🚀 go-pugleaf

Judge Negative on Red-Light Photos 
Calif. Ruling May Provide Ammunition for Critics of Cameras in D.C. 
Area 

By Manny Fernandez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 17, 2001; Page B01 

Washington area opponents of high-tech programs designed to catch
red-light runners in the act were bolstered by a ruling this week 
from a San Diego judge who criticized the pay-per-citation fee 
arrangement made with the camera contractor.

On Wednesday, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald Styn found the 
use of the cameras constitutional but criticized a key component of
many of these systems -- companies are paid on a per-ticket basis.

"The potential conflict created by a contingent method of compensation
further undermines the trustworthiness of the evidence which is used
to prosecute red light violations," Styn wrote. Styn said that the fee
arrangement San Diego officials made with Lockheed Martin IMS, which
operates the San Diego system, calls into question the company's role 
as a "neutral evaluator of the evidence."

The San Diego case involves several hundred motorists who are fighting 
the citations, and the judge's ruling would exclude all photos taken
from the camera system from being admitted as evidence. City attorneys
will have the chance to persuade Styn otherwise at an Aug. 31 hearing.

The popularity of red-light camera systems has grown in the Washington
region in recent years, with at least 14 municipalities mounting
cameras at dozens of intersections. The cameras -- used in the 
District, Fairfax City, Alexandria and Howard County, to name a few --
take snapshots of vehicles running red lights, whose owners are then
notified by mail.

Authorities say the cameras produce results, lowering the frequency of
red-light running at busy intersections. Opponents of the systems have
for the most part focused their complaints on the privacy implications 
of the cameras, objecting to what they see as the unblinking eye of Big
Brother.

D.C. Executive Assistant Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer said the fact
that a company is making money from its technology is not a reason to
stop the program.

"I hope [the California ruling] doesn't jeopardize the strides we've 
had in our use of technology," Gainer said. "We've reduced the number 
of red-light infractions. We've reduced the number of crashes." 

Lockheed, which also operates the District's red-light camera system, 
uses the fee arrangement with virtually all municipalities using its
cameras. In the District, the company receives $32 for each red-light
citation.

The payment method helps cash-strapped cities afford the program, said
Mark Maddox, director of communications for Lockheed Martin IMS.
"This is the least painful way for cities to pay for it," Maddox said. 
He added that the company, which supports other payment methods, will
work with San Diego officials to address the concerns raised by the 
judge.

Peter Lavallee, spokesman for the D.C. Office of the Corporation 
Counsel, said the ruling would not affect the operation of the 
District program. Of the fee arrangement between the District and
Lockheed, he added: "We're convinced that that's all legal and proper
under District law."

However, the decision was lauded by Washington opponents of the camera
systems, who see the ruling as adding new legal arguments to the
growing debate.

The judge noted that Lockheed had supervision over the camera system, 
not law enforcement or the city, a criticism also raised in the
Washington area.

"What we want are safeguards in place to ensure that what we're 
dealing with are appropriately operated law enforcement programs, 
not revenue programs masquerading as law enforcement programs," said 
Lon Anderson, spokesman for the Mid-Atlantic chapter of AAA.

Lockheed technicians review D.C. photos before mailing, and District
authorities are looking into establishing a police review, Maddox 
said.
======================================================
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22050-2001Aug16?language=printer