Over the past couple of years, America has been engaged in a public conversation about policing. After the scores of deaths at the hands of police officers, many people called on police departments to install body cameras on officers. Technology is changing policing in a number of other ways, including in how officers enforce minor infractions–like speeding.

With the advent of more sophisticated cameras, traffic enforcement officials have been relying on red light cameras to catch drivers who speed, run red lights, or break other traffic laws. There is some debate over whether or not a camera can be used to accuse someone of running a red light, and a general confusion about the effectiveness of such cameras. Despite the inconveniences these measures may cause drivers, their purpose is to keep drivers, pedestrians, bikers, and road workers safe.

Read on to learn more about the red light cameras, and the legislative battles they have led to.

History of the Red Light Camera

In 1993 New York City signed the first bill to install red light cameras, along with other so-called “automated enforcement” measures. The new technology only grew from there. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 421 communities in 23 states and the District of Columbia use red light cameras as of July 2017.

Red light cameras were introduced with the intention of making intersections safer. The thinking is that if someone sees a sign that says they will be photographed, they would be deterred from speeding.

How a Red Light Camera Operates

In certain places, there are cameras installed that trigger when a driver breaks certain rules, whether it is speeding or running a red light. Then a few weeks later they receive a letter in the mail that includes their picture and how much they owe. Drivers have three options when they receive one of these letters. First, they can say that they were guilty. Second, they can say that there is no contest. Regardless, the driver would mail in a check for the amount owed. The third option is to plead not guilty.

A Second Tool: Speeding Cameras

Another tool police departments are relying on to deter dangerous driving behavior: speeding cameras. There is evidence that speeding cameras in work zones can decrease accidents. The Illinois Center for Transportation released a report on the positive results of speed photo-radar enforcement (SPE) vans. The state of Illinois was seeing between 6,000 and 7,000 crashes a year in work zones. In crashes where there was an injury or fatality, 85 percent of the time it was the motorist, not the road worker, who suffered the injury or fatality. These staggering statistics prompted the state to begin using SPE vans in 2004.

The vans have a radar to monitor drivers’ speeds, which is shown on a monitor on top of the van. “If the driver does not reduce his or her speed, a camera captures the face of the driver and the front license plate. The SPE also records the speed of the violator, date, location, and time of the violation,” the report said.

Police officers stationed in the vans determine whether the vehicle was posing a serious threat. They then compare the photo that was taken of the speeding driver to the driver’s license database. If the cop sees that the pictures match, he or she may send out a ticket to the driver.

UIUC Professor Ray Benekohal, who conducted experiments on vehicles’ behavior in the presence of SPE vans, found promising results. In an interview with the Illinois Center for Transportation, Benekohal said:

SPE was very effective in reducing the average speed of cars and trucks, thus calming traffic and improving safety in work zones. The research found the reductions to be significant. When the SPE was present, on average, cars traveled 5.1-8.0 mph slower in the median lane and 4.3-7.7 mph slower in the shoulder lane.

Traffic vehicles, or SPE vans, are an effective option for increasing safety, for drivers, pedestrians, and anyone else on the roads.

Red Light Cameras and Public Safety

Red light cameras are also showing positive effects for public safety. Data compiled by American Traffic Solutions (ATS) has found a negative trend in deaths resulting from automobile accidents after red light cameras were installed.

The group’s data found that in areas where red camera lights had not been installed, there was an average of two deaths a day in 2015. Between 2011 and 2015, an average of 719 people died every year from an accident caused by someone running a red light. These crashes resulted in 126,000 injuries in 2014, and $390 million in damages was lost each month between 2011 and 2015.

When compared with cities that installed red light cameras, the results were very encouraging. Researchers saw a 21 percent decrease in crashes that resulted from a car running a red light. Conversely, in cities that eliminated their red light camera programs, the data found a 30 percent increase in fatal red light crashes.

Contested Tickets

While many states vary in terms of how their red light camera laws are worded, there are some common issues that arise. For one, if the ticket was mailed more than 30 days after the infraction took place, the ticket is invalid. In addition, if the camera or the camera’s warning sign were installed less than 60 days prior to the incident, the ticket is invalid. Sometimes the warning sign is not sufficiently clear or visible, and drivers are unaware the traffic stop has a camera installed. 

Different states have different standards for allowing drivers to contest a ticket that was issued as the result of a red light camera. For example, Delaware’s law allows for very few drivers to get out of paying their ticket or getting their charges dropped. The law states:

For a violation to occur, the front of a vehicle must be behind the stop line marked on the pavement at the time the traffic light signal turns red and must then continue into the intersection while the traffic light signal is red.

In an article in Delaware Online, Judge Susan Cline said, “The city does not have to prove intent, or even that you were the driver of the vehicle.” In Prices Corner, an unincorporated town near Wilmington where Cline works, in 63 out of 850 cases in 2013 involving red light cameras, the ticket was dismissed. The reasons that cases were dismissed included people running a red to avoid funeral processions or emergency vehicles, and being directed by road crews around traffic.

Baltimore officials recently said the city could expand its current red light traffic camera program. The city recently installed speed enforcement cameras near school zones and are planning to install red light cameras throughout the city. Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh said the cameras will generate more revenue for the city.

State-Level Legal Battles

Some states have debated the usefulness and legality of red light cameras altogether. In May 2017, the Florida Supreme Court announced that it would hear a case on whether or not the state should ban red light cameras altogether. The Tampa Bay Times reported:

The move comes after two appellate courts ruled that cameras in Oldsmar and the city of Aventura in Miami-Dade County can be used to ticket drivers. Those rulings, however, conflicted with one from the 4th District Court of Appeal, which shut down the city of Hollywood’s program in 2014.

Florida’s legislature is also trying to tackle the problem. In March 2017 the Florida House passed a bill to outlaw red light cameras. The bill is currently under consideration in the Florida Senate. The case for eliminating the cameras altogether lies in the cameras themselves. Usually when a cop sees someone speeding they pull them over and write them a ticket. Now it’s not the cop seeing people speed, it’s the cameras. When violators go to court, there is no one to confront in court because the “defendant” is the camera. 

Traffic attorneys have filed approximately 65 lawsuits against Florida communities that use cameras because of what many drivers feel are unfair practices. Essentially, many of the traffic attorneys have alleged that because many of the red light cameras are owned by third-party operatives, it is illegal to use them to issue someone a ticket. Law enforcement cannot be delegated to a third party under Florida Law. The court defined this in the 2014 case, City of Hollywood v. Arem:

In sum, Florida law does not grant the City any authority to delegate to a private third-party vendor the ability to issue uniform traffic citations. Only the City’s law enforcement officers and [traffic infraction enforcement officers] have the authority to issue such citations. The City also lacks the lawful authority to outsource to a third-party vendor the ability to make the initial review of the computer images of purported violations and then use its unfettered discretion to decide which images are sent to the TIEO, and which ones are not.

If Florida were to ban red light cameras, it would not be the first state to do so. In 2014, South Dakota passed House Bill 1100 which outlawed red light cameras in the state. The bill stated that it “prohibits the use of certain photo monitoring devices to detect red light violations. This bill prohibits the use of red light cameras.” Furthermore, House Bill 1122 protects South Dakotans from being charged by a red light camera in any state. House Bill 1122 reads:

No collection agency or company may contact a South Dakota resident by telephone, mail, electronic means, or any other manner, nor utilize the court system of South Dakota, in an effort to collect a fine derived from a speed camera or red light camera civil violation, or file a report with any credit bureau regarding the unpaid civil fine. No court of the State has jurisdiction to enforce a speeding camera or red light camera civil judgment against a resident.

South Dakota’s problems with red light cameras started in 2006, when a driver was ticketed $86 for allegedly running a red light. The driver, I.L. Weidermann, challenged the ticket, leading to four years of legal battles. The judge eventually agreed with Wiedermann, saying that Sioux Falls (the city in which he was ticketed) was imposing its own laws that were “less stringent” than the state laws regarding traffic by using the red light cameras. The judge also found that Weidermann was not given an opportunity to be heard, which was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This was the beginning of the end for red light cameras in South Dakota.

Conclusion

Despite the legal battles and contested tickets, red light cameras do not appear as if they will be going away anytime soon. The tickets themselves are difficult to fight and, perhaps most importantly, red light cameras appear to have positive effects on driver safety. They discourage drivers from running red lights, and thus causing accidents that result in death or injury.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Red Light Cameras: Saving Lives or Infringing on Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

The head of the European Olympic Committees, Patrick Hickey from Ireland, was arrested in Rio on Wednesday for allegedly running a ticket scalping operation.

When the police knocked on his hotel room door, 71-year-old Hickey left to hide in an adjacent room. His wife reportedly told the police that he had already left for Ireland. When the police eventually found him he said he wasn’t feeling well, citing a previous heart condition, and they took him to a hospital.

Police believe that Hickey and at least nine others plotted to illegally sell tickets to the Olympics at sky-high prices. Another Irish executive was arrested in the same investigation last week, and four others are still wanted.

Rio police issue warrant to arrest head of European #IOC Patrick Hickey for scalping #Olympic tickets #Rio2016pic.twitter.com/ZbSB4up4Am

— People’s Daily,China (@PDChina) August 17, 2016

Hickey is also head of the Olympic Council of Ireland and has been a member of the International Olympic Committee board since 2012. An ambulance took him to a hospital following the arrest. His current condition is not known. IOC spokesman Mark Adams said:

The police have been here, I can confirm that, and Patrick Hickey has gone to [a] hospital. When we know some facts, when police give us some facts, we’ll let you know.

The AP reports that officials seized over 1,000 tickets that had been sold for high fees and distributed among members of the Olympic Council of Ireland. Police believe that British company THG Sports sold them. One of the executives wanted by police is the owner of THG’s parent company, Marcus Evans Group.

Police arrested another executive from Marcus Evans Group, Kevin Mallon, and his interpreter at the beginning of the Games in Rio since they had fake tickets. Even though OCI’s name was printed on the tickets, Irish officials said they had no idea why and that they didn’t know the arrested men.

Brazilian police investigator Ricardo Barbosa said at a news conference:

Today’s arrest shows that the law must be followed. Even more when we are talking about the biggest sporting event that should uphold ethics and an international spirit. We found out that the Irish Olympic Committee ended up facilitating the ticket scalping scheme.

According to the Irish Examiner, Hickey is now facing charges for facilitating ticket touting, the formation of a cartel, and ambush or illicit marketing. If he is found guilty he could be sentenced to up to seven years in prison.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Head of European Olympic Committees Arrested for Ticket Scalping appeared first on Law Street.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be an undercover cop. At least, that was the case in New Jersey on Halloween this year.

If you see a duck stepping up and down from the sidewalk at a crosswalk, and not just any duck, but an adult-size cartoon Donald Duck, would you stop to let it walk across the street? Or would you keep going because you assume, “Hey! This is New Jersey, and that is probably a crazy man in there!”

Courtesy of Giphy.

Well, the answer to this question could be a matter of life and death. Well, okay, maybe not that–though it could be for the duck–but the answer very well could be the difference between getting a ticket or not.

Fort Lee New Jersey has a problem with people hitting pedestrians, and the town has an unusual way of fighting it. It sends out an undercover cop, sometimes dressed as a duck, to see who stops when he tries to cross the road–and I could make the really obvious joke here, but I will refrain.

Courtesy of Giphy.

On Halloween, several people (and by several, I mean more than 100 New Jersey drivers) got ticketed for failing to yield to this silly goose–I mean, silly duck. One of these individuals was Karen Haigh, who was not happy when she found out she was “getting a ticket for not stopping for a duck.” She claimed, though, that–because she thought he was crazy–she was afraid to stop for him and that she, and probably everybody else, would have stopped if he had been a regular guy since it is only crazy ducks that scare her.

She was probably scared because she thought if a 6’2” Disney duck were to decide to break into her car in the middle of the street, it would not draw a lot of attention from other passersby and drivers. It also would be done quickly since I am sure the duck costume is designed with easy car entry and exit built right into it. So since a giant duck could discreetly and easily break into your car in broad day light under a traffic light with a camera, it would probably be the perfect … decoy (get it? A decoy, as in an artificial bird used to entice game into a trap, as paraphrased from the free dictionary) … costume in which to become a criminal. I understand her fear.

She claims she is going to get her ducks in a row so she can fight the ticket (which costs $230 and two points on your license) in court, but what is the point? Those annoying judges will probably say something dumb along the lines of, “It’s the law to yield for pedestrians in costume or not, crazy or not.”

As Fort Lee Police Chief Keith Bendul said, “When you see a pedestrian, child, adult or duck, stop.” That seems like very good advice to me. He also said that last year, 62 pedestrians were struck in the town, down to 40 this year, and with a goal of zero in the future. So, I cannot really make fun of that, but I do have something I want to say: why does it have to be a giant duck? Couldn’t the officer have gone undercover as a superhero, a pirate, or, I don’t know, a regular dude? Dressing as a giant bird just makes him a sitting walking duck for all the avian jokes that follow.

No matter the outcome, one thing this story proves is this: nothing good comes from driving in New Jersey.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Over 100 New Jersey Drivers Ticketed for Ignoring Donald Duck at Crosswalk appeared first on Law Street.

Flashing red and blue lights in your rear-view mirror can cause the blood to drain from your face, your hands to become clammy, and your heart to do a gymnast-style somersault. After the immediate physical effects of dread set in, questions begin to catapult forth from your mind. “How much will this cost me? “Did the officer see me texting?” “Am I going to lose my license?” The questions become louder and more frequent during that dreaded time waiting for the officer to approach your window and request your license and registration.

This is a nerve-racking situation that many will encounter during their years as drivers, which is why it is important to know your rights when a cop pulls you over. The following tips teach you what to do when you get pulled over and will make the anxiety-ridden experience more pleasant for you and the officer.

When Can an Officer Legally Pull You Over?

A cop needs probable cause — that is, a legitimate reason to believe you broke the law — in order to stop you. Speeding or driving with a broken tail light are both common examples of probable cause. Once you are pulled over, however, if a police officer observes something illegal in your vehicle such as drugs or weapons, he or she can arrest you and would not have to prove that you were speeding in court — just his account of the story suffices.

How and Where Should You Pull Over?

Unfortunately, due to the presence of crooked cops and police impersonators, it is of paramount importance to pull over in a well-lit, populated area. This promotes better safety for both the officer and driver. If you cannot pull over immediately, give a hand signal to the officer indicating that you plan to and drive the speed limit until you find a safe place; however, do not coast or drive for too long before stopping, as this could make it seem like you are trying to hide something. Once you do stop, there is some dispute as to whether or not it is a good idea to get out of the car. While staying in the driver’s seat could lead to the suspicion that you are concealing a weapon, getting out of the car can also seem threatening to some officers. A retired State Trooper in Virginia told the AOL Autos section that he never wanted drivers to get out of the car, as to him this indicated that he or she had something to be afraid of.

I don’t care if you’re the baddest officer there is, there’s always someone out there who’s badder than you, and if we can keep them inside the car, that’s the best way to keep from being injured.

-Retired Virginia State Trooper

Be On Your Best Behavior

You’ve already been pulled over, and whether or not you think this action was justified, it is important to be courteous to the officer to avoid provoking him or her to slam you with a higher fine or charge. Take a few deep breaths, greet the officer kindly, and don’t make any snide remarks.

According to the same retired Virginia officer, a woman once harassed him while he was trying to write her ticket. “I had to roll my window up while she was yelling at me…Well, I guess she didn’t like that because she yanked my door open and said, ‘Don’t you ignore me, you m——- f——!’ Well, that was it, she crossed the line there, so I cuffed her and arrested her for disorderly conduct and took her in.” Had she kept her cool, the woman may have prevented an unnecessarily unpleasant experience for both her and the officer.

It’s important to remember that you have the right to remain silent. Choosing your words carefully can be beneficial, as officers often seek an admittance of guilt from the driver. The 5th Amendment protects individuals against self-incrimination. This means that you can answer “no” to an officer when he or she asks if you know why you were pulled over and to similar questions.

After the officer issues a ticket, warning, or other penalty, ask him or her if you may leave. This avoids the chance of leaving any loose ends or seeming like you are trying to make a getaway.

When Can a Cop Search Your Car or Cell Phone?

A police officer can legally search your vehicle under five circumstances:

1. If the officer asks and you consent to the search
2. If you have an illegal substance or object in plain sight
3. If you are arrested for a legitimate reason
4. If the officer has adequate reasoning to suspect a crime
5. If the officer believes crucial evidence could be destroyed without a search

These five criteria also dictate when an officer can do a search on a home. Minor traffic violations on their own do not constitute just cause for a search. The 4th Amendment provides the right to refuse a search, but officers do not need to inform drivers of this.

Recently, the Supreme Court heard a case regarding whether or not it is lawful for officers to search the contents of cell phones without a warrant. The justices determined that doing so is generally unlawful, except to physically examine the phone to ensure it cannot be used as a weapon. If a police officer asks to search your phone, you can refuse to consent to the search until he or she has a warrant.

Know Your State Laws

Being at least slightly familiar with the driving laws in your state can be immensely beneficial in the event that you are pulled over. These laws can vary immensely from state to state, especially with regard to the use of electronic devices while operating a vehicle. For example, in New York, it is unlawful to talk on a cell phone whereas other states permit the use of hands-free devices.

Knowing even your most basic rights as a driver can only serve as a benefit in the event that you are pulled over. Click here to see an infographic with a state by state overview of driving.

 —

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jace via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do You Know What to Do When You Get Pulled Over? appeared first on Law Street.

As technological advances make our lives easier, will our laws need to change to keep up with the times? That is the question that tech fans are asking after a run-in between a California woman named Cecelia Abadie and the police. Abadie was wearing one of the newest innovations in tech trends: Google Glass.

The idea behind Google Glass is simple. It’s sort of like a smart phone, but completely hands-free, and it communicates with the wearer through motions and voice commands. While Google Glass currently cannot be worn in lieu of prescription glasses, developers are hoping to add an ability to contain a prescription in coming years. Applications available on Google Glass include video capture and streaming, Google Maps, Gmail, Evernote, and The New York Times, among others. More applications are expected to be released as the technology becomes more mainstream and affordable.

Currently, Google Glass is not fully available the public, but for those in the tech industry, such as testers or developers, an “Explorer Addition” is available for $1,500.

Abadie, 44, from Temecula, California, was driving down a San Diego Highway when she was pulled over for speeding. While writing up her ticket, the officer noticed that she was wearing Google Glass and cited her for distracted driving. California Vehicle Code 27602 states that it is illegal to, “”drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.” According to California law, the mandatory minimum fine is $162.

Abadie claims that the glasses were turned off at the time of her arrest. The cop cited her because the monitor was in her view and because Google Glass has a small square in the top right corner that could block a person’s view. After returning home, she posted a photo of the ticket she received to some of her online profiles. Much of the feedback that she received encouraged her to take the ticket to court and fight it. She says she believes that whether or not the ticket gets upheld depends on the judge’s feelings towards technology. She stated, “It’s all in how a judge will interpret it and I suspect their love or hate and understanding of the technology might help or the opposite.”

It seems clear that many of the functions of Google Glass—such as video streaming and web browsing, fall firmly into the category of distracted driving. But there’s also some grey area with Google Glass. Google Glass does contain the potential for navigation software. That type of software, such as a hands-free GPS device, is usually exempted from distracted driving laws. Whether or not Google Glass is ever used for that kind of purpose could change whether or not it is considered distracted driving. However, that raises another important issue: how would officers be able to tell if someone they pull over is using Google Glass for navigation, or for something else?

It’s important to note that Google Glass has presented itself as a program to be used while driving. In the manual, it states that Glass can provide directions, whether “whether you’re on a bike, in a car, taking the subway, or going by foot.” However, the Glass FAQ does also point out that many states have laws preventing the use of such technology while driving. Some states have introduced legislation that specifically prevents the type of technology that Glass uses. West Virginia and Arizona specifically have created amendments that forbid drivers from “using a wearable computer with head mounted display.”

Technology often is ahead of law. I highly doubt that Google Glass will become a norm the way that using a GPS while driving has, but as this new technology develops so quickly, it may become difficult for law enforcement to keep pace. That being said, until Google Glass’s place within driving law becomes regularly accepted, intrepid tech-fans who are trying them out should assume that if they get caught driving while wearing Glass, they will pay the price.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google Glasses: a Whole New Level of Distracted Driving appeared first on Law Street.