated case (view ruling http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3235.asp). On Thursday, an Orange County judge followed suit, dismissing seven tickets in a consolidated case.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter J. Wilson considered the red light camera evidence presented to him by a local police officer to be insufficient in light of the high court's directive in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (view ruling http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2854.asp).

"The prosecution's sole witness, Officer Bell, provides no direct testimony whatsoever about the particular defendant or the particular infraction," Judge Wilson wrote. "Here there is no evidence about the authenticity of the actual photographs... Instead, there is only a description by the officer of the circumstances under which these types of photographs can be taken at the intersections in question. At best, the officer's testimony establishes in general how the photo enforcement system at the intersection is supposed to work..."

To determine the accuracy of the photographs, Officer Bell relied entirely on a declaration from Redflex Traffic Systems, the private Australian company in charge of the photo ticketing program. Bell lacked personal knowledge of three critical facts necessary to lay a proper foundation for the evidence.

Read more: More California Courts Refuse Red Light Camera Evidence

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3237.asp

California: Another City Admits Accidents Not Reduced By Red Light Cameras
Redwood City, California admits red light cameras do not reduce accidents and refuses to make changes to program.

Under court order, Redwood City, California was forced to admit that the red light camera installed at Whipple Avenue and Veterans Boulevard in March 2008 have done absolutely nothing to reduce traffic collisions. San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Clifford V. Cretan instructed the city council to respond to a civil grand jury report from June that blasted municipal programs throughout the county that raised $13.8 million from ticketing despite the lack of evidence of any safety benefit (read report).

The Redwood City Council will vote Monday to approve a draft response created in close consultation with Redflex Traffic Systems, the Australian company in charge of the Redwood City program. Under the signature of Police Chief Louis A. Cobarruviaz, the letter ignores every substantial recommendation offered by the grand jury. For example, because the number of accidents is not going down, the city disagreed with the grand jury recommendation that the city measure the program's ongoing effectiveness by the number of collisions before and after camera installation. The grand jury insisted that the city council be provided a regular update on these rates on at least an annual basis, but no such report has been implemented.

"While the number of red light violation-related collisions at the approaches have not had a significant change since the installation of the red light cameras, it would appear the city's camera systems are reducing the number of red light violations as the number of violations recorded have dropped since their installation," the draft response letter stated.

The number of violations recorded also decreases as motorists avoid intersections known to have red light cameras. Equipment malfunctions, repairs and vandalism can also reduce the number of violations recorded. The city also blasted the grand jury for implying that the program appeared more concerned with revenue than accident reduction.

"The current revenue realized by the city is surprisingly low compared to expected projections," the draft response stated.

The city claimed it "had significant difficulty obtaining its portion of the fines from San Mateo County," which collected $1.7 million in 2008 and $3.2 million in 2009. Redwood City routinely assigned employees involved in other tasks to the red light camera program account to inflate the estimates of the program "cost" -- even though the full cost of the program by contract is borne by Redflex. The city also rejected the grand jury finding that it was imposing $446 tickets on minor "California roll" stops at intersections that have little impact on safety.

"The city is unaware of the number of violations for failure to stop before making a right turn in other cities; however, a significant portion of citations issued from the city's red light cameras are for that violation," the draft response stated.

To prevent motorists from being unknowingly trapped by such tickets at the enforced intersections, the grand jury recommended signage at each location so that motorists would know right-hand turns would be ticketed. The city has absolutely no interest in providing such warning.

"The city does not have signage at each intersection because it is not required by statute," the response stated.

Source:  Response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Repor (Redwood City, California, 8/21/2010)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/ca-redwood.pdf
 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3235.asp

California: Another Judge Discards Red Light Camera Evidence
Red light camera companies found to generate hearsay evidence in San Diego, California court trial.

A San Diego, California Superior Court judge on Monday found elements of typical red light camera court evidence packages to be inadmissible hearsay. Eight consolidated cases were dismissed by Commissioner Karen A. Riley after she considered a motion to exclude evidence generated by automated ticketing vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS). In light of the recent Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts ruling by the US Supreme Court (view ruling), Riley found the accused had a right to confront ATS witnesses.

Read more: California: Another Judge Discards Red Light Camera Evidence

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3234.asp

Australia: Appeals Court Rules Photo Ticket Inadmissible
Queensland, Australia Court of Appeal tosses speed camera photo that was not properly authenticated.

California courts are not alone in questioning the validity of red light camera and speed camera photographs as http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3213.asp valid legal evidence. On Friday, the Queensland, Australia Court of Appeal ruled that automated ticketing cases require more than a pair of images in a folder to make a speeding case that will stick. The motorist, a non-lawyer, won her case against the government with only the help of her husband. 

A camera accused Bilyana LeKich of driving 114 km/h (70 MPH) in a 100 zone (62 MPH) on Bruce Highway in Burpengary on September 4, 2008. Lekich pleaded not guilty in Caboolture Magistrate's Court where a judge did little more than look at the photos and declare that she was guilty and must pay A$200. LeKich appealed to a district court which overturned this conviction on the grounds that the photos should not have been entered as evidence.

Under Australian law, the police commissioner must certify the photographs as "properly taken" at the time and location stated on the citation. The commissioner can delegate this power to another police officer, but the prosecution never offered any evidence that the power had been properly delegated -- other than the fact that a police officer's signature on the ticket was proof that the power had been delegated. The lower court judge did not buy the argument.

"The starting point, of course, for any criminal prosecution is that the evidence is to be given orally," the Brisbane District Court judge ruled last year. "Evidence in writing is prima facie hearsay and is inadmissible unless it comes within a statutory exception to the rule against hearsay.... There is certainly nothing in s. 120 of the act which permits the delegate to certify to the existence of the delegation where the commissioner's power has been delegated."

As hearsay, the photographs were inadmissible and Queensland Police Service was left with nothing to prove a case against LeKich. Court of Appeal Justice Hugh B. Fraser, writing for the three-judge panel, agreed with the district court findings because proper procedure is important when a signature constitutes automatic proof.

"The consequences of a delegation by the commissioner are by no means insignificant," Fraser wrote. "It arms a police officer with power to provide prima facie proof of an offense merely by signing a certificate which s. 120 otherwise requires to be signed by the commissioner. It does not seem unduly pedantic to insist upon proof of such a delegation where as the primary judge explained, the applicant [Queensland Police Service] could have taken advantage of the simple mode of proof which the legislature has provided."

A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Dixon v. LeKich (Court of Appeal, Queensland, Australia, 8/13/2010)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/au-appeal.pdf

http://www.wkbn.com/content/news/local/story/Girard-Ticket-Recipients-Issued-Checks/2bA28bk27E-sd5_iOffXLQ.cspx

Girard Ticket Recipients Issued Checks

Last Update: 8/09 8:23 pm 

Girard Traffic Camera Checks

Girard Mayor James Melfi If you paid a speeding ticket issued by Girard's traffic camera and took part in the class action lawsuit, you may soon be getting a check.

Atty. Jim Denney of Girard, who filed the class action lawsuit, said those who paid tickets will receive a check for 15 percent of what they paid, which in most cases is about $12.

Girard Mayor Jim Melfi said he received his check a few days ago. The mayor's daughter was issued a ticket in 2005, he said.

Girard quit using the camera in 2006 after a Trumbull County Common Pleas judge ruled its use was unconstitutional.

 (SPECIAL THANKS TO KILL TN TRAFFIC CAMERAS FOR THE LINK!)

Judge rules against Orlando's red-light cameras
Are refunds next?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-red-light-camera-lawsuit-20100809,0,6465087.story
 
4:44 p.m. EDT, August 9, 2010
E-mail Print Share  Text Size os-red-light-camera-lawsuit-20100809

A judge ruled today that Orlando's system of ticketing red-light runners caught by automated cameras violates state law, raising the possibility of refunds for the tens of thousands of people ticketed by the city during the past two years.

Orange Circuit Judge Frederick Lauten ruled that the city did not have the power to use cameras to ticket drivers who run red lights because that authority is reserved for the state.

"Although the court believes the city's articulated goal is laudable — increasing public safety by reducing red light-running — the challenged city ordinance intrudes on an area of law reserved to the state is therefore invalid," Lauten writes in a ruling issued Monday.

Orlando officials would offer no comment until they reviewed the ruling, but the city is almost certain to appeal.

The lawsuit was filed by a West Palm Beach law firm in the name of a man named Michael Udowychenko, who was ticketed after his vehicle was photographed running a red light. The case was filed as a class-action lawsuit but has not yet been certified as such.

Jason Weisser of the firm Schuler, Halvorson & Weisser said he would begin the legal process of certifying the class by gathering names of those who've been ticketed by the city.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3223.asp

Washington: Judge Tosses Attempt to Block Public Vote on Traffic Cameras
Snohomish County, Washington judge orders voter referendum on banning photo enforcement to proceed.

A Snohomish County Superior Court judge yesterday rejected the attempt of a traffic camera company-funded front group to stop citizens in Mukilteo, Washington from voting on an anti-camera referendum. Judge Michael T. Downes found no merit in the arguments filed by the proxy of American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

"The court having heard the representations and arguments of counsel and being fully advised in the premises; now, therefore, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment and relief is denied," Downes wrote.

The initiative sponsors, Nicholas Sherwood, Alex Rion, and Tim Eyman responded enthusiastically to the decision which clears the way for the measure banning photo enforcement to hit the November 2 ballot (view initiative). A majority of likely voters has already signed the petition calling for the referendum, making enactment of the measure a near certainty.

"Over twenty cities in Washington have automatic ticketing machines (red-light cameras and speed cameras) and our small little town will be the first city to ever ask its citizens if this Big Brother, profit-making scheme has the consent of the governed," Eyman wrote in an email to supporters. "Nationwide, in ten cities, citizens have risen up, fought back, and forced a public vote, and, in all ten cases, the voters have rejected them by huge margins. Mukilteo will be the eleventh vote."

From the bench, Judge Downes indicated that having the public involved in the political process is a positive thing.

"This is a unique situation where citizens want to vote but also the city council, the duly elected representatives, also want to hear from the electorate," Downes said. "A lawsuit at this point is premature. I don't know how voters are going to vote on this but I see no harm in letting them vote. If it is approved, plaintiffs or those with interest in this issue can file a legal challenge afterwards, but again, I see no harm in having this proceed."

A copy of the order is available in a 550k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Order denying motion for declaratory judgment (Snohomish County, Washington Superior Court, 8/6/2010)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/wa-willvote.pdf

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3220.asp

Washington: Traffic Camera Opponents Strike Back Against Ticket Company
Proponents of referendum to ban automated ticketing machines in Mukilteo, Washington file brief in county court.

The city of Mukilteo, Washington filed papers Monday hoping to thwart the attempt of a traffic camera company to deny residents the chance to vote on banning automated enforcement. Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Michael T. Downes on Friday will hear arguments in the case filed by an American Traffic Solutions (ATS)-funded front group to protect the company's ticketing contract from the fate such agreements have shared in all ten cities where the public has forced a vote to toss out the cameras. The sponsors of Mukilteo's initiative -- Nicholas Sherwood, Alex Rion and Tim Eyman -- filed a more comprehensive legal brief as intervenors tearing apart the ATS-backed case.

"A lawsuit to strike an initiative or referendum from a ballot is one of the deadliest weapons in the arsenal of the measure's political opponents," James D. Gordon III and David B. Magleby wrote in a Notre Dame Law Review article cited by the initiative's sponsors. "With increasing frequency, opponents of ballot proposals are finding the weapon irresistible and are suing to stop elections."

Nearly half of Mukilteo's active, registered voters signed the petition calling for a November 2 vote (view initiative), but the ATS-backed suit argued that it would be "inefficient and a waste of resources" to put a measure on the ballot when the state legislature has already adopted a law allowing cities to install cameras. In a brief on behalf of the city, attorney Angela S. Belbeck argued that the legislature granted broad powers to cities to submit issues to the judgment of voters.

"Plaintiff cannot meet its burden of proving the elements for injunctive relief because it has no right to prevent the city council from exercising the city council's right to forward an issue to the electorate," Belbeck wrote. "The right to place Initiative No. 2 on the ballot belongs to the city council."

The initiative sponsors provided a fuller history of Washington state case law indicating that courts should not interfere with the electoral process by ruling on the validity of a referendum before a vote takes place. They also argued that the ATS-backed group has no standing to sue because the individual who filed has suffered no harm. Given the long history of the use of propositions placed before voters in the state, initiative co-sponsor Eyman believes the case will be settled quickly.

"It'll take a very kooky judge to rule against letting the voters vote," Eyman wrote in an email to reporters. "And it doesn't seem like this guy's kooky at all."

A copy of the intervenor's brief is available in an 80k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Intervenor Opposition to Motion for Declaratory Judgment (Before the Snohomish County Superior Court, 8/2/2010)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/wa-intervenor.pdf

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3213.asp

Tuesday, July 27, 2010
California Court of Appeal Publishes Red Light Camera Hearsay Decision
California's second highest court on Wednesday upheld the publication status of a key decision that called into question the legitimacy of red light camera evidence. The state Court of Appeal rejected the request of the cities of Santa Ana and Menlo Park to depublish a May appellate ruling of the Orange County Superior Court (view the California v. Khaled decision http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3164.asp ) that found the red light camera photographs presented as evidence in court were inadmissible hearsay. 
   Attorney R. Allen Baylis http://www.99nofine.com/ objected to the admission of the photos because the city had failed to lay a proper evidentiary foundation. The police officer who presented the information in court did nothing more than read from a sheet of paper handed to him by the Australian firm Redflex which contracts with Santa Ana and several other cities. The officer had no independent knowledge either of the incident in question nor did he have direct knowledge of whether the camera had been functioning properly.
   Although a number of California courts have struck down red light camera citations on various legal grounds, none of them has been published (see the cases of Franco http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2624.asp, Murray http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2865.asp, Graham http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2715.asp, Williams http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2663.asp and Bohl http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/431.asp). Publication affords a decision the ability to stand within a county as precedent. In court filings, the League of California Cities suggested that allowing such rulings to stand with precedential value would force them to issue refunds or cancel their programs outright, costing millions.
   Attorney Frank Iwama, a former deputy attorney general for the state, has beaten nineteen of the $494 tickets for his clients in San Mateo county. He successfully argues that cities in San Mateo are operating under illegal contingent-fee contracts with the private firms American Traffic Solutions and Redflex.
   "I believe the Orange County Superior Court Appellate Division's decision in People v. Khaled, certified for publication, is a wake up call for photo enforcement companies and local cities in California to seriously address evidentiary and constitutional issues with regard to the use of photo/videotape evidence in red light camera cases," Iwama told TheNewspaper. "Together with the 'cost neutrality' contract defense, the Khaled decision presents serious challenges to the use of red light cameras in California."
   The state supreme court is now poised to issue a ruling on the legality of contingent-fee red light camera contracts after issuing a decision yesterday in a related contingent-fee case. 
 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3191.asp

7/5/2010
Ohio Appeals Court Green Lights Traffic Camera Suit
Ohio Appeals Court allows constitutional challenge to speed camera program in Cleveland to proceed.

Ohio's second highest court on Thursday ruled that a constitutional challenge to photo enforcement should proceed. Attorney Jeffrey Posner had appealed a speed camera ticket he received from a private contractor operating in Cleveland on the grounds that the way the private firm handled the evidence undermined his right to due process. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eight Appellate District found merit in his concerns and reversed the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court decision that previously had found no problem with the system of automated ticketing.

Posner argued that the evidence used against him was unscientific, unsubstantiated and not authenticated. The common pleas court replied that this line of reasoning was equivalent to saying that the city's ordinance was unconstitutional -- something the common pleas court claimed it did not have the power to decide. Posner, however, challenged the constitutionality of the process as applied to his specific case.

"Although the common pleas court had no jurisdiction to determine a facial challenge to the ordinance, it should have addressed Posner's 'as applied' arguments," appeals court Presiding Judge Mary J. Boyle wrote for the majority. "We therefore reverse the decision of the trial court and remand with instructions to address Posner's constitutional due process challenges to C.C.O. 413.031 'as applied' to his case."

Because Posner showed that he had reasonable grounds to appeal, the court ruled that he should recover costs. Judge Larry A. Jones disagreed with the majority, saying that he did not believe Posner had proved anything.

"It is a well-settled presumption that municipal ordinances are presumed to be constitutional," Jones wrote in his dissent. "C.C.O. 413.031 is afforded the same presumption... We should find, similar to the context of an as-applied constitutional challenge to zoning ordinances, that a party challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance on due process grounds bears the initial burden to produce evidence rebutting the presumption of constitutionality."

A copy of the decision is available in a 45k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Cleveland v. Poser (Court of Appeals, State of Ohio, 7/1/2010)

Court Ruling:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/oh-posner.pdf

Cited for 93 in 70 zone - slow day :-)


A motion was filed to suppress - posted limit illegally posted and enforced


After several delays etc the case set for hearing on 19 July


The District Attorney called today trying to make deal


Offered reduction to non moving - I refused - and reduced fine - refused again


He couldn't believe I refused, he argued more - i said no deal


I said I am looking forward to this one, including appeals all the way to federal court


Case dismissed




Chad Dornsife, Founder

Highway Safety Group

click read more to view the official motion document

Attachments:

File	Description
Motion	Filed motion to suppress

Read more: Nevada case - 93 in 70 dismissed

Embed Embed this video on your site

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3177.asp

Court Ruling:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/sd-wieder.pdf

South Dakota Court Rules Against Red Light Cameras
South Dakota circuit court judge rules red light camera program violates procedural due process. Jury to decide whether to fine camera company.

A red light camera company faces being fined for running an illegal operation in the state of South Dakota. Last Tuesday, a circuit court judge ruled that Redflex Traffic Systems and the city of Sioux Falls violated state law and the US Constitution when they set up automated ticketing machines without approval from the state legislature. The question of whether Redflex is financially liable, and to what degree, will now be determined by a jury.

On April 8, 2002, Sioux Falls adopted an ordinance creating an automated ticketing program operated under contract with Redflex. The Australian company mailed a ticket to motorist I.L. Wiedermann on March 13, 2006, claiming that he had made a right turn on red. Wiedermann appealed the $86 fine, but a city-paid hearing officer ruled against him. A circuit court refused to hear a second appeal, claiming it lacked jurisdiction. Wiedermann then filed a class action suit against the program claiming four distinct violations of state law. The court denied all but two of the counts in Wiedermann's suit, but that was enough for Wiedermann.

Redflex had argued that, as a private company, it should be dropped from the suit. Redflex maintained that the camera program was entirely city run. Second Judicial Circuit Presiding Judge Kathleen K. Caldwell laid out the criteria for determining whether this was the case.

"A precursor to a private entity's liability for constitutional violations is a finding of 'state action' by that private entity," Caldwell wrote. "If Redflex was delegated a public function by the state, was entwined with governmental policies or the city was entwined with [Redflex's] management or control, then the court can find that Redflex was a state actor."

The proposal that Redflex submitted to the city when bidding for the contract to run the photo enforcement program provided sufficient evidence to the judge that the company may fit the definition of a state actor.

"Redflex provides jurisdictions with comprehensive adjudication, court support services, including the development of a court file transfer interface, court training modules, provisions for court packages for each hearing and expert witness testimony," the Redflex documents explained. "Redflex can provide administrative adjudication services and support and court services and support. This includes the scheduling [of] appeal hearings, training hearing panels and/or hearing officers and providing critical documentation and hearing packages."

The court delivered a fatal blow to the city by agreeing with Wiedermann that the Sioux Falls ordinance violated a uniformity statute that prohibited cities from imposing standards in an ordinance "less stringent" than those imposed by state law for traffic violations and other matters.

Read more: South Dakota: RedFlex Broke the Law, might have to REPAY BACK ILLEGAL BOOTY!

(Ban the Cams note:  While Brookville PD blabs about next big thing "speed" scameras, he might want to start realizing drivers are getting tired of the scam!)

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20100616/UPDATES/100616035/1001/NEWS

Judge: Sioux Falls red light cameras at odds with state law

By John Hult • This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. • June 16, 2010

The decision this week from Judge Kathy Caldwell says the city cannot legally write civil traffic tickets for red light-running, because such a traffic violation is a criminal act under state law.
State law does not allow a city to lower the penalty for any criminal act through a local ordinance.
It also finds that the city improperly delegated authority to Redflex, Inc., the Arizona-based company that operates the automated cameras at the corner of 10th Street and Minnesota Avenue. Redflex advised city leaders on how to write its ordinance and assists in the judicial process.
The decision is a big win for I.L. Wiedermann, a Sioux Falls businessman who took the city to court four years ago alleging the camera system violates the due process rights of anyone issued a ticket.
“It finds that they're in direct conflict with state law,” said Aaron Eiseland, Wiedermann's attorney. “As a practical matter, it means they can't write traffic tickets.”
The city and Redflex each won concessions as well, however. Caldwell said the city did not err by forbidding right turns at the intersection, and that the city has a legitimate public safety interest in placing the cameras.
For more on this story, see Thursday's Argus Lead

from: http://photoradarscam.com/news.php
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/traffic-camera-mayhem-prompts-court-saga/story-e6frf7jo-1225841133361

Traffic camera mayhem prompts court saga

Anthony Dowsley
From: Herald Sun
March 17, 2010 12:00AM

SPEED thresholds could be secretly adjusted and the traffic camera system sabotaged by remote control, a court has heard.

The claims have surfaced in a Supreme Court hearing in which camera operator VIPAC is fighting for the right to seize the personal computers of two former employees.
VIPAC alleges they downloaded crucial programs before leaving the company and now have access to the state's system of cameras. The Supreme Court heard in February the pair could take control of the system via remote control, turning the system off and on and resetting speed thresholds. It heard they could even crash the system by inserting a virus.

There is no allegation, however, that the defendants have accessed or tampered with the state's speed cameras.

Daniel Aghion, for VIPAC, told the Supreme Court on February 19 his client did not know the intentions of the defendants.

"Yes, the evidence is that the cameras could be turned on and off, the speed thresholds could be reset, so that is to say they could be set for 10km an hour and they take photos of everything," he said.

Justice Elliott Croft replied: "Imagine the chaos it would cause."

Mr Aghion also told the court: "We don't know the intentions of (the) defendants. It could be industrial sabotage, it could be for competitive reasons, it could be to embarrass my client for some reason. It might be some vendetta, not against us but against the Department of Justice - we really don't know why the defendants at this stage have done this."

The State Government pays VIPAC $4.5 million to run the system.

VIPAC wants to seize the personal laptops the programs were allegedly downloaded on to.

It is unknown whether VIPAC has moved to try to block the former employees from accessing the system.

VIPAC did not return phone calls last night.

A Department of Justice spokesman said last night the camera system was not compromised by what she said was a dispute between a private company and its employees

"There is no risk of unauthorised access as result of this dispute," she said.

A spokeswoman for Police Minister Bob Cameron said the Government had been assured by the Department of Justice that no unauthorised person can access the system.


 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3085.asp

Prot. No. 69795 (Commune di Messina, 3/19/2010)

Per-ticket contracts between municipalities and private, for-profit speed camera companies violate Italian law, the Supreme Court of Cassation ruled Wednesday. The court struck down an automated speeding citation on the grounds that the ticketing operation had been outsourced to a private firm. In Messina, the company Vecar Srl was responsible for measuring the speed of vehicles, maintaining calibration of the camera equipment and determining guilt. The court was troubled by this delegation of authority.

"The investigation of traffic violations... constitutes a service of traffic police that cannot be delegated to a third party," the high court ruled. "The device used for this measurement must be directly managed by traffic police and must be in their control."

As in the US, private companies in Italy have operated the cameras in return for compensation based on the number of citations issued. In Messina, for example, Vecar managed the devices in return for 23.45 euros (US $31.72) from each ticket issued. This form of compensation was found to be illegal.