[PaleRider505]

I received a thank you for traveling 66mph in a 55mph zone on the Interstate in Sioux City, Iowa for the amount of $168 in the mail the other day. The citation included still photo's of the front and rear of my vehicle. The license plate is visible but the windshield is blurred out so you can't see the driver. I assume that blur will disappear at the time of a hearing if someone claims they weren't the driver. I'm not denying guilt, but I'm not admitting it either. I just wish I had memory of my speed at that particular time and location. Basically, I would rather have just been stopped by an officer, issued a citation and sent on my way. I really don't know if I'm guilty or not. I can request a hearing but I live 550 miles away. I may just pay it and be done with it but my question is, what happens if I don't? The letter states this is a "civil infraction". No record will be sent to my insurance or the DMV. Failure to pay the fine will result in a judgement being issued against me and liens registered in Woodbury County Court and pursued by a collection agency. Does this mean they will sue me in civil court? Garnish my wages? I really don't understand the lingo. These roadside law enforcement cameras aren't in my area so I don't know anything about them. Is it normal to just send a citation in regular mail? Any advise or clarification would be appreciated.

[TSAX]

, have you called the local pd to ask. I wonder how a defense lawyer would contest these tickets. tagged for more info.

[Moravia]

Originally Posted by PaleRider505

I received a thank you for traveling 66mph in a 55mph zone on the Interstate in Sioux City, Iowa for the amount of $168 in the mail the other day. The citation included still photo's of the front and rear of my vehicle. The license plate is visible but the windshield is blurred out so you can't see the driver. I assume that blur will disappear at the time of a hearing if someone claims they weren't the driver. I'm not denying guilt, but I'm not admitting it either. I just wish I had memory of my speed at that particular time and location. Basically, I would rather have just been stopped by an officer, issued a citation and sent on my way. I really don't know if I'm guilty or not. I can request a hearing but I live 550 miles away. I may just pay it and be done with it but my question is, what happens if I don't? The letter states this is a "civil infraction". No record will be sent to my insurance or the DMV. Failure to pay the fine will result in a judgement being issued against me and liens registered in Woodbury County Court and pursued by a collection agency. Does this mean they will sue me in civil court? Garnish my wages? I really don't understand the lingo. These roadside law enforcement cameras aren't in my area so I don't know anything about them. Is it normal to just send a citation in regular mail? Any advise or clarification would be appreciated.

We have these here in Maryland, mostly highways but I've run into portable cameras that get moved around on a certain stretch of road within Baltimore, VERY ANNOYING. I've gotten a few myself, although the fine is $40 not $168, that's steep. MD fines also do not go to the DMV or your insurance. From what I've heard, people have had varying degrees of success in fighting them. If you got pulled over by an officer, at trial you could question the officer, or ask if the radar gun was calibrated. How can one question a machine that may not even be manned? Doesn't seem to work. Did someone sign the fine stating it was accurate? 550 miles is far to drive, might cost less to pay the fine than fight it and pay the gas and who knows, the possibility of getting into an accident or even another speed camera fine. You could still lose as well. In the fines I've receieved I know I was going faster than posted so I just payed, I was in the wrong, they got me. Again, the fine was not as steep as yours. Good luck with whatever you decide.

[PaleRider505]

I did call. I was told that the video of violations are reviewed by an officer. That officer decides rather or not a violation has occured. If so, he signs it and forwards it to this roadside video company the PD has a contract with.

[PaleRider505]

Originally Posted by PaleRider505

I did call. I was told that the video of violations are reviewed by an officer. That officer decides rather or not a violation has occured. If so, he signs it and forwards it to this roadside video company the PD has a contract with.

The lady I spoke with didn't seem real interested in talking with me, or maybe she didn't know the answers to my questions. She would only state that the matter would be turned over to a collection agency if not paid.

[DaBigBR]

Originally Posted by PaleRider505

I received a thank you for traveling 66mph in a 55mph zone on the Interstate in Sioux City, Iowa for the amount of $168 in the mail the other day. The citation included still photo's of the front and rear of my vehicle. The license plate is visible but the windshield is blurred out so you can't see the driver. I assume that blur will disappear at the time of a hearing if someone claims they weren't the driver. I'm not denying guilt, but I'm not admitting it either. I just wish I had memory of my speed at that particular time and location. Basically, I would rather have just been stopped by an officer, issued a citation and sent on my way. I really don't know if I'm guilty or not. I can request a hearing but I live 550 miles away. I may just pay it and be done with it but my question is, what happens if I don't? The letter states this is a "civil infraction". No record will be sent to my insurance or the DMV. Failure to pay the fine will result in a judgement being issued against me and liens registered in Woodbury County Court and pursued by a collection agency. Does this mean they will sue me in civil court? Garnish my wages? I really don't understand the lingo. These roadside law enforcement cameras aren't in my area so I don't know anything about them. Is it normal to just send a citation in regular mail? Any advise or clarification would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by PaleRider505

I did call. I was told that the video of violations are reviewed by an officer. That officer decides rather or not a violation has occured. If so, he signs it and forwards it to this roadside video company the PD has a contract with.

A few things:

1) The blur won't "go away" before at trial. You seem to insinuate that they would doctor their evidence. That's not the case.

2) In relation to my first point, the violation is directed at the registered owner of the vehicle, not necessarily the driver.

3) While you say you don't recall your speed at the time, and I believe you, I would say well over half of the people that I stop for speeding claim to have believed that they were going slower than observed, or state that they did not know at all.

4) In the event that you were stopped by an officer and cited, you would still have a 550 mile trip to return for a trial.

5) As you have discovered, automated enforcement in Iowa is a a civil infraction and does not appear on a person's driving record or reported to their insurance company.

NOTE: I'm not taking a position on the cameras myself, just telling it how I see it and how it is.

[PaleRider505]

Originally Posted by DaBigBR

A few things:

1) The blur won't "go away" before at trial. You seem to insinuate that they would doctor their evidence. That's not the case.

2) In relation to my first point, the violation is directed at the registered owner of the vehicle, not necessarily the driver.

3) While you say you don't recall your speed at the time, and I believe you, I would say well over half of the people that I stop for speeding claim to have believed that they were going slower than observed, or state that they did not know at all.

4) In the event that you were stopped by an officer and cited, you would still have a 550 mile trip to return for a trial.

5) As you have discovered, automated enforcement in Iowa is a a civil infraction and does not appear on a person's driving record or reported to their insurance company.

NOTE: I'm not taking a position on the cameras myself, just telling it how I see it and how it is.

Thank you for your response. I guess what I meant about not knowing my speed, if I was stopped by an officer, I could at least glance at my speed when I noticed the pretty red and blue lights in my rear view mirror. That way I could think, "Crap, he got me. I'm guilty." With this camera situation and the violation being sent over a week later and me having no recollection of a camera, I really have nothing to rethink in my mind about the event.

[blueiron]

Chances are that one of two Arizona based companies processed and sent you that citation - American Traffic Solutions or Redflex. Both do speedvan, fixed speed camera, and red light enforcement camera work. If you can say which company it was, I may be able to give you more information.

All violations are reviewed by the companies' own employees who spend about two to three seconds on each violation reviewing it for completeness and for the elements of the violation. Mistakes are made and like any other American business, there are a minimum number of citations that each employee must process per hour. No officer reviews each citation at that time and only if you elect to go to Court and get a scheduled appearance date/time, will an officer or at some agencies, a retired officer now working as an unsworn employee, will review the violation and prepare the case for the Court.

That said, the driver of the vehicle should be clearly visible in the citation. Only passengers are 'pixelated' out. This was done after a few incidents of citations going out to the registered owners and someone discovering that the person sitting next to their husband/wife wasn't them. Domestic violence ensued and it wasn't pretty. WIthout the driver being clearly identified, there is no effective way of prosecuting the citation.

Based on this fact, I would not pay any claim of violation initially. Send the processing company a letter - certified mail, return receipt requested immediately. Include a copy of your 'citation' and politely demand that they provide an clearly visible image of the driver/operator of the vehicle at the time and date of the violation.

If they can not or will not, I would immediately contact the Court and ask for a trial date. At that point, the contractor will have to send the file to the LE agency, whose name is on the citation, and their employee[s] will have to review and certify it for trial. Chances are that if the image of the driver is blurred and cannot be identified, they will motion for a dismissal. If you have to appear for trial, take your citation with the blurred driver image to Court and ask for a dismissal based on the fact that the driver cannot be clearly identified and as the registered owner, you are not responsible.

Look up the Iowa speed violation for the exact definition of the violation for clarification. There may be statutes covering speed camera enforcement and it would help you to review them.

[PaleRider505]

Originally Posted by blueiron

Chances are that one of two Arizona based companies processed and sent you that citation - American Traffic Solutions or Redflex. Both do speedvan, fixed speed camera, and red light enforcement camera work. If you can say which company it was, I may be able to give you more information.

All violations are reviewed by the companies' own employees who spend about two to three seconds on each violation reviewing it for completeness and for the elements of the violation. Mistakes are made and like any other American business, there are a minimum number of citations that each employee must process per hour. No officer reviews each citation at that time and only if you elect to go to Court and get a scheduled appearance date/time, will an officer or at some agencies, a retired officer now working as an unsworn employee, will review the violation and prepare the case for the Court.

That said, the driver of the vehicle should be clearly visible in the citation. Only passengers are 'pixelated' out. This was done after a few incidents of citations going out to the registered owners and someone discovering that the person sitting next to their husband/wife wasn't them. Domestic violence ensued and it wasn't pretty. WIthout the driver being clearly identified, there is no effective way of prosecuting the citation.

Based on this fact, I would not pay any claim of violation initially. Send the processing company a letter - certified mail, return receipt requested immediately. Include a copy of your 'citation' and politely demand that they provide an clearly visible image of the driver/operator of the vehicle at the time and date of the violation.

If they can not or will not, I would immediately contact the Court and ask for a trial date. At that point, the contractor will have to send the file to the LE agency, whose name is on the citation, and their employee[s] will have to review and certify it for trial. Chances are that if the image of the driver is blurred and cannot be identified, they will motion for a dismissal. If you have to appear for trial, take your citation with the blurred driver image to Court and ask for a dismissal based on the fact that the driver cannot be clearly identified and as the registered owner, you are not responsible.

Look up the Iowa speed violation for the exact definition of the violation for clarification. There may be statutes covering speed camera enforcement and it would help you to review them.

Thank you very much. I'll do some statute research. If I'm guilty, I'm guilty. I just wish I knew for sure, and I don't want not paying it to cause me issues in the long run. Going on my credit report, etc. I really don't like the idea of traveling back to Sioux City. The trip would cost me more than the citation.

[tahco gunworks]

Tell them to screw themselves. i wouldn't pay if.

this is big brother.

the collection company if actually turned against you will most likely not pursue after a few weak letters.

[DaBigBR]

Originally Posted by blueiron

Chances are that one of two Arizona based companies processed and sent you that citation - American Traffic Solutions or Redflex. Both do speedvan, fixed speed camera, and red light enforcement camera work. If you can say which company it was, I may be able to give you more information.

All violations are reviewed by the companies' own employees who spend about two to three seconds on each violation reviewing it for completeness and for the elements of the violation. Mistakes are made and like any other American business, there are a minimum number of citations that each employee must process per hour. No officer reviews each citation at that time and only if you elect to go to Court and get a scheduled appearance date/time, will an officer or at some agencies, a retired officer now working as an unsworn employee, will review the violation and prepare the case for the Court.

That said, the driver of the vehicle should be clearly visible in the citation. Only passengers are 'pixelated' out. This was done after a few incidents of citations going out to the registered owners and someone discovering that the person sitting next to their husband/wife wasn't them. Domestic violence ensued and it wasn't pretty. WIthout the driver being clearly identified, there is no effective way of prosecuting the citation.

Based on this fact, I would not pay any claim of violation initially. Send the processing company a letter - certified mail, return receipt requested immediately. Include a copy of your 'citation' and politely demand that they provide an clearly visible image of the driver/operator of the vehicle at the time and date of the violation.

If they can not or will not, I would immediately contact the Court and ask for a trial date. At that point, the contractor will have to send the file to the LE agency, whose name is on the citation, and their employee[s] will have to review and certify it for trial. Chances are that if the image of the driver is blurred and cannot be identified, they will motion for a dismissal. If you have to appear for trial, take your citation with the blurred driver image to Court and ask for a dismissal based on the fact that the driver cannot be clearly identified and as the registered owner, you are not responsible.

Look up the Iowa speed violation for the exact definition of the violation for clarification. There may be statutes covering speed camera enforcement and it would help you to review them.

Iowa specific:

Every agency that has a photo enforcement that I am aware of has actual police officers review the violations before the citation is issued. This includes Sioux City, Des Moines, Clive, Muscatine, Davenport, Cedar Rapids, and probably some others that I have forgotten.

You will NOT find any state code on photo enforcement...it exists solely in the local ordinances of the communities that use photo enforcement.

Redflex and Gatso are the two most commonly used vendors.

Also, reference not being able to identify the driver, the Iowa Supreme Court has upheld the legality of photo enforcement programs that address the violation to the registered owner, so that's almost certainly going to be a failing effort.

[blueiron]

Originally Posted by DaBigBR

Iowa specific:


Also, reference not being able to identify the driver, the Iowa Supreme Court has upheld the legality of photo enforcement programs that address the violation to the registered owner, so that's almost certainly going to be a failing effort.

I am surprised at such a ruling. Arizona requires that the driver be clearly identified. A case occurred where a stolen auto was being cranked around at high speed and it showed up on several speed cameras in various locations and the R/O got the citations. They ruled that the R/O should not be responsible for being a victim twice.

[blueiron]

Originally Posted by tahco gunworks

Tell them to screw themselves. i wouldn't pay if.

this is big brother.

the collection company if actually turned against you will most likely not pursue after a few weak letters.

Your advice is based on...?

[DaBigBR]

Originally Posted by blueiron

I am surprised at such a ruling. Arizona requires that the driver be clearly identified. A case occurred where a stolen auto was being cranked around at high speed and it showed up on several speed cameras in various locations and the R/O got the citations. They ruled that the R/O should not be responsible for being a victim twice.

I have to retract my statement partially. After reviewing the applicable decison, the defendant in the case heard by the supreme court only pushed due process claims (including the issue with the violation being addressed to the registered owner) as far as the district court level (his first appeal), after that he abandoned those claims and relied solely on an argument that the photo enforcement ordinance was in conflict with state code and therefore invalid.

Here's the decision:

http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2008/ia-seymoursc.pdf

One thing that I found interesting was that the decision mentions the advent of RADAR techonology being seen as "Orwellian" in the 1940s and 1950s (page 2).

One argument oft launched in opposition to photo enforcement in Iowa is that the violations are civil infractions, which therefore require a lesser standard of proof than citations issued by officers, which are simple misdemeanors, and therefore must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect that the majority of people who raise such arguments fail to realize that civil infraction traffic violations are the norm in the majority of states.

[scottydl]

To the OP ... do you routinely drive 11+ over the speed limit? You ought to know the answer to that. I know that I normally travel 0-7 miles over on the freeways, and usually it's around 4 (cruise set at 69 in a 65). Arriving a minute or two early just isn't worth the hassle of tickets and such.

That said, if you think you were probably speeding then just pay the ticket and get on with it. Otherwise you'll end up spending more time and money trying to wiggle your way out of your apparent guilt.

[boomhower]

Speed cameras and red light cameras are both complete and utter BS. I hate them both and this is coming from an LEO. If you don't pay it it will trash your credit. It'll cost you more than $168 in higher interest for the next seven years than if you just pay it.


Sent from my iPad 2 using Tapatalk HD

[FL Airedale]

I dislike red light runners a lot. Speeders, I don't care so much about as long as they aren't being stupid like driving 60 through a school zone.

I don't like cameras being used for catching speeders or light runners, for one reason, the 6th amendment to the US Constitution. Emphasis is mine.

Article [VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[PaleRider505]

Originally Posted by scottydl

To the OP ... do you routinely drive 11+ over the speed limit? You ought to know the answer to that. I know that I normally travel 0-7 miles over on the freeways, and usually it's around 4 (cruise set at 69 in a 65). Arriving a minute or two early just isn't worth the hassle of tickets and such.

That said, if you think you were probably speeding then just pay the ticket and get on with it. Otherwise you'll end up spending more time and money trying to wiggle your way out of your apparent guilt.

Thats just it. I don't "routinely" drive 11 plus over the speed limit (or 7 mph over the limit). Then again I was in unfamiliar territory and would never expect the speed limit on an Interstate to be 55 mph. The majority of my trip, the posted signs said 65-75 mph. Ignorance and being a visitor is no excuse I guess. It's my responsibility to know the laws where I'm driving. This whole camera thing still rubs me a little wrong though.

[Patchman]

Where I'm at, we don't don't have speed cameras (scary!) yet, but have had red light cameras for about 15 years. With the red light cameras, the fine is a civil fine and no points go to DMV or your insurance. So the fine/violation is mailed to the car's registered owner. And our violations only has a photo closeup of the license plate, and a photo showing the car in the intersection while the light is red. It doesn't include any photo(s) of who was driving because the .gov don't care who the actual driver was. It is the owner's responsibility to pay the fine.

Originally Posted by blueiron

The driver of the vehicle should be clearly visible. Only passengers are 'pixelated' out. This was done after a few incidents of citations going out to the registered owners and someone discovering that the person sitting next to their husband/wife wasn't them.

Now that's funny.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by PaleRider505

Then again I was in unfamiliar territory and would never expect the speed limit on an Interstate to be 55 mph. The majority of my trip, the posted signs said 65-75 mph.

This weekend I took a 6 hour trip, driving on two Interstates. I also noticed (by chance, more than anything else) that most stretches were posted 65 mph but some were posted 55 mph.

This whole camera thing still rubs me a little wrong though.

And there's nothing technology-wise to stop a .gov from also tagging on (if applicable) expired registration or insurance. At least a live trooper can show discretion and give you only one of three tickets. But with a camera, there is absolutely no discretion.

So the next time I get stopped by a Trooper, I'm going to give him/her a "thank you" and a hug, just because...

[4TS&W]

Originally Posted by scottydl

To the OP ... do you routinely drive 11+ over the speed limit? You ought to know the answer to that. I know that I normally travel 0-7 miles over on the freeways, and usually it's around 4 (cruise set at 69 in a 65). Arriving a minute or two early just isn't worth the hassle of tickets and such.

That said, if you think you were probably speeding then just pay the ticket and get on with it. Otherwise you'll end up spending more time and money trying to wiggle your way out of your apparent guilt.

So you admit that you regularly violate the speed limit. Hmmmm.....

[pipedreams]

I just got a ticket in Muscatine Iowa about a month ago. Fuzzy picture of the front and back of the vehicle but no driver picture. The plates were readable but not very clear. No doubt I was speeding since the cameras are at two signal lights on the outskirts of town. The city limits of Muscatine are out pretty far and people tend to zip along above the 55 limit regularly. I was doing 66 in a 55. If the lights is red you slow down or have to stop and wait but if it is green you tend to speed up a bit to keep from getting caught in a red light light and that when they get you. What can I say other than it got me, but now I know where they are and it won't happen again. Just a wild guess but I would bet that cash register rings about once a minute (24-7) at least for a few months but it is a main hwy so there will always be new people to town.

[DaBigBR]

Originally Posted by FL Airedale

I dislike red light runners a lot. Speeders, I don't care so much about as long as they aren't being stupid like driving 60 through a school zone.

I don't like cameras being used for catching speeders or light runners, for one reason, the 6th amendment to the US Constitution. Emphasis is mine.

Article [VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

#1: These are not criminal violations, and therefore are not criminal prosecutions. Civil traffic violations are highly common throughout the country, even for tickets personally issued by an officer. Despite that fact, there is a mechanism by which a person can request a trial, which in Iowa, at least (the state subject to the discussion here), is done before a magistrate...the same person who would hear the case if the ticket was issued by an officer.

#2: At said trial, before said magistrate, the violator would be afforded the opportunity to cross-exam the officer who reviewed the video evidence, determined that there was a violation, and approved issuance of the citation. Again, the person approving issuance of the citation is a sworn police officer. The right to confront witnesses against oneself is the right to do so in court, not on the side of the road.

[scottydl]

Originally Posted by 4TS&W

So you admit that you regularly violate the speed limit. Hmmmm.....

Yeah, I'm not afraid to admit that I routinely drive 4 over on the interstate.

The "civil" fines of speed/red light camera avoid a lot of the burden of proof for the state/county/city where they are placed. They don't have to meet the same legal standard to convict you.

In IL, the standard speed limit for interstates is 65 but it's quite common to have it drop to 55 when driving through metropolitan areas. I'm betting most cameras (as well as most cops) won't even "look" twice at you unless you are going 10+ over the limit.

I usually stop at 11-12 over, and ticket at 15+ over. Of course there are exceptions.

[PaleRider505]

I'll probably just pay it and boycott corn. That'll show em'.