NorCalBusa
Member #294
Red-light runners' appeal rejected
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 14, 2008
(06-13) 17:50 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Drivers who were cited for running red lights after being caught on camera lost a challenge to their tickets Friday when a state appeals court upheld a system used by San Francisco and other cities that gave the camera-installing company a share of each fine.
The state Legislature has prohibited the fee arrangement since 2004 and requires cities to pay the contractors a flat rate for their work. But the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Diego found nothing wrong with the former system, in which cities reimbursed the contractor a certain amount, often $60 or $70, for each violation that led to a fine.
Ticketed drivers who challenged the fee system in San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles and elsewhere argued that it invited abuse because the contractor, a company called ACS State and Local Solutions, had an incentive to inflate the number of citations to increase its revenue. But the court said each city, not the contractor, controlled the citation system.
Both ACS and the cities had a stake in catching as many red-light violators as possible, the court said. But it added, "That is not inherently sinister when the contracts gave the municipalities exclusive discretion to decide whether to issue citations and exclusive prosecutorial authority."
The ruling upheld a Superior Court judge's decision after a nonjury trial in 2006.
Brian Burchett, a lawyer for the drivers, said the notion that city police departments examine each photo and decide when to issue citations is an illusion.
"There's no way the cops have enough time to look at these and make closely informed decisions," he said. In San Francisco, Burchett said, "The extent of police involvement was rubber-stamping the decisions" by ACS.
Not so, said Deputy City Attorney Vince Chhabria.
"The evidence showed that San Francisco officials monitored the system carefully and maintained final decision-making authority," Chhabria said. Unlike some cities, he added, San Francisco has the sole authority to pick the intersections where cameras are installed.
San Francisco was one of the first cities in California to place cameras at dangerous intersections, and now uses them to monitor about two dozen locations. A report last year by the city Department of Parking and Traffic found that injury collisions caused by red-light runners had declined from 773 in 1998, the year after the first cameras were installed, to 374 in 2006.
The cameras, marked by signs at intersections, are linked to sensors in the pavement. ACS reviews the photos, using criteria from the city for violations, gets the names of vehicle owners from the state, sends its records to the city for evaluation and mails citations to drivers.
The fine statewide for running a red light is $380.
Drivers who filed the lawsuits in more than a dozen cities starting in 2001 sought reimbursement for all red-light fines in their communities for a period of up to four years. They contended the cities had improperly turned over law enforcement duties to a private company.
"We don't want private law enforcement," Burchett said. "We want trained, duly deputized law enforcement officers, people who don't have a financial interest in what happens."
But the appeals court said the accusations were unfounded. The evidence showed that ACS would rather have been paid a flat rate, but the cities insisted on tying payments to violations to limit their financial risks and give the company an incentive to perform efficiently, the court said. It also said there was no evidence that the disputed fee system led to more tickets being issued.
"ACS did not act as a prosecutor," Justice Judith McConnell wrote in the 3-0 ruling. Although the company maintained the cameras, she said, "police departments were required to review all of ACS's work and make the final decisions on whether there was probable cause to issue citations."
The appeals court's ruling may be read at:
www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D048882.PDF
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 14, 2008
(06-13) 17:50 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Drivers who were cited for running red lights after being caught on camera lost a challenge to their tickets Friday when a state appeals court upheld a system used by San Francisco and other cities that gave the camera-installing company a share of each fine.
The state Legislature has prohibited the fee arrangement since 2004 and requires cities to pay the contractors a flat rate for their work. But the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Diego found nothing wrong with the former system, in which cities reimbursed the contractor a certain amount, often $60 or $70, for each violation that led to a fine.
Ticketed drivers who challenged the fee system in San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles and elsewhere argued that it invited abuse because the contractor, a company called ACS State and Local Solutions, had an incentive to inflate the number of citations to increase its revenue. But the court said each city, not the contractor, controlled the citation system.
Both ACS and the cities had a stake in catching as many red-light violators as possible, the court said. But it added, "That is not inherently sinister when the contracts gave the municipalities exclusive discretion to decide whether to issue citations and exclusive prosecutorial authority."
The ruling upheld a Superior Court judge's decision after a nonjury trial in 2006.
Brian Burchett, a lawyer for the drivers, said the notion that city police departments examine each photo and decide when to issue citations is an illusion.
"There's no way the cops have enough time to look at these and make closely informed decisions," he said. In San Francisco, Burchett said, "The extent of police involvement was rubber-stamping the decisions" by ACS.
Not so, said Deputy City Attorney Vince Chhabria.
"The evidence showed that San Francisco officials monitored the system carefully and maintained final decision-making authority," Chhabria said. Unlike some cities, he added, San Francisco has the sole authority to pick the intersections where cameras are installed.
San Francisco was one of the first cities in California to place cameras at dangerous intersections, and now uses them to monitor about two dozen locations. A report last year by the city Department of Parking and Traffic found that injury collisions caused by red-light runners had declined from 773 in 1998, the year after the first cameras were installed, to 374 in 2006.
The cameras, marked by signs at intersections, are linked to sensors in the pavement. ACS reviews the photos, using criteria from the city for violations, gets the names of vehicle owners from the state, sends its records to the city for evaluation and mails citations to drivers.
The fine statewide for running a red light is $380.
Drivers who filed the lawsuits in more than a dozen cities starting in 2001 sought reimbursement for all red-light fines in their communities for a period of up to four years. They contended the cities had improperly turned over law enforcement duties to a private company.
"We don't want private law enforcement," Burchett said. "We want trained, duly deputized law enforcement officers, people who don't have a financial interest in what happens."
But the appeals court said the accusations were unfounded. The evidence showed that ACS would rather have been paid a flat rate, but the cities insisted on tying payments to violations to limit their financial risks and give the company an incentive to perform efficiently, the court said. It also said there was no evidence that the disputed fee system led to more tickets being issued.
"ACS did not act as a prosecutor," Justice Judith McConnell wrote in the 3-0 ruling. Although the company maintained the cameras, she said, "police departments were required to review all of ACS's work and make the final decisions on whether there was probable cause to issue citations."
The appeals court's ruling may be read at:
www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D048882.PDF
