Next up: Cameras for Cleves - Page 2

Carbon01GT · 03-21-2013, 03:07 PM

I would laugh my ass off if they win the class action. Elmwood Place will be hurting, that's for sure.

coolnick · 03-21-2013, 07:14 PM

I'm pretty sure Mike Allen recommended getting rid of Arlington Heights entirely and probably has similar sentiments towards Elmwood Place. And I agree 100%. Those little towns may have served a purpose 50 years ago, but their time has come and gone.

Xero · 03-22-2013, 07:27 AM

Nothing a little gasoline and some matches won't fix.

**Rogue Vette** · 03-22-2013, 09:39 AM

Ohio law is very clear on how speeding tickets should be written and delivered. I hope Cleves puts them up, gets sued, and goes insolvent.

SloRice · 03-22-2013, 10:03 AM

I want to know when the New Miami one is getting a class action lawsuit! I want my $95 back!!

Purpleskunk · 03-22-2013, 02:26 PM

I said this I think the last time it was brought up...As LEO I am completely against the cameras. I went through a very in depth academy in Cincinnati's Police academy and we were always taught that while a speeding ticket is a minor misdemeanor which means you are not entitled to a lawyer because you face only fines and no time, its still technically a criminal offense...meaning due process is still a factor. You are entitled to question the officer who wrote you the ticket about how the speed was determined and recorded etc...also about their training in said devices used to record the speed. Also the first set of questions for the officer in any traffic trial, which are dictated by how the ORC lays out traffic enforcement in the state of OHIO, usually involve "What is your employment status?" "Were you in a MARKED PATROL UNIT?" Etc. Etc. Etc. All to meet the states requirements for traffic enforcement. The cameras account for none of that, and they are trying with these cameras to making speeding a civil offense which is wrong.

marakka · 03-22-2013, 04:40 PM

Reading through the ORC, there is nothing to say that you can't have a ticket issued by photo enforcement. There are provisions in the ORC just for it as a matter of fact. What the issue is with the Elmwood camera is that you can't fight it, and that is completely wrong. However, if Elmwood hires someone to man the camera full time, there should be no issue with having it up. I'm sure it would take more than one person, but you get where I'm headed with this. Someone who could be held accountable for calibration and proper function of the camera.

No where in the ORC does it say a ticket has to be issued by a uniformed officer who emerges from a cruiser or other government vehicle. The line of questioning at a trial is intended to provide a background and establish validity for the prosecutor. There would be a new line of questioning that pertains to photo enfrocement that could lay the same foundation for a person manning these camera's. It wouldn't be cheap on Elmwood's end, but it offrers a possible solution.

Purpleskunk · 03-22-2013, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marakka

Reading through the ORC, there is nothing to say that you can't have a ticket issued by photo enforcement. There are provisions in the ORC just for it as a matter of fact. What the issue is with the Elmwood camera is that you can't fight it, and that is completely wrong. However, if Elmwood hires someone to man the camera full time, there should be no issue with having it up. I'm sure it would take more than one person, but you get where I'm headed with this. Someone who could be held accountable for calibration and proper function of the camera.

No where in the ORC does it say a ticket has to be issued by a uniformed officer who emerges from a cruiser or other government vehicle. The line of questioning at a trial is intended to provide a background and establish validity for the prosecutor. There would be a new line of questioning that pertains to photo enfrocement that could lay the same foundation for a person manning these camera's. It wouldn't be cheap on Elmwood's end, but it offrers a possible solution.

Excellent info and thanks for schooling me in that. I haven't looked at the procedural part in a while but I have had it explained to me that there is some provision somewhere, ORC or otherwise, that mandates for a stop to be a legal stop, there must be some form of lights and sirens, not necessarily a "marked unit". That was passed on by the cheif asst prosecutor of Cincinnati. I do agree that if someone manned the cameras at all times there would be no issue. Looks like I have some research that I can do to occupy my down-time on the less than busy Sat I am bound to have tomorrow.

Mista Bone · 03-23-2013, 03:24 AM

If Elmwood manned the cameras themselves, and all the tickets were handled locally, not by some place in Baltimore they would be able to keep more of the revenue generated.

**Rogue Vette** · 03-23-2013, 12:18 PM

Photo enforcement is just as the Judge said, a cash scam. Remarkable coming from a fairly liberal judge. There is no need in our country to blindly issue tickets. It's purely a form of revenue. Accidents have declined yearly since 2005 (a blow to the texting kills laws) and speed does not really have as great an impact as the media would like you to believe since most alcohol related accidents involve speed. It's really the alcohol, and having a stationary unmanned speed camera does nothing to impact safety. In fact the red light camera's have been proven to increase traffic accidents.

These things need to go away. I don't have any cop friends that are a fan of them, and know from those involved in Maricopa county in Phoenix it is 100% a revenue builder, and is mistake prone.

marakka · 03-26-2013, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purpleskunk

Excellent info and thanks for schooling me in that. I haven't looked at the procedural part in a while but I have had it explained to me that there is some provision somewhere, ORC or otherwise, that mandates for a stop to be a legal stop, there must be some form of lights and sirens, not necessarily a "marked unit". That was passed on by the cheif asst prosecutor of Cincinnati. I do agree that if someone manned the cameras at all times there would be no issue. Looks like I have some research that I can do to occupy my down-time on the less than busy Sat I am bound to have tomorrow.

Like you said, that is to make the stop legal. Nothing says a ticket can only be issued by means of a traffic stop. Photo enforcement is allowable per ORC.

The way Mike Allen is making his argument public is by playing on words. He never directly attacks the camera for being an illegal way of traffic enforcement. He has filed suit against the lack of proper due process. I have yet to read the actual complaint or the judgement, but from what I understand Elmwood gives you the option to contest the ticket, but you must pay an extra $25 in order to do so. I would almost venture to guess if they didn't charge $25 extra for that, there would be little to say that it was illegal.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.094

Direct link to ORC 4511.094 which spells out how the camera has to be set up and used. Elmwood is in violation of a few sections of it and that is what is going to kill them.